Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 16 references

The Rotation Curve of the Milky Way: State of the Art, the Keplerian Decline Debate, and Implications for Dark Matter

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Milky Way's Keplerian decline is plausible but systematically challenged.

desk verdict A careful, self-aware review of the Keplerian decline debate; the synthesis is solid, but the 'systematically challenged' verdict leans on a simulation-bias transfer the paper cannot fully audit. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10189 v1 pith:V2LHHOJF submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.GA

Alessandro Melchiorri , Ruchika This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords MilkyWayrotationcurveKepleriandeclineGaiaDR3darkmatterhalomassJeansequationsasymmetricdriftLocalGrouptimingargumentMOND
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The review asks whether the Milky Way's outer rotation curve truly falls as $v_c\propto R^{-1/2}$, a 'Keplerian decline' beyond roughly 19 kpc, as one Gaia-era analysis reports at 3 $\sigma$ and takes to imply a total dynamical mass of only about $2\times10^{11} M_\odot$. The authors derive the full dynamical machinery from scratch—Jeans equations, asymmetric drift, standard halo and baryonic mass models, MOND's flat-curve prediction, and the Local Group timing argument—then assess which features of the decline are robust. Their central conclusion is that the Keplerian interpretation is plausible but systematically challenged: the steep outer fall sits uneasily with stellar streams, globular clusters, satellite kinematics, and the timing argument, all of which favor a heavier halo, and simulation studies suggest Jeans-based inference can overestimate the circular speed in exactly the regime where the decline appears. If the Keplerian claim is wrong, the Milky Way is not an exceptionally light spiral, and the strongest recent challenge to $\Lambda$CDM and MOND weakens.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the assessment is the radial Jeans equation, $v_c^2 = \langle v_\phi\rangle^2 + \sigma_{\phi\phi}^2 - \sigma_{RR}^2 - (R/\nu)\partial(\nu\sigma_{RR}^2)/\partial R - (R/\nu)\partial(\nu\sigma_{Rz}^2)/\partial z$, together with the asymmetric-drift decomposition that separates the tracer density gradient, the dispersion gradient, and the velocity-ellipsoid anisotropy. The authors show that the Keplerian claim hinges on the closure assumptions of steady state, axisymmetry, a known ellipsoid orientation, and accurate tracer gradients, and they identify a subtle circularity: using the flat-rotation-curve anisotropy value $\kappa^2=1/2$ in a region where the potential is nearly Keplerian overestimates the correction and biases $v_c$ upward. This is the mechanism by which simulation-based studies find 10–40 km/s Jeans biases in exactly the radial range of the claimed decline.

What would settle it

A decisive observation would be a rotation curve from cold tracers with geometric distances (masers or Cepheids) extending beyond 20–25 kpc: if it stays flat near 220 km/s while the Jeans-inferred RGB curve falls steeply, the systematic-bias scenario is confirmed; if the cold tracers also show $v_c\propto R^{-1/2}$, the Keplerian claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's own contribution is a critical, self-contained assessment rather than a new measurement. It accepts that Gaia-era analyses show a decline beyond $R\approx15$ kpc, but argues that the most radical claim—an almost exactly Keplerian fall-off that excludes a flat rotation curve at $3\sigma$—depends on a chain of assumptions whose failure would remove the anomaly. The load-bearing issue is correlated bias: the same tracer density gradient, velocity dispersion gradient, and anisotropy enter both the asymmetric drift correction and the radial pressure-support term, so a coordinated mis-estimation of the tracer population can shift the inferred circular speed by $10$\textendash$40$ km s$^{-1}$ at $R\approx20$\textendash$25$ kpc, which is the size of the claimed decline. Because independent tracers (stellar streams, globular clusters, satellite galaxies, and the Local Group timing argument) consistently favor a substantially heavier halo of order $10^{12} M_\odot$, the authors judge the Keplerian interpretation plausible but not established: if it fails, the Milky Way's outer rotation curve is consistent with a standard massive dark-matter halo.

