MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988879082 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1017

The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2

2020· article· en· W2988879082 on OpenAlexaff
Marius Cautun, Alejandro Benítez-Llambay, Alis J. Deason, Carlos S. Frenk, Azadeh Fattahi, Facundo A. Gómez, Robert J. J. Grand, Kyle A. Oman, Julio F. Navarro, Christine M. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilRoyal Society
KeywordsPhysicsMilky WayAstronomyAstrophysicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We determine the Milky Way (MW) mass profile inferred from fitting physically motivated models to the Gaia DR2 Galactic rotation curve and other data. Using various hydrodynamical simulations of MW-mass haloes, we show that the presence of baryons induces a contraction of the dark matter (DM) distribution in the inner regions, r ≲ 20 kpc. We provide an analytic expression that relates the baryonic distribution to the change in the DM halo profile. For our galaxy, the contraction increases the enclosed DM halo mass by factors of roughly 1.3, 2, and 4 at radial distances of 20, 8, and 1 kpc, respectively compared to an uncontracted halo. Ignoring this contraction results in systematic biases in the inferred halo mass and concentration. We provide a best-fitting contracted NFW halo model to the MW rotation curve that matches the data very well.1 The best-fit has a DM halo mass, $M_{200}^{\rm DM}=0.97_{-0.19}^{+0.24}\times 10^{12}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, and concentration before baryon contraction of $9.4_{-2.6}^{+1.9}$, which lie close to the median halo mass–concentration relation predicted in ΛCDM. The inferred total mass, $M_{200}^{\rm total}=1.08_{-0.14}^{+0.20} \times 10^{12}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$, is in good agreement with recent measurements. The model gives an MW stellar mass of $5.04_{-0.52}^{+0.43}\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and infers that the DM density at the Solar position is $\rho _{\odot }^{\rm DM}=8.8_{-0.5}^{+0.5}\times 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot \,\mathrm{pc}^{-3}\equiv 0.33_{-0.02}^{+0.02}\,\rm {GeV}\,\rm {cm}^{-3}$. The rotation curve data can also be fitted with an uncontracted NFW halo model, but with very different DM and stellar parameters. The observations prefer the physically motivated contracted NFW halo, but the measurement uncertainties are too large to rule out the uncontracted NFW halo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations330
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207