Cited by 166Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesCosmology and Gravitation Theories

The mass of the Milky Way from satellite dynamics

Open access
Callingham, Thomas M, Cautun, Marius, Deason, Alis J, Frenk, Carlos S, Wang, Wenting, Gómez, Facundo A, Grand, Robert J J, Marinacci, Federico +1 more·2019·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We present and apply a method to infer the mass of the Milky Way (MW) by comparing the dynamics of MW satellites to those of model satellites in the eagle cosmological hydrodynamics simulations. A distribution function (DF) for galactic satellites is constructed from eagle using specific angular momentum and specific energy, which are scaled so as to be independent of host halo mass. In this two-dimensional space, the orbital properties of satellite galaxies vary according to the host halo mass. The halo mass can be inferred by calculating the likelihood that the observed satellite population is drawn from this DF. Our method is robustly calibrated on mock eagle systems. We validate it by applying it to the completely independent suite of 30 auriga high-resolution simulations of MW-like galaxies: the method accurately recovers their true mass and associated uncertainties. We then apply it to 10 classical satellites of the MW with six-dimensional phase-space measurements, including updated proper motions from the Gaia satellite. The mass of the MW is estimated to be $M_{200}^{\rm {MW}}=1.17_{-0.15}^{+0.21}\times 10^{12}\, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$ (68 per cent confidence limits). We combine our total mass estimate with recent mass estimates in the inner regions of the Galaxy to infer an inner dark matter (DM) mass fraction $M^\rm {DM}(\lt 20~\rm {kpc})/M^\rm {DM}_{200}=0.12$, which is typical of ${\sim }10^{12}\, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$ lambda cold dark matter haloes in hydrodynamical galaxy formation simulations. Assuming a Navarro, Frenk and White (NFW) profile, this is equivalent to a halo concentration of $c_{200}^{\rm {MW}}=10.9^{+2.6}_{-2.0}$.

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 · 10.1093/mnras/stz365

Cites

106 of 106 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 Callingham et al. (2019) total mass estimate is M_total_200,MW = (1.17 ± 0.18)×10^12 M⊙.

    “we make use of the total mass estimate of Callingham et al. (2019), M total 200 , MW = (1 . 17 ± 0 . 18) × 10 12 M ⊙ .”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Callingham et al. 2019

    The Abstract and Section 4 give the same central estimate, 1.17 × 10^12 M⊙, for the Milky Way halo mass. They report asymmetric 68% confidence limits of +0.21 and −0.15 × 10^12 M⊙, not the symmetric ±0.18 quoted in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Current measurements at 200 kpc are not accurate enough to distinguish the models; the Callingham et al. 2019 mass measurement has a 15% uncertainty which translates into a 7.5% error in Vcirc.

    “Current measurements at that distance are not yet accurate enough, since, for example, the Callingham et al. 2019 mass measurement has a 15% uncertainty which translates into a 7 . 5% error in V circ .”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Callingham et al. 2019

    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
  • The Callingham et al. (2019) total mass estimate is inferred under the assumption of spherical symmetry, with deviations accounted for in the uncertainties, and is unlikely to bias our model estimates.

    “However, we have used only one measurement at such distances, the Callingham et al. (2019) total mass estimate, which is inferred under the assumption of spherical symmetry, with deviations from this assumption being accounted for in the uncertainties and, thus, unlikely to bias our model estimates.”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Callingham et al. (2019)

    Section 2.1 (page unavailable) explicitly assumes a spherically symmetric NFW halo for the mass inference. Sections 3.2 and 4.3 discuss calibrated uncertainties and halo-to-halo scatter, but do not establish that deviations from spherical symmetry are specifically accounted for in those uncertainties. The conclusion about bias in the citing authors’ model is their own inference, not a finding tested by Callingham et al. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent estimates of the total mass of the Milky Way still range within about a factor of two, reflecting systematics in many of the methods used to infer it.

    “However, recent estimates of the total mass of the MW still range within about a factor of two (see e.g. Figure 7 in Callingham et al. 2019), reflecting systematics in many of the methods used to infer it”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Callingham et al. 2019

  • Callingham et al. infer the mass by comparing the observed energy and angular momentum distribution of the classical MW satellites with the predictions of hydrodynamical simulations.

    “These authors infer the mass by comparing the observed energy and angular momentum distribution of the classical MW satellites with the predictions of hydrodynamical simulations.”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as Callingham et al. 2019

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

3 of the 109 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Posti L., Helmi A., 2018, preprint, (arXiv:1805.01408) · arXiv
  2. Watkins L. L., van der Marel R. P., Sohn S. T., Evans N. W., 2018, preprint, (arXiv:1804.11348) · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Callingham, T. M., Cautun, M., Deason, A. J., Frenk, C. S., Wang, W., Gómez, F. A., Grand, R. J. J., Marinacci, F., & Pakmor, R.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (JP)
  • University of La Serena (CL)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Heidelberger Institut für Theoretische Studien, Schloss-Wolfsbrunnenweg 35, D-69118 Heidelberg, Germany
Corresponding author
Callingham, Thomas M
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2019-02-05
Volume
484
Issue
4
Pages
5453-5467
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2889030195
Cited by
166
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 2
FWCI
12.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/F001166/1, ST/I00162X/1, ST/P000541/1, ST/K00042X/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/K003267/1)
  • European Research Council (786910)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
Milky Way mass, satellite galaxies, satellite dynamics, halo mass, distribution function, specific angular momentum, specific energy, host halo mass, Gaia proper motions, halo concentration, Navarro-Frenk-White profile, LambdaCDM model, Auriga simulations, EAGLE simulation

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