Cited by 107Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Detection of the Keplerian decline in the Milky Way rotation curve

Open access
Jiao, Yongjun, Hammer, François, Wang, Haifeng, Wang, Jianling, Amram, Philippe, Chemin, Laurent, Yang, Yanbin·2023·Astronomy & Astrophysics

Abstract

Our position inside the Galactic disc has previously prevented us from establishing an accurate rotation curve (RC). The advent of Gaia and its third data release ( Gaia DR3) made it possible to specify the RC up to twice the optical radius. We aim to establish a new RC of the Galaxy from the Gaia DR3 by drastically reducing systematic uncertainties. Our goal is to provide a new estimate of the mass of the Galaxy. We compared different estimates, established a robust assessment of the systematic uncertainties, and addressed differences in methodologies, particularly regarding distance estimates. We find a sharply decreasing RC for the Milky Way; the decrease in velocity between 19.5 and 26.5 kpc is approximately 30 km s −1 . We identify, for the first time, a Keplerian decline of the RC, starting at ∼19 kpc and ending at ∼26.5 kpc from the Galaxy centre, while a flat RC is rejected with a significance of 3 σ . The total mass is revised downwards to 2.06 −0.13 +0.24 × 10 11 M ⊙ , which is in agreement with the absence of a significant mass increase at radii larger than 19 kpc. We evaluated the upper limit on the total mass by considering the upper values of velocity measurements, which leads to a strict, unsurpassable limit of 5.4 × 10 11 M ⊙ .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1051/0004-6361/202347513

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The exclusion of Zhou et al. (2023) by Jiao et al. rests on a comparison with distance scales that are somewhat shorter than the Zhou et al. scale for R > 10 kpc; since all are spectrophotometric distances, the offset is more naturally read as a difference among calibrations than as proof that one is biased.

    “Regarding the exclusion of Zhou et al. (2023), we note that the argument of Jiao et al. (their Fig. B1) rests on a comparison with the distance scales of Wang et al. (2016, as updated with Gaia EDR3 priors), Hogg et al. (2019) and StarHorse (Queiroz et al. 2023), all of which are somewhat shorter than the Zhou et al. scale for R > 10 kpc. Since all of these are spectrophotometric distances, the”

    From The rotation curve of the Milky Way: State of the art, the Keplerian decline debate, and implications for dark matter (2026) · cites this paper as Jiao et al. (2023)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Jiao et al. (2023) fit a power-law model vc ∝ R^γ to the data at R > 19 kpc, finding γ = -0.47 ± 0.15 for their RC and γ = -0.56 +0.23 -0.22 for the Ou et al. (2024) RC, both consistent with Keplerian (γ = -0.5) at 1σ; a flat RC (γ = 0) is excluded at the 3σ level.

    “They then fit a power-law model vc ∝ R γ to the data at R > 19 kpc, finding γ = -0 . 47 ± 0 . 15 for their RC and γ = -0 . 56 + 0 . 23 -0 . 22 for the Ou et al. (2024) RC, both consistent with Keplerian ( γ = -0 . 5) at 1 σ . A flat RC ( γ = 0) is excluded at the 3 σ level.”

    From The rotation curve of the Milky Way: State of the art, the Keplerian decline debate, and implications for dark matter (2026) · cites this paper as Jiao et al. (2023)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ou et al. (2024) used an axisymmetric Jeans analysis but neglected the vertical cross-term in equation (22), estimating its omission as one contribution to their systematic error budget; their quoted systematic uncertainties remain small out to about 20 kpc and grow rapidly beyond 22 kpc, where the asymmetric-drift contribution alone reaches the ∼15% level (Jiao et al., 2023).

