Paper detail

The Lutz-Kelker Paradox

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 selected star is independent of the distribution of other stars. Consequently the Lutz-Kelker correction should not be used for individual stars. This result has important implications for the RR Lyrae scale and for the interpretation of results from Gaia and Hipparcos. The Lutz-Kelker correction is a poor treatment of the Trumpler-Weaver bias which affects parallax limited samples. A true correction is calculated using numerical integration and confirmed by a Monte Carlo method.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.