BAYESIAN MASS ESTIMATES OF THE MILKY WAY: THE DARK AND LIGHT SIDES OF PARAMETER ASSUMPTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present mass and mass profile estimates for the Milky Way (MW) Galaxy using the Bayesian analysis developed by Eadie et al. and using globular clusters (GCs) as tracers of the Galactic potential. The dark matter and GCs are assumed to follow different spatial distributions; we assume power-law model profiles and use the model distribution functions described in Evans et al. and Deason et al. We explore the relationships between assumptions about model parameters and how these assumptions affect mass profile estimates. We also explore how using subsamples of the GC population beyond certain radii affect mass estimates. After exploring the posterior distributions of different parameter assumption scenarios, we conclude that a conservative estimate of the Galaxy’s mass within 125 kpc is , with a 50% probability region of . Extrapolating out to the virial radius, we obtain a virial mass for the MW of with 50% credible region of ( . If we consider only the GCs beyond 10 kpc, then the virial mass is ( kpc). We also arrive at an estimate of the velocity anisotropy parameter β of the GC population, which is with a 50% credible region (0.21, 0.35). Interestingly, the mass estimates are sensitive to both the dark matter halo potential and visible matter tracer parameters, but are not very sensitive to the anisotropy parameter.
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 | 0.006 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".