--- abstract: 'We present a detailed characterization of planes of satellite galaxies in the Milky Way (MW) and M31. For a positional analysis, we introduce an extension to the '4-galaxy-normal density plot' method [@Pawlowski13 P13]. It finds the normal directions to the predominant planar configurations of satellites of a system, yielding for each a *collection* of planes of increasing member satellites. This allows to quantify the quality of planes in terms of population ($N_{\rm sat}$) and spatial flattening ($c/a$). We apply this method to the latest data for confirmed MW and M31 satellite samples, with 46 and 34 satellites, respectively. New MW satellites form part of planes previously identified from the sample with $N_{\rm sat}=27$ studied in P13: we identify a new plane with $N_{\rm sat}=39$ as thin as the VPOS-3 ($c/a\sim 0.2$), and with roughly the same normal direction; so far the most populated plane that thin reported in the Local Group. We introduce a new method to determine, using kinematic data, the axis of maximum co-orbitation of MW satellites. Interestingly, this axis approximately coincides with the normal to the former plane: $\geq45\pm5\%$ of satellites co-orbit. In M31 we discover a plane with $N_{\rm sat}=18$ and $c/a\sim0.15$, i.e., quality comparable to the GPoA, and perpendicular to it. This structure is viewed face-on from the Sun making it susceptible to M31 satellite distance uncertainties. An estimation of the perpendicular velocity dispersion suggests it is dynamically unstable. Finally we find that mass is not a property determining a satellite's membership to good quality planes.' bibliography: - 'archive\_planes.bib' date: 'Accepted XXXX . Received XXXX; in original form XXXX' title: An updated detailed characterization of planes of satellites in the MW and M31 --- \[firstpage\] galaxies: dwarf - Local Group - kinematics and dynamics methods: statistical cosmology: theory Introduction {#Intro} ============ The known objects surrounding the Milky Way (MW) show an anisotropic spatial distribution. @Lynden76 and @Kunkel76 were the first to notice that dSphs Sculptor, Draco, Ursa Minor and globular cluster Palomar 13, apparently lied on the orbital plane of the Magellanic stream, therefore polar to the Galaxy. Soon after, Fornax, Leo I, Leo II, Sextans, Phoenix and some classified as 'young halo' globular clusters, were also found to participate of this "great circle" [@LyndenBell82; @Majewski94; @FusiPecci95]. The existence of a "plane of satellites" in the MW was finally ratified when measuring the very flattened distribution of the 11 classical satellites as compared to isotropy [@Kroupa05; @Metz07]. In our neighboring galactic system Andromeda (M31), the first studies by @Grebel99 and @Koch06 on the then-known $\lesssim$15 dwarf galaxies within $\sim$500 kpc distance, found that the subsample of dSph/dE type dwarfs also lied near a "great circle". This spatial anisotropy was emphasized by the skewness of M31 dwarfs in the direction to the MW [@McConnachie06]. More recently, the addition to the picture of newly discovered faint satellites thanks to surveys like SDSS [@York00] or PAndAS [@McConnachie09], and an increased quality of distance measurements, has only enhanced the significance of the planar structures noted in the MW and M31 [@Metz09; @Kroupa10; @Ibata13; @Conn13; @Pawlowski13; @Pawlowski14; @Pawlowski15b]. In addition, a richer census of young halo globular clusters and several stellar/gaseous streams have been shown to also align with the MW satellites [@Keller12; @Pawlowski12; @Riley2020]. Finally, apart from the MW and M31, there are claims for a planar distribution of satellites in the nearby Centaurus A Group of galaxies [@Tully15], further supported by discoveries of new dwarfs and better distance estimates [@Muller16; @Muller18]. In the last years, the quantification of such planar alignments has gained increasing importance in order to unambiguously define the observed structures in terms of their orientation and characteristics. These quantifications have demanded increasingly more sophisticated methods that make use of the three-dimensional position data as well as statistical approaches to overcome measurement uncertainties or avoid spurious effects coming from working with a small sample number. Specifically, @Koch06 used an error-weighted orthogonal distance regression accompanied by bootstrapped tests, to reliably determine a robust solution for estimating best-fit planes. They fitted a plane to all possible subsamples of M31 satellites involving 3 to 15 members and projected the resulting normal vectors on a sphere. With the density distribution of normals they found an estimation of the normal direction to the broad planar distribution defined by the satellites' positions. @Metz07 [@Metz09] used instead the Tensor of Inertia plane-fitting method taking into account distance uncertainties. More recently, @Pawlowski13, (hereafter P13), combined the previous efforts and presented a new statistical method to define the direction of predominant plane-like spatial distributions of satellites within a given sample: the '4-galaxy-normal density plot' method, consisting of a planar fit to every combination of 4 satellites. From its application to the confirmed satellites within 300 kpc in the MW and M31 at that time, they found one predominant planar alignment of satellites in each galactic system and measured their respective normal directions. In this way, the so-called "VPOS-3" (Vast Polar Structure) in the MW and "GPoA" (Great Plane of Andromeda) in M31 planes were defined, consisting of 24 and 19 satellites respectively. These planes have been considered so far to be the most relevant satellite planar configurations in the MW and M31, and have been used as a benchmark against which to test the alignment of the newest (some even of unclassified nature) objects discovered [@Pawlowski14; @Pawlowski15b]. However, a detailed characterization of these predominant planar structures in the MW and M31, finding which are the combinations of $N_{\rm sat}$ satellites out of a total sample $N_{\rm tot}$ that conform the most relevant planar structures, is still lacking. Moreover, it is of interest to highlight those specific planes of satellites within a system with highly striking characteristics. This identification demands an analysis of how the *quality* of these planes changes with the number of satellites involved. This paper is the first of a series where the results of a project aimed at working in depth the plane of satellites issue within a <span>$\Lambda$CDM</span> cosmological context are reported. The purpose of this paper is to present a more detailed quantification and characterization of the plane-like spatial structures in the MW and M31 satellite systems. This is an important issue and, additionally, it will provide