Research

Collaborators

These are the people I have written papers with, or helped with theirs; the map is incomplete. If you would like to talk about research, book a quick chat.

wrote or assisted on a paper togetheranother postone person over timeEqual Earth projection
Amir Abdulgadir — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2025-06–2025-08)Amir Abdulgadir — Howard University — Washington, US (2024–present)Matteo Bachetti — INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari — Selargius, IT (2024-01–present)Matteo Bachetti — INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari — Selargius, IT (2015-12–2023-12); 1 paper togetherMatteo Bachetti — INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari — Selargius, IT (2014-09–2015-11)Matteo Bachetti — Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie — Toulouse, FR (2011-09–2014-08)Matteo Bachetti — CESR — Toulouse, FR (2011-02–2011-08)Matteo Bachetti — CESR — Toulouse, FR (2010-02–2010-12)Matteo Bachetti — Università degli Studi di Cagliari — Cagliari, IT (2007–2010-02)Médéric Boquien — Université Côte d'Azur — Nice, FR (2023–present)Médéric Boquien — Universidad de Tarapacá — Santiago, CL (2023–2023)Médéric Boquien — Universidad de Antofagasta — Antofagasta, CL (2015–2023); 1 paper togetherMédéric Boquien — University of Cambridge — Cambridge, GB (2013–2015)Médéric Boquien — Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille — Marseille, FR (2011–2013)Médéric Boquien — University of Massachusetts Amherst — Amherst, US (2007–2011)Médéric Boquien — University Paris VII — Paris, FR (2004–2007)Médéric Boquien — Université Pierre et Marie Curie — Paris, FR (2003–2004)Jo Bovy — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2015-07–present); 4 papers together, 1 assistC. E. Brasseur — Lowell Observatory — Flagstaff, US (2025-10–present)C. E. Brasseur — University of St Andrews — St Andrews, GB (2021-10–2025-06); 1 paper togetherC. E. Brasseur — Liverpool John Moores University — Liverpool, GB (2017-09–2019-10)C. E. Brasseur — Space Telescope Science Institute — Baltimore, US (2016-05–2021-08)C. E. Brasseur — Mills College — Oakland, US (2008-08–2010-05)C. E. Brasseur — Oberlin College — Oberlin, US (2004-08–2008-05)Daniela Calvetti — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (1997-08–present); 1 paper togetherYingtian Chen — The Ohio State University — Columbus, US (2026-10–present)Yingtian Chen — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2020-09–2026-08); 1 assistYingtian Chen — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2019-07–2019-08)Yingtian Chen — Peking University — Beijing, CN (2016-09–2020-07)Yingtian Chen — Chengdu Experimental Foreign Languages School — Chengdu, CN (2010-09–2016-07)Lia Corrales — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2020-09–present); 1 paper togetherLia Corrales — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2018-09–2020-08)Lia Corrales — University of Wisconsin Madison — Madison, US (2016-09–2018-08)Lia Corrales — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2014-07–2016-08)Lia Corrales — Columbia University — New York, US (2007-09–2014-06)Lia Corrales — Harvey Mudd College — Claremont, US (2002-09–2006-05)Kelle L. Cruz — Hunter College — New York, US (2017-09–present); 1 paper togetherKelle L. Cruz — Hunter College — New York, US (2010-01–2017-08)Kelle L. Cruz — University of Pennsylvania — Philadelphia, US (2000-09–2004-05)Kelle L. Cruz — University of Pennsylvania — Philadelphia, US (1996-09–2000-05)Elliot Y. Davies — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2025-09–present); 1 paper togetherElliot Y. Davies — University of Cambridge — Cambridge, GB (2021-10–2025-06)Elliot Y. Davies — The University of Edinburgh — Edinburgh, GB (2020-09–2021-08)Elliot Y. Davies — Princeton University — Princeton, US (2016-09–2020-06)Axel Donath — Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian — Cambridge, US (2021-10–present); 1 paper togetherAxel Donath — Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik — Heidelberg, DE (2018-06–2021-10)Axel Donath — Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg — Heidelberg, DE (2014–2018)Axel Donath — Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg — Heidelberg, DE (2011–2014)Axel Donath — Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg — Heidelberg, DE (2007–2011)Dylan Folsom — Princeton University — Princeton, US (2020-08–present); 1 paper togetherDylan Folsom — Vanderbilt University — Nashville, US (2016-08–2020-06)Adam Ginsburg — University of Florida — Gainesville, US (2023-08–present)Adam Ginsburg — University of Florida — Gainesville, US (2019-08–2023-08); 1 paper togetherAdam Ginsburg — University of Colorado — Boulder, US (2007-08–2013-09)Adam Ginsburg — University of Colorado — Boulder, US (2007–2009)Adam Ginsburg — Rice University — Houston, US (2003-08–2006-05)Oleg Y. Gnedin — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2006-09–present); 1 assistJenny E. Greene — Harvard University — Cambridge, US (2001-09–2006-05)Jenny E. Greene — Yale University — New Haven, US (1996-09–2000-06)Matt J. Jarvis — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (2014-08–present); 1 assistMatt J. Jarvis — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (2012-10–2014-07)Matt J. Jarvis — University of Hertfordshire — Hatfield, GB (2009-04–2012-09)Matt J. Jarvis — University of Hertfordshire — Hatfield, GB (2007-01–2009-04)Matt J. Jarvis — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (2002-12–2006-12)Matt J. Jarvis — Leiden University — Leiden, NL (2000-10–2002-11)Matt J. Jarvis — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (1997-10–2000-09)Matt J. Jarvis — University of Birmingham — Birmingham, GB (1993-09–1997-06)Kathryn V. Johnston — Columbia University — New York, US (2006-07–present); 1 paper togetherTaisiia Karasova — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2025–2026)Wolfgang E. Kerzendorf — Michigan State University — East Lansing, US (2019-08–present); 1 paper togetherWolfgang E. Kerzendorf — Michigan State University — East Lansing, US (2019-08–present); 1 paper togetherWolfgang E. Kerzendorf — New York University — New York, US (2019-01–2019-08)Wolfgang E. Kerzendorf — European Southern Observatory — Garching bei Muenchen, DE (2014-12–2018-11)Wolfgang E. Kerzendorf — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2011-10–2014-09)Wolfgang E. Kerzendorf — ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics — Weston Creek, AU (2007-02–2011-12)Wolfgang E. Kerzendorf — Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg — Heidelberg, DE (2002-10–2006-10)Arthur Kosowsky — University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh, US (2012-09–present); 1 paper togetherArthur Kosowsky — University of Pittsburgh — Pittsburgh, US (2005-09–2012-08)Arthur Kosowsky — Rutgers University — New Brunswick, US (2004-09–2005-08)Arthur Kosowsky — Rutgers University — New Brunswick, US (1997-09–2004-08)Arthur Kosowsky — Harvard University — Cambridge, US (1994-09–1997-08)F. Lelli — Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory (INAF) — Florence, IT (2020-12–present)F. Lelli — Cardiff University — Cardiff, GB (2020-01–2020-12)F. Lelli — European Southern Observatory — Garching bei Muenchen, DE (2017-01–2019-12); 2 papers togetherF. Lelli — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2014-01–2016-12)F. Lelli — University of Groningen — Groningen, NL (2009-12–2013-12)F. Lelli — University of Bologna — Bologna, IT (2006-10–2009-10)F. Lelli — University of Bologna — Bologna, IT (2003-10–2006-10)P. Li — Nanjing University — Nanjing, CN (2024-03–present)P. Li — Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam — Potsdam, DE (2022-02–2024-01)P. Li — Goethe Institut — Berlin, DE (2021-11–2022-02)P. Li — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2020-09–2021-11)P. Li — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2016-05–2020-08); 1 paper togetherPey Lian Lim — Space Telescope Science Institute — Baltimore, US (2007-10–present); 1 paper togetherZihan Liu — Cornell University — Ithaca, US (2026–present)F. R. Marleau — Universität Innsbruck — Innsbruck, AT (2012–2025)S. S. McGaugh — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2012-08–present); 2 papers togetherS. S. McGaugh — University of Maryland — College Park, US (1998-07–2012-08)S. S. McGaugh — Rutgers The State University of New Jersey — New Brunswick, US (1997-11–1998-06)S. S. McGaugh — Carnegie Institution for Science — Washington, US (1995-09–1997-10)S. S. McGaugh — University of Cambridge — Cambridge, GB (1992-10–1995-09)S. S. McGaugh — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (1987-07–1992-06)S. S. McGaugh — Princeton University — Princeton, US (1985-09–1986-08)S. S. McGaugh — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (1981-09–1985-05)Connor McKeigan — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2023–2025)Brett M. Morris — Space Telescope Science Institute — Baltimore, US (2026-04–present)Brett M. Morris — Space Telescope Science Institute — Baltimore, US (2022-09–2026-03)Brett M. Morris — Universität Bern — Bern, CH (2019-07–2022-08); 1 paper togetherBrett M. Morris — University of Washington — Seattle, US (2013-09–2019-04)Brett M. Morris — University of Washington — Seattle, US (2013-08–2015-08)Brett M. Morris — NASA — Washington, US (2013-01–2013-08)Brett M. Morris — University of Maryland — College Park, US (2009-08–2012-12)Charlotte Myers — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2023-09–2027-05); 2 papers togetherLina Necib — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2026-07–present); 1 paper togetherLina Necib — Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, US (2021-07–2026-06); 4 papers togetherLina Necib — Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington — Pasadena, US (2020-10–2021-08)Lina Necib — California Institute of Technology — Pasadena, US (2017-09–2020-06)Jacob Nibauer — University of Pennsylvania — Philadelphia, US (2017-06–present); 8 papers together, 2 assistsAarya A. Patil — Max Planck Institute for Astronomy — Heidelberg, DE (2023–present)Aarya A. Patil — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2018–2023); 1 paper togetherAarya A. Patil — Savitribai Phule Pune University — Pune, IN (2014–2018)Sarah Pearson — Technical University of Denmark — Kongens Lyngby, DK (2026-05–present); 4 papers together, 1 assistSarah Pearson — University of Copenhagen — Copenhagen, DK (2023-12–present); 4 papers together, 1 assistSarah Pearson — New York University — New York, US (2020-12–2023-12)Sarah Pearson — Center for Computational Astrophysics — NYC, US (2018-08–2020-12)Sarah Pearson — Columbia University — New York, US (2013-09–2018-06)Timothy E. Pickering — University of Arizona — Tucson, US (2017-01–present); 1 paper togetherTimothy E. Pickering — Space Telescope Science Institute — Baltimore, US (2013-08–2016-12)Timothy E. Pickering — Southern African Large Telescope — Observatory, ZA (2009-10–2013-07)Timothy E. Pickering — MMT Observatory — Tucson, US (2001-08–2009-09)Timothy E. Pickering — University of Arizona — Tucson, US (2000-09–2001-08)Timothy E. Pickering — University of Arizona — Tucson, US (1992-08–1998-08)Timothy E. Pickering — Universtity of Wisconsin — Madison, US (1988-09–1992-07)Adrian M. Price-Whelan — Simons Foundation — New York, US (2025-10–present); 1 paper together, 1 assistAdrian M. Price-Whelan — Simons Foundation — New York, US (2021-08–2025-10); 4 papers together, 1 assistAdrian M. Price-Whelan — Simons Foundation — New York, US (2019-07–2021-08)Adrian M. Price-Whelan — Princeton University — Princeton, US (2016-07–2019-07)Adrian M. Price-Whelan — Columbia University — New York, US (2011-09–2016-05)J. M. Schombert — Univ. of Oregon — Eugene, US (1996–2018)J. M. Schombert — NASA — Washington, US (1994–1996)J. M. Schombert — Caltech — Pasadena, US (1991–1994)J. M. Schombert — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (1988–1991)J. M. Schombert — California Institute of Technology — Pasadena, US (1984-09–1988-07)J. M. Schombert — Yale University — New Haven, US (1980–1984)Jack Setford — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2018-09–present); 1 assistJack Setford — University of Sussex — Brighton, GB (2014-09–2018-06)Jack Setford — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (2010-09–2014-07)Albert Y. Shih — NASA — Washington, US (2010–present); 1 paper togetherAlbert Y. Shih — University of California, Berkeley — Berkeley, US (2001–2009)Albert Y. Shih — California Institute of Technology — Pasadena, US (1997–2001)David L. Shupe — Caltech — Pasadena, US (1995-05–present); 1 paper togetherBrigitta M. Sipőcz — California Institute of Technology — Pasadena, US (2021–present); 1 paper togetherBrigitta M. Sipőcz — University of Washington — Seattle, US (2018–2021)Erkki Somersalo — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2008-08–present); 1 paper togetherErkki Somersalo — University of Helsinki — Helsinki, FI (1986-09–present); 1 paper togetherDavid N. Spergel — Simons Foundation — New York, US (2017-08–present); 1 paper together, 1 assistGlenn Starkman — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (1995-01–present); 2 papers togetherGlenn Starkman — Canadian Institute for Advanced Research — Toronto, CA (1994-01–1994-12)Glenn Starkman — Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics — Toronto, CA (1991-07–1994-12)Glenn Starkman — Institute for Advanced Study — Princeton, US (1988-07–1991-06)Glenn Starkman — Stanford University — Palo Alto, US (1984-09–1988-06)Glenn Starkman — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (1980-09–1984-06)Nathaniel Starkman — MIT — Cambridge, US (2024-10–present); 14 papers togetherNathaniel Starkman — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2024–2027); 15 papers togetherNathaniel Starkman — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2018-09–2024-08); 6 papers togetherNathaniel Starkman — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2018-09–2024-09); 6 papers togetherNathaniel Starkman — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2017-05–2018-05); 1 paper togetherNathaniel Starkman — CLASSE REU — Ithaca, US (2016-05–2016-08)Nathaniel Starkman — Prof. John Ruhl, South Pole Telescope — Cleveland, US (2015-05–2015-08)Nathaniel Starkman — Case Western Reserve University — Cleveland, US (2014-08–2018-05); 1 paper togetherNathaniel Starkman — European Organization for Nuclear Research — Geneve, CH (2012-08–2013-08)John D. Swinbank — Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy — Dwingeloo, NL (2020-10–present); 1 paper togetherJohn D. Swinbank — University of Washington — Seattle, US (2017-10–2020-09)John D. Swinbank — Princeton University — Princeton, US (2014-10–2017-09)John D. Swinbank — University of Amsterdam — Amsterdam, NL (2006-10–2014-09)John D. Swinbank — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (2002-10–2006-09)John D. Swinbank — University of Oxford — Oxford, GB (1998-10–2002-06)Kiyan Tavangar — Columbia University — New York, US (2022-09–present); 1 paper together, 1 assistKiyan Tavangar — Columbia University — New York, US (2022-09–present); 1 paper together, 1 assistKiyan Tavangar — Flatiron Institute — New York, US (2021-09–2022-06)Kiyan Tavangar — The University of Chicago — Chicago, US (2017-09–2021-06)Nicolas Tessore — University College London — London, GB (2025-08–present)Nicolas Tessore — University College London — London, GB (2021-08–2025-07)Nicolas Tessore — University College London — London, GB (2020-10–2021-07)Nicolas Tessore — University of Manchester — Manchester, GB (2016-04–2020-10)Nicolas Tessore — Università di Bologna — Bologna, IT (2015-10–2016-03)Nicolas Tessore — Università di Bologna — Bologna, IT (2012-10–2015-12)Nicolas Tessore — Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg — Heidelberg, DE (2006-09–2012-05)Andreas Thoyas — Northeastern University — Boston, US (2023-09–2027-05); 1 paper togetherJames Tocknell — Macquarie University — Macquarie Park, AU (2013-10–present); 1 paper togetherJames Tocknell — Macquarie University — Macquarie Park, AU (2009-01–2012-12)Grant R. Tremblay — Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory — MA, US (2017-07–present); 1 paper togetherGrant R. Tremblay — Yale University — New Haven, US (2014-09–2017-07)Grant R. Tremblay — European Southern Observatory — Garching bei Muenchen, DE (2011-09–2014-08)Grant R. Tremblay — Rochester Institute of Technology — Rochester, US (2008-09–2011-05)Grant R. Tremblay — Space Telescope Science Institute — Baltimore, US (2006-09–2008-08)Grant R. Tremblay — University of Rochester — Rochester, US (2002-08–2006-05)Eero Vaher — Lund Observatory — Lund, SE (2019-09–present); 1 paper togetherEero Vaher — European Space Agency — Noordwijk, NL (2018–2019)Eero Vaher — Leiden University — Leiden, NL (2016-02–2018-01)Eero Vaher — University of Tartu — Tartu, EE (2011-09–2015-06)Monica Valluri — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2021-09–2025-05); 1 assistMonica Valluri — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2017-09–present); 1 assistMonica Valluri — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2011-09–2017-08)Monica Valluri — University of Michigan — Ann Arbor, US (2007-08–2011-09)Monica Valluri — University of Chicago — Chicago, US (2002-04–2007-07)Monica Valluri — University of Chicago — Chicago, US (2001–2007)Monica Valluri — University of Chicago — Chicago, US (1999–2001)Monica Valluri — Rutgers University — New Brunswick, US (1996–1999)Monica Valluri — Columbia University — New York, US (1994–1996)Monica Valluri — Indian Institute of Science — Bangalore, IN (1987-08–1993-12)Monica Valluri — Birla Institute of Technology and Science — Pilani, IN (1983-08–1987-06)Marten H. van Kerkwijk — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2003-01–present); 1 paper togetherM. Walmsley — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2023-09–2025-10)M. Walmsley — University of Manchester — Manchester, GB (2021-02–2023-08)Jeremy Webb — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2019-08–present); 3 papers togetherHarrison Winch — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2024-07–2025-06)Harrison Winch — University of Toronto — Toronto, CA (2018-09–2024-07); 1 paper together, 1 assistSirui Wu — University of Copenhagen — Copenhagen, DK (2024–present); 4 papers togetherSirui Wu — Sun Yat-sen University — Guangzhou, CN (2021-09–2024-06)Sirui Wu — Lanzhou University — Lanzhou, CN (2017-09–2021-06)
May be incomplete / wrong
  1. Abdulgadir, Amir

