THE VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION OF NEARBY STARS FROM<i>HIPPARCOS</i>DATA. I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MOVING GROUPS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a three-dimensional reconstruction of the velocity distribution of nearby stars (≲100 pc) using a maximum likelihood density estimation technique applied to the two-dimensional tangential velocities of stars. The underlying distribution is modeled as a mixture of Gaussian components. The algorithm reconstructs the error-deconvolved distribution function, even when the individual stars have unique error and missing-data properties. We apply this technique to the tangential velocity measurements from a kinematically unbiased sample of 11,865 main-sequence stars observed by the Hipparcos satellite. We explore various methods for validating the complexity of the resulting velocity distribution function, including criteria based on Bayesian model selection and how accurately our reconstruction predicts the radial velocities of a sample of stars from the Geneva–Copenhagen Survey (GCS). Using this very conservative external validation test based on the GCS, we find that there is little evidence for structure in the distribution function beyond the moving groups established prior to the Hipparcos mission. This is in sharp contrast with internal tests performed here and in previous analyses, which point consistently to maximal structure in the velocity distribution. We quantify the information content of the radial velocity measurements and find that the mean amount of new information gained from a radial velocity measurement of a single star is significant. This argues for complementary radial velocity surveys to upcoming astrometric surveys.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".