arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 12 Nov 2012

Transcription

1 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 1 14 (1) Printed 9 January 14 (MN LATEX style file v.) A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites Laura L. Watkins 1,, N. Wyn Evans, Glenn van de Ven 1 1 Max Planck Institute for Astronoy, Königstuhl 17, Heidelberg 69117, Gerany Institute of Astronoy, University of Cabridge, Madingley Road, Cabridge, CB3 HA, UK arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.co] 1 Nov 1 Accepted???; Received???; Subitted??? 1 INTRODUCTION In this paper, we present an analysis of the distances and velocities of the satellites of M31 within the fraework of the tiing arguent. There have been a nuber of wide field surveys of M31 in recent years that have ore than doubled the nuber of satellites (Zucker et al. 4, 7; Martin et al. 6; Majewski et al. 7; Ibata et al. 7; Irwin et al. 8; McConnachie et al. 8; Martin et al. 9; Richardson et al. 11; Slater et al. 11; Bell et al. 11; Irwin et al. 1). Spectroscopic follow-up has provided radial velocities for alost all the new discoveries (e.g. Tollerud et al. 1; Collins et al. 1) and the existing dataset is now substantial. However, proper otion data are not currently easurable with existing optical telescopes. For only two of the M31 satellites (M33 and IC ) can proper otions be derived using VLBI observations of aser eission fro star-foring regions. Although future, deeper surveys will discover any ore such galaxies (e.g., SkyMapper, LSST), now sees an opportune oent to analyse the orbital properties of the known satellites. The M31 galaxy is believed to have had a ore violent accretion history than the Milky Way. Its stellar halo is ore dense watkins@pia.de ABSTRACT We present an analysis of the dynaics of the M31 satellite syste. Proper otion data exist for only two of the M31 satellites. We account for this incopleteness in velocity data by a statistical analysis using a cobination of the tiing arguent and phase-space distribution functions. The bulk of the M31 satellites are well fit by these odels and we offer a table of orbital properties, including period, eccentricity and sei-ajor axis. This enables us to search for evidence of group infall based on orbital siilarity rather than propinquity on the sky. Our results favour an association between Cass II and NGC 18, as the orbital paraeters are in close agreeent, but not for NGC 18 and NGC 147, which have often been associated in the past. Other possible satellite groupings include the pair And I and And XVII; the pair And IX and And X; and the triple And V, And XXV and NGC 147. And XXII has been claied as a satellite of M33; we find that they are not oving independently along the sae orbit, but cannot deterine whether they are orbiting each other or are unrelated. Two satellites, And XII and And XIV, have high line-of-sight velocities, consistent with very recent infall fro the edge of the Local Group. They are not well described by our underlying sooth phase space distribution function, and are reanalysed without priors on their orbital paraeters. For And XIV, ultiple pericentric passages are possible and iproved distance inforation is needed to draw further conclusions. For And XII, orbits which assue at least one pericentric passage can be ruled out and it ust be on its first infall into the M31 syste. Key words: galaxies:individual: M31 galaxies: dwarf galaxies: kineatics and dynaics Local Group and extended than that of the Milky Way, its collection of satellite galaxies and globular clusters ore nuerous. Two of the entourage, And XII (Martin et al. 6; Chapan et al. 7; Collins et al. ) and And XIV (Majewski et al. 7; Kalirai et al. ), are unusual in that they have extree kineatics with high line-of-sight velocities. And XII ay have been fored outside of the virial radius of the Local Group (Chapan et al. 7) and only recently been accreted. Siilarly, Majewski et al. (7) found that, even at its projected radius, And XIV is nearly at the M31 escape velocity, which iplies that And XIV ay also be on its first infall into the Local Group. Hierarchical odels of foration can often produce dsphs on eccentric orbits at late ties, as the saller galaxies begin to interact with the nascent, central galaxy. For exaple, Sales et al. (7) suggested that infall of a satellite pair, followed by a three-body encounter ay detach the lighter copanion and eject it on to an eccentric orbit. Such satellites ay be identifiable as outliers in a census of orbital properties. The ain hurdle is that, for ost of the M31 satellites, only the line-of-sight velocities are known; there are no proper otions. This eans that statistical techniques have to be developed to associate characteristic orbital periods, eccentricities, sei-ajor axes and nubers of pericentric passages with each satellite galaxy. We show how to do this with a novel cobination of the tiing arguc 1 RAS

2 L.L. Watkins et al. ent and phase-space distribution functions. The principle behind the tiing arguent is siple: for two galaxies that are nearby and oving towards each other at the present tie, we assue that, at the tie of the Big Bang, they were close together and began to ove apart with the Hubble expansion. At high redshift, their utual gravitational attraction would have caused the to decouple fro the Hubble flow and their orbit can then be described using Newtonian dynaics. Given their present separation and velocities and the tie for which they have been interacting, we can estiate the properties of their orbit. Kahn & Woltjer (199) first applied the tiing arguent to the relative otion of the Milky Way and M31 to infer that there ust be a significant aount of intergalactic ass in the Local Group. This analysis has been re-visited in the intervening years (e.g. van der Marel & Guhathakurta 8) and, ore recently, it has been applied to certain of the Milky Way satellites in order to estiate the Milky Way ass (Li & White 8; Kallivayalil et al. 9). Of course, the tiing arguent treats the two galaxies as point asses, which is clearly an oversiplification. Galaxies are extended objects, and have theselves evolved and accreted a significant aount of ass since the Big Bang. Li & White (8) studied analogues of the Local Group in the Millenniu Siulation to show that the tiing arguent gives an alost unbiased estiate of the cobined ass of two large galaxies, like the Milky Way and M31. They then extended the analysis to a large galaxy with a saller satellite and showed that it is equally effective for deterining the host ass. So it sees that, despite the rather generous assuptions, the tiing arguent is surprisingly effective. Section introduces the data for the M31 satellites. Section 3 introduces a distribution of sei-ajor axes and eccentricities for a satellite galaxy population in the outer parts of M31, and shows how to fix the paraeters via a axiu likelihood ethod. Section 4 ipleents the algorith, and provides axiu likelihood solutions for the whole dataset, as well as individual satellites. For each satellite, we provide the ost likely orbital period, eccentricity, sei-ajor axis in Table. In Section, we identify possible candidates for group infall. Section 6 relaxes soe of the assuptions we ake earlier in the paper and reanalyses a nuber of satellites that are not well fit by the earlier odels; seeking iniu ass solutions to the Tiing Arguent to account for the lack