Cited by 1,829Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation

Estimating Distance from Parallaxes. IV. Distances to 1.33 Billion Stars in Gaia Data Release 2

Open access
Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Mantelet, G., Andrae, R.·2018·The Astronomical Journal

Abstract

For the vast majority of stars in the second Gaia data release, reliable distances cannot be obtained by inverting the parallax. A correct inference procedure must instead be used to account for the nonlinearity of the transformation and the asymmetry of the resulting probability distribution. Here, we infer distances to essentially all 1.33 billion stars with parallaxes published in the second Gaia data release. This is done using a weak distance prior that varies smoothly as a function of Galactic longitude and latitude according to a Galaxy model. The irreducible uncertainty in the distance estimate is characterized by the lower and upper bounds of an asymmetric confidence interval. Although more precise distances can be estimated for a subset of the stars using additional data (such as photometry), our goal is to provide purely geometric distance estimates, independent of assumptions about the physical properties of, or interstellar extinction toward, individual stars. We analyze the characteristics of the catalog and validate it using clusters. The catalog can be queried using ADQL at http://gaia.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/tap.html (which also hosts the Gaia catalog) and downloaded from http://www.mpia.de/~calj/gdr2_distances.html .

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 · 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • J1407 is a pre-main-sequence, 16 Myr old, 0.9 M☉, V=12.3 mag K5 star at a distance of ~139 pc, and a member of the Sco-Cen OB association.

    “1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6 (hereafter J1407) is a premain-sequence, 16 Myr old, 0 : 9 M , V = 12 : 3 mag K5 star with parallax 7 : 1835 0 : 0447 mas (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2018), consistent with d = 138 : 7 0 : 6 pc (Bailer-Jones et al. 2018) and membership of the Sco-Cen OB association (Mamajek et al. 2012).”

    From ALMA and NACO observations towards the young exoring transit system J1407 (V1400 Cen) (2020) · cites this paper as Bailer-Jones et al. 2018

    Section 4, “Distance Catalog Content and Characteristics,” identifies this paper as the source of Gaia DR2 stellar distance estimates and their uncertainty bounds. Our copy does not identify J1407 or report its stated distance of 138.7 ± 0.6 pc, so it cannot verify that specific value. The star’s other properties and Sco-Cen membership are not attributed to Bailer-Jones et al. in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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: 9

  1. Anderson, L., Hogg, D. W., Leistedt, B., Price-Whelan, A. M., & Bovy, J. 2017, arXiv:1706.05055 · arXiv
  2. Arenou, F., Luri, X., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2018, arXiv:1804.09375 · arXiv
  3. Coronado, J., Rix, H.-W., & Trick, W. 2018, MNRAS, arXiv:1804.07760 · arXiv
  4. GaiaCollaboration, 2018a, A&A, arXiv:1804.09365 · arXiv
  5. GaiaCollaboration, 2018b, A&A, arXiv:1804.09378 · arXiv
  6. Lindegren, L., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, arXiv:1804. 09366
  7. Luri, X., Brown, A., Sarro, L., et al. 2018, A&A, arXiv:1804.09376 · arXiv
  8. McMillan, P. J., Kordopatis, G., Kunder, A., et al. 2017, arXiv:1707.04554 · arXiv
  9. Rybizki, J., Demleitner, M., Fouesneau, M., et al. 2018, arXiv:1804.01427 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Venue
The Astronomical Journal
Published
2018-07-20
Volume
156
Issue
2
Pages
58
ISSN
  • 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-3881
OpenAlex
W2798430172
Cited by
1,829
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 110 · 2022: 181 · 2021: 322 · 2020: 506 · 2019: 411 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 1
FWCI
177.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astronomical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • European Space Agency
  • Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Astronomy and Astrophysical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Astronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Keywords
stellar distances, parallax, Gaia DR2, galactic models, star clusters

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