MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2966382691 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa441

Gravitational potential from small-scale clustering in action space: application to Gaia Data Release 2

2020· article· en· W2966382691 on OpenAlexafffund
Tianyi Yang, Supranta S. Boruah, Niayesh Afshordi

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooGovernment of CanadaInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueIndustry CanadaEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsPhysicsScale (ratio)Space (punctuation)Cluster analysisGravitationAction (physics)AstrophysicsAstronomyGravitational potentialStatisticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Most measurements of mass in astronomy that use kinematics of stars or gas rely on assumptions of equilibrium that are often hard to verify. Instead, we develop a novel idea that uses the clustering in action space, as a probe of the underlying gravitational potential: the correct potential should maximize small-scale clustering in the action space. We provide a first-principle derivation of likelihood using the two-point correlation function in action space, and we test it against simulations of stellar streams. We then apply this method to the second data release of Gaia, and we use it to measure the radial force fraction fh and logarithmic slope α of the dark matter halo profile. We investigate stars within 9–11 kpc and 11.5–15 kpc from the Galactic Centre, and we find (fh, α) = (0.391 ± 0.009, 1.835 ± 0.092) and (0.351 ± 0.012, 1.687 ± 0.079), respectively. We also confirm that the set of parameters that maximize the likelihood function does correspond to the most clustering in the action space. The best-fitting circular velocity curve for the Milky Way potential is consistent with past measurements (although it is ∼5–10 per cent lower than previous methods that use masers or globular clusters). Our work provides a clear demonstration of the full statistical power that lies in the full phase space information, relieving the need for ad hoc assumptions such as virial equilibrium, circular motion or steam-finding algorithms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→