  2. Bachetti, Matteo

  3. Boquien, Médéric

  4. Bovy, Jo

  5. Brasseur, C. E.

  6. Calvetti, Daniela

  7. Chen, Yingtian

  8. Corrales, Lia

  9. Cruz, Kelle L.

  10. Davies, Elliot Y.

  11. Donath, Axel

  12. Folsom, Dylan

  13. Ginsburg, Adam

  14. Gnedin, Oleg Y.

  15. Greene, Jenny E.

  16. Hamraz, Reem

  17. Jarvis, Matt J.

  18. Johnston, Kathryn V.

  19. Karasova, Taisiia

  20. Kerzendorf, Wolfgang E.

  21. Kosowsky, Arthur

  22. Lelli, F.

  23. Li, P.

  24. Lim, Pey Lian

  25. Liu, Zihan

  26. Marleau, F. R.

  27. McGaugh, S. S.

  28. McKeigan, Connor

  29. Mercader-Perez, Pablo

  30. Morris, Brett M.

  31. Myers, Charlotte

  32. Necib, Lina

  33. Nibauer, Jacob

  34. Patil, Aarya A.

  35. Pearson, Sarah

  36. Pickering, Timothy E.

  37. Price-Whelan, Adrian M.

  38. Schombert, J. M.

  39. Setford, Jack

  40. Shih, Albert Y.

  41. Shupe, David L.

  42. Sipőcz, Brigitta M.

  43. Somersalo, Erkki

  44. Spergel, David N.

  45. Starkman, Glenn

  46. Starkman, Nathaniel

  47. Swinbank, John D.

  48. Tavangar, Kiyan

  49. Tessore, Nicolas

  50. Thoyas, Andreas

  51. Tocknell, James

  52. Tremblay, Grant R.

  53. Vaher, Eero

  54. Valluri, Monica

  55. van Kerkwijk, Marten H.

  56. Walmsley, M.

  57. Webb, Jeremy

  58. Winch, Harrison

  59. Wu, Sirui

Research Highlights

Extragalactic

A galaxy’s rotation curve tells us how much mass it holds. Maximum Discs turned decades of by-eye mass modelling into an algorithm that measures how much of that mass the stars can supply, and SPARC Halo Density found that dark matter haloes have similar characteristic densities in galaxies spanning five orders of magnitude in brightness. A halo’s shape is harder to measure and says more about what dark matter is: in simulations, cold dark matter forms flattened, triaxial haloes, while self-interacting dark matter makes them rounder. Stellar streams can measure that shape, because their paths trace the gravitational field.