of proper otion data. Finally, we conclude in Section 7. DATA The position and velocity data for M31 and its satellites are given in Table 1. The locations of the satellites are shown in Fig. 1 in equatorial coordinates, with the position of M31 shown as an ellipse (the size of which corresponds to the extent of the disk). The points are coloured according to the orbital periods that we derive in Section 4.4. The shaded region shows the PAndAS footprint to illustrate the bias in the spatial coverage of current deep surveys. Distance estiates for ost of the galaxies are fro the profiles presented by Conn et al. (1); although we quote distances and errors in the table, we do not use these directly in the first part of our analysis, instead we use the full heliocentric distance profiles. Where distance profiles are not available, we assue the profiles are Gaussian. The ajority of the dsph velocities coe fro Tollerud et al. (1) and Collins et al. (1). If a satellite has been studied by both groups, we follow the advice of Collins et al. (1) and use the estiate based on a greater nuber of eber stars. There are δ,j [deg] α,j [deg] Figure 1. Positions of the satellites in equatorial coordinates; the points are coloured according to the estiated period of the satellite s orbit (see Section 4.4 for details and Table for full satellite orbital properties). The ellipse shows the extent of the bright disk of M31. The PAndAS footprint is shaded to illustrate the bias in the spatial coverage of current deep surveys. soe instances in which the heliocentric velocities have asyetric errors; as these are generally only different by sall aounts, we adopt the ean of the error. We use the M31 proper otions (µ α, µ δ ) = (34.3 ± 8.6,. ± 7.8) µas yr 1 recently presented in van der Marel et al. (1); that study assued a fixed M31 distance, whereas here we consider the full posterior distance distribution (Conn et al. 1). This akes it necessary to adjust the proper otions to account for this change. 3 MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS With proper otions as well as line-of-sight velocities for all of the M31 satellites, we could deterine both the radial and tangential coponents of the satellite otions. Unfortunately, proper otion data exist for only two of the satellites: IC and M33; for the rest, there are only line-of-sight velocities. If we wish to gain insights into the properties of the orbits, we ust turn to a ore statistical analysis. To start, we generate a population of N orb satellites around a central host, with their orbits described by the tiing arguent. We then view each of the satellites fro N pos randoly selected viewing positions in order to deterine line-of-sight velocities. Finally, we deterine how likely each M31 satellite is in a given odel. 3.1 The tiing arguent To apply the tiing arguent to M31 and any one of its satellites, we solve the following set of equations for spherical radius r fro the centre of M31, tie t, radial velocity v r and tangential velocity v t of the satellite: r = a(1 e cos η), t = a (η e sin η), λ v r = λ e sin η 1 e 1 e cos η, vt = λ 1 e cos η, (1) where η is the eccentric anoaly, e is the eccentricity of the orbit, a is the sei-ajor axis of the orbit, M is the total ass of the syste 7... Tsat [Gyr] c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

3 A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites 3 Table 1. Data table for the Local Group galaxies used in this analysis. α,j δ,j d h (kpc) v h (k/s) sources a M ± 1. 1,,3 And I ±. 1,,14 And II ± ± 1. 1,,14 And III ± 1.7 1,,14 And V ± 1. 1,,1 And VI (Peg dsph) ± 34.8 ± 1.9 1,1,14 And VII (Cass I) ± ± 1.3 1,1,14 And IX ±. 4,,1 And X ± 1.7,,14 And XI ,,14 And XII ± 1.7 4,,14 And XIII ±.4 4,,1 And XIV ± 1. 4,,14 And XV ± 1.4 4,,1 And XVI ±.8 4,,1 And XVII ,,14 And XVIII ±.7 6,,1 And XIX ,,14 And XX ,,14 And XXI ±.8 7,,14 And XXII (Tri I) ,,1 And XXIII ± 1. 8,,14 And XXIV ,,14 And XXV ,,14 And XXVI ,,14 And XXVII ,,14 Cass II (And XXX) ,,14 IC ± ± 1.,11,16 IC ± 4 3. ± 1.,1,16 M ±. ± 6.,13,16 M ± 1. 1,,16 NGC ± 3. 1,,17 NGC ± 3. 1,,17 NGC ± ± 3. 1,1,17 Pegasus ± ±.3 1,1,18 Pisces ± ±.3 1,1,18 Notes: a sources are given in turn for position, distance, line-of-sight velocity Sources: (1) McConnachie et al. (); () Conn et al. (1); (3) Courteau & van den Bergh (1999); (4) Collins et al. (); () Brasseur et al. (11); (6) McConnachie et al. (8); (7) Martin et al. (9); (8) Richardson et al. (11); (9) Irwin et al. (1); () Karachentsev et al. (4); (11) Sakai et al. (1999); (1) Cole et al. (1999); (13) see Appendix A; (14) Collins et al. (1); (1) Tollerud et al. (1); (16) Huchra et al. (1999); (17) Bender et al. (1991); (18) Huchteier et al. (3) and λ = (GM/a) 1. For each host-satellite pair, we assue that their utual gravitational attraction caused the to decouple fro the Hubble flow at high redshift. Thus, the tie t is the age of the universe, which is t u = Gyr (Spergel et al. 7). 3. Models In the nearly-keplerian regie in which the Galactic potential is φ r β with β 1, a density distribution that falls like ρ r is generated by a phase space distribution function (Evans et al. 1997) f(e, L) L E α, or equivalently α = ( β) + β 3 () f(a, e) (1 e ) a α. (3) The distributions of sei-ajor axes a and eccentricities e are given by f(a) a 3, f(e) (1 e ). (4) Note that alone controls the distribution of sei-ajor axes whilst controls the distribution of eccentricities. The shapes of these distributions are shown in Fig. ; the solid lines represent the functional for of the distributions, the histogras show saples selected at rando fro the given distributions. The left panel shows the sei-ajor axis distributions for various ; for = 1, the distribution of sei-ajor axes is nearly flat, with a slight preference for large values of a, but as increases the distributions strongly favour saller sei-ajor axes and the distributions are highly peaked. The right panel shows the eccentricity distributions c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

4 4 L.L. Watkins et al. f(a) = 1 = = 3 = 4 = 3 4 a [kpc] f(e) = = 3 = 6 = 9 = e.8 1. Figure. Left panel: the distribution of sei-ajor axes for different values of. Right panel: the distribution of orbital eccentricities for different values of. In both panels, the sooth lines represent the analytical distributions (see equation (4)) and the histogras represent saples of selected at rando fro the given distribution. vlos [k/s] 4 4 N orb = N pos = = 3. = r sep [kpc] Figure 3. The distribution of host-satellite separations and absolute line-ofsight velocities for a odel with = 3., = 8., N orb = and N pos =. The points are binned into pixels of size kpc k s 1 and the pixels coloured according to the nuber of points therein. For clarity, the v los axis has been truncated at ± k s 1. for a range of. For =, the distribution of eccentricities is flat; as increases, the distributions begin to favour low eccentricities, until for high the ost eccentric orbits are effectively ruled out. For given and, we generate N orb (a, e) pairs fro these distributions. We adopt an M31 ass of M M31 = 1. 