Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,741

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Where Are the Missing Galactic Satellites?

Open access
Klypin, Anatoly, Kravtsov, Andrey V., Valenzuela, Octavio, Prada, Francisco·1999·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1086/307643
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

According to the hierarchical clustering scenario, galaxies are assembled by merging and accretion of numerous satellites of different sizes and masses. This ongoing process is not 100% efficient in destroying all of the accreted satellites, as evidenced by the satellites of our Galaxy and of M31. Using published data, we have compiled the circular velocity ( V circ ) distribution function (VDF) of galaxy satellites in the Local Group. We find that within the volumes of radius of 570 kpc (400 h -1 kpc assuming the Hubble constant h = 0.7) centered on the Milky Way and Andromeda, the average VDF is roughly approximated as n (> V circ ) ≈ 55 ± 11( V circ /10 km s -1 ) -1.4±0.4 h 3 Mpc -3 for V circ in the range ≈10-70 km s -1 . The observed VDF is compared with results of high-resolution cosmological simulations. We find that the VDF in models is very different from the observed one: n (> V circ ) ≈ 1200( V circ /10 km s -1 ) -2.75 h 3 Mpc -3 . Cosmological models thus predict that a halo the size of our Galaxy should have about 50 dark matter satellites with circular velocity greater than 20 km s -1 and mass greater than 3 × 10 8 M ☉ within a 570 kpc radius. This number is significantly higher than the approximately dozen satellites actually observed around our Galaxy. The difference is even larger if we consider the abundance of satellites in simulated galaxy groups similar to the Local Group. The models predict ~300 satellites inside a 1.5 Mpc radius, while only ~40 satellites are observed in the Local Group. The observed and predicted VDFs cross at ≈50 km s -1 , indicating that the predicted abundance of satellites with V circ ≳ 50 km s -1 is in reasonably good agreement with observations. We conclude, therefore, that unless a large fraction of the Local Group satellites has been missed in observations, there is a dramatic discrepancy between observations and hierarchical models, regardless of the model parameters. We discuss several possible explanations for this discrepancy including identification of some satellites with the high-velocity clouds observed in the Local Group and the existence of dark satellites that failed to accrete gas and form stars either because of the expulsion of gas in the supernovae-driven winds or because of gas heating by the intergalactic ionizing background.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/307643

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 2,741

Metadata

Authors
Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F.
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
1999-09
Volume
522
Issue
1
Pages
82-92
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1086/307643
OpenAlex
W2139031955
Cited by
2,741
References
43
FWCI
60.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.