## Estimating distances from parallaxes. VI: A method for inferring distances and transverse velocities from parallaxes and proper motions demonstrated on Gaia Data Release 3

### AI-generated Key Points

- Accuracy of distance estimates based solely on parallaxes decreases with increasing distance
- Proper motion measurements can provide independent information about stellar distances
- A model is developed to incorporate direction and distance-dependent distributions of stellar velocities
- Kinegeometric distances are 1.25 times more accurate than geometric distances across the entire Gaia catalogue
- Kinegeometric distances outperform geometric ones considerably beyond several kiloparsecs
- Kinegeometric distances have an average accuracy of 19%
- Velocities can be determined with median absolute deviations of 16 km/s
- Distant stars tend to have smaller kinegeometric distances compared to geometric ones on average in Gaia DR3, but the pattern is more complex in bulge and disk regions
- Gaia DR5 is expected to provide much more accurate proper motion measurements, improving distance accuracy by a factor of approximately 1.35 on average
- Kinegeometric distances are still projected to be 1.25 times more accurate than geometric ones in Gaia DR5 due to being limited by the width of the velocity prior

**Authors:**
C. A. L. Bailer-Jones (MPIA Heidelberg)

**Abstract:** The accuracy of stellar distances inferred purely from parallaxes degrades rapidly with distance. Proper motion measurements, when combined with some idea of typical velocities, provide independent information on stellar distances. Here I build a direction- and distance-dependent model of the distribution of stellar velocities in the Galaxy, then use this together with parallaxes and proper motions to infer kinegeometric distances and transverse velocities for stars in Gaia DR3. Using noisy simulations I assess the performance of the method and compare its accuracy to purely parallax-based (geometric) distances. Over the whole Gaia catalogue, kinegeometric distances are on average 1.25 times more accurate than geometric ones. This average masks a large variation in the relative performance, however. Kinegeometric distances are considerably better than geometric ones beyond several kpc, for example. On average, kinegeometric distances can be measured to an accuracy of 19% and velocities (sqrt[vra^2 + vdec^2]) to 16 km/s (median absolute deviations). In Gaia DR3, kinegeometric distances are smaller than geometric ones on average for distant stars, but the pattern is more complex in the bulge and disk. With the much more accurate proper motions expected in Gaia DR5, a further improvement in the distance accuracy by a factor of (only) 1.35 on average is predicted (with kinegeometric distances still 1.25 times more accurate than geometric ones). The improvement from proper motions is limited by the width of the velocity prior, in a way that the improvement from better parallaxes is not limited by the width of the distance prior.

### Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

**Why do we need votes?**

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

## Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation**Look for similar papers (in beta version)**

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

**Disclaimer:** The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.