1 M (Watkins et al. ) and assue a universal satellite ass of M sat = 1 7 M (e.g. Strigari et al. 8); then the total syste ass M = M M31 + M sat. Now we use equation (1) to propagate the orbits forwards until t = t u (with corresponding eccentric anoaly η = η u). The values of r at this point are the host-satellite separations. To fix the viewing positions, we select a host-observer distance d fro the heliocentric distance profile of M31 (Conn et al. 1). We generate position angles (l, b), where l is selected at rando in [, π] and sin b is selected at rando in [,1]. N pos viewing positions are generated separately for each of the N orb orbits. For each viewing position, the coponent of the satellite s velocity v los along the line-of-sight is calculated Nneighbours Now we have a set of N = N orb N pos siulated satellites, each with a host-satellite separation distance r and a line-ofsight velocity v los. A saple distribution of separation distances and line-of-sight velocities is shown in Fig. 3, generated with paraeters: = 3., = 8., N orb = and N pos = (see Section 4.1 for a discussion of how N orb and N pos are chosen). As a visual aid, to highlight the density of the points, the points have been binned into kpc k s 1 pixels and the pixels coloured according to the nuber of points they contain. 3.3 Satellite likelihoods For a given odel, we wish to deterine how likely it is that we observe a particular satellite given the odel predictions, and also, how likely it is that we observe the whole satellite syste. For each satellite, we have data Θ sat that consists of the sky coordinates of the satellite (for which we assue no errors), the heliocentric distance of the satellite and errors, the observed radial velocity of the satellite and error, and (where available) the proper otions of the satellite and errors; together with the sae data for M31. We assue the error distributions are Gaussian, although for the satellite distances, we allow the positive error to be different fro the negative error. Fro this data, we can calculate the distributions of separations r of the satellite fro the centre of M31 and the line-of-sight velocities v los of the satellite corrected for solar peculiar otion 1, otion of the Local Standard of Rest (LSR) and the relative otion of the Milky Way and M31. In what follows, for greater clarity, we will drop the LOS subscript on v los, but we will always be considering line-of-sight velocities. We start by generating sets of data Θ sat fro their respective distributions, and calculate r and v for each set. As expected, the distribution of velocities is approxiately Gaussian, with a ean v sat siilar to that calculated using the data values and a standard deviation σ vsat coparable to that inferred fro standard error propagation. The distribution of separations requires soe further thought. The separation distance r is calculated via, r = d + d M31 dd M31 cos θ, () where d is the heliocentric distance of the satellite, d M31 is the heliocentric distance of M31 and θ is their angular separation. There is a iniu separation distance r in = d M31 sin θ (achieved when d = d M31 cos θ). Even when the satellite heliocentric distances are norally distributed, the resulting separation distribution cannot be obtained by siply truncating the Gaussian at r in and renoralising because the distribution can becoe significantly non-gaussian. The distribution accuulates near the iniu because of the coplicated dependence of the separation distance on the satellite position. When the satellite distance profiles are non- Gaussian (as they are for any satellites in this analysis, see Conn et al. 1), the separation distributions becoe yet ore coplex. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of separations for three typical satellites. Satellites such as And II are either far enough away fro the centre of M31 or have sall enough errors that the iniu separation is never reached and the distribution does not pile up at sall separations. For satellites such as And XX, the distributions 1 (U, V, W ) = (1 ±.36,. ±.6, 7.17 ±.38) k s 1 (Dehnen & Binney 1998). V LSR = ± k s 1 (Kerr & Lynden-Bell 1986). c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

5 A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites f(r).. And II f(r) And XV f(r).4.3. And XX Figure 4. The distribution of separations for And II (left), And XV (iddle) and And XX (right). And II is sufficiently distant with sall enough errors so that the shape of the separation profile is siilar to that of the heliocentric distance profile. And XV is an interediate case, as its separation distribution is siilar to the heliocentric distance distribution at larger separations, but this breaks down close to the iniu separation. For And XX, the distribution finds a iniu separation distance around which the distribution becoes highly peaked. The red lines show the functions fitted to the distributions. are highly distorted with a sharp peak at or near the iniu separation distance. The final exaple, And XV, is an interediate case that is just starting to show an increase in separations near the iniu separation distance. In order to account for these profiles in our odels, we approxiate the functional fors of the likelihood distributions by fitting splines to the soothed histogras. These functions f(r) are shown by the red lines in Fig. 4. We include the full set of separation-distance distributions in Fig. B1. For each odel, we have a set of N pairs of separation distances and line-of-sight velocities {Θ i = (r i, v i)} N i=1. For each point, we ask what is the likelihood of observing Θ sat, P (Θ sat Θ i,, ) = CP (Θ sat r i,, ) P (Θ sat v i,, ) ) (vi vsat) = Cf(r i) exp (, (6) σv sat for noralising constant C. The likelihood of observing the satellite given the odel is then the weighted su over all points Θ i, N P (Θ sat, ) = P (Θ sat Θ i,, ) P (Θ i). (7) i=1 The weights P (Θ i) = 1/N in this case, as the priors on Θ i are already accounted for in the Monte Carlo odelling. The likelihood of observing the whole satellite syste Θ sys, is the product of the individual likelihoods for each satellite and is thus P (Θ sys, ) = P (Θ sat, ). (8) 4 RESULTS 4.1 Setup satellites Recall, we wish to saple N orb orbits fro the distributions given in equation (4), and to observe each orbit fro N pos viewing positions. The total nuber of points N tot = N orb N pos should be as large as possible to ensure that the rv-space is well sapled. We find that N tot = 6 is sufficient for this purpose. N orb controls the nuber of radii sapled, while N pos is the nuber of velocities sapled at each radius. Provided N orb is high enough, lowish values of N pos are acceptable as the radial distribution is sapled well enough to give a representative set of radii and velocities. We find that using N orb = and N pos = enables us Figure. The likelihood of observing the M31 satellite syste as a function of (which controls the distribution of sei-ajor axes) and (which controls the distribution of orbital eccentricities). The black cross represents the ost likely odel as deterined by arginalising over and in turn. to well saple the rv-space while keeping coputing ties down. The range of eccentricities sapled is e [, 1]. For the seiajor axes, we have to take care. The tiing arguent assuptions break down very near to the centre of M31, so we do not allow a to becoe too sall. To deterine the range of sei-ajor axes, we take the 6.4 and 93.6 (1. σ) percentiles of the cobined separation-distance distributions, rounded to the nearest kpc, to give a [, 4] kpc. 4. Satellite syste We search an 61x61 grid of odels with [1, 4] and ln [., 3.], which corresponds to [1.3,.8]. The sapling is perfored logarithically in instead of linearly. The right panel of Fig. shows that a change in for sall values of has a ore significant effect on the shape of the eccentricity distribution than for large values of. The total likelihood of observing the whole M31 satellite syste is shown in Fig. as a function of and. The value of is well constrained in the range that we have considered indicating Ptotal/Pax c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

