A comparative study of satellite galaxies in Milky Way-like galaxies from HSC, DECaLS, and SDSS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We conduct a comprehensive and statistical study of the luminosity functions (LFs) for satellite galaxies, by counting photometric galaxies from HSC, DECaLS, and SDSS around isolated central galaxies (ICGs) and paired galaxies from the SDSS/DR7 spectroscopic sample. Results of different surveys show very good agreement. The satellite LFs can be measured down to MV ∼ −10, and for central primary galaxies as small as 8.5 < log10M*/M⊙ < 9.2 and 9.2 < log10M*/M⊙ < 9.9, which implies there are on average 3–8 satellites with MV < −10 around LMC-mass ICGs. The bright end cutoff of satellite LFs and the satellite abundance are both sensitive to the magnitude gap between the primary and its companions, indicating galaxy systems with larger magnitude gaps are on average hosted by less massive dark matter haloes. By selecting primaries with stellar mass similar to our Milky Way (MW), we discovered that (i) the averaged satellite LFs of ICGs with different magnitude gaps to their companions and of galaxy pairs with different colour or colour combinations all show steeper slopes than the MW satellite LF; (ii) there are on average more satellites with −15 < MV < −10 than those in our MW; (iii) there are on average 1.5 to 2.5 satellites with MV < −16 around ICGs, consistent with our MW; (iv) even after accounting for the large scatter predicted by numerical simulations, the MW satellite LF is uncommon at MV > −12. Hence, the MW and its satellite system are statistically atypical of our sample of MW-mass systems. In consequence, our MW is not a good representative of other MW-mass galaxies. Strong cosmological implications based on only MW satellites await additional discoveries of fainter satellites in extra-galactic systems. Interestingly, the MW satellite LF is typical among other MW-mass systems within 40 Mpc in the local Universe, perhaps implying the Local Volume is an underdense region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".