a reference with which to compare results from analyses of numerical simulations of the formation of disc galaxy systems [@SantosSantos2020 hereafter Paper II]. We focus on the positions of satellites, which for the MW have error bars much smaller than those of kinematic data. We note, however, that complementary, relevant information to satellite planar alignments comes from kinematic data. Indeed, recent proper motions for MW satellites measured with *Gaia* [see e.g., @GaiaHelmi18; @Fritz18; @Simon2018] suggest that a non-negligible fraction of them are orbiting along the VPOS plane [@Fritz18] while others are most likely not associated to the structure as their orbital poles are not aligned with the VPOS normal vector [see e.g., @Pawlowski2020 for a recent study of the classical MW satellites]. To study the reproducibility of these results in numerical simulations, in Santos-Santos et al. (in preparation, hereafter Paper III) we develop in depth the so-called '3J$_{\rm orb}$-barycenter' method, and apply it to zoom-in simulations of disc galaxies. This method identifies the axes around which a maximum number of satellites, out of a given population, co-orbit; allowing the study of relevant issues such as plane persistence along galaxy evolution. In this paper we build on the results of P13 and develop an extension to the '4-galaxy-normal density plot' method that enables a deeper cataloguing and quality analyses of planes of satellites in a galactic system. In particular, for each predominant planar configuration of satellites in the MW and M31 found with the previous method, we yield a collection of planes of increasing $N_{\rm sat}$ satellite members, and we identify the highest-quality ones in terms of the Tensor of Inertia parameters and the number of satellites involved. In particular, a plane's quality is quantified in terms of its population ($N_{\rm sat}$) and flattening (the concentration ellipsoid short-to-long axis ratio $c/a$ or, equivalently, the r.m.s. thickness normal to the plane; @Cramer). Quality of planes with the same population or flattening can be compared with each other, allowing to single-out high quality planes with the same $N_{\rm sat}$ or $c/a$ values. Finally, to complete the analyses of positionally-identified planes of satellites in the MW, we briefly study here their kinematically-coherent character, and independently, identify the MW's maximum satellite co-orbitation axis through the '3J$_{\rm orb}$-barycenter' method mentioned above. For M31 satellites only line-of-sight velocities are currently available [@Ibata13] and such a study is not possible yet. In addition, distances to M31 satellites remain highly uncertain [see e.g. @Weisz2019]. The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[observedplanes\] we present the samples and datasets of MW and M31 satellites studied. In Section \[4gnd\_method\] we thoroughly describe our methodology for plane-searching from satellite position data. Sections \[ResultsMW\] and \[M31\] show the results of our quality analysis for planes in the MW and M31, respectively. The co-orbitation issue and the determination of the axes of maximum rotation in the MW are addressed in Section \[sec6D\]. Finally, Section \[conclu\] summarizes our conclusions. MW and M31 data {#observedplanes} =============== In this project, we analyze planes of satellites in samples of $N_{\rm tot}$ confirmed *satellite* (i.e., bound to the MW or M31 hosts) *galaxies* (i.e., not other objects such as globular clusters or streams have been considered). For the MW we use two different satellite samples. First, for the sake of consistency with P13, and for simplicity as far as comparisons are concerned [see e.g. @Pawlowski16], we analyze the same satellite sample as in P13 consisting of $N_{\rm tot} = 27$ satellites. This satellite sample will be hereafter termed 'MW27 sample' and it consists of the classical and SDSS satellites. MW27 lists all the satellites within 300 kpc from the MW, according to the @McConnachie12 "Nearby dwarf galaxy database"[^1] as of June 2013. Most probable satellite position values and their corresponding Gaussian width uncertainties in the radial Sun - satellite distance have been taken from this database, as summarized in table 2 of P13. Canis Major and BootesIII are considered in MW27 as dwarf galaxies although their nature as such is ruled out [see @Momany04; @MartinezDelgado05; @Mateu09], and debated [see @Grillmair2009; @Carlin2018], respectively. On top of this historical sample, we also analyze an up-to-date (as of August 2020) sample of all confirmed MW satellite galaxies, consisting of $N_{\rm tot} = 46$ satellites; hereafter 'MW46'. The MW46 sample includes 25 satellites in common with MW27 (Canis Major and BootesIII are not included as they are of doubtful nature, see above), and 21 new ones. These are recently discovered ultrafaint satellite galaxies within a radial distance of 300 kpc from the MW center which originate from a variety of sources/surveys [e.g. The Dark Energy Survey, DECam surveys like Maglites, DELVE, ATLAS, Subaru/Hyper Suprime-Cam Survey, *Gaia* @DES15; @Koposov15a; @Drlica-Wagner2015; @Homma2016; @Torrealba2016; @Torrealba2019; @Mau2020]. In particular, here we consider as "confirmed" ultrafaint MW satellites those objects that are either spectroscopically confirmed [see @Simon2019], or, alternatively, that populate the dwarf galaxy parameter space of the $M_V$-r$_{\rm half}$ plane (relation between absolute V magnitude and half-light radius of the object), in opposition to the globular cluster regime (note this is only possible to assess in the cases where r$_{\rm half}$ data is available). These 21 objects are: Tucana2, Hydra2, Hydrus1, Carina2, Pictor2, Virgo1, Aquarius2, Crater2, Antlia2, BootesIV, Cetus3, HorologiumI, ReticulumII, PegasusIII, Tucana4, Columba1, Grus2, PheonixII, HorologiumII, ReticulumIII, Centaurus1.