Load-bearing premise

The assessment that the Keplerian decline is probably inflated by systematics rests on the assumption that hydrodynamic simulations of Milky Way-like galaxies predict the same 10–40 km/s Jeans bias that affects the real stellar tracers and Gaia data; if those simulations are not representative, the genuine-decline interpretation remains fully alive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Keplerian interpretation is wrong, rotation-curve estimates of a Milky Way mass near $2\times10^{11}M_\odot$ are too low, and the halo remains in the $(0.7$\textendash$1.6)\times10^{12}M_\odot$ range preferred by streams, globular clusters, satellites, and the Local Group timing argument.
  • If the decline is real, the Milky Way becomes exceptional: a homogeneous reanalysis of external spiral galaxies finds no evidence of a Keplerian taper at comparable radii, so the claim would mark the Milky Way as an outlier among spirals.
  • A true Keplerian tail would put an isolated MOND model under tension, because MOND predicts a flat asymptotic rotation curve; the paper notes that external-field effects and hybrid models could still absorb the discrepancy.
  • The totality of the mass debate has only a weak effect on direct-detection predictions: two halo fits with very different total masses both yield a local dark-matter density near $0.4$ GeV/cm$^3$, so the local density is not set by the virial mass.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A sharp extension the authors leave implicit: if Gaia's next data release allows a cold-tracer rotation curve (Cepheids or masers) to reach 20–25 kpc, the difference between that curve and the Jeans-inferred RGB curve would directly isolate the systematic bias they describe.
  • Another extension is a diagnostic test: applying the vertical and spherical Jeans equations to the same outer-halo tracers and comparing the inferred potentials would flag closure violations if the three reconstructions disagree.
  • The subtle anisotropy circularity suggests a testable prediction: if the outer potential is genuinely closer to Keplerian, then tracer populations with well-measured $\sigma_{\phi\phi}/\sigma_{RR}$ should recover a steeper decline when the anisotropy is measured self-consistently rather than assumed from a flat curve.
  • Finally, if a light-halo solution is right, the escape speed at the Sun would drop well below the usual 530 km/s, so an independent measurement of the high-velocity stellar tail can discriminate the two scenarios without any rotation-curve modeling.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper is a review of the Milky Way rotation-curve measurement and of the debate over the claimed Keplerian decline beyond R ≈ 15 kpc. The authors derive the relevant formalism from first principles—the collisionless Boltzmann and Jeans equations, the asymmetric-drift correction, standard halo profiles, and baryonic mass models—and then critically survey the Gaia-era determinations (Eilers et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2023; Jiao et al. 2023; Ou et al. 2024; Sylos Labini et al. 2023; Sylos Labini & Capuzzo-Dolcetta 2026). They supplement the review with an illustrative phenomenological MCMC fit and a Gaussian-process reconstruction of a 35-point compiled rotation curve, finding a spherical-equivalent mass deficit of about 8–9 × 10^10 M_sun within 30 kpc relative to a flat curve. The systematic-uncertainty section argues that the asymmetric-drift correction alone is not the dominant bias, but that correlated tracer-profile, distance-scale, and non-equilibrium effects—supported by FIRE-2 and Koop et al. simulation pipelines—can generate 10–40 km/s biases at R ~ 20–25 kpc. Independent constraints from stellar streams, globular clusters, satellite kinematics, and the Local Group timing argument generally favor a heavier halo. The paper concludes that the Keplerian interpretation is plausible but systematically challenged, that MOND is in tension with a strict Keplerian tail only under stated caveats, and that the local dark matter density is not fixed by the virial mass alone.

