Bayesian Mass Estimates of the Milky Way: Including Measurement Uncertainties with Hierarchical Bayes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a hierarchical Bayesian method for estimating the total mass and mass profile of the Milky Way Galaxy. The new hierarchical Bayesian approach further improves the framework presented by Eadie et al. and Eadie and Harris and builds upon the preliminary reports by Eadie et al. The method uses a distribution function to model the Galaxy and kinematic data from satellite objects, such as globular clusters (GCs), to trace the Galaxy’s gravitational potential. A major advantage of the method is that it not only includes complete and incomplete data simultaneously in the analysis, but also incorporates measurement uncertainties in a coherent and meaningful way. We first test the hierarchical Bayesian framework, which includes measurement uncertainties, using the same data and power-law model assumed in Eadie and Harris and find the results are similar but more strongly constrained. Next, we take advantage of the new statistical framework and incorporate all possible GC data, finding a cumulative mass profile with Bayesian credible regions. This profile implies a mass within 125 kpc of with a 95% Bayesian credible region of . Our results also provide estimates of the true specific energies of all the GCs. By comparing these estimated energies to the measured energies of GCs with complete velocity measurements, we observe that (the few) remote tracers with complete measurements may play a large role in determining a total mass estimate of the Galaxy. Thus, our study stresses the need for more remote tracers with complete velocity measurements.
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 | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".