2014
DOI: 10.1093/mnrasl/slu103
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Lutz–Kelker paradox

Abstract: The Lutz-Kelker correction is intended to give an unbiased estimate for stellar parallaxes and magnitudes, but it is shown explicitly that it does not. This paradox results from the application of an argument about sample statistics to the treatment of individual stars, and involves the erroneous use of a frequency distribution in the manner of a probability density function considered as a Bayesian prior. It is shown that the Bayesian probability distribution for true parallax given the observed parallax of a… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, we also adopt the distance to the young, compact nebula K 3-35 , determined using VLBI Exploration of Radio Astrometry (VERA) array observations of a bright water maser in the nebula 2 . Note that the trigonometric method is susceptible to the socalled Lutz-Kelker (L-K) bias (Lutz & Kelker 1973;Smith 2003Smith , 2006Francis 2014) which causes measured parallaxes to be systematically greater than their actual values in a statistical sense, and is broadly related to the Trumpler-Weaver bias (Trumpler & Weaver 1953). As emphasised by van Leeuwen (2007) and Francis (2014), the L-K bias is a sample statistical correction, and has not been applied to individual distances.…”
Section: Trigonometric Distancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Finally, we also adopt the distance to the young, compact nebula K 3-35 , determined using VLBI Exploration of Radio Astrometry (VERA) array observations of a bright water maser in the nebula 2 . Note that the trigonometric method is susceptible to the socalled Lutz-Kelker (L-K) bias (Lutz & Kelker 1973;Smith 2003Smith , 2006Francis 2014) which causes measured parallaxes to be systematically greater than their actual values in a statistical sense, and is broadly related to the Trumpler-Weaver bias (Trumpler & Weaver 1953). As emphasised by van Leeuwen (2007) and Francis (2014), the L-K bias is a sample statistical correction, and has not been applied to individual distances.…”
Section: Trigonometric Distancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that the trigonometric method is susceptible to the socalled Lutz-Kelker (L-K) bias (Lutz & Kelker 1973;Smith 2003Smith , 2006Francis 2014) which causes measured parallaxes to be systematically greater than their actual values in a statistical sense, and is broadly related to the Trumpler-Weaver bias (Trumpler & Weaver 1953). As emphasised by van Leeuwen (2007) and Francis (2014), the L-K bias is a sample statistical correction, and has not been applied to individual distances. In the future, the number of trigonometric parallaxes for CSPNe will be revolutionised with the results from the Gaia satellite (Perryman et al 2001;Bailer-Jones 2002).…”
Section: Trigonometric Distancesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If we apply the σ π < 20% condition, the sample is reduced to 176 objects and M dyn > M ph for 84 of them (47.7%). This means that we generally underestimate stellar luminosity and, hence, M ph for systems with a larger error in the parallax (see discussion in Francis, 2014).…”
Section: The Sample Selection Criteriamentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Though the LKE is defined as a statistical offset with a sample of stars of a given class, Lutz & Kelker (1973) argue that their defined correction could be to be used to correct the derived absolute magnitudes for individual stars, and, to some extent, it traditionally has. More recently, the logic behind this practice and Lutz & Kelker's original assertion that the correction could be applied to individual stars has been challenged (van Leeuwen 2007a;Smith 2003;Francis 2014). Irregardless of this "Lutz-Kelker Paradox", it is nonetheless naturally the case that stars with a larger parallax error will show a larger error in derived absolute magnitudes, and, as a class, would be expected to exhibit a larger systematic offset; it is our goal to assess whether this phenomenon has any significant effect in our comparison of A35 absolute magnitudes to those derived from Hipparcos parallaxes.…”
Section: The Lutz-kelker Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LKE as applied to the Hipparcos catalog, has been explored by numerous authors, including, but not limited to, Oudmaijer et al (1998), Brown et al (1998), andvan Leeuwen (2007a). Generally, it is advised to reject all stars with fractional errors greater than 10% or σ(π)/π > 0.10, but a full treatment of the LKE, and any other relevant biases, requires detailed modeling of the specific sample in question (e.g., Sandage & Saha 2002;van Leeuwen 2007a;Smith 2003;Francis 2014). While the very form and magnitude of the LKE has also been reassessed and debated (see previous references) we adopt the formalism of Sandage & Saha (2002) for our calculations, which are primarily illustrative; because the latter treatments tend to find bias corrections of an overall smaller magnitude, our examples can then be seen as an upper limit to the influence on the Hipparcos data.…”
Section: The Lutz-kelker Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%