Significance. If the assessment is taken as the state of the field, the paper provides a valuable, self-contained reference for a contentious and rapidly evolving literature. Its strengths are the first-principles derivations in Sections 2–5, the explicit acknowledgment that the authors' own MCMC and GP analyses are in-sample consistency checks rather than independent confirmations (Section 7.6.4), the repeated caveats about diagonal covariances and profile dependence (Sections 7.6, 8.1, 9.7), and the even-handed three-scenario framing in Section 14.1. The paper does not overclaim: it keeps Scenario 1 (a genuine Keplerian decline) explicitly viable and identifies the off-plane analysis of Section 9.4 as a promising but not yet decisive discriminator. The stress-test concern about transferring FIRE-2 and Koop et al. bias estimates to the actual APOGEE RGB tracers is real, but it does not undermine the central conclusion because that conclusion is already conditional and the paper does not reject the Keplerian interpretation. The review is likely to be useful to both newcomers and specialists, and it clearly delineates the implications for virial-mass estimates, MOND, and dark-matter searches.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 9.2 / Section 15] The quantitative weight behind the statement that the Keplerian decline is 'systematically challenged' rests substantially on transferring FIRE-2 (Ou et al. 2025) and Koop et al. (2024) Jeans-pipeline bias estimates of 10–40 km/s to the actual Milky Way RGB tracer population; the transferability of those simulation-based selection functions, distance-error treatments, and tracer geometries is not demonstrated. The paper already leaves Scenario 1 open, so I do not regard this as a blocking issue, but a sentence stating what would remain of the 'systematically challenged' assessment if the simulation biases do not transfer would sharpen the logic.
  2. [Section 3.5 / Figure 10] Figure 10's caption quotes v_a/v_c ~ 0.13 when propagating a 30% asymmetric-drift error into v_c, whereas the Section 3.5 toy calculation gives v_a/v_c ~ 0.23 for the upper-end drift of v_a ~ 54 km/s; please harmonize the illustrative values or state explicitly that the two calculations use different tracer-gradient assumptions.
  3. [Section 4.2] The sentence about the Einasto profile contains a typo: 'falls faster than any power law at larger and' should read 'at larger radii.'
  4. [Equation (67)] Equation (67) has a typographical artifact, 'r_Roche ≃= r_orb', with an extra equals sign after the approximate equality; please correct it.
  5. [References] The reference for Hunt & Vasiliev (2025) appears after Vasiliev et al. (2021) rather than in strict alphabetical order; please move it to the H entries.
  6. [Data and Code Availability] The statement that code and chains are 'available from the authors upon reasonable request' is less reproducible than a public repository; consider depositing the MCMC and GP scripts in a permanent archive with a DOI.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The review explicitly flags the κ2/epicyclic and model-conditioned data-vector circularities in the Jeans analyses it surveys, but its own conclusions rest on external, independent constraints; no load-bearing circularity in its own derivation chain.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4 (Epicyclic approximation for κ2)]
    "Holding the tracer-density and dispersion gradients fixed, the term 1−κ2 is then larger, so the bracket in equation (21) is less negative and v2a is smaller than for the flat-RC value κ2=1/2. This creates a subtle circularity: if one assumes the flat-RC value κ2=1/2 when computing the correction in a region where the true potential is closer to Keplerian, the correction is overestimated and vc is consequently biased too high."

    The Jeans-inferred vc enters the epicyclic ratio κ2 = σφφ2/σRR2 = κepi2/4Ω2, which is used to build the asymmetric-drift correction. If a flat RC is assumed in κ2 while the question under test is whether the RC is Keplerian, the inferred vc is partly fixed by the flatness assumption used to correct the data. The decline claim is therefore not fully independent of the assumed circular-speed curve. The present paper identifies this circularity explicitly rather than committing it, and uses it only as a systematic caveat.

  2. other [Section 9.4 (Off-plane Jeans constraints on dark matter geometry)]
    "Consequently the reconstructed az data vector is partly conditional on the mass hypothesis being tested; the quoted χ2 contrast is therefore not equivalent to a standard comparison in which the same model-independent measurements and covariance matrix are held fixed."

