1: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
4:
5: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6:
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8:
9: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10:
11: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
12: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
13: %% use the longabstract style option.
14:
15: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
20: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
21: %% you desire.
22:
23: \title{Spatial motion of the Magellanic Clouds.\\
24: Tidal models ruled out?}
25:
26: \author{Adam R\accent23u\v{z}i\v{c}ka\altaffilmark{1,2}, Christian Theis\altaffilmark{2}, \& Jan Palou\v{s}\altaffilmark{1}}
27:
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i.,
29: Bo\v{c}n\'{i} II 1401, 141\,31, Prague, adam.ruzicka@gmail.com}
30: \altaffiltext{2}{Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie der Universit\"{a}t Wien,
31: T\"urkenschanzstrasse 17, A-1180 Wien, Austria}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: Recently, Kallivayalil et al. derived new values of the proper motion for
35: the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (LMC and SMC, respectively).
36: The spatial velocities of both Clouds are
37: unexpectedly higher than their previous values resulting from
38: agreement between the available
39: theoretical models of the Magellanic System and the observations of neutral hydrogen (H\,I)
40: associated with the LMC and the SMC.
41: Such proper motion estimates
42: are likely to be at odds with
43: the scenarios for creation of the large--scale structures in the Magellanic System
44: suggested so far. We investigated this hypothesis for the pure tidal models,
45: as they were the first ones devised
46: to explain the evolution of the Magellanic System, and the tidal stripping is intrinsically involved in every model
47: assuming the gravitational interaction. The parameter space for
48: the Milky Way (MW)--LMC--SMC interaction was analyzed
49: by a robust search algorithm (genetic algorithm) combined with a fast restricted N--body model of
50: the interaction.
51: Our method extended the known variety of evolutionary scenarios satisfying the observed kinematics
52: and morphology of the Magellanic large--scale structures.
53: Nevertheless, assuming the tidal interaction, no satisfactory reproduction of the H\,I data
54: available for the Magellanic Clouds was achieved with the new proper motions.
55: We conclude that for the proper motion data by Kallivayalil et al., within their 1--$\sigma$ errors, the dynamical evolution
56: of the Magellanic System with the currently accepted total mass of the MW cannot be explained in the framework of pure tidal models.
57: The optimal value for the western component of the LMC proper motion
58: was found to be \(\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W} \gtrsim -1.3$\,mas\,yr$^{-1}\) in case
59: of tidal models. It
60: corresponds to the reduction of the Kallivayalil et al. value for
61: \(\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}\) by \(\approx\)40\% in its magnitude.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics
65: --- Magellanic Clouds --- methods: $n$-body simulations}
66:
67: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
68: The discussion of the origin and evolution of the Magellanic System has become very intense since
69: the new proper motion data for the selected LMC/SMC stars were acquired by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).
70: The HST measurements yielded the new values for the mean proper motions of the Magellanic Clouds with an unprecedented
71: accuracy \citep[see][]{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}. In comparison with the previous observational
72: studies \citep[e.g.][]{Jones94, Kroupa94, Kroupa97}, the corresponding measurement errors were reduced by a factor of 10.
73: Even though the latest proper motion estimates are consistent with
74: the previous observational results within the 1--$\sigma$ errors, their actual position in the velocity space
75: of the Clouds is quite unexpected.
76:
77: The current velocities of the LMC and the SMC are critical input parameters
78: of any evolutionary model of the System. However, regarding the large heliocentric distance
79: to the Magellanic Clouds, nobody attempted the observational determination of their proper
80: motion until the papers by \cite{Jones94} and \cite{Kroupa94} were carried out.
81: Some more studies have contributed to the research \citep[e.g.][]{Kroupa97,Drake01,Pedreros02}
82: offering a span of the mean proper motion values, but reaching no substantial improvement in the
83: measurement precision, that was still of the same order as the derived values themselves. Such errors
84: admit a wide variety of scenarios for the interaction \citep{Ruzicka07}, and make
85: the observational estimates serve only as quite weak tests of the results based
86: on the theoretical studies of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction \citep[e.g.][]{Lin82, Gardiner94}.
87:
88: The theorists focusing on the evolutionary history of the Magellanic System have widely agreed on
89: two basic physical processes dominating the formation of the Magellanic large--scale structures, including
90: the Magellanic Stream, the Bridge and the Leading Arm \citep[for details see][]{Bruens05}.
91: Those are the tidal fields and the ram pressure stripping.
92:
93: The tidal origin of the extended Magellanic structures was investigated by \cite{Sofue76},
94: who assumed the LMC and the SMC to form a pair gravitationally bound for several Gyr, moving in
95: a flattened MW halo. They identified some LMC and SMC orbital
96: paths leading to the creation of a tidal tail.
97: \cite{Lin77} pointed out the problem of the large parameter space of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction.
98: To reduce the size of the parameter space, they neglected both the SMC influence
99: on the System and dynamical friction within the MW halo, and showed that such
100: a configuration allows for the existence of a LMC trailing tidal stream.
101: Following studies by \cite{Murai80}, \cite{Murai84},
102: \cite{Lin82}, \cite{Gardiner94}, or \cite{Lin95} extended and
103: developed tidal models of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction.