Potamides measured halo shapes from the projected tracks of 15 streams around nearby galaxies, and Potamides Software runs that inference in minutes on a laptop. Euclid Extragalactic Streams took the method to more distant galaxies, combining streams around 13 galaxies in Euclid’s first data release into one halo-shape measurement — the first analysis of streams at those distances, and the first to combine several streams. Larger samples allow a simpler test. In a spherical halo, a stream cannot curve away from its host galaxy’s centre in projection; in a flattened or triaxial halo, it can. When Streams Curve Away shows that how often streams curve this way, counted across the roughly 10,000 that Euclid, Rubin and Roman should find, can distinguish cold from self-interacting dark matter at up to 5σ.

Potamides: Mapping Dark Matter Halo Shapes from Stellar Stream Tracks in the Local UniversePotamides: Halo Shapes from Stream CurvaturePotamides
The galaxy ESO 186-063 seen edge-on, with its faint stellar stream fitted as a curved track. Arrows show the stream’s curvature, and the track is shaded by how often each point rejects a trial halo potential, over that potential’s equipotential contours.

The Astrophysical Journal 1010, 120ApJ 1010, 120·2026·S. Wu‡, N. Starkman, et al.S. Wu‡, N. Starkman, S. Pearson, et al.S. Wu‡, N. Starkman, S. Pearson, J. Nibauer, J. Miro-Carretero, D. Martinez-Delgado·The Astrophysical Journal 1010, 120ApJ 1010, 120·2026

The Astrophysical Journal 1010, 120ApJ 1010, 120·2026

Potamides constrains the projected flattening and orientation of dark matter halos from the curvature of 15 streams in the Stellar Stream Legacy Survey.

Potamides constrains the projected flattening and orientation of dark matter halos from the curvature of 15 streams in the Stellar Stream Legacy Survey. Streams with edge-on loops or sharp turns constrain a halo most, and great-circle-like ones barely at all. Three of the streams hint that the stellar disk shapes the inner gravitational field. Led by Sirui Wu.

Potamides: JAX tools for curvature-based inference from stellar streamsPotamides: The SoftwarePotamides Software
Relative likelihood of a halo’s y-axis flattening, q₂, from a Potamides tutorial: a flat plateau from about 0.7 to 1.55 that contains the true value, q₂ = 1, falling to zero on either side.

Journal of Open Source Software 11, 10712JOSS 11, 10712·2026·S. Wu‡, N. Starkman, et al.S. Wu‡, N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, et al.S. Wu‡, N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, S. Pearson·Journal of Open Source Software 11, 10712JOSS 11, 10712·2026

Journal of Open Source Software 11, 10712JOSS 11, 10712·2026

Potamides is a JAX package that infers a galaxy’s mass distribution from the shapes of its stellar streams.

Potamides is a JAX package that infers a galaxy’s mass distribution from the shapes of its stellar streams. Rather than simulating a stream for every trial potential, it fits the observed track with splines and compares its curvature directly to the potential’s accelerations. It covers the pipeline from annotating streams to evaluating likelihoods. Led by Sirui Wu.

When Streams Curve Away: a Test of Dark Matter from Extragalactic Stellar Stream PopulationsWhen Streams Curve Awaysubmitted
Likelihood ratio between CDM and SIDM plotted against the observed fraction of streams with a convex segment, for catalogs of 100, 1,000 and 10,000 streams. The curves steepen with catalog size; at 10,000 streams, either predicted rate is strongly favored.

The Astrophysical JournalApJ·2026submitted·N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, et al.N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, S. Pearson, et al.N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, S. Pearson, S. Wu‡, L. Necib·The Astrophysical JournalApJ·2026submitted

The Astrophysical JournalApJ·2026submitted

How often stellar streams curve away from their host galaxy’s center can tell cold from self-interacting dark matter at up to 5σ, with catalogs the size Euclid, Rubin and Roman will provide.

How often stellar streams curve away from their host galaxy’s center can tell cold from self-interacting dark matter at up to 5σ, with catalogs the size Euclid, Rubin and Roman will provide. In a spherical halo a stream cannot curve this way in projection; in a triaxial halo, which cold dark matter predicts, it can. The test needs only the stream’s projected track and the host’s center: no distances, velocities or model of the stream’s progenitor.

Euclid Quick Data Release (Q1): The geometry of dark matter halos from extragalactic streamsHalo Geometry from Euclid StreamsEuclid Extragalactic Streamssubmitted
Stellar stream tracks from 13 Euclid galaxies, drawn as magenta curves and stacked over one host galaxy, as if every stream orbits a common center.

Astronomy & AstrophysicsA&A·2026submitted·Euclid Collaboration, N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, et al.Euclid Collaboration, N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, S. Pearson, et al.Euclid Collaboration, N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, S. Pearson, S. Wu‡, M. Walmsley, L. Necib, J. Bovy, F. R. Marleau, et al.·Astronomy & AstrophysicsA&A·2026submitted

Astronomy & AstrophysicsA&A·2026submitted

Stellar streams around 13 galaxies in Euclid’s first quick data release give a joint measurement of their dark matter halos’ shape: consistent with spherical, with a mild preference for flattening, q = 0.95 (+0.05, −0.10), in line with ΛCDM.

Stellar streams around 13 galaxies in Euclid’s first quick data release give a joint measurement of their dark matter halos’ shape: consistent with spherical, with a mild preference for flattening, q = 0.95 (+0.05, −0.10), in line with ΛCDM. A stream’s shape on the sky constrains the shape and center of its host’s halo, complementing weak lensing. These galaxies are seen up to about 4 billion years in the past, and Euclid is expected to find thousands more streams.