[^2] In Appendix \[sec:obsdata\] we present Table \[tab:mwdata\] with the positions (RA, dec), distances from the Sun and stellar masses[^3] of all MW satellites used in this paper. As for M31, we use as reference the same satellite sample as in P13, consisting of 34 confirmed satellites within 300 kpc of the M31 center [hereafter M31\_34, see @McConnachie12]. As of August 2020, no new M31 confirmed satellites within 300 kpc have been added to those listed in P13's table 2. For completeness, as the mass of M31 is estimated to be larger than that of the MW, and therefore M31 may present a larger virial radius, we have also considered in our analysis the case of extending the limiting distance to 350 kpc. This adds two extra satellites to the sample, AXVI and AXXXIII (also known as PerseusI), at $\sim323$ and $\sim346$ kpc from M31, respectively. We will refer to this extended sample as M31\_36. In Table \[tab:m31data\] we list the M31 satellites included in our analysis and the data used: RA and dec positions, distances from the Sun, the references the distances assumed come from (with the specific distance determination method) and the stellar masses. Most heliocentric distances in this Table [as compiled in the database by @McConnachie12] are based on ground-based tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) calibration; however, in some cases they are not. We note that this may introduce a bias, as distances for the same object obtained with different methods have been shown to sometimes be very different [compare for example @McConnachie05; @Conn2012; @Weisz2019]. In order to have results where the distance determinations are based on an homogeneous method, we have repeated the analyses with @Conn2012 data (see their table 2), where distances for a long list of M31 satellites were obtained using the TRGB standard candle. In this case, for the 11 out of 36 M31 satellites that are not in @Conn2012, distances in Table \[tab:m31data\] have been used.[^4] The different observational planes of satellites claimed in the literature which we will compare to are listed in Table \[table\_obspl\] (see next section for definitions of plane properties). These were defined in P13 considering the MW27 and M31\_34 samples of satellites. For the MW these planes are: the so-called 'classical' [i.e., the 11 most luminous MW satellites, see @Metz07], the 'VPOSall' (defined by all the 27 confirmed satellites within 300 kpc) and the 'VPOS-3' (defined by 24 out of 27 of the VPOSall satellites). For M31, there is the plane of satellites noted by @Ibata13 and @Conn13 with the PAndAS survey, which we will consider with 14 satellites (as analyzed in P13, hereafter the 'Ibata-Conn-14' plane) [^5], and the so-called 'GPoA' with 19 members (the 14 of the 'Ibata-Conn-14' plane plus 5 more).[^6] Planar configurations from position data {#4gnd_method} ========================================= Our method to find planar structures and assess their quality consists of 2 parts. The first part follows the '4-galaxy-normal density plot' method described in @Pawlowski13. This technique checks if there is a subsample of a given satellite sample that defines a dominant planar arrangement in terms of the outputs of the standard Tensor of Inertia (ToI) plane-fitting technique , based on an orthogonal-distance regression. In terms of the corresponding concentration ellipsoid [@Cramer], planes are characterized by: - $N_{\rm sat}$: the number of satellites in the subsample; - $\vec{n}$, the normal to the best fitting plane; - $c/a$: the ellipsoid short-to-long axis ratio; - $b/a$: the ellipsoid intermediate-to-long axis ratio; - $\Delta$RMS: the root-mean-square thickness perpendicular to the best-fitting plane; - $D_{\rm cg}$: the distance from the center-of-mass of the main galaxy to the plane. These outputs are used to quantify the quality of planes. To begin with, a planar configuration must be flattened (i.e., low $c/a$), and, as opposed to filamentary, it also requires $b/a \sim 1$ for an oblate distribution. High quality planes are those with a high $N_{\rm sat}$, and a low $c/a$ and $\Delta$RMS, meaning they are populated and thin (plane quality as understood in this work will be specified in more detail at the end of the next section). Finally, a low $D_{\rm cg}$ means that the plane passes near the main galaxy's center, a characteristic that dynamically stable planes must show, assuming that the host galaxy's center is close to the center of the system's gravitational potential well. The second part of our methodology, which is the focus of this paper, is an extension to the 4-galaxy-normal density plot method, consisting of a *quality* analysis of the predominant planar arrangements found. 4-galaxy-normal density (4GND) plot method {#N4p} ------------------------------------------ This method was presented in sec. 2.4 of @Pawlowski13. We briefly summarize it and mention the procedure particularities followed in this study. 1. A plane is fitted to every combination of four[^7] satellites' positions, using the ToI technique. The resultant normal vector (i.e. 4-galaxy-normal) and corresponding plane parameters are stored. To account for distance uncertainties, this step is repeated 100 times using 100 random positions per satellite, calculated using their corresponding radial distance uncertainties. 2. All the 4-galaxy-normals (from all 100 realizations) are projected on a regularly-binned sphere, assuming a Galactocentric coordinate system such that the MW's disc spin vector points towards the south pole. A density map (i.e. 2D-histogram) is drawn from the projections, where each normal has been weighted by $\log\left( \frac{a+b}{c} \right)$ to emphasize planar-like spatial distributions. The over-density regions in these density maps (i.e. regions of 4-galaxy-normal accumulation) therefore signal the normal direction to a dominant planar space-configuration. Satellites contributing 4-galaxy-normals to a given over-density are likely members of such a dominant plane. As opposite normal vectors indicate the same plane, density maps in this study are shown through Aitoff spherical projection diagrams in Galactic coordinates (longitude $l$, latitude $b$) within the $l=[-90^\circ,+90^\circ]$ interval. 3. We order bins by density value. The main over-density region is identified around the highest value bin. Subsequent over-densities are identified by selecting the next bin, in order of decreasing density, which is separated more than 15$^\circ$ from the center of all the previously defined over-densities. In this way over-density regions are differentiated and isolated. For each of these regions, the midpoint of the highest-density bin will define the corresponding *density peak*'s coordinates. 4. We quantify how much a certain satellite $s$ has contributed to a given density peak $p$ (which we refer to as '$C_{p, s}$'). To this end, we define an aperture angle of 15$^\circ$ around the density peak, selecting all 4-galaxy-normals within it. For each of them, the four contributing satellites are determined. A given satellite $s$ is counted to contribute the 4-galaxy-normal's *weight* to peak $p$. Therefore, its final contribution $C_{p, s}$, is the sum of weights corresponding to all the 4-galaxy-normals within the peak aperture that satellite $s$ contributes to. This has been normalized using $C_{N, all}$, the total weighted number of 4-galaxy-normals, included those that are not within 15$^{\circ}$ of some peak center. Such normalization is necessary to allow for a meaningful comparison of results coming from samples with different sizes $N_{\rm tot}$. Finally, all satellites are ordered by decreasing $C_{p, s}$ to the density peak $p$, such that the first satellite is that which contributes most. We note that changing the bin size used in our analysis