Cited by 306Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation Theories

Core formation in dwarf haloes with self-interacting dark matter: no fine-tuning necessary

Open access
Elbert, Oliver D., Bullock, James S., Garrison-Kimmel, Shea, Rocha, Miguel, Oñorbe, Jose, Peter, Annika H. G.·2015·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We investigate the effect of self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) on the density profiles of Vmax ≃ 40km s−1 isolated dwarf dark matter haloes – the scale of relevance for the too big to fail problem (TBTF) – using very high resolution cosmological zoom simulations. Each halo has millions of particles within its virial radius. We find that SIDM models with cross-sections per unit mass spanning the range σ/m = 0.5–50 cm2 g−1 alleviate TBTF and produce constant-density cores of size 300–1000 pc, comparable to the half-light radii of M⋆ ∼ 105 − 7 M⊙ dwarfs. The largest, lowest density cores develop for cross-sections in the middle of this range, σ/m ∼ 5–10 cm2 g−1. Our largest SIDM cross-section run (σ/m = 50 cm2 g−1) develops a slightly denser core owing to mild core-collapse behaviour, but it remains less dense than the cold dark matter case and retains a constant-density core profile. Our work suggests that SIDM cross-sections as large or larger than 50 cm2 g−1 remain viable on velocity scales of dwarf galaxies (vrms ∼ 40 km s−1). The range of SIDM cross-sections that alleviate TBTF and the cusp/core problem spans at least two orders of magnitude and therefore need not be particularly fine-tuned.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stv1470

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These results place the constraint in mild tension with existing SIDM models that require σ/m ≳ 1 cm^2 g^-1 to resolve small-scale discrepancies in dwarf and spiral galaxies.

    “These results place our constraint in mild tension with existing SIDM models that require σ/m ≳ 1 cm 2 g -1 to resolve small-scale discrepancies in dwarf and spiral galaxies (J.Zavala et al. 2013;O. D. Elbert et al. 2015;M. Kaplinghat et al. 2016).”

    From A New Robust Constraint on the Self-interaction Cross Section of Dark Matter with Double Radio Relic Clusters (2026) · cites this paper as O. D. Elbert et al. 2015

    The Conclusions report that SIDM cross-sections of 0.5–50 cm² g⁻¹ alleviate the too-big-to-fail problem in dwarf galaxies, supporting the claim that values around or above 1 can address a small-scale discrepancy. The paper does not establish that at least 1 cm² g⁻¹ is required—it finds 0.5 can work—and the cited results concern dwarfs, not spiral galaxies. The citing authors’ assessment of tension with their own constraint is not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Klypin A., Karachentsev I., Makarov D., Nasonova O., 2014, preprint (arXiv:1405.4523) · arXiv
  2. Strigari L. E., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 2014, preprint (arXiv:1406.6079) · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elbert, O. D., Bullock, J. S., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Rocha, M., Oñorbe, J., & Peter, A. H. G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Elbert, Oliver D.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2015-08-12
Volume
453
Issue
1
Pages
29-37
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W1893663977
Cited by
306
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 10
FWCI
17.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1053575)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ACI-1053575)
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
self-interacting dark matter, too big to fail, dark matter cross section, core-cusp problem, core collapse, zoom-in simulations

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