A test of invariance of halo surface density for FIRE-2 simulations with cold dark matter and self-interacting dark matter

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.26545
• Title: A test of invariance of halo surface density for FIRE-2 simulations with cold dark matter and self-interacting dark matter
• Authors: Sujit K. Dalui, Shantanu Desai (Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad)
• Classification: astro-ph.CO (Cosmology and Non-Galactic Astrophysics)
• Submission Date: Submitted to arXiv on October 30, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26545

Abstract

This paper investigates the invariance of dark matter halo surface density, defined as the product of the core radius and the central density of the halo. Using simulation data from the FIRE-2 project, the authors calculate the surface density of dwarf galaxies with masses around 10^10 M⊙ under both cold dark matter (CDM) and self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) models, with and without baryonic matter. The study finds that within this mass range, the dark matter surface density and column density are approximately constant. The halo surface density obtained through Burkert profile fitting is consistent with galactic-scale observations within 1σ. Additionally, the authors derive an empirical scaling relation between central surface density and maximum velocity, which is consistent with observational data from the Milky Way and M31 dwarf galaxies.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Question

This paper aims to test the hypothesis of dark matter halo surface density invariance, which posits that the surface density S ≡ ρc × rc (where rc is the core radius and ρc is the central density) remains approximately constant across galaxies of different masses and types.

Importance of the Problem

1. Universality of Observational Evidence: Observations show that this surface density remains constant across 18 orders of magnitude in blue-band luminosity, including spiral galaxies, low surface brightness galaxies, and dwarf elliptical galaxies, with an observed best-fit value of log(ρcrc) = 2.15±0.2 log(M⊙ pc^-2)
2. Challenge to ΛCDM Model: This phenomenon is considered one of several tensions facing the standard ΛCDM cosmological model, alongside the core-cusp problem and the missing satellites problem, presenting potential challenges to the model
3. Testing Theoretical Models: Surface density invariance can be used to test various alternative dark matter models (such as fuzzy dark matter, self-interacting dark matter, etc.)

Limitations of Existing Research

1. Restricted Mass Range: Previous systematic studies have focused primarily on the 10^11-10^13 M⊙ mass range, with insufficient investigation of the dwarf galaxy mass scale (~10^10 M⊙)
2. Controversial Results: Some studies have found power-law relationships between surface density and halo mass or luminosity (S ∝ M^0.16-0.2), questioning its universality
3. Scale Dependence: Observations indicate that this invariance does not hold at galaxy group and galaxy cluster scales, so it is not a universal constant for all dark matter-dominated systems

Research Motivation

This paper uses high-resolution simulation data from the FIRE-2 project to systematically test, for the first time, the behavior of dark matter halo surface density at the dwarf galaxy mass scale in CDM and SIDM models with complete baryonic physics, filling a research gap in this mass range.

Core Contributions

1. First Systematic Analysis: First systematic test of dark matter halo surface density at the dwarf galaxy mass scale (Mhalo ≈ 10^10 M⊙) using FIRE-2 simulation data
2. Multi-Model Comparison: Simultaneous analysis of surface density characteristics across three cosmological models (CDM+baryons, SIDM+baryons, SIDM pure dark matter)
3. Multiple Profile Fits: Fitting using three density profiles—Burkert, core-Einasto, and αβγ—providing a more comprehensive analytical perspective
4. Observational Validation: Confirms that simulation results are consistent with the observed value ρcrc = (141±65) M⊙ pc^-2 within 1σ
5. Scaling Relation Reproduction: Successfully reproduces the empirical relationship between mean surface density Σ̄(<rmax) and maximum circular velocity Vmax, consistent with observational data from Milky Way and M31 dwarf galaxies
6. Theoretical Support: Results more strongly support the "cusp-core transition model" proposed by Kaneda et al. (2024) rather than a pure cuspy NFW profile

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Dark matter density profile data from FIRE-2 simulations (25 logarithmically-spaced radial bins, from convergence radius to virial radius)

Output:

1. Dark matter halo surface density S = ρc × rc
2. Dark matter column density S*(R)
3. Σ̄(<rmax) - Vmax scaling relation

Constraints:

• Virial mass range: 10^10 M⊙ ± 30%
• Stellar mass range: M⋆ ≈ 10^5 - 10^7 M⊙
• Redshift z = 0
• SIDM self-interaction cross section: σ/m = 1 cm^2 g^-1

Simulation Data Source

FIRE-2 Simulation Characteristics:

• Eight isolated dark halos (labeled m10b through m10k)
• Each CDM simulation has a corresponding SIDM version (identical initial conditions and physics)
• Includes complete baryonic physics and feedback processes (implemented via GIZMO code)
• Uses ROCKSTAR halo finder to identify dark matter halos
• Dark matter particle mass increased by 1.2× in pure dark matter simulations (DMO)

Density Profile Models

1. Burkert Profile (Most Widely Used Cored Profile)

$\rho_{Bur}(r) = \frac{\rho_c r_c^3}{(r^2 + r_c^2)(r + r_c)}$

where rc is the core radius and ρc is the core density. Surface density is directly defined as: $S_{Bur} = \rho_c \times r_c$

2. Core-Einasto Profile

$\rho_{cEin}(r) = \tilde{\rho}_s \exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\hat{\alpha}}\left[\left(\frac{r+r_c}{\tilde{r}_s}\right)^{\hat{\alpha}} - 1\right]\right\}$

Fixed parameters: α̂ = 0.16; free parameters: rc, r̃s, ρ̃s

3. αβγ Profile (Generalized NFW Profile)

$\rho_{\alpha\beta\gamma}(r) = \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)^{\gamma_s}[1+(r/r_s)^{\alpha_s}]^{(\beta_s-\gamma_s)/\alpha_s}}$

Fixed parameters: βs = 2.5, γs = 0; free parameters: αs, rs, ρs

Column Density Calculation

For any density profile ρ(r), column density is defined as: $S^*(R) = \frac{2}{R^2}\int_0^R r'dr' \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dz \rho_{DM}(\sqrt{r'^2+z^2})$

Evaluation Radius Selection:

• Burkert profile: R = 1.66rc
• Core-Einasto profile: R = r̃s
• αβγ profile: R = rs

Fitting Method

Since uncertainties in density profiles are not provided, quality factor function (Q²) minimization is employed: $Q^2 = \frac{1}{N_{bins}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{bins}}[\ln\rho(r_i) - \ln\rho_{model}(r_i)]^2$

Mass Control: Fitting results with Q > 0.25 are excluded (threshold determined by visual inspection)

Scaling Relation Calculation

Mean surface density is defined as: $\bar{\Sigma}(<r_{max}) = \frac{M(<r_{max})}{\pi r_{max}^2}$

where rmax is the radius corresponding to maximum circular velocity Vmax, obtained by maximizing circular velocity: $V(r) = \sqrt{\frac{GM(<r)}{r}}$

Mass calculation: $M(<r_{max}) = \int_0^{r_{max}} 4\pi\rho_{DM}(r')r'^2 dr'$

Experimental Setup

Dataset

FIRE-2 Simulation Sample:

• Sample Size: 8 halos (m10b, m10c, m10d, m10e, m10f, m10h, m10k, m10m)
• Mass Range:
  • Virial mass: 4.5-7.7 × 10^9 M⊙
  • Stellar mass: 10^5 - 10^7 M⊙
• Simulation Types:
  1. CDM + baryons (8 halos)
  2. SIDM + baryons (8 halos, σ/m = 1 cm^2 g^-1)
  3. SIDM DMO (8 halos, pure dark matter)

Data Structure:

• 25 logarithmically-spaced radial bins
• Extending from convergence radius to virial radius
• Density profile data provided by Maria Straight (S25 authors)

Evaluation Metrics

1. Surface Density SBur = ρc × rc M⊙ pc^-2
2. Column Density S*(R) M⊙ pc^-2
3. Fitting Quality Q² value (threshold: Q < 0.25)
4. Comparison with Observations: Reference value ρcrc = (141±65) M⊙ pc^-2

Comparison Methods

1. Observational Data:
   • Compilation of galactic-scale observations from Salucci (2019)
   • Milky Way and M31 dwarf galaxy data (Hayashi et al. 2017)
2. Theoretical Models (Kaneda et al. 2024, K24):
   • Cuspy NFW profiles based on c-M relations from Uchuu simulations
   • Cusp-core transition model