does not modify our results, as we find the same overdensity regions, and final order of satellites by $C_{p, s}$. An extension to the method: peak strength and plane quality analysis {#PMExt} -------------------------------------------------------------------- To allow an individual and in-depth analysis of each overdensity and its corresponding predominant planar structure of satellites, we present an extension of the 4-galaxy-normal density plot method. On one hand, to each peak $p$ we assign a number, $C_p$, the peak 'strength', defined as the normalized number (or %) of 4-galaxy-normals within 15$^\circ$ of the respective peak center; that is $C_p \equiv \sum_s C_{p, s}$, where the contribution-number $C_{p, s}$ of the $s$ satellite to the $p$-th peak has been defined above. This is a useful concept to quantify the comparisons of different density peaks and ultimately study the 'relevance' of given planar satellite structures over others (see Paper II for more details). On another, rather than a plane per overdensity, the extended method provides a collection of planes, each consisting of a different number of satellites $N_{\rm sat}$. For each over-density $p$ we initially fit a plane to the $N_{\rm sat}=7$ satellites with highest $C_{p, s}$ (i.e., the 7 satellites that contribute most to 4-galaxy-normals within 15$^\circ$ of the density peak), and store the resultant plane parameters. This number $N_{\rm sat}=7$ is low enough to allow for an analysis of ToI parameter behaviour as $N_{\rm sat}$ increases, and at the same time high enough that we begin with populated planes. Note that taking instead $N_{\rm sat}=7 \pm 2$ to begin with does not alter our conclusions. Then, the next satellite in order of decreasing $C_{p, s}$ is added to the group of satellites. Again a plane is fitted to their positions and the parameters stored. This plane-fitting process is repeated until all contributing satellites are used. To include the effect of distance uncertainties, in practice we calculate 1000 random positions per satellite, and fit 1000 planes at each iteration with $N_{\rm sat}$ satellites. The final results at each $N_{\rm sat}$ correspond to the mean values from these random realizations and the corresponding errors to the standard deviations. In this way, for each over-density found we obtain a *collection* or catalog of planes of satellites, each plane consisting of a different number of members increasing from 7 to $N_{\rm tot}$, as well as the quality indicators for each of them. In this work "high quality" means populated and flattened planes. This is quantified through $N_{\rm sat}$ and $c/a$ [and/or $\Delta$RMS, but note that they are very often correlated; see @Pawlowski14b]. Being a two-parameter notion, to compare planes' qualities we need that either $N_{\rm sat}$ is constant or that $c/a$ is constant (or that at least it varies very slowly with $N_{\rm sat}$). In the first case, lower $c/a$ means higher quality. In the second case, more populated planes are rated as of higher quality. Another case when comparison is possible is when one plane is more flattened and populated than another: the first has a higher quality than the second. These considerations have been applied to the different member planes in the collection obtained for each density peak, allowing us to make quality comparisons, in particular with already determined planes, and, very interestingly, to single out new high-quality ones.[^8] We finally note that the advantage of the 4GND plot method lies in that it selects the subsamples of $N_{\rm sat}$ satellites with lowest $c/a$ provided that they are embedded in an underlying more populated, predominant planar structure. In the case of low $N_{\rm sat}$ relative to $N_{\rm tot}$ planes, this means it avoids choosing spurious structures, that although extremely narrow, are most probably not physically relevant and have a higher chance of being just a chance alignment. For high $N_{\rm sat}$ relative to $N_{\rm tot}$, it means the method selects the subsample of satellites that yields the highest-quality (i.e., thinnest) plane out of all possible combinations of $N_{\rm sat}$ satellites. Results for the MW {#ResultsMW} ================== Two different satellite samples, MW27 and MW46, have been analyzed for the MW, see Section \[observedplanes\] for their specification. The first of them had been analyzed previously (see P13) and we use it as a reference to underline how the extended method finds new, high quality planes. MW46 compiles the to-date confirmed satellites of the MW (see Table \[tab:mwdata\]). Comparing the results found for each of them is interesting because it allows to quantify the extent to which the added satellites follow the planar structures already found with the MW27 sample, and assess the robustness of such spatial structures. ![Aitoff projection diagrams of the Milky Way MW27 (top), MW46 (middle) and M31\_34 (bottom) 4-galaxy-normal density plots [see also figs. 2 and 4 in @Pawlowski13]. The colormap shows the number of 4-galaxy-normals within a bin, each weighted by $\log\left( \frac{a+b}{c} \right)$ to emphasize planar-like spatial configurations of satellites (see <span>Section \[N4p\]</span> for details). The total number of 4-galaxy-normals is 1,755,000 for MW27, 16,318,500 for MW46 and 4,637,600 for M31\_34, taking into account 100 random realizations of satellite radial distances within the errors for each (see text). The relevant over-density regions in each map are labeled in order of intensity (Peaks 1 and 2 in the main text). Diagrams are in Galactocentric coordinates, centered in the Galactic center. See Tables \[tab:mwdata\] and \[tab:m31data\] for details on the different MW and M31 satellite samples and their data. M31's spin is marked with an 'X'. All three diagrams share a common colorbar with values proportional to the normalized bin density. <span data-label="MWM31dp"></span>](figures/four-gal-normal_positions_MW_proj90_44_MW27.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\ ![Aitoff projection diagrams of the Milky Way MW27 (top), MW46 (middle) and M31\_34 (bottom) 4-galaxy-normal density plots [see also figs. 2 and 4 in @Pawlowski13]. The colormap shows the number of 4-galaxy-normals within a bin, each weighted by $\log\left( \frac{a+b}{c} \right)$ to emphasize planar-like spatial configurations of satellites (see <span>Section \[N4p\]</span> for details). The total number of 4-galaxy-normals is 1,755,000 for MW27, 16,318,500 for MW46 and 4,637,600 for M31\_34, taking into account 100 random realizations of satellite radial distances within the errors for each (see text). The relevant over-density regions in each map are labeled in order of intensity (Peaks 1 and 2 in the main text). Diagrams are in Galactocentric coordinates, centered in the Galactic center. See Tables \[tab:mwdata\] and \[tab:m31data\] for details on the different MW and M31 satellite samples and their data. M31's spin is marked with an 'X'. All three diagrams share a common colorbar with values proportional to the normalized bin density. <span data-label="MWM31dp"></span>](figures/four-gal-normal_positions_MW_proj90_44_MW46_norminv.