Core formation in dwarf haloes with self-interacting dark matter: no fine-tuning necessary
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A mass-dependent density profile for dark matter haloes including the influence of galaxy formation
Cintio, A. D., Brook, C. B., Dutton, A. A., Macciò, A. V., Stinson, G. S., & Knebe, A. (2014) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu729 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
The missing massive satellites of the Milky Way
Wang, J., Frenk, C. S., Navarro, J. F., Gao, L., & Sawala, T. (2012) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21357.x · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters
Wittman, D., Golovich, N., & Dawson, W. A. (2018) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaee77 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Jee, M. J., Park, D., & Lee, W. (2026) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae88fb · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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