Is There Evidence for Flat Cores in the Halos of Dwarf Galaxies? The Case of NGC 3109 and NGC 6822
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present cosmologically motivated, high resolution models for two nearby dwarf galaxies: NGC3109 and NGC6822, that present the strongest observational support for a flat core at the center of galactic dark matter halos. However, our analysis shows that the rotation curves of these two galaxies are instead quite compatible with their DM halos having steep cuspy density profiles. The rotation curves in our models are measured using standard observational techniques, projecting velocities along the line of sight of an artificial observer and performing a tilted ring analysis. The models reproduce the rotation curves of both galaxies, the disk surface brightness profiles as well as the profile of isophotal ellipticity and position angle. The models are centrally dominated by baryons; however, the dark matter component is globally dominant. The simulated disk mass is marginal consistent with a stellar mass-to-light ratio in agreement with the observed colors and the detected gaseous mass. We show that non-circular motions combined with gas pressure support and projection effects systematically underestimate by up to 50% the rotation velocity of cold gas in the central 1 kpc region, creating the illusion of a constant density core. Our results strongly suggest that there is no contradiction between the observed rotation curves in dwarf galaxies and the cuspy central dark matter density profiles predicted by the Cold Dark Matter model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".