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\ ![Aitoff projection diagrams of the Milky Way MW27 (top), MW46 (middle) and M31\_34 (bottom) 4-galaxy-normal density plots [see also figs. 2 and 4 in @Pawlowski13]. The colormap shows the number of 4-galaxy-normals within a bin, each weighted by $\log\left( \frac{a+b}{c} \right)$ to emphasize planar-like spatial configurations of satellites (see <span>Section \[N4p\]</span> for details). The total number of 4-galaxy-normals is 1,755,000 for MW27, 16,318,500 for MW46 and 4,637,600 for M31\_34, taking into account 100 random realizations of satellite radial distances within the errors for each (see text). The relevant over-density regions in each map are labeled in order of intensity (Peaks 1 and 2 in the main text). Diagrams are in Galactocentric coordinates, centered in the Galactic center. See Tables \[tab:mwdata\] and \[tab:m31data\] for details on the different MW and M31 satellite samples and their data. M31's spin is marked with an 'X'. All three diagrams share a common colorbar with values proportional to the normalized bin density. <span data-label="MWM31dp"></span>](figures/four-gal-normal_positions_M31_proj90_44_M31_34.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\ ![image](figures/contr_sats_pico1_MW_abbrev_wei){width="\linewidth"} ![image](figures/contr_sats_pico2_MW_abbrev_wei){width="\linewidth"}\ ![image](figures/contr_sats_pico1_MW46_abbrev_wei){width="\linewidth"} ![image](figures/contr_sats_pico2_MW46_abbrev_wei){width="\linewidth"}\ ![image](figures/contr_sats_pico1_M31_abbrev_wei_labels){width="\linewidth"} ![image](figures/contr_sats_pico2_M31_abbrev_wei_labels){width="\linewidth"}\ The 4GND plot for the MW27 satellite sample {#MW} ------------------------------------------- The upper panel of <span>Fig. \[MWM31dp\]</span> shows the Aitoff projection diagram of the 4-galaxy-normal density plot obtained for the MW27 satellite system. This Aitoff diagram can be compared to the contour plot in fig. 2 from P13, to which it is essentially identical[^9]. As reported in P13, the density plot for the MW27 sample shows that 4-galaxy-normals are mainly clustered in the region central to the diagram, revealing a planar structure that is polar to the Galaxy (i.e., the normal vector to the plane is perpendicular to the Galaxy's spin vector). There is one dominant over-density (Peak 1) located at $(l,b)=(-10.2^\circ, -0.4^\circ)$, and a second lower density peak (Peak 2) close to the first at $(l,b)=(-39.7^\circ, 4.5^\circ)$. Fig. \[barMW\] shows MW27 satellites ordered by $C_{p,s}$ contribution to 4-galaxy-normals within 15$^\circ$ around both density peaks (i.e., $C_{1,s}$, upper panel, and $C_{2,s}$, bottom panel). There are 11 satellites that dominate the contribution (i.e., $C_{p, s} > 0.5 \times {\rm max}(C_{p, s}, s = 1, ..., 27$)), in Peak 1 (i.e., PiscesII, Carina, LeoV, LeoIV, CanesVenaticiI, Draco, CanesVenaticiII, Fornax, Sculptor, SextansI, UrsaMinor), while 4 contribute most in Peak 2 (i.e., LeoI, LeoII, CanesVenaticiI, Fornax)[^10]. In this case, the contribution is mainly driven by LeoI and LeoII, while the rest of satellites are common with Peak 1 and take low $C_{p, s}$ values, indicating the low relevance of this second structure. The 4GND plot for the MW46 satellite sample {#MW-46} ------------------------------------------- In the middle panel of Fig. \[MWM31dp\] we plot the Aitoff projection diagram for the 4-galaxy-normal density plot of the MW46 satellite system. This density plot is very similar to that for the MW27 sample (above). Indeed, Peaks 1 and 2 are placed at $(l,b)=(-14.3^\circ, 2.0^\circ)$ and $(l,b)=(-30.7^\circ, 14.3^\circ)$, respectively, close to the MW27 main peaks location. In both cases there is a dominant peak and a secondary one, with no other relevant structures. To make the comparison quantitative, in Table \[c1mwm31\] we give the values for $C_{\rm MW27, p}$ and $C_{\rm MW46, p}$, with $p$=1,2 for each peak. The peak strengths are somewhat lower for both peaks in the case of MW46 than MW27, as expected given the higher number of satellites and therefore of 4-galaxy-normals. $C_1 \pm \sigma$ $C_2 \pm \sigma$ --------- ------------------ ------------------ MW27 22.92$\pm$0.26 14.31$\pm$0.20 MW46 19.59$\pm$0.19 10.49$\pm$0.13 M31\_34 10.53$\pm$0.62 10.52$\pm$1.62 M31\_36 11.89$\pm$0.59 9.80$\pm$1.85 : Peak strengths $C_p$ for the main 2 peaks found in the MW27, MW46, M31\_34 and M31\_36 4GND plots. Peak strength is computed as $C_p \equiv \Sigma_s C_{p,s}$, and is a percentage, as $C_{p,s}$ is normalized to the total weighted number of 4-galaxy-normals. Errors are calculated from 100 random realizations using the radial distance uncertainties.<span data-label="c1mwm31"></span> Bar charts showing the satellite contribution $C_{p,s}$ to density peaks for the MW46 sample are given in Fig. \[barMW46\]. The contributions from the 21 new satellites that are not in MW27 have been marked with a darker color. Comparing to Fig. \[barMW\], we see that i), most satellites belonging to both MW27 and MW46 samples do not appreciably change their contribution to MW peaks, and ii), several satellites among the 21 that are not in MW27 have a relevant contribution to Peak 1 of MW46. An interesting result is that the 25% of satellites that contribute the most to MW27 Peak 1 are included among the 25% of satellites that contribute the most to MW46 Peak 1, complemented with 5 satellites that are not in MW27. Also, out of the 24 satellites that dominate the contribution to Peak 1, 12 are unique to the MW46 increased sample. As for Peak 2, among the 6 satellites in MW27 contributing the most, all but Fornax are among the 25% main contributors to MW46 Peak 2. And out of the 24 (11) satellites that dominate the contribution to Peak 2, 12 (4) are unique to the MW46 sample. In summary, the new MW confirmed satellites seem to just add to the positional planar structures already determined with 27 satellites. In the next section this point will be made quantitative through the comparison of the directions of the normal vectors to the different planes. Quality analysis {#Quality_MW} ---------------- Following our extension to the 4-galaxy-normal method (<span>Section \[PMExt\]</span>), for each over-density region we have iteratively computed planes of satellites with an increasing number of members $N_{\rm sat}$, following the order of satellites given in Fig. \[barMW\]. In this way, for each peak we obtain an ordered collection of planes, one plane for each $N_{\rm sat}$. These collections, and