    “Ou et al. (2024) used an axisymmetric Jeans analysis but neglected the vertical cross-term in equation (22), estimating its omission as one contribution to their systematic error budget. Their quoted systematic uncertainties remain small out to about 20 kpc and grow rapidly beyond 22 kpc, where the asymmetric-drift contribution alone reaches the ∼ 15% level (Jiao et al., 2023)”

    From The rotation curve of the Milky Way: State of the art, the Keplerian decline debate, and implications for dark matter (2026) · cites this paper as Jiao et al., 2023

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Both RCs decline with a very similar linear slope, β = -(2.18 ± 0.23) km s^-1 kpc^-1 for Jiao et al. (2023) and β = -(2.22 ± 0.20) km s^-1 kpc^-1 for Ou et al. (2024).

    “Both RCs decline with a very similar linear slope, β = -(2 . 18 ± 0 . 23) km s -1 kpc -1 for their own measurement and β = -(2 . 22 ± 0 . 20) km s -1 kpc -1 for that of Ou et al. (2024).”

    From The rotation curve of the Milky Way: State of the art, the Keplerian decline debate, and implications for dark matter (2026) · cites this paper as Jiao et al. (2023)

    Section 4.1 reports both slopes exactly as quoted and says the two rotation curves decline similarly. It attributes the second slope to Ou et al. (2023), however, not Ou et al. (2024). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Jiao et al. (2023) re-derived the RC of Wang et al. (2023) with a revised binning and a full systematic error budget, and compared it with a preliminary version of Ou et al. (2024) after reconciling their different distance scales.

    “Jiao et al. (2023) re-derived the RC of Wang et al. (2023) with a revised binning and a full systematic error budget, and compared it with a preliminary version of Ou et al. (2024) (circulated as Ou et al. 2023 on arXiv at the time of submission), after carefully reconciling their different distance scales;”

    From The rotation curve of the Milky Way: State of the art, the Keplerian decline debate, and implications for dark matter (2026) · cites this paper as Jiao et al. (2023)

    Section 2.1 describes recalculating Wang et al.’s rotation curve with adjusted binning, and §2.2.5 describes error bars incorporating systematic uncertainties. The paper compares its curve with Ou et al. (2023), listed in its references as an arXiv preprint. But Appendix B’s distance correction concerns Zhou et al. (2023), not a reconciliation of Wang’s and Ou’s distance scales; it also calls that correction very rough. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 95