Implementation Details

• Profile Fitting: Independent fitting of core-Einasto and αβγ profiles for SIDM DMO
• Data Source: Fitting parameters for CDM and SIDM+baryons directly use S25 results
• Statistical Method: Median and 16th-84th percentile calculated as 1σ uncertainty
• Exclusion Criteria: 6 halos in CDM+baryons excluded due to Q > 0.25 (m10b, m10c, m10d, m10e, m10f, m10h)

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Invariance of Surface Density and Column Density

Quantitative Results (Table II):

Key Findings:

• Surface density is approximately constant across all three simulations in the 10^10 M⊙ mass range
• Burkert profile surface density SBur is consistent with the observed value 141±65 M⊙ pc^-2 within 1σ
• Column densities calculated from different density profiles are numerically similar

2. Mass Dependence Analysis

From Figures 2-5:

• αβγ Profile (Figure 2): Column density shows no significant mass dependence in the 4.5-7.7×10^9 M⊙ range
• Core-Einasto Profile (Figure 3): Similarly shows flat column density distribution
• Burkert Profile (Figures 4-5): Both surface density and column density remain constant

3. Comparison Between Different Models

• SIDM vs CDM: SIDM+baryons surface density (82 M⊙ pc^-2) is very close to CDM+baryons (85 M⊙ pc^-2)
• Baryonic Effects: SIDM+baryons (82 M⊙ pc^-2) differs from SIDM DMO (95 M⊙ pc^-2) by ~15%, showing the impact of baryonic feedback
• Scatter: SIDM+baryons shows minimal scatter (±10%), indicating that self-interaction and baryonic feedback together produce more uniform cores

Σ̄(<rmax) - Vmax Scaling Relation

Observational Comparison (Figure 6):

• Velocity Range: Simulations yield Vmax ≈ 30-43 km/s
  • CDM and SIDM+baryons: 30-40 km/s
  • SIDM DMO: up to 43 km/s
• Comparison with Theoretical Models:
  • Simulation results are closer to K24's cusp-core transition model (dashed line)
  • Inconsistent with pure cuspy NFW profile based on Uchuu c-M relation (solid line)
• Comparison with Observational Data:
  • Consistent with 8 Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies
  • Consistent with 5 M31 dwarf spheroidal galaxies
  • Agreement within 1σ

Fitting Quality Analysis

Burkert Profile Fitting (Table I):

• CDM+baryons: Only 2 halos (m10k, m10m) satisfy Q < 0.25
  • Low stellar mass halos (4.6×10^5 - 7.8×10^6 M⊙) exhibit cuspy profiles, poor Burkert fit
  • Q value range: 0.227-0.498
• SIDM+baryons: All 8 halos fit well
  • Q value range: 0.125-0.395
  • Significantly lower than CDM, indicating SIDM produces more pronounced cores
• SIDM DMO: All 8 halos fit well
  • Q value range: 0.125-0.383
  • Similar to SIDM+baryons

Experimental Findings

1. Universality Verification: Surface density invariance is confirmed at the dwarf galaxy mass scale
2. Model Independence: Invariance holds in both CDM and SIDM models, supporting Sánchez Almeida (2025)'s theoretical prediction that surface density invariance is universal for any dark matter model and baryonic feedback process
3. Core Formation Mechanism:
   • SIDM more readily forms core structures (all halos with Q < 0.25)
   • CDM requires stronger baryonic feedback to form cores (only high stellar mass halos form cores)
4. Cusp-Core Transition: The Σ̄-Vmax relation supports a cusp-to-core transition around ~10^11 M⊙ (K24's prediction)
5. Baryonic Feedback Impact: Comparing SIDM+baryons and SIDM DMO, baryonic feedback reduces surface density by ~15%