the identities of the $N_{\rm sat}$ satellites belonging to each plane, can be read out of Figs. \[barMW\] and \[barMW46\], for both peaks of the MW27 and MW46 samples, respectively. The left panel of <span>Fig. \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\]</span> shows the characteristics of the planar structures defined by Peak 1 (solid line) and Peak 2 (dashed line) in the MW27 sample. We focus on $c/a$, $b/a$, $D_{\rm cg}$ and the normal direction to the plane. Quantitative results of RMS heights are provided in tables but not shown in our figures as this parameter correlates with $c/a$ presenting the same general trends as $N_{\rm sat}$ increases, and not adding any other relevant information. The collection of planes obtained for a given over-density region gives rise to a set of points in this plot, with their corresponding error bars, one at each $N_{\rm sat}$ value. They are shown joined with a line, with the corresponding error bands. For Peak 1, errors are shown as a grey shade; for Peak 2 as a cyan shade. These are very narrow (even imperceptible in some cases), showing that the MW27 results are hardly affected by distance uncertainties. First we see that, for any $N_{\rm sat}$ value, $b/a$ is rather high (and constant), while $c/a$ is low. Therefore configurations are indeed *planar-like*. Moreover, the lines for both density peaks show rather smooth trends of increasing $c/a$ with increasing $N_{\rm sat}$. In particular, the MW27 Peak 1 line defines a planar structure of satellites with a higher quality (i.e., lower $c/a$ at given $N_{\rm sat}$), than that defined by Peak 2. This is expected, given the higher $C_p$ strength of Peak 1 than Peak 2 (see Fig. \[MWM31dp\] and Table \[c1mwm31\]). This suggests that the MW27 satellite sample seems to be a unique highly planar-like organized structure, as we had already learnt from Fig. \[barMW\]. In the bottom panels we give the directions of the normal vectors corresponding to the best fitting planes (obtained from the satellites' most-likely positions) as a function of $N_{\rm sat}$. Shaded regions show the corresponding spherical standard distances $\Delta_{\rm sph}$ [@Metz07], a measure of the collimation of plane normals for the 1000 realizations. The normal directions to planes from both Peak 1 and 2 in MW27 remain very stable as $N_{\rm sat}$ increases, and their uncertainties due to satellite distance errors are very small. As for the plane distances to the MW, $D_{\rm cg}$ is below 16 kpc in all plane-fitting iterations in Peak 1, and below 12.5 kpc in the case of Peak 2. For reference, overplotted colored points in all panels show the values on this diagram for the observed planes of MW satellites mentioned in the literature (classical, VPOS-3, VPOSall; see <span>Table \[table\_obspl\]</span>), defined from Peak 1 (P13). We note that the points corresponding to the VPOS-3 and VPOSall planes fall over the trend given by the solid line, as expected. On the other hand, and very interestingly, this analysis shows that there is a different combination of $N_{\rm sat}$=11 satellites that results in a much flatter and thinner plane than the classical one (see MW27-1-11[^11] in Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]). In fact, the plane including $N_{\rm sat}$=14 satellites (MW27-1-14 in Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]) presents an even higher quality than that with $N_{\rm sat}$=11, as $c/a$ remains roughly constant at a higher $N_{\rm sat}$. This is possible because this analysis uses the 3-dimensional information of positions, while the classical plane of satellites was found observationally when only the most luminous (i.e. massive) satellites were known to exist. This important result indicates that planes of satellites are not necessarily composed by the most massive satellites of a galactic system [see also @Libeskind05; @Collins15] and hence they should not be searched for in this way. Indeed, as we show in Fig. \[cps\_mstar\], we find that $M_{\rm star}$ is not correlated with $C_{1,s}$ (contribution to the main over-density region, where we find the highest quality planes): the correlation coefficient $r$ is low, in such a way that the probability of getting such value assuming that there is no correlation is higher than 76% (see upper panel in Fig. \[cps\_mstar\] for MW27 results). In the right panels of Fig. \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\] we plot the results for the MW46 sample. It is very interesting to see that they do not differ that much from those of the MW27 sample, despite the MW46 sample contains 21 satellites that are not members of MW27. As before, we find planes of satellites with higher qualities than those previously reported with a given $N_{\rm sat}$. For example that with $N_{\rm sat}$ =11, similar to MW27-1-11. More specifically, planes with $N_{\rm sat}$ =24 and 27 present lower $c/a$ values than the VPOS-3 or VPOSall, respectively. These are marked as MW46-1-24 and MW46-1-27 in Figs. \[barMW46\] and \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\] (see Table \[table\_obsThisWork\] for the values of their ToI parameters). In Fig. \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\] we can see that the slope of the $c/a$ versus $N_{\rm sat}$ curve grows relatively faster for more than 39 satellites. We hence single out the MW46-1-39 plane with $c/a = 0.212\pm0.002$ as the most populated plane that thin identified so far in the Local Group. A softer discontinuity is also apparent at $N_{\rm sat}=29$, therefore we also emphasize the MW46-1-29 plane as a high quality one (see Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]). We as well find planes as thin as the VPOS-3 or VPOSall, but more populated (with $N_{\rm tot}$ = 39 and 43 satellites, respectively) and with approximately the same normal direction. In the two bottom-most panels of Fig. \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\] we plot the $(l,b)$ coordinates of the normal vectors to the planes. An interesting result is that the plane with $N_{\rm sat}=24$ has the same direction as the MW27 VPOS-3 (a red circle in the plot), a direction that keeps approximately until $N_{\rm sat}=29$ (i.e., the MW46-1-29 plane), even if the identity of the satellites are not the same, with 13 satellites in MW46-1-29 not in MW27. These panels also indicate that the normals keep their directions within $3^\circ$ in $l$ and $4.5^\circ$ in $b$, up to $N_{\rm sat}=39$ (i.e. the MW46-1-39 plane). These results quantitatively confirm that many of the new-discovered satellites fill in planes already delineated by members of the MW27 sample, as anticipated in the previous section. The resemblances between MW27 and MW46 results can be better appreciated by plotting their properties together in terms of $f_{\rm sat} \equiv N_{\rm sat}/ N_{\rm tot}$, see