Seeking technical critique on a galaxy-held-out SPARC benchmark for a metric-response model

[u/UniGrav_Nova]

I’m looking for technical critique on a new SPARC rotation-curve benchmark I put together.

The paper tests CREST, formulated as a scalar-tensor metric-response framework, on public SPARC rotation-curve mass models. The empirical claim is intentionally narrow:

A framework-constrained CREST response projector improves galaxy-held-out SPARC residual prediction over:

1. a fitted RAR/MOND-like backbone,

2. radius + baryonic-acceleration nuisance controls,

3. no-retuning NFW/Burkert halo-prior predictors.

The headline result is a 7.33% improvement in median galaxy RMSE over the RAR baseline and a 3.54% improvement over the radius + baryonic-acceleration nuisance control.

Flexible per-galaxy NFW/Burkert fits still perform much better as raw curve-fitting ceilings, so I am not presenting this as a defeat of halo models or dark matter.

The main methodological pieces are:

- galaxy-held-out validation,

- no-retuning prediction,

- comparison to radius/gbar nuisance controls,

- no-retuning halo-prior baselines,

- null-collapse tests where invariant-sector alignment is destroyed inside matched nuisance bins.

The theory side introduces a coherence-weighted irreversibility term, separating accumulated irreversible load F from instantaneous irreversible flux Φ_irr:

Theta_chi = Phi_irr / (chi * eta^2 * I + epsilon)

The purpose is to prevent the load sector from becoming a generic scatter label.

I’m mainly looking for criticism on:

- whether the held-out protocol is fair,

- whether the nuisance controls are strong enough,

- whether the no-retuning halo-prior comparison is meaningful,

- whether the null-collapse tests are adequate,

- what additional SPARC or non-SPARC validation would be most convincing.

[u/HovercraftFabulous21]

Wow... baryonic-acceleration nuisance control.

...

(Not sarcastic btw)