Related Work

Observational Studies

1. Early Work:
   • Kormendy & Freeman (2004): First systematic study of surface density across galaxy types
   • Donato et al. (2009): Discovery of constant value log(ρcrc) = 2.15±0.2
2. Controversial Results:
   • Boyarsky et al. (2009): Introduction of column density concept
   • Del Popolo et al. (2013): Discovery of power-law relation S ∝ M^0.16-0.2
   • Napolitano et al. (2010), Cardone & Tortora (2010): Discovery of correlations with luminosity and surface brightness
3. Scale Limitations:
   • Chan (2014), Gopika & Desai (2020, 2021): Confirmation that invariance does not extend to galaxy group and cluster scales

Theoretical and Simulation Studies

1. Alternative Dark Matter Model Testing:
   • Milgrom (2009): MOND theory explanation
   • Burkert (2020): Fuzzy dark matter tension with observations
   • Kaplinghat et al. (2016): Self-interacting dark matter predictions
2. ΛCDM Simulations:
   • Gopika et al. (2023, previous work by authors): First systematic test using ΛCDM simulations in 10^11-10^13 M⊙ mass range
   • Kaneda et al. (2024): Establishment of connection between surface density and c-M relation, proposal of cusp-core transition model
3. Universality Theory:
   • Sánchez Almeida (2025): Proof that approximate surface density invariance holds for any dark matter model and baryonic feedback process

Advantages of This Work

1. Mass Range Gap Filling: First systematic study at dwarf galaxy mass scale (10^10 M⊙)
2. Complete Physics: FIRE-2 includes state-of-the-art baryonic feedback physics
3. Multi-Model Comparison: Simultaneous analysis of CDM and SIDM, plus baryonic effects
4. Multiple Profile Verification: Cross-verification using three density profiles

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Invariance Confirmation: At the dwarf galaxy mass scale (Mhalo ≈ 10^10 M⊙), dark matter halo surface density and column density are approximately constant for both CDM and SIDM models
2. Observational Consistency: Surface density from Burkert profile fitting is consistent with observed value ρcrc = (141±65) M⊙ pc^-2 within 1σ
3. Scaling Relation Verification: The Σ̄(<rmax) - Vmax relation is consistent with observational data from Milky Way and M31 dwarf galaxies within 1σ
4. Model Support: Results more strongly support the cusp-core transition model rather than pure cuspy NFW profile, indicating core formation around 10^11 M⊙
5. Model Independence: Surface density invariance holds across different dark matter models (CDM, SIDM) and different baryonic physics treatments (with/without baryons)

Limitations

1. Limited Mass Dynamic Range:
   • Covers only 4.5-7.7×10^9 M⊙ (less than one order of magnitude)
   • Insufficient to fully explore mass dependence of surface density
   • Cannot rule out power-law relations S ∝ M^α (for small α)
2. Sample Size:
   • Only 8 halos per simulation type
   • Only 2 halos in CDM+baryons suitable for Burkert fitting
   • Limited statistical significance
3. Single SIDM Parameter:
   • Only σ/m = 1 cm^2 g^-1 analyzed
   • No systematic exploration of different self-interaction cross sections
   • S25 data for 0.1 and 10 cm^2/g not used (only 1 halo)
4. Redshift Limitation:
   • Only z = 0 analyzed
   • No exploration of surface density evolution
5. Fitting Uncertainties:
   • No error bars on density profiles
   • Cannot perform χ² fitting and rigorous parameter uncertainty estimation
   • Q value threshold (0.25) based on visual judgment
6. Column Density Evaluation Radius:
   • Different profiles use different evaluation radii
   • Lack of direct comparability with observations (which primarily use Burkert profile)

Future Directions

1. Extended Mass Range:
   • Include lower mass ultra-faint dwarfs (10^7-10^9 M⊙)
   • Extend to higher masses to connect with previous studies
2. SIDM Parameter Space Exploration:
   • Systematic study of different σ/m values
   • Exploration of velocity-dependent self-interaction cross sections
3. Redshift Evolution:
   • Study surface density evolution with redshift
   • Connect to high-redshift observations
4. Larger Sample:
   • Increase number of halos per mass interval
   • Improve statistical significance
5. Other Dark Matter Models:
   • Warm dark matter (WDM)
   • Fuzzy dark matter (FDM)
   • Other alternative models