A constant characteristic volume density of dark matter haloes from SPARC rotation curve fitsA Constant Dark-Matter Halo DensitySPARC Halo Density
Characteristic dark-matter density of each SPARC galaxy’s Einasto halo against its 3.6-micron luminosity, coloured by Hubble type from S0 to blue compact dwarf. The points scatter around a flat line across five decades in luminosity.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMNRAS·2018·P. Li, …, N. Starkman, et al.P. Li, …, N. Starkman, et al.P. Li, F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, N. Starkman, J. M. Schombert·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMNRAS·2018

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMNRAS·2018

Fits to the rotation curves of 175 SPARC galaxies show that bigger galaxies have bigger dark-matter haloes, but the haloes’ typical density stays about the same.

Fits to the rotation curves of 175 SPARC galaxies show that bigger galaxies have bigger dark-matter haloes, but the haloes’ typical density stays about the same. That holds across galaxies that differ a hundred-thousand-fold in brightness, and it constrains how haloes grow along with the galaxies inside them.

nth | 2018
2018Context ›
A new algorithm to quantify maximum discs in galaxiesQuantifying Maximum DiscsMaximum Discs
Rotation curve of the low-surface-brightness galaxy UGC 128: the observed speeds as points with error bars, the gas contribution, and the stellar disc and total baryonic contributions at both the stellar-population mass-to-light ratio and the maximum-disc value. Making its disc maximal needs a far heavier disc than its stars imply.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 2292–2301MNRAS 480, 2292–2301·2018·N. Starkman, F. Lelli, et al.N. Starkman, F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, et al.N. Starkman, F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh, J. Schombert·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 2292–2301MNRAS 480, 2292–2301·2018

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 2292–2301MNRAS 480, 2292–2301·2018

A new algorithm measures how close 153 SPARC galaxies come to a “maximum disc”, in which the stars supply as much of the rotation as they can.

A new algorithm measures how close 153 SPARC galaxies come to a “maximum disc”, in which the stars supply as much of the rotation as they can. The term had been used for decades without a precise definition. Bright galaxies come close to a maximum disc; faint ones cannot, because their stars would have to be unrealistically heavy for their light.

1st | 2018
2018Context ›

Galactic

Stars that arrive in the Milky Way in the same merger are gradually mixed into the rest of the Galaxy, and the record of how it was assembled fades. Galactic Amnesia measures how quickly: radial velocities lose a merger’s mass and timing within about 5 billion years, but orbital energies keep it for more than 10 billion, provided we know the Galaxy’s gravitational potential. Stellar streams have not yet mixed. Their stars were stripped from one cluster and still lie along nearly a single orbit, so one snapshot shows a path that a single star would take hundreds of millions of years to travel. Extended Pal 5 nearly doubled the known length of Palomar 5’s leading tail. Stream Members Only infers a stream’s track, width and density together with which stars belong to it; other groups now use its GD-1 member catalogue to measure the Galaxy’s acceleration field and dark matter substructure. On the Fast Track measures a stream’s path in about a second, without assuming a model of the Milky Way.

Streams measure dark matter on two scales: the Galaxy’s overall potential, which sets their orbits, and small dark matter clumps (subhaloes), which disturb them. StreamSculptor finds that GD-1 may have been hit by up to a hundred subhaloes too small to form stars, leaving its stars moving about three times more randomly than in an undisturbed stream, as cold dark matter predicts. Galactic PINNs learns the potential directly from measured accelerations; on simulated Milky Ways it recovers the effects of the Galactic bar and the Large Magellanic Cloud even when the starting model includes neither.

Reconstructing Galactic Gravitational Potentials from Stellar Kinematics with Physics-Informed Neural NetworksPINNs for Galactic PotentialsGalactic PINNssubmitted
Orbits of a test particle in a Milky Way–LMC system, integrated in the true potential, a near-true analytic model, and three neural-network models. The most complete neural-network models track the true orbit almost exactly, while the near-true analytic model drifts away from it.

The Astrophysical JournalApJ·2026submitted·C. Myers†, N. Starkman, et al.C. Myers†, N. Starkman, L. NecibC. Myers†, N. Starkman, L. Necib·The Astrophysical JournalApJ·2026submitted

The Astrophysical JournalApJ·2026submitted

A physics-informed neural network learns only the corrections to an analytic galactic potential, reaching sub-percent acceleration errors while staying interpretable.

A physics-informed neural network learns only the corrections to an analytic galactic potential, reaching sub-percent acceleration errors while staying interpretable. Its orbits are more faithful than the analytic model’s alone, and Bayesian and time-dependent versions add uncertainties and follow a potential as it changes. Led by undergraduate Charlotte Myers; code in galactoPINNs, first shown at NeurIPS 2025.

Galactic Amnesia: The Information Washout of the Milky Way Merger HistoryGalactic Amnesiasubmitted
Heat map of how much a merger’s present-day orbital energy reveals about its infall time, by infall time and galactocentric radius. Memory is highest for recent mergers in the outer galaxy and fades for older mergers and toward the center, following dashed lines of constant orbit count.

arXiv:2605.04138·2026submitted·L. Necib, …, N. Starkman, et al.L. Necib, …, N. Starkman, et al.L. Necib, D. Folsom, E. Y. Davies, N. Starkman, A. Thoyas·arXiv:2605.04138·2026submitted

arXiv:2605.04138·2026submitted

In 98 simulated Milky Ways, a merger’s imprint on stellar orbital energy lasts more than 10 Gyr, while its imprint on radial velocity fades within about 5 Gyr.

