ner_tags: B-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O B-Dataset I-Dataset O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CelestialObject O O O
tokens: (Bovy 2015 , dashed red). We also show recent measurements by Callingham et al. ( 2019 ), Eadie Jurić ( 2019 ), Erkal et al. ( 2019 ), and Vasiliev et al. ( 2021 ) with the filled black star, orange circles, purple triangle, and brown square, respectively. Our circular velocity profile shown in Fig. 6 is in excellent agreement with the Cautun et al. ( 2020 ) profile. This model uses MW rotation curve data derived from Gaia DR2 to fit an adiabatically contracted dark matter halo. Interestingly, Cautun et al. ( 2020 ) find a relatively ‘average’ halo concentration for the MW, of and a total (pre-LMC infall) mass of M ⊙ , in excellent agreement with our total mass estimate. Moreover, our total MW mass also agrees with recent measurement using the more distant satellite galaxies as tracers (e.g. Callingham et al. 2019 ; Li et al. 2020 ). It is reassuring that our results at intermediate radii are in such good agreement with independent measures from both the inner and outer halo. 6 CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have applied a distribution function method to a large sample of distant ( r > 50 kpc) halo stars to estimate the mass of the MW out to 100 kpc. We pay particular attention to the systematic effect of unrelaxed substructure, and the dynamical influence of the LMC. Our main conclusions are summarized as follows: We use a rigid MW–LMC model to constrain the systematic reflex motion effect of the massive LMC on our halo mass estimate. As shown by Erkal et al. ( 2020 ), the (pre-infall LMC) halo masses are overpredicted due to the velocity gradients caused by the recently infalling LMC. However, we find that a simple velocity offset correction in v los and v b can minimize the overestimate caused by the reflex motion induced by the LMC, and, assuming a rigid LMC mass of 1.5 × 10 11 M ⊙ , we can recover the true mass within 1 − σ. By applying our method to a sample of MW-mass haloes from the Auriga simulation, we find that the halo masses are typically underestimated by 10 per cent. However, this bias is reduced to if we only consider haloes with relatively quiescent recent accretion histories. The residual bias is due to the presence of long-lived shell-like structures in the outer halo. The halo-to-halo scatter is for the quiescent haloes, and represents the dominant source of error in the mass estimate of the MW. We apply our distribution function method to N = 483 halo stars when high-probability Sgr stars are excluded. The overall sample has a radial velocity anisotropy, β = 0.5, in good agreement with recent measures in this radial range (Bird et al. 2019 , 2020 ). Our estimated mass within 100 kpc is M (100 kpc) = 6.07 ± 0.29 (stat.) ± 1.21 (sys.) × 10 11 M ⊙ . A systematic bias correction (), and additional uncertainty (), are included based on our results from the Auriga simulations. The mass estimates are slightly higher when we do not include a velocity offset to correct for the reflex motion induced by the LMC, or slightly lower