Solo dwarfs – III. Exploring the orbital origins of isolated Local Group galaxies with <i>Gaia</i> Data Release 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We measure systemic proper motions for distant dwarf galaxies in the Local Group and investigate if these isolated galaxies have ever had an interaction with the Milky Way or M31. We cross-match photometry of isolated, star-forming, dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, taken as part of the Solo survey, with astrometric measurements from Gaia Data Release 2. We find that NGC 6822, Leo A, IC 1613, and WLM have sufficient supergiants with reliable astrometry to derive proper motions. An additional three galaxies (Leo T, Eridanus 2, and Phoenix) are close enough that their proper motions have already been derived using red giant branch stars. Systematic errors in Gaia DR2 are significant for NGC 6822, IC 1613, and WLM. We explore the orbits for these galaxies, and conclude that Phoenix, Leo A, and WLM are unlikely to have interacted with the Milky Way or M31, unless these large galaxies are very massive (${\gtrsim}1.6 \times 10^{12}\, \mathrm{M}_\odot$). We rule out a past interaction of NGC 6822 with M31 at ${\sim}99.99{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ confidence, and find there is a <10 per cent chance that NGC 6822 has had an interaction with the Milky Way. We examine the likely origins of NGC 6822 in the periphery of the young Local Group, and note that a future interaction of NGC 6822 with the Milky Way or M31 in the next 4 Gyr is essentially ruled out. Our measurements indicate that future Gaia data releases will provide good constraints on the interaction history for the majority of these galaxies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".