MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406816217 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad969a

Data-driven Dynamics with Orbital Torus Imaging: A Flexible Model of the Vertical Phase Space of the Galaxy

2025· article· en· W4406816217 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrian M. Price-Whelan, John Douglas Hunt, Danny Horta, M. Oeur, David W. Hogg, Kathryn V. Johnston, Lawrence M. Widrow

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOffice of ScienceAlfred P. Sloan FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsTorusOrbital mechanicsPhase spaceAstronomySpace (punctuation)AstrophysicsGalaxyDynamics (music)Stellar dynamicsSatelliteGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The vertical kinematics of stars near the Sun can be used to measure the total mass distribution near the Galactic disk and to study out-of-equilibrium dynamics. With contemporary stellar surveys, the tracers of vertical dynamics are so numerous and so well measured that the shapes of underlying orbits are almost directly visible in the data through element abundances or even stellar density. These orbits can be used to infer a mass model for the Milky Way, enabling constraints on the dark matter distribution in the inner galaxy. Here, we present a flexible model for foliating the vertical position–velocity phase space with orbits for use in data-driven studies of dynamics. The vertical acceleration profile in the vicinity of the disk, along with the orbital actions, angles, and frequencies for individual stars, can all be derived from that orbit foliation. We show that this framework—“orbital torus imaging” (OTI)—is rigorously justified in the context of dynamical theory, and does a good job of fitting orbits to simulated stellar abundance data with varying degrees of realism. OTI (1) does not require a global model for the Milky Way mass distribution, and (2) does not require detailed modeling of the selection function of the input survey data. We discuss the approximations and limitations of the OTI framework, which currently trades dynamical interpretability for flexibility in representing the data in some regimes, and which also presently separates the vertical and radial dynamics. We release an open-source tool, torusimaging , to accompany this article.

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)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→