Galaxy pairs in the Local Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current models of galaxy formation predict that galaxy pairs of comparable magnitudes should become increasingly rare with decreasing luminosity. This seems at odds with the relatively high frequency of pairings among dwarf galaxies in the Local Group. We use literature data to show that ∼30 per cent of all the satellites of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies brighter than MV = −8 are found in likely physical pairs of comparable luminosity. Besides the previously recognized pairings of the Magellanic Clouds and of NGC 147/NGC 185, other candidate pairs include the Ursa Minor and Draco dwarf spheroidals, as well as the And I/And III satellites of M31. These pairs are much closer than expected by chance if the radial and angular distributions of satellites were uncorrelated; in addition, they have very similar line-of-sight velocities and luminosities that differ by less than three magnitudes. In contrast, the same criteria pair fewer than 4 per cent of satellites in N-body/semi-analytic models that match the radial distribution and luminosity function of Local Group satellites. If confirmed in studies of larger samples, the high frequency of dwarf galaxy pairings may provide interesting clues to the formation of faint galaxies in the current cosmological paradigm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".