Identifying true satellites of the Magellanic Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hierarchical nature of ΛCDM suggests that the Magellanic Clouds must have been surrounded by a number of satellites before their infall into the Milky Way halo. Many of those satellites should still be in close proximity to the Clouds, but some could have dispersed ahead/behind the Clouds along their Galactic orbit. Either way, prior association with the Clouds constrains the present-day positions and velocities of candidate Magellanic satellites: they must lie close to the nearly polar orbital plane of the Magellanic Stream, and their distances and radial velocities must follow the latitude dependence expected for a tidal stream with the Clouds near pericentre. We use a cosmological numerical simulation of the disruption of a massive sub-halo in a Milky Way-sized ΛCDM halo to test whether any of the 20 dwarfs recently discovered in the Dark Energy Survey, the Survey of the MAgellanic Stellar History, Pan-STARRS, and ATLAS surveys are truly associated with the Clouds. Of the six systems with kinematic data, only Hor 1 has distance and radial velocities consistent with a Magellanic origin. Of the remaining dwarfs, six (Hor 2, Eri 3, Ret 3, Tuc 4, Tuc 5, and Phx 2) have positions and distances consistent with a Magellanic origin, but kinematic data are needed to substantiate that possibility. Conclusive evidence for association would require proper motions to constrain the orbital angular momentum direction, which, for true Magellanic satellites, must be similar to that of the Clouds. We use this result to predict radial velocities and proper motions for all new dwarfs, assuming that they were Magellanic satellites. Our results are relatively insensitive to the assumption of first or second pericentre for the Clouds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".