Addendum: [ITAL]Hubble Space Telescope[/ITAL] Evidence for an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole in the Globular Cluster M15. II. Kinematic Analysis and Dynamical Modeling [[URL ADDRESS="/cgi-bin/resolve?2002AJ....124.3270G" STATUS="OKAY"]Astron. J. [BF]124[/BF], 3270 (2002)[/URL]]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been reported that there is an error in the figure in Dull et al. (1997, D97) that shows the radial M/L profile in Fokker-Planck models of M15. We discuss how this modifies the interpretation of our kinematical data. These imply the existence of a dark and compact mass component near the center of M15, either a single black hole (BH) or a collection of dark remnants that have sunk to the cluster center due to mass segregation. We previously showed that the latter interpretation is in conflict with the D97 M/L profile, which supported the BH interpretation. We repeat our analysis here with the corrected D97 profile. Models without a BH are now found to be statistically acceptable (within 1-sigma), although inclusion of a BH still provides a marginally better fit. It does not necessarily follow that dark remnants are now the preferred interpretation of the data. The D97 models, as well as N-body models by Baumgardt et al. (2002), assume that all neutron stars are retained during cluster evolution. This conflicts with predictions of the neutron-star retention rate (typically below 10 per cent) based on pulsar kick velocities. The presence of a single BH therefore continues to be a viable interpretation of the data. The best fit BH mass with the corrected D97 M/L profile is M_BH = 1.7^{+2.7}_{-1.7} x 10^3 solar masses, and with a constant M/L it is M_BH = 3.2^{+2.2}_{-2.2} x 10^3 solar masses. A model that includes both neutron star escape and mass segregation would probably yield a value between these numbers. This agrees with the correlation between velocity dispersion and BH mass inferred for galaxies. However, with the presently available models and data it is neither uniquely implied nor ruled out that M15 has an intermediate-mass BH.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".