6 6 L.L. Watkins et al. Parg, Parg, 4 3 =.3 ± = Figure 6. Marginalised likelihood of the M31 satellite syste as a function of (left) and (right). is tightly constrained at =.±.3. shows ore scatter but still reaches a clear peak at = f(a) = a [kpc] f(e) = e Figure 7. The distributions of sei-ajor axes and orbital eccentricity for the values of and that best reproduce the M31 satellite syste. that there is a very specific distribution of sei-ajor axes that fit the observed satellite distribution. The distribution of eccentricities is less-well constrained; it is for this reason that we consider such a large range of values. There is soe scatter between odels as N tot is finite. To deterine the values of and that axiise the likelihood of the satellite syste, we arginalise over and in turn. The results are shown in Fig. 6, with an asyetric Gaussian fitted to the arginalised points to deterine the peak of the distribution. The top panel shows the arginalised likelihood as a function of and it is again clear that is well constrained. The botto panel shows the arginalised likelihood as a function of ; the constraints are weaker here but the distribution does reach a clear peak. The best odel, after arginalisation, is found to have =.3 ±.3 and = This is arked with a black cross in Fig.. The corresponding orbital distribution functions are shown in Fig. 7. Fro these, we can see that such a value for favours short sei-ajor axes, while still allowing a sall nuber of large sei-ajor axis lengths (which are required for the outerost satellites). Such values for strongly favour low eccentricities, and rule out higher eccentricities. 4.3 Individual satellites Now we turn to the likelihoods of the individual satellites; these are shown as a function of and in Fig. 8 with the satellites ordered according to the edian of their separation distance distribution. The colours of the pixels represent the likelihood of the satellite in a given odel; all the satellites are shown on the sae likelihood (colour) scale to aid coparison. The best odel for the entire satellite syste is shown by the black cross in each panel. The best odel for each individual satellite is shown as a white cross. M3 appears to be unlikely for all of the odels we have considered here, which is probably due to its proxiity to M31; the exaple odel shown in Fig. 3 clearly shows that very sall separation distances are hard to achieve with the range of sei-ajor axes we have used. And XVIII, Pegasus and IC 1613 also appear to be rather unlikely, but in their case it is due to their large separation distances. And XXVII also has a low-likelihood. The large errors on its heliocentric distance (which arise because it is in the process of being tidally disrupted and ay even be gravitationally unbound (Collins et al. 1)) lead to a correspondingly large range of separation distances (see Fig. B1). And XII and And XIV also have low likelihoods for all values of and. We cannot ake the sae arguents for these satellites, as both are found at distances siilar to the ain bulk of the satellite population. It is their large line-of-sight velocities that ake the unusual. This indicates that they are not well described by the odels that we have been considering here. To apply the tiing arguent, we have ade two assuptions: that the orbits are in the nearly-keplerian regie; and that the Milky Way and other satellites ake only a negligible contribution to the orbits. In the Monte Carlo siulations, we have ade a third assuption that the satellites are part of a well-ixed population with orbits consistent with the distributions functions described in equation (4). We believe that the first assuption does hold good at these interediate radii, and, in Section 1, we discussed our reasons for the second assuption in soe detail. Thus, it is the third assuption that we suspect is invalid for these two satellites and we conclude that they are not part of a well-ixed population. We observe a trend in the preferred value of with separations; the innerost satellites all favour high values of, that is, they require very sall sei-ajor axes. Moving out in radius, the preferred value of shifts to lower values, allowing for increasing nubers of satellites with larger sei-ajor axes. For the outerost satellites, sall values of are strongly preferred as these odels necessarily allow orbits with large sei-ajor axes. The exception to this trend is And XXVII, but it has very large distance errors and should be treated with caution. A saple of separations and line-of-sight velocities generated fro the best odel is shown in Fig. 9. Just as in Fig. 3, the points are coloured according to their nuber of nearest neighbours as an indication of the density. The positions and velocities of the satellites are also shown, with And XII, And XIV, M3 and And XXVII arked. As we have already noted, M3 is very close in to M31 and the odel has trouble producing satellites at such sall distances. The very large uncertainty on the distance of And XXVII is c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

7 A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites 7 M3 NGC And I And XVII And III And XXV And V NGC 147 And XXIII And XXI And XX And X And XIX And XI And XII And IX And XXIV And XIV And XV NGC 18 Cass II And II M33 And VII And XIII And XXII And XXVI IC Pisces And VI And XVI And XXVII And XVIII Pegasus IC Psat Figure 8. The likelihood of observing each M31 satellite as a function of the odel paraeters and (which deterine the distribution of sei-ajor axes and eccentricities respectively). The colours of the pixels indicate with likelihood, with all satellites plotted using the sae scale to allow easy coparison. The satellites are ordered by the edian of their separation distribution. Both And XII and And XIV have a very low likelihood for all odels, despite having separations siilar to the bulk of the satellite population, suggesting that they are very unusual objects. vlos [k/s] 4 4 M3 And XII And XIV N orb = N pos = =.3 = 6.9 And XXVII r sep [kpc] Figure 9. A saple of separations and line-of-sight velocities generated fro the best odel (for details see Fig. 3), with the observed values (and errors) for the satellites overplotted. And XII and And XIV are outliers to the odel distribution, explaining their low likelihoods. M3 is also an outlier as there are few odel orbits found at such low separations. And XXVII is also arked to highlight the very large uncertainty on its separation. also apparent here. And XII and And XIV are very uch outliers to the distribution of odel points, which explains the low likelihoods that we recover Nneighbours 4.4 Orbital properties For each orbit i in a given odel, we have a sei-ajor axis a and eccentricity e. Fro these, we can calculate the period T, apocentric distance r a and pericentric distance r p. Then for orbit paraeter X, the weighted-ean period X sat of the satellite for that odel is given by X sat (, ) = N P (Θsat Θi,, ) Xi i=1 N. (9) P (Θsat Θi,, ) i=1 The distributions of ean periods T sat are shown in Fig.. The ean period for all the odels is shown in the upper-right corner of each plot. For all satellites, the average period changes very little over the range of odels considered here. As expected, the periods of the satellite becoe larger as their separation fro M31 increases. And XXVII is soewhat anoalous in having a very sall period, whereas the satellites at siilar distances have very long periods, but this is likely due to the fact that the errors on its heliocentric distance are large. And XII and And XIV see to have average periods consistent with those of their neighbours. The period of And XII is estiated at T 3. Gyr and the period of And XIV is estiates at T 7 Gyr. Thus, for these odels, And XIV is predicted to be on its second or third orbit, and And XII on its fourth; i.e. neither satellite is on its first infall into the M31 syste. However, fro Fig. 8, we conclude that these satellites are unlikely for all of the odels that c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