    In the Sylos Labini & Capuzzo-Dolcetta analysis reviewed here, the vertical scale entering the az reconstruction changes with the assumed halo model (zbar_d = 0.20 ± 0.02 kpc for disc–NFW versus 0.22 ± 0.04 kpc for DMD), so the data vector used to compare NFW against a dark-matter disc is not model-independent. The model comparison is partly constructed from the hypotheses it is meant to test. The paper explicitly flags this and does not treat the DMD preference as a detection, so it is a literature-level circularity identified by the review rather than a claim the review adopts as load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a review rather than a new measurement, and its central assessment that the Keplerian interpretation is 'plausible but systematically challenged' is anchored in external constraints: stellar streams, globular clusters, satellite kinematics, the Local Group timing argument, and simulation-based Jeans-bias estimates. Those are independent evidence bases, not fitted inputs of the paper. The paper's own MCMC and Gaussian Process exercises are explicitly presented as in-sample consistency checks: Section 7.6.4 states that the agreement 'is not an independent confirmation of the feature's physical origin,' and the low reduced chi-square is correctly interpreted as signalling conservative, correlated, or non-independent input errors rather than a predictive success. No parameter is fitted to one subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction of a closely related quantity. The two circularity flags that do appear are the paper's own identification of circularities in the literature: the κ2/epicyclic correction can impose a flat-RC assumption on the very inference testing flatness (Section 3.4), and the reviewed off-plane az data vector is partly conditional on the halo model being tested (Section 9.4). Both are explicitly labelled as limitations by the authors, and neither drives the concluding verdict, which also relies on independent outer-halo tracers. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the present authors, and the FIRE-2/Koop bias-transfer assumption, while a genuine external-validity risk, is an assumption about simulation representativeness rather than a circular reduction of the paper's own equations to their inputs. Overall circularity is therefore low: the paper is honest about its in-sample nature and about the circularities in the work it surveys, and its main conclusion stands on independent dynamical constraints.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review itself introduces no new free parameters beyond the illustrative MCMC and GP fits. Its conclusions rest on the cited literature's assumptions and data, which are clearly identified throughout.

free parameters (5)
  • A (outer asymptotic velocity) = 193.6 km/s (68% CI 189.4 to 197.1)
    Best-fit outer asymptote of the phenomenological model V(R)=A+B/(1+(R/C)^n); fitted to the compiled RC data in Table 1.
  • B (step height) = 28.9 km/s
    Best-fit velocity step between inner and outer plateaus; fitted to the same data.
  • C (transition radius) = 18.9 kpc
    Best-fit transition radius of the phenomenological model; fitted to the data.
  • n (sharpness) = 12 (68% CI 8 to 18)
    Best-fit sharpness exponent controlling the steepness of the transition; fitted to the data.
  • GP hyperparameters sigma_f and l_f = not quoted in text
    Signal amplitude and correlation length of the squared-exponential kernel, optimized by maximizing the log marginal likelihood in Section 7.6.4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tracer populations are in steady state, axisymmetric equilibrium with negligible mean radial and vertical streaming (used to derive the radial Jeans equation, Eq. 15).
    Standard assumption in all RC analyses discussed; the review notes Wang et al. find a north-south asymmetry that violates it (Section 7.2).
  • domain assumption The baryonic mass models (Hernquist bulge, Miyamoto-Nagai disc, exponential disc) with published parameters adequately represent the Milky Way mass distribution.
    Used in the NFW fits and in evaluating MOND and the RAR in Sections 8, 10, and 13.
  • domain assumption Simulation-based Jeans bias estimates from FIRE-2 (Ou et al. 2025) and Koop et al. (2024) are representative of the Milky Way outer disc.
    Load-bearing premise for the claim that the Keplerian decline is likely amplified by systematics; see weakest_assumption.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax zero-point corrections (Lindegren et al. 2021) remove the dominant distance bias for the RC tracers.
    The review relies on published RCs that applied these corrections; residual systematics are discussed in Section 9.5.
  • standard math Standard mathematical results (Liouville's theorem, collisionless Boltzmann equation, Jeans theorem) are used without proof.
    Background for the derivations in Sections 2 and 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Rotation Curve of the Milky Way: State of the Art, the Keplerian Decline Debate, and Implications for Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V2LHHOJF

@misc{pith2026260810189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Rotation Curve of the Milky Way: State of the Art, the Keplerian Decline Debate, and Implications for Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V2LHHOJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10189}
}
read the original abstract

