Cited by 491Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation Theories

Cold dark matter: Controversies on small scales

Open access
Weinberg, David H., Bullock, James S., Governato, Fabio, Kuzio de Naray, Rachel, Peter, Annika H. G.·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The cold dark matter (CDM) cosmological model has been remarkably successful in explaining cosmic structure over an enormous span of redshift, but it has faced persistent challenges from observations that probe the innermost regions of dark matter halos and the properties of the Milky Way’s dwarf galaxy satellites. We review the current observational and theoretical status of these “small-scale controversies.” Cosmological simulations that incorporate only gravity and collisionless CDM predict halos with abundant substructure and central densities that are too high to match constraints from galaxy dynamics. The solution could lie in baryonic physics: Recent numerical simulations and analytical models suggest that gravitational potential fluctuations tied to efficient supernova feedback can flatten the central cusps of halos in massive galaxies, and a combination of feedback and low star formation efficiency could explain why most of the dark matter subhalos orbiting the Milky Way do not host visible galaxies. However, it is not clear that this solution can work in the lowest mass galaxies, where discrepancies are observed. Alternatively, the small-scale conflicts could be evidence of more complex physics in the dark sector itself. For example, elastic scattering from strong dark matter self-interactions can alter predicted halo mass profiles, leading to good agreement with observations across a wide range of galaxy mass. Gravitational lensing and dynamical perturbations of tidal streams in the stellar halo provide evidence for an abundant population of low-mass subhalos in accord with CDM predictions. These observational approaches will get more powerful over the next few years.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1308716112

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Despite its success on scales larger than 10 kpc, it is not clear yet if the cosmological CDM model is consistent with observations at smaller distances; the tension arises from cuspy halo cores and an abundance of satellite galaxies predicted by numerical simulations but incompatible with observations.

    “Despite its success on scales larger than 10kpc, the scale of stellar distributions in typical galaxies, it is not clear yet if the cosmological CDM model is consistent with observations at smaller distances (Weinberg et al., 2015).The tension arises from the cuspy halo cores and an abundance of satellite galaxies predicted by numerical simulations but incompatible with observations.”
  • A major challenge in extragalactic cosmology today concerns the formation of structure on subgalactic scales, where baryon physics becomes important and the nature of dark matter may manifest in observable ways.

    “A major challenge in extragalactic cosmology today concerns the formation of structure on subgalactic scales, where baryon physics becomes important, and the nature of dark matter may manifest itself in observable ways ( e.g., Weinberg et al. 2015 ) .”

    From LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2019) · cites this paper as Weinberg et al. 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weinberg, D. H., Bullock, J. S., Governato, F., Kuzio de Naray, R., & Peter, A. H. G.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-02-02
Volume
112
Issue
40
Pages
12249-12255
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2072195835
Cited by
491
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 1
FWCI
31.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
cold dark matter, small-scale structure, dark matter halos, dark matter subhalos, dwarf satellite galaxies, Milky Way satellites, supernova feedback, baryonic feedback, dark matter self-interaction, halo mass profiles, tidal currents, stellar halo, gravitational lensing, galaxy dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review