8 8 L.L. Watkins et al. 1.1 ±.1 1. ±. 1.6 ±. 1.8 ±.. ±..8 ±. 3. ±.. M3 3.1 ±.3 NGC 147 And XII And II Pisces 3. ± ±.4.9 ±.3 NGC 3. ±.3 And XXIII And IX M33 And VI 4.8 ± ±. 11. ±.3 And I And XXI 3.8 ±.3.4 ±. And XXIV And VII 7.9 ± ±.7 And XVI And XVII And XX And XIV And XIII 4.4 ±. 6.9 ± ± ±.6 And XXVII And III And X And XV 4.6 ±.7.9 ±.8.7 ±. And XXII 19. ± 1. And XVIII And XXV And XIX 4.3 ±.7 6. ±.4 NGC ± 1.9 And XXVI 1. ±. Pegasus And V And XI Cass II IC.3 ± ±.8.7 ±. 1. ±. IC Tsat [Gyr] Figure. Weighted-ean orbital period as a function of odel paraeters and for each satellite. The colours of the pixels indicate the ean period. The periods change significantly fro satellite to satellite, generally increasing with separation. However the periods change little over the range of odels considering, indicating that the ean period is a robust easure for each satellite. For each satellite, the ean period for all the odels is shown in the top-right corner of each panel. we have considered, so it is unwise to put too uch faith into these periods. We can go one step further and consider the ean orbital paraeters of each satellite over all odels that we have considered. To do this we take the weighted ean of the weighted-ean orbital paraeter, using the odel likelihoods for each satellite as the weights. For orbital paraeter X, that is, P (Θsat, ) Xsat (, ), Xsat =, P (Θsat, ). () Siilarly, we calculate the weighted variance of the paraeters to estiate the uncertainty on these values. We do this for each of the period, sei-ajor axis, eccentricity, apocentre and pericentre and for each satellite; the results are displayed in Table. A nuber of orbits can reproduce a given separation distance and, whilst their sei-ajor axes are well constrained, their eccentricities can show ore variation. Nonetheless, the weighted eans of the eccentricities reported in Table are all very siilar, and are coparable to the eans of the theoretical distributions in equation (4). Thus, this is a consequence of the assuption that the satellites are well-ixed and have a power-law density profile. If this assuption were dropped for exaple, if the profile is broken then the eccentricities would show greater variation. The range of sei-ajor axes sapled by the distribution functions is [, 4] kpc; we discussed the otivations for this choice in Section 4.1. Suppose we consider curtailing this range at the upper end and re-run our siulations over a coarse grid using a range [, 3] kpc. The innerost satellites are oblivious to this change. The outerost satellites (And XVIII, Pegasus and IC 1613) are significantly affected. For exaple, IC 1613 lies at a distance of ± 1 kpc fro the centre of M31. Orbits with sei-ajor axes a 4 kpc need only be ildly eccentric to produce a satellite at this distance. Orbits with sei-ajor axes a 3 kpc need to be ore eccentric to reach out to kpc. So distribution functions with lower are now preferred that perit ore orbits with larger eccentricities. The predicted weighted eans of the eccentricities for the outerost satellites do change significantly, naely e.6 for And XVIII, e.87 for Pegasus and e.9 for IC INFALLING GROUPS Using siulations of galaxy foration in a hierarchical erging cosogony, Li & Heli (8) found that nearly a third of the dark atter subhalos were accreted in groups. Such behaviour is not unexpected. Sales et al. (7) postulate that outlying satellites on extree orbits ay have been part of an infalling pair. When the pair interact with the host, the heavier eber can aintain a bound orbit, but the lighter satellite is kicked out onto a high-energy orbit. Observations also show aple evidence for group infall; de Jong et al. () recently presented evidence that Leo IV and Leo V could be a bound tubling pair falling into the Milky Way and, in their discovery of And XXII, Martin et al. (9) noted that it lies closer in projection to M33 than M31 and suggested that it c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

9 A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites 9 Table. Mean orbital properties for the M31 satellites. period sei-ajor axis eccentricity apocentre pericentre (Gyr) (kpc) (kpc) (kpc) And I 1.6 ±. 74 ± 4.1 ±.7 9 ± 8 9 ± And II 6.6 ±.4 19 ± 8.3 ±.8 3 ± ± 17 And III. ±. 9 ± 6.3 ± ± 7 ± 9 And V 3. ±. 114 ± 6.3 ±.8 14 ± 9 88 ± 11 And VI 11. ±.3 73 ± 6.17 ±. 3 ± 6 ± 18 And VII 7.9 ±.6 17 ± 11.8 ±.9 77 ± ± And IX 4.8 ±.9 1 ±.3 ± ± ± And X 4.6 ± ± 14. ± ± ± 16 And XI.3 ± ± 6. ± ± 3 1 ± And XII 3. ±.7 1 ± 1.1 ±.7 1 ± 7 98 ± And XIII 7.8 ± ± 3. ±.8 3 ± ± 33 And XIV 6.9 ± ± 14.3 ±.6 43 ± 8 11 ± 9 And XV.9 ± ± 1.3 ±.8 17 ± ± 1 And XVI 13.1 ±.7 3 ± 11. ± ± 13 4 ± 9 And XVII 1.8 ±. 79 ± 6.1 ±.7 9 ± 6 ± 7 And XVIII 19. ± 1. 4 ± 1. ± ± ± 44 And XIX 4.3 ± ± 1. ±.6 17 ± 11 ± 1 And XX 4.4 ±. 14 ±.1 ± ± ± 1 And XXI 3.8 ± ± 7.4 ±.8 16 ± 11 ± 14 And XXII.7 ±. 67 ± 9. ±.6 3 ± ± And XXIII 3. ±.3 17 ± 6.4 ±.9 17 ± 97 ± 13 And XXIV.4 ±. 167 ±. ±.6 ± ± 1 And XXV.8 ±. 8 ± 11. ±.6 13 ± 16 8 ± And XXVI 8.3 ± ± 36.3 ±.8 6 ± ± 38 And XXVII.1 ±.6 8 ± ±.6 1 ± ± Cass II 6.1 ± ± 1.1 ±.6 18 ± ± 14 IC.7 ±. 68 ± 9.1 ±.7 33 ± 1 1 ± 4 IC ±. 4 ± 7.31 ±.6 ± 1 93 ± 9 M3 1.1 ±.1 6 ± 3.7 ±. 77 ± 9 44 ± 4 M ±. 6 ± 9.7 ±.8 61 ± ± 18 NGC ± ± 6.3 ± ± 9 ± 11 NGC ±.4 18 ± 8. ±.7 ± ± 1 NGC 1. ±. 7 ± 4.1 ±.7 87 ± 8 7 ± Pegasus 1. ±. 43 ± 6.19 ±. 4 ± 1 34 ± 4 Pisces.9 ±.3 7 ± 6.18 ±. 319 ± 4 ± 18 Notes: * Objects are unlikely to be correctly described by the class of odels used to generate these orbital properties and should be used with caution. could be a satellite of M33. With orbital properties for all of the M31 satellites, it is worth taking a oent to consider whether there is any evidence that groups of satellites can be associated and ay have had a coon origin. First we consider whether And XXII (a = 67 ± 9 kpc, e =. ±.6) ight be not a satellite of M31 but of M33, which itself has paraeters a = 6 ± 9 kpc, e =.7 ±.8. Tollerud et al. (1) and Chapan et al. (1) both found radial velocities consistent with this hypothesis. The latter authors analysed N-body siulations of the M31-M33 syste, which suggest that And XXII ay indeed be a satellite of M33. We find that the sei-ajor axes are not siilar, fro which we conclude that the two satellites are not oving independently along the sae orbit; but whether this eans they are orbiting each other or are unrelated, we cannot deterine fro this analysis. NGC 147 (a = 117 ± 6 kpc, e =.3 ±.8) and NGC 18 (a = 18 ± 8 kpc, e =. ±.7) are very close together on the sky and a connection between