Proper Motions, Orbits, and Tidal Influences of Milky Way Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We combine Gaia early data release 3 astrometry with accurate photometry and utilize a probabilistic mixture model to measure the systemic proper motion of 52 dwarf spheroidal (dSph) satellite galaxies of the Milky Way (MW). For the 46 dSphs with literature line-of-sight velocities we compute orbits in both a MW and a combined MW + Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) potential and identify Car II, Car III, Hor I, Hyi I, Phx II, and Ret II as likely LMC satellites. 40% of our dSph sample has a >25% change in pericenter and/or apocenter with the MW + LMC potential. For these orbits, we use a Monte Carlo sample for the observational uncertainties for each dSph and the uncertainties in the MW and LMC potentials. We predict that Ant II, Boo III, Cra II, Gru II, and Tuc III should be tidally disrupting by comparing each dSph's average density relative to the MW density at its pericenter. dSphs with large ellipticity (CVn I, Her, Tuc V, UMa I, UMa II, UMi, Wil 1) show a preference for their orbital direction to align with their major axis even for dSphs with large pericenters. We compare the dSph radial orbital phase to subhalos in MW-like N -body simulations and infer that there is not an excess of satellites near their pericenter. With projections of future Gaia data releases, we find that dSph's orbital precision will be limited by uncertainties in the distance and/or MW potential rather than in proper motion precision. Finally, we provide our membership catalogs to enable community follow-up.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".