Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? IV. The Galactic Center

Local Group距离的聚类：发表偏倚还是相关测量？III。小麦哲伦星云

Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? III. The Small Magellanic Cloud

为了提供一个坚定的平均距离估计小麦哲伦云（SMC），从而将其放置在内部一致的本地集团距离框架内，我们最近建立，我们编制了目前最大的数据库公布的距离估计星系。在仔细统计分析的基础上，我们利用食双星系统、变星、恒星星族示踪物和星团性质得到了到SMC的平均距离估计。其加权平均值可得出$(m-M)_0^{\rm SMC} = 18.96 \pm 0.02$ mag平均SMC距离的最终建议，其中不确定度表示形式误差。与消光校正中挥之不去的不确定性有关的系统效应，我们对所使用的恒星示踪剂的物理理解，以及SMC复杂的几何形状--包括其显著的视线深度，其不规则的外观使得星系中心的定义不确定，以及其高倾角和可能弯曲的盘--可能会产生额外的不确定性，可能超过0.15- 0.20 mag.

Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? V. Galactic rotation constants

As part of on an extensive data mining effort, we have compiled a database of 162 Galactic rotation speed measurements at $R_0$ (the solar Galactocentric distance), $Θ_0$. Published between 1927 and 2017 June, this represents the most comprehensive set of $Θ_0$ values since the 1985 meta analysis that led to the last revision of the International Astronomical Union's recommended Galactic rotation constants. Although we do not find any compelling evidence of the presence of `publication bias' in recent decades, we find clear differences among the $Θ_0$ values and the $Θ_0/R_0$ ratios resulting …

Local Group距离的聚类：发表偏倚还是相关测量？II。M31及以上

Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? II. M31 and beyond

河外距离测量的准确性最终取决于对本地体积中星系距离的可靠，高精度的确定。在详细研究了大麦云（LMC）已发表的距离测定结果中可能存在的发表偏差之后，我们将我们感兴趣的距离范围扩展到包括M31和M33以及它们的一些著名矮星系同伴的已发表距离模量。我们的目标是达成共识的最好的，最均匀的，内部最一致的一套本星系群距离模数采用未来的，更普遍的使用的基础上最大的一套距离测定个别本星系群星系的日期。基于对主要恒星星族示踪剂的仔细统计加权组合（造父变星、天琴座RR变星和红巨星分支尖端的星等），我们得出了一个推荐的距离模数M31的$(m-M)_0^{\rm M31} = 24.46 \pm 0.10$等-采用我们的校准LMC距离模数$(m-M)_0^{\rm LMC} = 18.50$等-和一个完全内部一致的基准距离设置的关键星系在本地体积，使我们能够建立一个强大的和公正的，近场河外距离阶梯。

Local Group距离的聚类：发表偏倚还是相关测量？I.大麦云云

Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? I. The Large Magellanic Cloud

到大麦云云（LMC）的距离代表了河外距离阶梯的一个关键的地方梯级。然而，星系的距离模量长期以来一直是一个有争议的问题，特别是考虑到大多数新确定的距离模量紧密聚集在“规范”距离模量（m-M）_0 = 18.50 mag. We汇编了1990年至2013年期间发表的233个独立的LMC距离测定。我们的个人距离模数的分析，以及他们的两年的平均值和标准差产生的这个最大的数据集的LMC距离模数迄今为止，特别侧重于造父变星和RR天琴座变星示踪人口，以及距离估计的基础上的功能，在观测的赫兹斯普朗-罗素图。我们的结论是，强烈的出版偏见是不太可能已经出版的LMC距离模数的主要驱动力。然而，对于给定的距离示踪剂，导致紧密聚类距离的出版物主体是基于高度非独立的示踪剂样本和分析方法，因此导致后续文章中报告的LMC距离之间的显著相关性。基于对主要的恒星星族示踪剂的统计意义上的仔细加权组合，我们建议在所有需要一般距离标度而不需要优于百分之几的精度的实际目的中，使用稍微调整的正则距离模（m-M）_0 = 18.49 +-0.09等。

Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? VI. Extending to Virgo cluster distances

We have established an internally consistent Local Group distance framework, using the Galactic Center, the Large Magellanic Cloud, and Messier 31 (M31) as important stepping stones. At greater distances, few distance benchmarks are available. As a consequence, M87 and/or Virgo cluster distances are often invoked as the next rung on the ladder to more distant objects such as the Fornax and Coma clusters. Therefore, we extensively mined the published literature for independently derived distance estimates to either M87 or the center of the Virgo cluster. Based on our newly compiled, comprehensi…

Clustering of Local Group distances: publication bias or correlated measurements? VII. A distance framework out to 100 Mpc

We consider the published distance moduli to the Fornax and Coma galaxy clusters, with emphasis on the period since 1990. We have carefully homogenized our catalogs of distance moduli onto the distance scale established in the previous papers in this series. We assessed systematic differences associated with the use of specific tracers, and discarded results based on application of the Tully--Fisher relation and of globular cluster and planetary nebula luminosity functions. We recommend `best' weighted relative distance moduli for the Fornax and Coma clusters with respect to the Virgo cluster …