In 98 simulated Milky Ways, a merger’s imprint on stellar orbital energy lasts more than 10 Gyr, while its imprint on radial velocity fades within about 5 Gyr. Orbits mix the stars a merger brings in, so the record of how a galaxy was assembled fades with time. Reading it from energies requires knowing the Milky Way’s gravitational potential.

nth | 2026
2026Context ›
StreamSculptor: Hamiltonian Perturbation Theory for Stellar Streams in Flexible Potentials with Differentiable SimulationsStreamSculptor
Sketch of the method: a black base orbit with a fan of blue orbits beside it, each bent a little further as the perturbation strength grows from 0.01 to 0.04. Red arrows along the base orbit show the derivatives that predict that bending.

The Astrophysical Journal 983, 68ApJ 983, 68·2025·J. Nibauer, …, N. Starkman, et al.J. Nibauer, …, N. Starkman, et al.J. Nibauer, A. Bonaca, D. N. Spergel, A. M. Price-Whelan, J. E. Greene, N. Starkman, K. V. Johnston·The Astrophysical Journal 983, 68ApJ 983, 68·2025

The Astrophysical Journal 983, 68ApJ 983, 68·2025

StreamSculptor uses Hamiltonian perturbation theory to model stellar streams in time-dependent potentials, fast enough to include the LMC, the Galactic bar and the dozens of subhalo impacts expected for streams like GD-1 and Pal 5.

StreamSculptor uses Hamiltonian perturbation theory to model stellar streams in time-dependent potentials, fast enough to include the LMC, the Galactic bar and the dozens of subhalo impacts expected for streams like GD-1 and Pal 5. Because a stream’s velocity dispersion depends on the impacts it has suffered, the model connects whole stream populations directly to dark matter properties. Led by Jacob Nibauer.

nth | 2025
2025Context ›
Stream Members Only: Data-Driven Characterization of Stellar Streams with Mixture Density NetworksStream Members Only
Probabilistic graphical model of the stream: each star’s observed astrometry and photometry come from a mixture of Gaussians whose weights, means and covariances are set by neural networks of its position along the stream, with each star’s measurement errors feeding in.

The Astrophysical Journal 980, 253ApJ 980, 253·2025·N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, et al.N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, J. Bovy, et al.N. Starkman, J. Nibauer, J. Bovy, J. Webb, K. Tavangar, A. Price-Whelan, A. Bonaca·The Astrophysical Journal 980, 253ApJ 980, 253·2025

The Astrophysical Journal 980, 253ApJ 980, 253·2025

Mixture density networks model a stellar stream’s track, width, density and kinematics together with each star’s probability of belonging to it.

Mixture density networks model a stellar stream’s track, width, density and kinematics together with each star’s probability of belonging to it. The method uses all the available astrometry and photometry, models the background with normalizing flows, and works even where phase-space data are incomplete. Applied to GD-1 and Palomar 5, it produced public catalogs of stellar membership probabilities.

1st | 2025
2025Context ›
On the fast track: Rapid construction of stellar stream pathsOn the Fast Track
A simulated stellar stream from a 47 Tucanae-like progenitor, looping around the Galactic centre in Galactocentric x–y coordinates. Blue and orange lines trace the fitted path of each tidal arm, wrapped in grey uncertainty ellipses that grow largest at the arms’ sparse far ends.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522, 5022–5036MNRAS 522, 5022–5036·2023·N. Starkman, J. Bovy, et al.N. Starkman, J. Bovy, J. Webb, et al.N. Starkman, J. Bovy, J. Webb, D. Calvetti, E. Somersalo·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522, 5022–5036MNRAS 522, 5022–5036·2023

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 522, 5022–5036MNRAS 522, 5022–5036·2023

This method traces a stellar stream’s path and its uncertainty without assuming any model of the Galaxy.

This method traces a stellar stream’s path and its uncertainty without assuming any model of the Galaxy. It first puts the stars in order along the stream, then fits the path through them. It works on simulated streams and on real ones like Palomar 5 and GD-1, and is available as the Python package TrackStream.

1st | 2023
2023Context ›
An extended Pal 5 stream in Gaia DR2An Extended Pal 5 Stream in Gaia DR2Extended Pal 5
Smoothed density map of Gaia DR2 stars around the Palomar 5 globular cluster, in coordinates aligned with its tidal tails. A dark band marks the stream detected in earlier CFHT data, mostly the trailing arm; black dots trace the tails found here, matching that band and continuing about 7 degrees further along the leading arm.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMNRAS·2020·N. Starkman, J. Bovy, et al.N. Starkman, J. Bovy, J. WebbN. Starkman, J. Bovy, J. Webb·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMNRAS·2020

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyMNRAS·2020

Gaia data show that Palomar 5’s leading tail runs about 7° further than was known, making the stream about 30° long.