Fig. \[MW27-MW46\_fsat\]. In both cases the quality of Peak 1 is better than that of Peak 2. Moreover, planes identified in the MW27 sample have, at any fixed $f_{\rm sat}$, a slightly better quality than planes in the MW46 collection at the same $f_{\rm sat}$. Therefore, the main planar structure found with the sample of the 46 currently confirmed MW satellites is the same as that previously found with 27 satellites, although they differ in 21 satellite members. These results, with the current data available, corroborate the presence of a vast polar planar structure of satellites around the MW. We finally note that the true census of MW satellite galaxies is currently far from complete, and thus the robustness of the results presented here requires confirmation in the future. Indeed, some current surveys might bias to find new satellites near the known planar structures. In addition, the advent of new deep surveys reaching increasingly fainter magnitudes and wider sky coverage (like the Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time, LSST), will most probably yield the discovery of a myriad of new faint dwarfs in the virial volume of the MW. The characterization of the spatial distribution of MW satellites will hence need to be progressively updated in order to corroborate our results. ![image](figures/MWobs4galnormal_Nsat_wei_MW27.pdf){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![image](figures/MWobs4galnormal_Nsat_wei_MW46_fininv.pdf){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Same as Fig. \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\] in terms of the satellite fraction $f_{\rm sat}$. Blue (green) lines are results for the MW27 (MW46) satellite sample. <span data-label="MW27-MW46_fsat"></span>](figures/MWobs4galnormal_fsat_wei_27vs46_err.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\ ![Same as Fig. \[MWM31\_ca\_frac\] for the M31\_34 satellite sample (reference satellite sample, see Table \[tab:m31data\]). Colored circles show the results for the reported observed planes of satellites in M31 ('Ibata-Conn-13' and GPoA). Their specific values including their errors are given in <span>Table \[table\_obspl\]</span>. The planes of satellites singled out in this work are shown with black open circles, and their corresponding ToI parameters are given in <span>Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]</span>. <span data-label="M31_ca_frac"></span>](figures/M31obs4galnormal_Nsat_wei_M31_34.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\ ![ The contribution of satellites to 4-galaxy-normals within 15$^\circ$ of the main density peaks, $C_{p,s}$, versus stellar mass. The Pearson correlation coefficients $r$ are given in each case. <span data-label="cps_mstar"></span>](figures/Cps_mstar_mw_m31_3panels.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\ Results for Andromeda M31 {#M31} ========================= The 4GND plot for M31 --------------------- The lower panel of Fig. \[MWM31dp\] reveals, as in the MW, two 4-galaxy-normal density peaks in M31 (reference satellite sample M31\_34, see Sec. \[sec:obsdata\]). In this case they both show comparable strengths (see Table \[c1mwm31\]) and are located quite separate from one another. The peak strength values are lower than those of the MW. This is in part due to the higher M31 satellite distance errors (as compared to those of the MW), which blur the peaks in the 4GND plot. We define Peak 1 as the over-density at $(l,b)=(26.6^\circ, -6.1^\circ)$, and Peak 2 as that located at $(l,b)=(-69.1^\circ , 21.7^\circ)$. The direction of M31's spin vector, depicted with an 'X', indicates that the planar configurations defined by both peaks are not perpendicular to the galaxy's disc, but inclined $\sim49^\circ$ and $\sim70^\circ$, respectively. Interestingly, Peak 1 forms an angle of $\sim84^\circ$ with the MW's spin vector, meaning its corresponding planes are approximately normal to the MW's disc [@Conn13]. Furthermore, the projected angular distance on the sphere between Peak 1 and Peak 2 is of $\sim82^{\circ}$, and the angle between Peak 1 (Peak 2) and the Sun - M31 line is $\sim88^{\circ}$ ($\sim5^{\circ}$). Therefore the planar configuration of satellites defined by Peak 1 is observed nearly edge-on from the MW (see table 5 in P13), while that of Peak 2 is approximately perpendicular to it and would be observed mostly face-on. Fig. \[barM31\] shows that approximately half of the satellite sample contributes dominantly to each corresponding peak $p$. Focusing on the identities of satellites, we find that, out of the 16 satellites with highest $C_{1, s}$, 9 are among the satellites with lowest $C_{2, s}$. On the other hand, out of the 16 satellites with highest $C_{2, s}$, 9 are among those with lowest $C_{1, s}$. This is indicating that the two over-densities' contributing members are not the same. While satellites contributing most to Peak 1 define the GPoA plane from P13 (and also generally coincide with satellites in "plane 1" from @Shaya13), Peak 2 defines a separate and independent predominant planar satellite configuration. This structure corresponding to M31\_34 Peak 2 has not been analyzed prior to this study[^12] and will be described in detail below. We note that an analysis of the M31\_36 sample (i.e., including the satellites AXVI and AXXXIII too) gives quite similar results. As an illustration, in Table \[c1mwm31\] we give the values of the corresponding $C_1$ and $C_2$ peak strengths. The $C_2$ values of M31\_34 and M31\_36 are consistent with each other within their error bars, while the $C_1$ strengths are close to be consistent too, with Peak 1 in M31\_36 slightly stronger than its M31\_34 counterpart. Indeed, for M31\_36 we find the same plane structure as in M31\_34; i.e., 2 independent peaks pointing in the same normal directions as quoted above for M31\_34. In the M31\_36 case, AXVI turns out to be the main contributor to Peak 1 (explaining the slight increase of $C_1$ strength), while satellite AXXXIII does not contribute to Peak 1, and only mildly to Peak 2. Quality analysis {#quality-analysis} ---------------- ![image](figures/M31_3Dplanes_X_purple_c_disco.pdf) \[3D\_M31\_p1p2\] For each peak, we build up their respective collections of planes of satellites by iteratively applying the best-fitting plane technique to an increasing number of satellites $N_{\rm sat}$, following the order given by Fig. \[barM31\]. The parameters resulting from the ToI fitting versus $N_{\rm sat}$ are shown in Fig. \[M31\_ca\_frac\]. We see that $c/a$ and $b/a$ take respectively low and high values, confirming that these spatial distributions are actually planes up to $N_{\rm sat} \sim 24 - 25$. When considering the whole sample of M31\_34 satellites, $c/a$ and $b/a$ take a similar value of $\sim0.6$, indicating instead a non-flattened ellipsoidal spatial distribution (as