the has long been suspected. However the orbits we find for these two objects in our study do not support such a conclusion. Their eccentricities are siilar, but their sei-ajor axes are quite different, so uch so that NGC 147 copletes two orbits in the tie that NGC 18 takes to coplete one. Recent discovery Cass II (a = 181 ± 1 kpc, e =.1 ± 6) lies close to this pair and could be a third eber of their subsyste, if such a subsyste exists (see e.g., Irwin et al. 1). Collins et al. (1) argue that a connection is possible based on the line-ofsight velocity they easure for Cass II. Our results certainly favour a connection between Cass II and NGC 18 as the orbital paraeters we find for the are in close agreeent, but not for Cass II and NGC 147. To find other possible infalling groups, we select satellites with sei-ajor-axis and eccentricity estiates that overlap within their errors. This gives us 47 pairs of satellites. We further require that the pairs be in close proxiity, naely less than kpc apart. This corresponds to an angle of 7.4 at the distance of M31, so we keep only pairs with separations saller than this value. This leaves us with 14 pairs (of which eight are individual pairs and the rest for two groups of three). Finally, we calculate separation profiles for each of these pairs and calculate the edian separation distance. We reject all pairs with edian separation larger than kpc, to obtain three candidate pairs and one candidate group, of which the Cass II - NGC 18 pair (separation kpc) c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

10 L.L. Watkins et al. has already been discussed. The other two pairs are: And I (a = 74 ± 4 kpc, e =.1 ±.7) and And XVII (a = 79 ± 6 kpc, e =.1.7), which have a separation kpc; and And IX (a = 1± kpc, e =.3±.8) and And X (a = 149±14 kpc, e =. ±.7), which have a separation kpc. The group is coposed of And V (a = 114 ± 6 kpc, e =.3 ±.8), And XXV (a = 8 ± 11 kpc, e =. ±.6) and NGC 147; the And V-And XXV separation is kpc, the And V-NGC 147 separation is kpc and the And XXV-NGC 147 separation is kpc. Further study is required to deterine whether these candidate groups are real. 6 MINIMUM-MASS SOLUTIONS In the odelling, we assued that all of the satellites are part of a well-ixed population described by the distribution functions in equation (4). We believe it is this assuption that is not appropriate for And XII and And XIV. Here, we relax that assuption and then use the tiing arguent to analyse the orbits of these two satellites, placing no priors on the orbital properties. 6.1 The tiing arguent revisited In Section 3.1, we already outlined the tiing arguent (equation (1)). There are four equations and four unknowns (a, e, M and η). Apart fro the special case e = 1, these equations ust be solved nuerically to yield ultiple solutions corresponding to increasing nubers of pericentric passages. To proceed, we cobine the equations to eliinate a, e and M: ( r v r η sin η [ vr + vt sin η ] ) 1 vr sin η t = ( [v v r r + vt sin η ] ) 1. (11) v r cos η To solve equation (11) for η, we ust provide t, r, v r and v t at the present tie. As before, we assue t = t u, the age of the universe (see Section 3.1). The reainder of the paraeters ay be estiated fro position and velocity data of M31 and the satellites. The separations r are calculated using trigonoetry fro the heliocentric distances and positions (equation ()). The velocities v r and v t have contributions fro both the line-of-sight velocities and the proper otions, both of which uch be corrected for the solar peculiar otion, otion of the LSR and the relative otion of the Milky Way and M31 (see Section 3.3). However, as we do not have proper otion estiates for the satellites, we cannot copute either v r or v t; instead we odel to account for this incoplete data. The corrected line-of-sight velocities v cor of the satellites in the M31 frae have contributions fro both the radial velocities v r and the tangential velocities v t referred to the centre of M31, v cor = v r cos α + v t sin α cos ξ, (1) where α is the angle between the line joining the centre of M31 to the centre of the dsph and the line-of-sight to the dsph, and ξ the angle between the tangential velocity vector and the plane containing M31, the dsph and the Sun. Now, α ay be calculated via cos α = d + r d M31, sin α = dr dm31 sin θ, (13) r where θ is the angular separation of the dsph and M31 on the sky. It is convenient to introduce the (positive) velocity ratio R = v t/ v r, such that v t = Rv cor sign (v r) cos α + R sin α cos ξ. (14) There is no available data on the velocity ratio R and the angle of inclination of the orbit with respect to the plane of the sky ξ. Even so, the solution corresponding to the iniu ass M is welldefined. A little consideration shows that on physical grounds, the orbit s kinetic energy and hence the total ass is iniised if ξ = (for v cor > ) and if ξ = π (for v cor <, which is the case for And XII and And XIV). A good approxiation to the value of R for the iniu ass is given by iniising the Lagrangian L L = 1 ( ) v r + vt l (vr cos α v t sin α v cor) (1) where l is the Lagrange ultiplier. This leads to the solution R = tan α. In fact, though this is a good physical guide to the location of the solution, it is not exact. However, it provides a good starting point for a grid search, in which for successive R values, equation (11) is solved for η iteratively and the iniu ass is located. 6. Results We start by searching for a solution η [π, π], thus assuing that the dwarfs are on their first infall into M31 (ultiple pericentric passages necessarily iply higher asses). For And XII we are able to place a lower constraint on the ass of the syste of M.1 1 M, corresponding to R =.6. Siilarly for And XIV, there is a iniu ass estiate of M M when R = 4.3. The corresponding orbital paraeters are given in Table 3. Although our priary ai here is to understand the orbits of And XII and And XIV, we note that these are in reasonable agreeent with earlier ass estiates M = M (Evans & Wilkinson ; Evans et al. ) and M = 1.±.4 1 M (Watkins et al. ). Reeber that these are iniu ass solutions that we have adopted here; higher ass solutions exist, however oving away fro this iniu would quickly result in unfeasibly high ass estiates for M31, so we are confident that the orbital paraeters will be close to the values predicted by this analysis. The resulting orbit of And XII is highly eccentric, it has an eccentricity e.9 with a corresponding pericentre distance of only a few kiloparsecs. The orbit of And XIV is of a ore oderate eccentricity and puts And XIV very near pericentre at the current tie, which would explain its high velocity. We now repeat the analysis for solutions corresponding to ultiple pericentric passages. The results for the first four solutions are shown in Fig. 11, with the upper set of graphs pertaining to And XII and the lower set to And XIV. The left panels shows the apocentres, pericentres and sei-ajor-axis lengths of the orbits. The top-right panels show that the ass estiate increases with increasing nubers of pericentric passages. The corresponding orbital properties are given in Table 3. Again for And XII, all of these orbits are highly eccentric with sall pericentre distances; this poses a proble for solutions that allow for ore than one pericentre passage. We would expect such close encounters with M31 to result in a significant aount of tidal distortion, but there is little evidence for such an interaction around either satellite. Furtherore, the ass estiates for the syste (already high for the first solution) becoe very high for subsequent solutions. Fro this, we conclude that And XII cannot have passed through pericentre and, thus, ust be on its first infall. For And XIV, it is less certain that we can rule out ultiple-orbit scenarios; all four solutions predict c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