  1. Babcock, H. W. 1939, Lick Obs. Bull., 498, 41 · DOI
  2. Bailin, J. 2003, ApJ, 583, L79 · DOI
  3. Belokurov, V., Erkal, D., Evans, N. W., Koposov, S. E., & Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611 · DOI
  4. Bergemann, M., Sesar, B., Cohen, J. G., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 334 · DOI
  5. Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2109 · DOI
  6. Bosma, A. 1978, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
  7. Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013, ApJ, 779, 115 · DOI
  8. Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., Sohn, S. T., Besla, G., & van der Marel, R. P. 2013, ApJ, 768, 140 · DOI
  9. Calchi Novati, S., & Mancini, L. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1292 · DOI
  10. Cautun, M., Benítez-Llambay, A., Deason, A. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291 · DOI
  11. Chemin, L., de Blok, W. J. G., & Mamon, G. A. 2011, AJ, 142, 109 · DOI
  12. Chrobáková, Ž., Nagy, R., & López-Corredoira, M. 2020a, A&A, 637, A96 · DOI
  13. Chrobáková, Ž., López-Corredoira, M., Sylos Labini, F., Wang, H. F., & Nagy, R. 2020b, A&A, 642, A95 · DOI
  14. Conn, B. C., Lane, R. R., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 939 · DOI
  15. Conn, B. C., Noël, N. E. D., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 101 · DOI
  16. Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 534 · DOI
  17. Correa Magnus, L., & Vasiliev, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2610 · DOI
  18. de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2648 · DOI
  19. de Jong, J. T. A., Yanny, B., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 663 · DOI
  20. de Salas, P. F., Malhan, K., Freese, K., Hattori, K., & Valluri, M. 2019, JCAP, 2019, 037 · DOI
  21. Dicaire, I., Carignan, C., Amram, P., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2038 · DOI
  22. Eadie, G., & Jurić, M. 2019, ApJ, 875, 159 · DOI
  23. Eilers, A.-C., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., & Ness, M. K. 2019, ApJ, 871, 120 · DOI
  24. Einasto, J. 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87 · DOI
  25. Erkal, D., Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2677 · DOI
  26. Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 · DOI
  27. Gaia Collaboration (Drimmel, R., et al.) 2023a, A&A, 674, A37 · DOI
  28. Gaia Collaboration (Vallenari, A., et al.) 2023b, A&A, 674, A1 · DOI
  29. Georgelin, Y. M., & Georgelin, Y. P. 1976, A&A, 49, 57 · DOI
  30. Gnedin, O. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 513, 626 · DOI
  31. Goodwin, S. P., Gribbin, J., & Hendry, M. A. 1998, The Observatory, 118, 201 · DOI
  32. Hammer, F., Flores, H., Elbaz, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 430, 115 · DOI
  33. Hammer, F., Puech, M., Chemin, L., Flores, H., & Lehnert, M. D. 2007, ApJ, 662, 322 · DOI
  34. Hammer, F., Flores, H., Puech, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1313 · DOI
  35. Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., Flores, H., Puech, M., & Fouquet, S. 2015, ApJ, 813, 110 · DOI
  36. Hammer, F., Li, H., Mamon, G. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5059 · DOI
  37. Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113 · DOI
  38. Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85 · DOI
  39. Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19 · DOI
  40. Hogg, D. W., Eilers, A.-C., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, AJ, 158, 147 · DOI
  41. Ibata, R. A., Irwin, M. J., Lewis, G. F., Ferguson, A. M. N., & Tanvir, N. 2003, MNRAS, 340, L21 A208, page 10 of 13 · DOI
  42. Jiao, Y., et al.: A&A 678, A208 (2023)
  43. Iocco, F., Pato, M., & Bertone, G. 2015, Nat. Phys., 11, 245 · DOI
  44. Jiao, Y., Hammer, F., Wang, J. L., & Yang, Y. B. 2021, A&A, 654, A25 · DOI
  45. Johnston, K. V., Price-Whelan, A. M., Bergemann, M., et al. 2017, Galaxies, 5, 44 · DOI
  46. Jurić, M., Ivezić, Ž., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864 · DOI
  47. Karukes, E. V., Benito, M., Iocco, F., Trotta, R., & Geringer-Sameth, A. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 033 · DOI
  48. Koposov, S. E., Rix, H.-W., & Hogg, D. W. 2010, ApJ, 712, 260 · DOI
  49. Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4936 · DOI
  50. Küpper, A. H. W., Balbinot, E., Bonaca, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 80 · DOI
  51. Laporte, C. F. P., Johnston, K. V., Gómez, F. A., Garavito-Camargo, N., & Besla, G. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 286 · DOI
  52. Li, Z.-Z., Qian, Y.-Z., Han, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 10 · DOI
  53. Li, H., Hammer, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 8 · DOI
  54. Li, X., Wang, H.-F., Luo, Y.-P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 88 · DOI
  55. Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021a, A&A, 649, A4 · DOI
