The Mass of the Milky Way from the H3 Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mass of the Milky Way is a critical quantity that, despite decades of research, remains uncertain within a factor of two. Until recently, most studies have used dynamical tracers in the inner regions of the halo, relying on extrapolations to estimate the mass of the Milky Way. In this paper, we extend the hierarchical Bayesian model applied in Eadie & Juri to study the mass distribution of the Milky Way halo; the new model allows for the use of all available 6D phase-space measurements. We use kinematic data of halo stars out to 142 kpc, obtained from the H3 survey and Gaia EDR3, to infer the mass of the Galaxy. Inference is carried out with the No-U-Turn sampler, a fast and scalable extension of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. We report a median mass enclosed within 100 kpc of M ( < 100 kpc ) = 0.69 − 0.04 + 0.05 × 10 12 M ⊙ (68% Bayesian credible interval), or a virial mass of M 200 = M ( < 216.2 − 7.5 + 7.5 kpc ) = 1.08 − 0.11 + 0.12 × 10 12 M ⊙ , in good agreement with other recent estimates. We analyze our results using posterior predictive checks and find limitations in the model’s ability to describe the data. In particular, we find sensitivity with respect to substructure in the halo, which limits the precision of our mass estimates to ∼15%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".