11 A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites 11 Table 3. Orbital paraeters resulting fro the tiing arguent analyses. solution sei-ajor axis eccentricity ass apocentre pericentre period (kpc) ( 1 M ) (kpc) (kpc) (Gyr) And XII And XIV asses consistent with previous estiates and the orbits are all reasonable on observational grounds. So far, this analysis has used a single estiate for the separation distance and line-of-sight velocity of the satellite, and does not account for any uncertainties in these easureents, which we know to be considerable in soe cases. As discussed in Section, we now use full separation profiles and assue that the line-of-sight velocities have Gaussian errors. We select 3 separations r and line-of-sight velocities v los fro these distributions and perfor the sae iniu-ass analysis, now requiring that the satellites are on their first infall. The edian and 1-siga uncertainties in the iniu ass estiates are M = M for And XII and M = M for And XIV. The full distributions of iniu ass estiates are shown in Fig. 1 with And XII in red and And XIV in blue; the solid (dotted) lines show the best estiate (uncertainties) fro Watkins et al. (). Both ass distributions are consistent with this ass estiate. Indeed, the And XII distribution agrees very well with previous estiates, supporting the idea that And XII ust be on its first infall into the M31 syste. The And XIV ass distribution, on the other hand, shows two distinct peaks. This is a direct consequence of the double-peaked heliocentric distance profile fro Conn et al. (1), such that saller heliocentric distances produced larger host-satellite separations and thus, higher ass estiates. (Subsequent solutions assuing ultiple pericentric passages produce iniu-ass profiles of siilar shapes shifted to higher asses.) The low-ass peak contains low and oderate eccentricity orbits, with large pericentre distances, so solutions aditting ultiple pericentre passages would be feasible; the high-ass peaks correspond to orbits of higher eccentricity and lower pericentre distance, such that we could ake the sae arguents as we did earlier for And XII and say that And XIV cannot have passed through pericentre. As such, even in the absence of proper otion data, iproved distance estiates are required to ake any conclusion about And XIV via this analysis. 7 CONCLUSIONS We have used the tiing arguent to study the orbits of the satellites of M31. In all previous tiing arguent studies, the Milky Way has fored one half of the pair under consideration; never before has the tiing arguent been applied to two external galaxies as we do here. Two satellites, And XII and And XIV, are of particular interest as they are believed to be on their first infall into the M31 syste as they have very high line-of-sight velocities, higher than would be expected at their respective distances fro M31. As we lack transverse velocity inforation for the satellites, we cannot recover their orbits exactly. Instead we use Monte Carlo siulations to odel the inforation that we do not have. We generate a series of orbits fro physically-otivated distribution function and observe each orbit fro a rando viewing position. We then use Bayesian analysis to deterine the likelihood of each satellite given the set of orbits generated for each distribution function. In order to apply the tiing arguent, we have assued that the orbits are nearly-keplerian, that the Milky Way and other satellites have a negligible effect on the orbits and that the orbits are part of a sooth, well-ixed population. For the ajority of the satellites, the odels can recover the satellites very well and these assuptions hold. However, And XII and And XIV are both very poorly fit by any of the odels we have considered here; they are indeed unusual, as their velocities suggest. Li & White (8) showed that the tiing arguent perfors well on a host-satellite syste, even with the presence of a nearby Milky-Way-like copanion for the host, and their distances put the well within the bulk of the satellite population where we would not expect the nearly Keplerian assuption to break down. Thus, we conclude that it is the final assuption that is incorrect, indicating that they are not well fit by a sooth distribution function. Fro this it is reasonable to conclude that they are on their first infall into the M31 syste, or that they are recent ejections fro the syste after a three-body encounter (Sales et al. 7). In the light of this result, we relax the assuption that the orbits of And XII and And XIV are part of a well-ixed population and use the observed satellite properties to estiate their orbital paraeters. Again, due to the lack of transverse velocities, we cannot do this exactly; instead we are forced to search over a grid of possible transverse velocity easureents and adopt the iniu ass solution. Fro this, we find that the And XII orbit solution is realistic only when we assue that it is on its first infall; the orbit we predict is highly eccentric with a pericentre distance that will bring it close to the centre of M31. For And XIV, we cannot rule out ultiple pericentric passages; iproved distance deterination is needed to deterine the ost likely solution. Both satellites predict M31 asses consistent with previous studies. Finally, we consider whether the satellites ight be infalling in groups. We find four candidate groups (three pairs and one triple syste), but further work is needed to confir these predictions. Our results favour an association between Cass II and NGC 18, though not for NGC 18 and NGC 147, which have often been associated in the past. Other possible candidates for group infall inc 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

12 1 L.L. Watkins et al. d [kpc] apocentre sei-ajor axis pericentre M [ 1 Msun] T [Gyr] P (Min) WEA ass WEA uncertainty And XIV And XII d [kpc] solution apocentre sei-ajor axis pericentre solution e M [ 1 Msun] T [Gyr] e solution solution Figure 11. The first 4 η solutions for And XII (top set) and And XIV (botto set). Left: apocentre (triangles), sei-ajor axis (diaonds) and pericentre (circles) as a function of solution nuber. The dotted line shows the current position of the satellite. It appears that the apocentre asyptotes to the current position of the satellite while the pericentre asyptotes to. Top right: Miniu ass estiate M as a function of solution nuber. Middle right: orbital period T as a function of solution nuber. Botto right: eccentricity e as a function of solution nuber. clude the pair And I and And XVII; the pair And IX and And X; and the triple And V, And XXV and NGC 147. In this paper we have studied the M31 satellites. However, the ethod we have used is also readily applicable to the Milky Way satellite syste. It would be particularly interesting to copare the phase-space distribution function favoured by the Milky Way syste with that predicted here, and to study the orbits of the Milky Way satellites with their M31 counterparts. We could also use this ethod to investigate whether the ultrafaint dwarf spheroidals are kineatically different to the classical dwarf spheroidals. We need not liit analyses of this nature to such assive hosts; we have already discussed the growing body of evidence that And XXII is not a satellite of M31 but of M33 and there are M in [ 1 M ] Figure 1. The distribution of iniu ass estiates for And XII (red histogra) and And XIV (blue histogra). The solid and dotted lines show the best M31 ass estiate and the uncertainties fro Watkins et al. (). two extended clusters, EC 1 and EC, that are also found in close proxiity to M33. The techniques we have developed here could also be applied to this syste to study their orbital properties and deterine if the proposed satellites are truly bound to M33. We are grateful to Anthony Conn and Michelle Collins for aking their distance profiles and velocity easureents available in advance of publication, and to David Hogg for interesting (and very useful) discussions. REFERENCES Bell E. F., Slater C. T., Martin N. F., 11, ApJ, 74, L1 Bender R., Paquet A., Nieto J.