  56. Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021b, A&A, 649, A2 · DOI
  57. Lucchini, S., D'Onghia, E., Fox, A. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 203 · DOI
  58. Lucchini, S., D'Onghia, E., & Fox, A. J. 2021, ApJ, 921, L36 · DOI
  59. Lucy, L. B. 1974, AJ, 79, 745 · DOI
  60. Lundmark, K. 1925, MNRAS, 85, 865 · DOI
  61. Mayall, N. U. 1951, Pub. Mich. Obs., 10, 19 · DOI
  62. Mróz, P., Udalski, A., Skowron, D. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, L10 · DOI
  63. Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 · DOI
  64. Newberg, H. J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 245 · DOI
  65. Noordermeer, E., van der Hulst, J. M., Sancisi, R., Swaters, R. S., & van Albada, T. S. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1513 · DOI
  66. Planck Collaboration VI. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 · DOI
  67. Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Lattanzi, M. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, L21 · DOI
  68. Posti, L., & Helmi, A. 2019, A&A, 621, A56 · DOI
  69. Pouliasis, E., Di Matteo, P., & Haywood, M. 2017, A&A, 598, A66 · DOI
  70. Puech, M., Hammer, F., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 128 · DOI
  71. Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155 · DOI
  72. Retana-Montenegro, E., van Hese, E., Gentile, G., Baes, M., & Frutos-Alfaro, F. 2012, A&A, 540, A70 · DOI
  73. Rocha, M., Peter, A. H. G., & Bullock, J. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 231 · DOI
  74. Rubin, V. C., Ford, W. K., Jr., & Thonnard, N. 1978, ApJ, 225, L107 · DOI
  75. Sackett, P. D. 1997, ApJ, 483, 103 · DOI
  76. Schmidt, M. 1965, in Galactic Structure, eds. A. Blaauw, & M. Schmidt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 513 · DOI
  77. Slizewski, A., Dufresne, X., Murdock, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 131 · DOI
  78. Sofue, Y., Honma, M., & Omodaka, T. 2009, PASJ, 61, 227 · DOI
  79. Stanek, K. Z., Udalski, A., Szyma Ński, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, 477, 163 · DOI
  80. Sylos Labini, F., Chrobáková, Ž., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., & López-Corredoira, M. 2023, ApJ, 945, 3 · DOI
  81. Urrejola-Mora, C., Gómez, F. A., Torres-Flores, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 20 · DOI
  82. van der Kruit, P. C., & Freeman, K. C. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 301 · DOI
  83. Vasiliev, E., Belokurov, V., & Erkal, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2279 · DOI
  84. Wang, J., Shi, J., Pan, K., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3179 · DOI
  85. Wang, H.-F., Liu, C., Xu, Y., Wan, J.-C., & Deng, L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3367 · DOI
  86. Wang, J., Hammer, F., Yang, Y., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5907 · DOI
  87. Wang, H. F., López-Corredoira, M., Huang, Y., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 119 · DOI
  88. Wang, J., Hammer, F., & Yang, Y. 2022a, MNRAS, 515, 940 · DOI
  89. Wang, J., Hammer, F., & Yang, Y. 2022b, MNRAS, 510, 2242 · DOI
  90. Wang, H.-F., Chrobáková, Ž., López-Corredoira, M., & Sylos Labini, F. 2023a, ApJ, 942, 12 · DOI
  91. Wang, J., Cao, Z., Huang, Y., & Yuan, H. 2023b, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 23, 025020 · DOI
  92. Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Portail, M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 557 · DOI
  93. Xu, Y., Newberg, H. J., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 105 · DOI
  94. Zhou, Y., Li, X., Huang, Y., & Zhang, H. 2023, ApJ, 946, 73 · DOI
  95. Zobnina, D. I., & Zasov, A. V. 2020, Astron. Rep., 64, 295 A208, page 11 of 13 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiao, Y., Hammer, F., Wang, H., Wang, J., Amram, P., Chemin, L., & Yang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Centro Ricerche Enrico Fermi (IT)
  • Universidad Andrés Bello (CL)
Venue
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Publisher
EDP Sciences
Published
2023-10
Volume
678
Pages
A208
ISSN
  • 0004-6361 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0746
OpenAlex
W4386437529
Cited by
107
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 3
FWCI
12.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Repositorio Institucional Académico , Sistema de Bibliotecas Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB) (Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB)) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
  • Institute of High Energy Physics
  • National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
Milky Way rotation curve, galaxy mass, Gaia DR3, systematic uncertainties, distance estimates, flat rotation curves, Galactic disc

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review