Gaia data show that Palomar 5’s leading tail runs about 7° further than was known, making the stream about 30° long. Palomar 5 is a star cluster being pulled apart by the Milky Way, and its two tails trace the Galaxy’s gravity. The tails come out roughly equal in length, which limits how much the Galactic bar can have shortened one of them.

1st | 2020
2020Context ›

Cosmic Microwave Background

The cosmic microwave background is almost a perfect blackbody. Its small departures from that spectrum, called spectral distortions, carry information the temperature map does not. In CMB Spectrum Distortions we calculate a distortion that standard cosmology must produce. As the Universe became transparent, photons diffused between hotter and colder regions, mixing blackbodies of slightly different temperatures. The mixing makes a faint Compton y-distortion that is strongest where the mixed temperatures differ most, so it correlates with the square of the temperature map. ACT and SPT should already be able to detect that correlation, at a signal-to-noise of about 12, which would be a new test of early-Universe physics.

Angular Correlations of Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum Distortions from Photon DiffusionCMB Spectrum Distortions from Photon DiffusionCMB Spectrum Distortions
Angular power spectra of the squared temperature fluctuations (blue), their cross-correlation with the diffusion y-distortion (purple, scaled by 50), and the y-distortion’s own autocorrelation (red, scaled by 1000). The blue and purple curves carry acoustic oscillations.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 529, 2274–2288MNRAS 529, 2274–2288·2024·N. Starkman, G. Starkman, et al.N. Starkman, G. Starkman, A. KosowskyN. Starkman, G. Starkman, A. Kosowsky·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 529, 2274–2288MNRAS 529, 2274–2288·2024

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 529, 2274–2288MNRAS 529, 2274–2288·2024

Standard cosmology predicts a small Compton y-distortion in the CMB spectrum that correlates with the squared temperature fluctuations.

Standard cosmology predicts a small Compton y-distortion in the CMB spectrum that correlates with the squared temperature fluctuations. It forms as the universe becomes transparent: the photons reaching us from any one direction last scattered off regions at slightly different temperatures, and their blackbodies blend. ACT and SPT should already detect the correlation, at a forecast signal-to-noise of about 12, and CMB-S4 could make it a new cosmological probe.

1st | 2024
2024Context ›

Dark Matter Direct Detection

Direct-detection experiments put a shielded detector underground and wait for a dark matter particle to scatter off it. If dark matter instead comes as macroscopic objects, far heavier and therefore far rarer than particle candidates, no laboratory detector is large enough to expect a single hit. In Macro Lightning we use the atmosphere as the detector. A macro passing through a thunderstorm would leave a long, straight channel of ionized air that could seed a lightning bolt as straight as a ruler. Ordinary lightning is jagged: the chance of it running even ten steps that straight is about 3 in 10 trillion. A search for straight lightning, on Earth or on Jupiter, would make thunderstorms into planet-sized dark matter detectors.

Straight Lightning as a Signature of Macroscopic Dark MatterStraight Lightning from Macroscopic Dark MatterMacro Lightning
Macro dark matter parameter space, cross-section against mass, both on log axes. Colored regions are existing constraints; black and grey hatching marks what a search for straight lightning on Earth could probe, and cyan hatching what Jupiter could, reaching to heavier macros than the Earth search.

Physical Review D 103, 063024PRD 103, 063024·2020·N. Starkman, H. Winch, et al.N. Starkman, H. Winch, J. S. Sidhu, et al.N. Starkman, H. Winch, J. S. Sidhu, G. Starkman·Physical Review D 103, 063024PRD 103, 063024·2020

Physical Review D 103, 063024PRD 103, 063024·2020

If dark matter comes as large objects — macros — rather than tiny particles, a macro crossing a thunderstorm could trigger a perfectly straight lightning bolt.

If dark matter comes as large objects — macros — rather than tiny particles, a macro crossing a thunderstorm could trigger a perfectly straight lightning bolt. Ordinary lightning is jagged, so searching for straight bolts, on Earth or on Jupiter, can constrain macro dark matter.

1st | 2020
2020Context ›

Conferences

Every talk, poster and workshop, and where it happened:

one talkfour — a pin's area is its countEqual Earth projection
  1. A Coruña, Spain 1 talk

  2. Atlanta, GA, USA 2 talks

  3. Boston, MA, USA 1 talk

  4. Cambridge, MA, USA 4 talks

  5. Cleveland, OH, USA 8 talks

  6. College Station, TX, USA 1 talk

  7. Copenhagen, Denmark 3 talks

  8. Córdoba, Spain 1 talk

  9. Durham, UK 1 talk

  10. Hamilton, ON, Canada 1 talk

  11. Ithaca, NY, USA 1 talk

  12. Jesi, Italy 2 talks

  13. Lausanne, Switzerland 2 talks

  14. New York, NY, USA 2 talks

  15. Online 10 talks

  16. Paris, France 2 talks

  17. Pasadena, CA, USA 1 talk

  18. Pittsburgh, PA, USA 1 talk

  19. Portoferraio, Italy 1 talk

  20. Portsmouth, UK 1 talk

  21. Potsdam, Germany 1 talk

  22. Princeton, NJ, USA 1 talk

  23. Reykjavik, Iceland 1 talk

  24. Rochester, NY, USA 1 talk

  25. Santa Cruz, CA, USA 1 talk

  26. Seattle, WA, USA 1 talk

  27. Toronto, ON, Canada 8 talks

  28. Valencia, Spain 1 talk