-L., 1991, A&A, 46, 349 Brasseur C. M., Martin N. F., Rix H.-W., Irwin M., Ferguson A. M. N., McConnachie A. W., de Jong J., 11, ApJ, 79, 3 Chapan S. C. et al., 7, ApJ, 66, L79 Chapan S. C. et al., 1, ArXiv e-prints Cole A. A. et al., 1999, AJ, 118, 167 Collins M. L. M. et al.,, MNRAS, 47, 411 Collins et al. 1, subitted Conn A. R. et al., 1, ArXiv e-prints Courteau S., van den Bergh S., 1999, AJ, 118, 337 de Jong J. T. A., Martin N. F., Rix H., Sith K. W., Jin S., Macciò A. V.,, ApJ, 7, 1664 Dehnen W., Binney J. J., 1998, MNRAS, 98, 387 Evans N. W., Hafner R. M., de Zeeuw P. T., 1997, MNRAS, 86, 31 Evans N. W., Wilkinson M. I.,, MNRAS, 316, 99 Evans N. W., Wilkinson M. I., Guhathakurta P., Grebel E. K., Vogt S. S.,, ApJ, 4, L9 Fiorentino G., Contreras Raos R., Tolstoy E., Cleentini G., Saha A., 1, A&A, 39, A138 Huchra J. P., Vogeley M. S., Geller M. J., 1999, ApJS, 11, 87 Huchteier W. K., Karachentsev I. D., Karachentseva V. E., 3, A&A, 41, 483 Ibata R., Martin N. F., Irwin M., Chapan S., Ferguson A. M. N., Lewis G. F., McConnachie A. W., 7, ApJ, 671, 191 Irwin M. J., Ferguson A. M. N., Huxor A. P., Tanvir N. R., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., 8, ApJ, 676, L17 Irwin et al. 1, in prep c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14

13 A census of orbital properties of the M31 satellites 13 Table A1. M3 distance odulus estiates; the ethod used to obtain each estiate is also given, along with the source. µ ± σ ethod reference 4. ±.8 SBF Tonry et al. (1) 4.39 ±.8 SBF Jensen et al. (3) 4.3 ±.1 Red Clup Monachesi et al. (11) 4.4 ±.1 RR Lyraes Sarajedini et al. (1) 4.33 ±.1 RR Lyraes Fiorentino et al. (1) Jensen J. B., Tonry J. L., Barris B. J., Thopson R. I., Liu M. C., Rieke M. J., Ajhar E. A., Blakeslee J. P., 3, ApJ, 83, 71 Kahn F. D., Woltjer L., 199, ApJ, 13, 7 Kalirai J. S. et al.,, ApJ, 711, 671 Kallivayalil N., Besla G., Sanderson R., Alcock C., 9, ApJ, 7, 94 Karachentsev I. D., Karachentseva V. E., Huchteier W. K., Makarov D. I., 4, AJ, 17, 31 Kerr F. J., Lynden-Bell D., 1986, MNRAS, 1, 3 Li Y., Heli A., 8, MNRAS, 38, 136 Li Y., White S. D. M., 8, MNRAS, 384, 149 Majewski S. R. et al., 7, ApJ, 67, L9 Martin N. F., Ibata R. A., Irwin M. J., Chapan S., Lewis G. F., Ferguson A. M. N., Tanvir N., McConnachie A. W., 6, MNRAS, 371, 1983 Martin N. F. et al., 9, ApJ, 7, 78 McConnachie A. W. et al., 8, ApJ, 688, 9 McConnachie A. W., Irwin M. J., Ferguson A. M. N., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., Tanvir N.,, MNRAS, 36, 979 Monachesi A., Trager S. C., Lauer T. R., Freedan W., Dressler A., Grillair C., Mighell K. J., 11, ApJ, 77, Richardson J. C. et al., 11, ApJ, 73, 76 Sakai S., Madore B. F., Freedan W. L., 1999, ApJ, 11, 671 Sales L. V., Navarro J. F., Abadi M. G., Steinetz M., 7, MNRAS, 379, 147 Sarajedini A., Yang S.-C., Monachesi A., Lauer T. R., Trager S. C., 1, MNRAS, 4, 149 Slater C. T., Bell E. F., Martin N. F., 11, ApJ, 74, L14 Spergel D. N. et al., 7, ApJS, 17, 377 Strigari L. E., Bullock J. S., Kaplinghat M., Sion J. D., Geha M., Willan B., Walker M. G., 8, Nature, 44, 96 Tollerud E. J. et al., 1, ApJ, 7, 4 Tonry J. L., Dressler A., Blakeslee J. P., Ajhar E. A., Fletcher A. B., Luppino G. A., Metzger M. R., Moore C. B., 1, ApJ, 46, 681 van der Marel R. P., Fardal M., Besla G., Beaton R. L., Sohn S. T., Anderson J., Brown T., Guhathakurta P., 1, ApJ, 73, 8 van der Marel R. P., Guhathakurta P., 8, ApJ, 678, 187 Watkins L. L., Evans N. W., An J. H.,, MNRAS, 46, 64 Zucker D. B. et al., 4, ApJ, 61, L11 Zucker D. B. et al., 7, ApJ, 69, L1 APPENDIX A: DISTANCE TO M3 There have been a nuber of attepts to easure the heliocentric distance of M3 in recent years, using a variety of different ethods, including RR Lyrae variables, surface brightness fluctuations and Red Clup stars. These distance odulus estiates are given in Table A1, along with the ethod that was used to obtain the estiates and their references. Faced with so any estiates, all of which result fro careful, reliable studies, it is not clear which estiate should be adopted as the distance to M3; indeed different authors adopt different distance estiates in any M3 studies they undertake, and in soe cases, studies siply adopt the sae distance for M3 as they take for M31. σsys Pµ [ 3 ] ± µ true µ true Figure A1. Botto panel: The probability of observing the easured M3 distance oduli given their error estiates as a function of the true distance odulus µ true and the systeatic error σ sys. Top panel: The arginalised probability for true distance odulus µ true. The point at which the probability is axiised is arked with a cross. All of these different ethods have their advantages and disadvantages, with no one ethod being preferred over another; on the contrary, we are lucky to have so any different estiates fro so any different data sets. Taken together, the estiates copleent and support each other, and their overall agreeent is rearkable. Instead of picking one distance estiate and ignoring the rest, we would like to use a value that takes into account all of the inforation in Table A1. To that end, here we present a statistical analysis that attepts to cobine the previous estiates to obtain an iproved distance estiate. The ost straightforward option would be to take a siple ean and use the standard deviation as the uncertainty. However, this does not take into account any uncertainties on the estiates theselves, only their scatter, and can be unreliable when the nuber of estiates is very sall. A weighted ean - using weights equal to the inverse square of the uncertainties - would neatly address the first point, but not the second. Instead we turn to blind deconvolution, which is robust even with a sall nuber of original estiates. We can also fit for an extra, as-yet-ignored systeatic error on all the easureents. To start, consider a set of distance-odulus estiates µ i, each with uncertainty σ i. Let us assue that there is a true distance odulus µ true. Let us further assue that there is a systeatic error σ sys on each easureent that has not yet been accounted for in the quoted easureents such that the uncertainties on the easureents becoe σ i = σ i + σ sys. (A1) Now the probability of observed easureent µ i given the uncertainties and the true value is given by ) 1 (µi µtrue) P (µ i σ i, σ sys, µ true) = exp (. (A) πσ i σi Ptotal/Pax c 1 RAS, MNRAS, 1 14