two approximately perpendicular planes cross). The corresponding parameter error bands are clearly apparent in the case of M31 as compared to the MW, due to overall larger satellite distance uncertainties. As mentioned previously, while the GPoA is viewed approximately edge-on from the Sun, the planes of satellites from Peak 2 are viewed mostly face-on. Therefore the uncertainties in the Sun - satellite distances affect more (less) to $c/a$ than to $b/a$, in the case of Peak 2 (Peak 1). This fact explains the different magnitude of the error bands of ToI parameters corresponding to different peaks shown in this figure. Focusing on the $c/a$ panel, one can see that only up to $\sim$half of the total number of satellites contributing respectively to Peak 1 and Peak 2 form a thin planar structure, which rapidly thickens as more members are added to the plane-fitting iteration. Moreover, as said above, satellite identities contributing most to both peaks are overall different, as shown in <span>Fig. \[barM31\]</span>. Therefore, in contrast to the MW27 and MW46, the M31\_34 satellite sample does not form one preferential planar structure but seems to be divided in two. The normal directions to the planes are stable as $N_{\rm sat}$ increases and reaches $N_{\rm sat}=$19 for Peak 1 and $N_{\rm sat}$=18 for Peak 2, showing that the two satellite planar structures are well defined. Beyond these values, the normals to the corresponding planes are not that well fixed. As for the distances, planes around Peak 1 pass very close to the M31 center, while planes belonging to Peak 2 do not (see Fig. \[M31\_ca\_frac\]). The values of $D_{\rm cg}$ in this case range between $\sim12-34$ kpc, within, or close to, the values of $\Delta$RMS for planes associated to Peak 2 (see Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]). However, the question arises if, given the large radial distance errors and the uncertain potential well of a complex, binary system as is the Local Group, if these distance values are still within reasonable ranges to allow for the possibility of dynamical stability. The specific values for the M31 Ibata-Conn-14 and GPoA planes are shown with colored circles in Fig. \[M31\_ca\_frac\] (see <span>Table \[table\_obspl\]</span>). Our methodology reveals a combination of $N_{\rm sat}$= 14 satellites (marked with a black open circle) that yields a higher quality plane than the 'Ibata-Conn-14' plane (see M31\_34-1-14 entry in <span>Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]</span> and Fig. \[barM31\] for satellite identities). This occurs because the 'Ibata-Conn-14' plane was defined among only PAndAS survey satellites, while the sample used in P13 and here includes the PAndAS satellites within 300 kpc of M31 (25 out of 27) plus 9 satellites discovered differently (i.e., LGS3, IC10, AXXXII, AVII, AXXIX, AXXXI, AVI, NGC205, M32). Interestingly, the latter turn out to be precisely among the dominant 4-galaxy-normal contributers to both M31\_34 Peaks 1 and 2. In turn, the magenta circles corresponding to the GPoA match the solid line (Peak 1) because the 19 satellites that we find with highest $C_{1,s}$ are precisely the GPoA satellite sample. Note again that the satellite system shows low correlation coefficients $r$ between $M_{\rm star}$ and $C_{1,s}$ or $C_{2,s}$, with a higher than 75% probability of getting such $r$ values assuming that there is no correlation (see Fig. \[cps\_mstar\]). Moreover, our analysis allows the identification of the highest quality planes in M31 as $N_{\rm sat}$ increases at $c/a$ roughly constant. These planes correspond to the points in Fig. \[M31\_ca\_frac\] at which the M31\_34 Peak 1 and Peak 2 lines start to increase rapidly in the $c/a$ panel, marked in Fig. \[M31\_ca\_frac\] with black open circles. For Peak 1 we single out a good quality plane at low $c/a$ with $N_{\rm sat}$=16 (M31\_34-1-16 in Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]). We also note the high quality of the plane with $N_{\rm sat}$=23 (M31\_34-1-23), with ToI parameter values very similar to those of the VPOS-3 plane of satellites in the MW. For Peak 2, we highlight the plane with $N_{\rm sat}$=18 members (M31\_34-2-18), beyond which the normal vector $\vec{n}(l,b)$ to the best-fitting plane does not conserve its direction. This plane presents comparable properties to the GPoA (magenta circle), to which it is roughly perpendicular. Given that the GPoA has one satellite more and a lower $c/a$ value than the M31\_34-2-18 plane (see Tables \[table\_obspl\] and \[table\_obsThisWork\]), strictly speaking the former has a higher quality than the latter. However, the differences are a 5% in $N_{\rm sat}$, and a 10% in the $c/a$ values, if we take into account the error bars. Therefore we can conclude that the qualities of both planes are comparable. Fig. \[3D\_M31\_p1p2\] shows the relative orientation between M31\_34-2-18 and the GPoA in a coordinate system oriented such that both planes are seen edge-on. Note that 10 satellites are shared by both samples (i.e., LGS3, IC10, AXIV, AXI, AXXXII, AI, AXVII, AIX, AIII and AXXVI, in violet in the figure). The quality analysis of the planar structures arising from the M31\_36 sample returns similar results to those just presented for M31\_34. In most cases, the resulting ToI parameters are consistent with those of M31\_34 within 1$\sigma$, or close to being consistent. The only remarkable difference lies in the values of the $b/a$ ratios, larger for the M31\_36 planes than for the M31\_34 ones with same $N_{\rm sat}$. This occurs because the structure expands as two further away satellites are added to the sample. Fig. \[M31-3436\_fsat\] illustrates this behaviour in terms of the satellite fraction. Changes of slopes in the $c/a$ versus $N_{\rm sat}$ plot indicate that the high-quality planes to be singled-out have now 1 more satellite for Peak 1, (i.e., M31\_36-1-17; M31\_36-1-24), or 2 more satellites for Peak 2 (i.e., M31\_36-2-20) as compared to those singled out in the M31\_34 sample. Their specific ToI values are given in Table \[table\_obsThisWork\]. We note that the previously described results for M31 are based on the heliocentric destance moduli given in Table \[tab:m31data\], that are those provided in @McConnachie12's data compilation. Using instead distance data from table 2 in @Conn2012 based solely on the ground-based TRGB does not change the results shown in Fig. \[M31\_ca\_frac\] significantly, and therefore they will be not be made explicit here. It is of order, nonetheless, to emphasize the sensibility of M31's Peak 2 planar structure to satellite heliocentric distances, due to its face-on orientation relative to the line-of-sight from the Sun. On one hand, distance uncertainties are indeed large, but these are taken into account and
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2010'}