For four decades, the roughly flat rotation curve (RC) of the Milky Way (MW) stood as local evidence for an extended dark matter (DM) halo. \textit{Gaia} DR3 has changed the picture: several analyses now find a velocity decline beyond R \approx 15\kpc, and the most radical interpretation \citep{jiao2023} claims a nearly Keplerian fall-off (\vc \propto R^{-1/2}) that excludes a flat RC at 3\sigma and implies a total dynamical mass of only \sim 2 \times 10^{11}\Msun---three to five times below pre-\textit{Gaia} estimates. Taken at face value, this would make the MW exceptional among comparable spirals and challenge both \LambdaCDM and MOND. It would also alter predictions for direct-detection experiments, although the local DM density is not fixed by virial mass alone. The Keplerian claim rests on the delicate assumptions of axisymmetric Jeans modelling, while stellar streams, globular clusters, satellite kinematics, and the Local Group timing argument generally favour a substantially heavier halo, and cosmological simulations reveal potentially substantial biases in Jeans-inferred outer RCs. This review offers a self-contained, pedagogical account of the debate: we derive the full formalism from first principles---the Jeans equations, the asymmetric drift correction, the standard DM halo and baryonic mass models, the MOND flat-RC prediction, and the timing argument---present an illustrative phenomenological MCMC fit and a Gaussian Process reconstruction of the RC, and critically assess which features of the decline can be regarded as established and which remain open.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Decomposition of v 2 a (equation 21) into the density-gradient term (the largest positive contribution), the dispersion-gradient term (smaller positive contribution), and the anisotropy term (−σ 2 R (1 − κ 2 ), which enters with the opposite sign for κ 2 < 1 and partially cancels the others), for a model RGB population matching the parameters of Section 3. The total v 2 a (solid black) is the sum of the three … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. compares the shapes and circular-speed curves of the standard spherical halo profiles discussed in this section. 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 r/rs 10 9 10 7 10 5 10 3 10 1 10 1 10 3 / (rs) r = rs Dark Matter Halo Density Profiles NFW ( = 1) Einasto ( = 0.17) gNFW ( = 0, core) gNFW ( = 1.5, cusp) 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 r/rs 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 vc/vc, max Circular Velocity Curves NFW ( = 1) Einasto ( = 0.17) gNFW ( = 0) gNFW … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MW rotation curve determinations from Gaia DR3. Data points from Eilers et al. (2019) (blue squares), Jiao et al. (2023) (red triangles), Ou et al. (2024) (green circles), and Wang et al. (2023) (magenta diamonds) are shown with error bars including systematic uncertainties. Note that these four determinations use different tracer populations (RGB stars in Eilers et al./Ou et al., Lucy-inversion of the full Gaia DR3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions from the MCMC analysis of the phenomenological model ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fit phenomenological model (52) (solid curve) to the MW rotation curve data of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel: spherical-equivalent mass Msph(< R) computed from the phenomenological best-fit model (52) (blue curve) and from a constant circular velocity vc = 223 km s−1 (green solid line). Both curves agree well at R ≲ 15 kpc but diverge significantly beyond this radiu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Gaussian Process reconstruction of the MW circular velocity. The posterior mean (thick curve) with 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GP-based spherical-equivalent mass reconstruction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: visualises the radial leverage and the model-dependent extrapolation behind this tension. 0 50 100 150 200 250 Galactocentric radius r (kpc) 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 Menc( < r) (1 0 11 M ) RC limit (Jiao+23) Enclosed Mass Profiles and Independent Constraints NFW (Mvir = 7.2…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left: Modelled velocity dispersions and resulting asymmetric drift correction va (equation 21) for an RGB population. We adopt σRR declining from ∼ 55 km s−1 at R = 5 kpc to ∼ 32 km s−1 at R = 25 kpc and κ 2 = 0.5; va is at the ∼ 30–40 km s−1 level across the disc for…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Competing theoretical models for the outer MW RC. The high-mass NFW (blue solid) gives a nearly flat RC. The low-mass NFW (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Radial Acceleration Relation. Grey points: SPARC galaxies ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Constraining the Geometry of Galactic Dark Matter with Gaia Data Release 3

