Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Satellites Around Milky Way Analogs: Tension in the Number and Fraction of Quiescent Satellites Seen in Observations Versus Simulations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2105.09321 v2 pith:7ZBF4ZEL submitted 2021-05-19 astro-ph.GA

Satellites Around Milky Way Analogs: Tension in the Number and Fraction of Quiescent Satellites Seen in Observations Versus Simulations

classification astro-ph.GA
keywords satellitesaroundsaga-iianalogsapostleaurigacomparenumber
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We compare the star-forming properties of satellites around Milky Way (MW) analogs from the Stage~II release of the Satellites Around Galactic Analogs Survey (SAGA-II) to those from the APOSTLE and Auriga cosmological zoom-in simulation suites. We use archival GALEX UV imaging as a star-formation indicator for the SAGA-II sample and derive star-formation rates (SFRs) to compare with those from APOSTLE and Auriga. We compare our detection rates from the NUV and FUV bands to the SAGA-II H$\alpha$ detections and find that they are broadly consistent with over $85\%$ of observed satellites detected in all three tracers. We apply the same spatial selection criteria used around SAGA-II hosts to select satellites around the MW-like hosts in APOSTLE and Auriga. We find very good overall agreement in the derived SFRs for the star-forming satellites as well as the number of star-forming satellites per host in observed and simulated samples. However, the number and fraction of quenched satellites in the SAGA-II sample are significantly lower than those in APOSTLE and Auriga below a stellar mass of $M_*\sim10^{8}\,M_{\odot}$, even when the SAGA-II incompleteness and interloper corrections are included. This discrepancy is robust with respect to the resolution of the simulations and persists when alternative star-formation tracers are employed. We posit that this disagreement is not readily explained by vagaries in the observed or simulated samples considered here, suggesting a genuine discrepancy that may inform the physics of satellite populations around MW analogs.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.