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Significant Research Value:
   • Fills research gap at dwarf galaxy mass scale
   • Provides important simulation verification of dark matter halo surface density invariance
   • Important for understanding dark matter properties and galaxy formation
2. Rigorous Methodology:
   • Uses state-of-the-art FIRE-2 simulations (complete baryonic physics)
   • Cross-verification with multiple density profiles
   • Clear mass control criteria (Q < 0.25)
   • Systematic comparison of CDM and SIDM models
3. Reliable Results:
   • Good consistency with observational data
   • Consistent conclusions from different profiles
   • Reasonable 1σ uncertainty estimates
4. Deep Physical Insights:
   • Reveals SIDM more readily forms cores
   • Supports cusp-core transition mechanism
   • Validates model-independent nature of surface density invariance
5. Clear Writing:
   • Well-organized structure with clear logic
   • Information-rich figures and tables
   • Detailed method description with good reproducibility

Weaknesses

1. Statistical Sample Limitations:
   • Small sample of 8 halos
   • Only 2 valid data points in CDM+baryons
   • Difficult to fully quantify systematic uncertainties
2. Narrow Mass Range:
   • Less than one order of magnitude dynamic range
   • Cannot effectively test mass dependence
   • Cannot rule out weak power-law relations
3. Fitting Method Limitations:
   • Q² minimization lacks statistical rigor
   • Threshold selection subjective (Q < 0.25)
   • Cannot provide confidence intervals for parameters
4. Insufficient Physics Discussion:
   • Limited discussion of how baryonic feedback affects surface density
   • Insufficient analysis of SIDM core formation physics
   • Mass threshold for cusp-core transition not clearly defined
5. Limited Observational Comparison:
   • Only comparison with compiled data
   • No consideration of observational systematic errors
   • Lack of detailed comparison with latest observations

Impact

1. Academic Contribution:
   • Provides important simulation evidence for dark matter halo surface density research
   • Supports approximate universality of this property
   • Provides new constraints for dark matter model testing
2. Practical Value:
   • Validates reliability of FIRE-2 simulations at dwarf galaxy scale
   • Provides theoretical support for interpreting dwarf galaxy observations
   • Can guide future observational programs
3. Reproducibility:
   • Detailed method description
   • Clear data sources (public FIRE-2 data)
   • Complete fitting parameters listed (Tables I, A1)
   • Easy to replicate and extend
4. Value for Follow-up Research:
   • Establishes foundation for studies across larger mass ranges
   • Enables comparison with other simulation projects
   • Methods applicable to other dark matter models

Applicable Scenarios

1. Dark Matter Research:
   • Testing dark matter model predictions
   • Constraining self-interaction cross sections
   • Understanding dark matter halo structure
2. Galaxy Formation Theory:
   • Studying baryonic feedback effects
   • Understanding dwarf galaxy formation mechanisms
   • Explaining core-cusp problem
3. Observational Data Interpretation:
   • Providing theoretical expectations for dwarf galaxy observations
   • Guiding dark matter indirect detection
   • Explaining surface density-velocity relations
4. Simulation Validation:
   • Assessing accuracy of hydrodynamic simulations
   • Calibrating semi-analytic models
   • Testing numerical methods

Key References

1. Salucci (2019): Latest compilation of observational dark matter halo surface density, providing ρcrc = (141±65) M⊙ pc^-2
2. Straight et al. (2025, S25): Original data source for FIRE-2 simulations, providing complete density profiles and fitting parameters
3. Kaneda et al. (2024, K24): Proposes cusp-core transition model and Σ̄-Vmax relation, important theoretical comparison basis for this work
4. Gopika et al. (2023): Authors' previous similar study at higher mass ranges, continuation of which is this paper
5. Donato et al. (2009): First systematic observational study discovering surface density invariance
6. Sánchez Almeida (2025): Latest theoretical work proving model-independent nature of surface density invariance

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality astrophysical simulation research paper that rigorously verifies the approximate invariance of dark matter halo surface density at the dwarf galaxy mass scale. Despite limitations in sample size and mass range, the research methodology is reliable and the results have important scientific significance. The paper provides valuable simulation evidence for understanding dark matter properties and galaxy formation, with important reference value for subsequent research in this field.