The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detection of the Keplerian decline in the Milky Way rotation curve
Open accessAbstract
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 ⊙ .
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“It is worth stressing that the Keplerian behaviour is not a feature of the Jiao et al. reanalysis alone: although neither Wang et al. (2023) nor Ou et al. (2024) explicitly claim a Keplerian decline, the outer slopes of their own RCs, taken at face value, are consistent with one”
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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The inferred spherical-equivalent mass within 30 kpc, M sph , 30 ≈ 2 . 6 × 10 11 M ⊙ , exceeds the strict Keplerian sphericalequivalent total of 2 . 06 × 10 11 M ⊙ (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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“this reflects the weight of the Jiao et al. (2023) points in the compilation, which lie ∼ 5 km s -1 below the RGBbased curves at R < 13 kpc and are referred to R ⊙ = 8 . 34 kpc.”
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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The last major merger experienced by the MW (Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus) dates back to ∼ 10 Gyr ago, whereas a typical spiral of comparable mass experienced its last major merger more recently, on average ∼ 6 Gyr ago (see Jiao et al., 2023, and references therein). The equilibrium assumption is therefore less problematic for the MWdisc than for many external spirals, and in particular than for M31.”
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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Gaia DR3 has changed the picture: several analyses now find a velocity decline beyond R ≈ 15 kpc”
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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For plausible outer-disc tracer profiles the quadratic correction is va ∼ 30-55 km s -1 (the toy value above lies at the upper end), it propagates into the inferred circular speed weakly, since v 2 c = ⟨ v ϕ ⟩ 2 + v 2 a implies δ vc ≈ ( va / vc ) δ va . For this range of va and vc ≈ 230 km s -1 , even a 30% error in va shifts vc by only ∼ 1-4 km s -1 , below the ∼ 30 km s -1 outer-disc decline”
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)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The subsequent DR3-based analyses of Wang et al. (2023), Jiao et al. (2023), and Ou et al. (2024) all find a steeper decline at R > 15 kpc, with the extreme interpretation of Jiao et al. (2023) claiming a Keplerian decline and a total mass nearly five times lower.”
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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Jiao et al. (2023) quote 2 . 06 + 0 . 24 -0 13 × 10 11 M ⊙ for their preferred total mass and a strict upper limit of 5 . 4 × 10 11 M ⊙ .”
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)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Klaˇ cka & Šturc (2025) showed that in the best-fit mass models of Jiao et al. (2023) and Ou et al. (2024), the spherically distributed DM halo accounts for ≳ 88% of the total radial gravitational acceleration at R = 27 kpc”
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)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. (2013) · Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · doi:10.1086/670067 · Cited by 14,336
Planck 2018 results: VI. Cosmological parameters
Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., et al. (2020) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 · Cited by 14,258
A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. (1997) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/304888 · Cited by 9,917
NINE-YEAR WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE ( WMAP ) OBSERVATIONS: COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETER RESULTS
Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., Spergel, D. N., Bennett, C. L., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., Halpern, M., Hill, R. S., Odegard, N., et al. (2013) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 · Cited by 5,121
Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition
Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. (2008) · doi:10.1515/9781400828722 · Cited by 4,375
Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., Biermann, M., Creevey, O. L., Ducourant, C., Evans, D. W., et al. (2022) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 · Cited by 4,225
An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions
Lucy, L. B. (1974) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.1086/111605 · Cited by 3,866
The Milky Way Tomography with SDSS. I. Stellar Number Density Distribution
Jurić, M., Ivezić, Ž., Brooks, A. M., Lupton, R. H., Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., Padmanabhan, N., Bond, N., Sesar, B., Rockosi, C. M., et al. (2008) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/523619 · Cited by 1,318
The merger that led to the formation of the Milky Way’s inner stellar halo and thick disk
Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., Massari, D., Veljanoski, J., & Brown, A. G. A. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x · Cited by 1,235
Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., Ramos-Lerate, M., Steidelmüller, H., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., de Torres, A., Gerlach, E., et al. (2020) · Astronomy and Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 · Cited by 1,200
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Babcock, 1939, Lick Obs. Bull., 498, 41
- Bosma A. 1978, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
- Einasto, 1965, Trudy Astrofizicheskogo Instituta Alma-Ata, 5, 87
- Georgelin, 1976, A&A, 49, 57
- Goodwin, 1998, The Observatory, 118, 201
- Johnston, 2017, Galaxies, 5, 44, 10.3390/galaxies5030044 · DOI
- Mayall, 1951, Pub. Mich. Obs., 10, 19
- Schmidt M. 1965, in Galactic Structure, eds. Blaauw A., & Schmidt M. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 513
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Observational evidence for primordial black holes: A positivist perspective
Carr, B. J., Clesse, S., García-Bellido, J., Hawkins, M. R. S., & Kühnel, F. (2024) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.11.005 · Cited by 256
No massive black holes in the Milky Way halo
Mróz, P., Udalski, A., Szymański, M. K., Soszyński, I., Wyrzykowski, Ł., Pietrukowicz, P., Kozłowski, S., Poleski, R., Skowron, J., Skowron, D. M., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07704-6 · Cited by 91
Ibata, R., Malhan, K., Tenachi, W., Arentsen, A., Bellazzini, M., Bianchini, P., Bonifacio, P., Caffau, E., Diakogiannis, F. I., Errani, R., et al. (2024) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad382d · Cited by 108
Milky Way dynamics in light of Gaia
Hunt, J. D., & Vasiliev, E. (2025) · New Astronomy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.newar.2024.101721 · Cited by 87
Spin-dependent exotic interactions
Cong, L., Ji, W., Fadeev, P., Ficek, F., Jiang, M., Flambaum, V. V., Guan, H., Kimball, D. F. J., Kozlov, M. G., Stadnik, Y. V., et al. (2025) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.97.025005 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
