Anisotropies in the spatial distribution and kinematics of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The mass distribution in the Local Group (LG), dominated by the Andromeda (M31) and Milky Way (MW) pair, is highly anisotropic. We use the APOSTLE simulations to examine how this anisotropy manifests on the spatial distribution and kinematics of dwarf galaxies out to a distance of $d_{\rm MW}\sim 3$ Mpc from the MW. The simulations indicate a preference for dwarfs to be located near the axis defined by the MW-M31 direction, even for dwarfs in the LG periphery (LGP; i.e. at distances $1.25\ \lt\ d_{\rm MW}/$Mpc $\lt\ 3$). The ‘Hubble flow’ in the periphery is also affected; at fixed $d_{\rm MW}$ the mean recession speed, $\langle V_{\rm rad} \rangle$, varies with angular distance to M31, peaking in the anti-M31 direction and reaching a minimum behind M31. The M31-MW mass decelerates the local expansion; the LG ‘turnaround radius’ (i.e. where $\langle V_{\rm rad} \rangle =0$) in APOSTLE is at $r \sim 1.25$ Mpc from the LG barycentre and the pure Hubble flow (where $\langle V_{\rm rad} \rangle \sim H_0*d$) is reached beyond $r\sim 3$ Mpc. The predicted flow is very cold, with a barycentric dispersion of $\lt 40$ km s−1. Comparing these predictions with observations yields mixed results. There is little evidence for a preferred alignment of dwarfs along the MW-M31 direction, but some evidence for an angular anisotropy in $\langle V_{\rm rad} \rangle$. Although the ‘coldness’ of the Hubble flow is consistent with the simulations, it is less decelerated: relative to the MW all galaxies beyond $d_{\rm MW} \sim 1.25$ Mpc seem to be already on a pure Hubble flow. We argue that these oddities may result at least partly from incompleteness and inhomogeneous sky coverage in our current inventory of nearby dwarfs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".