    ApJ 1005, 213 (arXiv:2606.12548; doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae7be7). Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V ., Erkal, D.,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [4]

    MNRAS 546, stag011 (arXiv:2512.21780; doi:10.1093/mnras/stag011)

    The rotation curve of the Milky Way measured by classical Cepheids from Gaia DR3. MNRAS 546, stag011 (arXiv:2512.21780; doi:10.1093/mnras/stag011). Freeman, K. C.,

    work page arXiv

  3. [5]

    Universe 10, 449 (arXiv:2402.00212)

    Reanalysis of the MACHO constraints on PBH in the light of Gaia DR3 data. Universe 10, 449 (arXiv:2402.00212). Gaia Collaboration et al.,

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve

    Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve. A&A 694, A242 (arXiv:2412.02737). Hayati, E., Behroozi, P., Patel, E., Wang, Y ., Gottlöber, S., Yepes, G.,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [7]

    arXiv:2509.25362

    Machine Learning the Dark Matter Halo Mass of the Milky Way. arXiv:2509.25362. 38 Hernquist, L.,

    work page arXiv

  6. [8]

    Decrease in Milky Way rotation curve revisited

    Decrease in Milky Way rotation curve revisited. arXiv e-prints (arXiv:2507.23551). Koop, O., Antoja, T., Helmi, A., Callingham, T. M., Laporte, C. F. P.,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [9]

    A&A 692, A50 (arXiv:2405.19028)

    On the Galactic rotation curve inferred from the Jeans equations: assessing its robustness using Gaia DR3 and cosmological simulations. A&A 692, A50 (arXiv:2405.19028). Koposov, S. E. et al.,

    arXiv

  8. [10]

    A&A 703, L17 (arXiv:2511.17705)

    The odd primordial halo of the Milky Way implied by Gaia: a shallow core, but a steep decline. A&A 703, L17 (arXiv:2511.17705). Lindegren, L. et al.,

    work page arXiv

Show all 16 references
  1. [11]

    ApJL 969, L3 (doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b0)

    Indefinitely flat circular velocities and the baryonic Tully–Fisher relation from weak lensing. ApJL 969, L3 (doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b0). Miyamoto, M., Nagai, R.,

    doi

  2. [12]

    Implications of the Milky Way declining rotation curve. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 34, 2550034 (arXiv:2409.17371). Mróz, P. et al.,

    arXiv

  3. [13]

    ApJ 994, 128 (arXiv:2503.05877)

    Decoding the Galactic Twirl: the downfall of Milky Way-mass galaxies rotation curves in the FIRE simulations. ApJ 994, 128 (arXiv:2503.05877). 39 Pontzen, A., Governato, F.,

    arXiv

  4. [14]

    ApJ 976, 185 (arXiv:2410.14307)

    Generalized rotation curves of the Milky Way from the Gaia DR3 data set: constraints on mass models. ApJ 976, 185 (arXiv:2410.14307). Sylos Labini, F., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R.,

    arXiv

  5. [16]

    New Astron

    Milky Way dynamics in light of Gaia. New Astron. Rev. 100, 101721 (arXiv:2501.04075). Wang, H.-F., Chrobáková, Ž., López-Corredoira, M., Sylos Labini, F.,

    arXiv

  6. [2024]

    JCAP 12, 024 (arXiv:2407.12482; doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/12/024)

    Exploring Milky Way rotation curves with Gaia DR3: a comparison be- tweenΛCDM, MOND, and General Relativistic approaches. JCAP 12, 024 (arXiv:2407.12482; doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2024/12/024). Bland-Hawthorn, J., Gerhard, O.,

    2024

  7. [2025]

    A&A 703, A88 (arXiv:2407.18846)

    Cosmological implications of the Gaia Milky Way declining rotation curve. A&A 703, A88 (arXiv:2407.18846). de Salas, P. F. et al.,

  8. [2026]

    New Astron

    No evidence for Keplerian taper of far-out galactic rotation in the SPARC galaxy database. New Astron. 126, 102537 (arXiv:2507.12120; doi:10.1016/j.newast.2026.102537). 37 Benisty, D.,

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.