104: Generally speaking, the tidal mechanism becomes efficient enough if the timescale
105: for the interaction is several Gyr \citep{Gardiner94,Gardiner96}.
106:
107: \cite{Meurer85} involved continuous ram pressure
108: stripping into their simulation of the Magellanic System. This
109: approach was followed later by \cite{Sofue94} or by \cite{Moore94}, who simplified
110: the interaction between the LMC and the SMC, however. The Magellanic Stream was formed of the gas stripped from
111: outer regions of the Clouds due to collisions with the MW extended
112: ionized disk. \cite{Heller94} argue for a
113: LMC--SMC collision resulting into the gas
114: distribution to the inter--cloud region where it was stripped off by ram
115: pressure as the Clouds moved through the hot MW halo.
116: Recently, \cite{Bekki05} applied a
117: complex gas--dynamical model including star--formation to investigate
118: the dynamical and chemical evolution of the LMC.
119: \cite{Mastropietro05} introduced their model of the Magellanic
120: System including hydrodynamics (SPH) and a full N--body description of
121: gravity. They studied the interaction between the LMC and the MW.
122: Neither \cite{Bekki05} nor \cite{Mastropietro05} considered the SMC gas in their models.
123: However, it was shown that the Stream, which sufficiently reproduces the observed H\,I
124: column density distribution, might have been created without the SMC gaseous component or even
125: without the LMC--SMC interaction \citep{Mastropietro05}.
126: The history of the Leading Arm was not investigated.
127:
128: In general, hydrodynamical models allow for a better reproduction of the H\,I column density
129: profile of the Magellanic Stream than tidal schemes. However, they constantly fail
130: to reproduce the Magellanic Stream radial velocity measurements and especially
131: the high negative velocity tip of the Magellanic Stream.
132: Both families of models suffer from serious difficulties when modeling the Leading Arm.
133: Similar requirements as for the tidal models hold for the
134: ram pressure stripping schemes concerning interaction timescales,
135: unless the density of the extended gaseous halo of the MW is increased substantially
136: over its observational estimates, amplifying the hydrodynamical interaction. The ram pressure force is
137: proportional to $\upsilon^2$ (relative velocity of the interacting gaseous objects). Thus, the process of gas stripping
138: becomes more efficient as the velocity increases. However, for finite--size objects, it is accompanied by shorter interaction
139: timescales due to the reduced crossing time.
140:
141: Here we came to the actual point of controversy related to the papers by
142: \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}:
143: the HST proper motion values put the Clouds on highly eccentric (or even unbound) orbits around the Galaxy.
144: \cite{Besla07} analyzed the orbital motion of the LMC using the HST data and brought convincing arguments justifying
145: the previous statement. Such a result may have serious consequences for the proposed formation mechanisms
146: of the Magellanic System, since it strongly discriminates the tidal scenario and probably
147: also the ram pressure--based models. To explain the evolution of the Magellanic
148: System by either of the mentioned processes, the negative total energy of the Clouds
149: on their orbits about the MW is needed,
150: which corresponds to multiple perigalactic approaches over the Hubble time.
151: It is highly desirable to verify the reliability of the available models of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction
152: if the orbital angular momentum of the Clouds is as high as found by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}.
153:
154: Our paper presents the results of the search of the parameter space for the MW--LMC--SMC interaction
155: dominated by tides. The approach applied was introduced by \cite{Ruzicka07} and is based on an evolutionary optimization
156: of the model input according to its ability to reproduce the H\,I observations of the Magellanic System \citep{Bruens05}.
157: The predictions by \cite{Besla07} and by many others regarding the insufficient performance of tidal models
158: in case of the \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} proper motions can only be confirmed if the entire parameter space
159: for the interaction is explored.
160: The method of the automated search for good models by the genetic algorithms (GA) enabled us to perform such an
161: analysis for the first time. In addition to the LMC/SMC velocity problem, we also intend to answer two more questions:
162: Are all the studied parameters of the
163: same importance for successful modeling the MW--LMC--SMC interaction? Does the evolution of the System show
164: similar behavior over various scales in the parameter space?
165:
166: \section{Parameter space of the interaction}
167: Our model is built in a galactocentric Cartesian frame, assuming the
168: present position of the Sun \(\mathbf{r}_\odot=(-8.5,0,0)\)\,kpc and its spatial velocity
169: \(\mathbf{\upsilon}_\odot=(10.0,225.2,7.2)$\,km\,s$^{-1}\) \citep{Dehnen98}.
170: In total, our study involves over 20 independent
171: parameters, including the initial conditions of the LMC and the SMC motion, their total masses, parameters of mass distribution,
172: particle disk radii, and orientation angles, and also the MW dark matter halo flattening parameter.
173: Some of the parameters were constrained by theoretical studies (including scale radii $\epsilon$ of the LMC/SMC halos,
174: the Coulomb logarithm $\Lambda$ for the dynamical friction in the MW halo, and the halo flattening
175: parameter $q$ for the model of the MW gravitational potential). Their mean values
176: and searched errors were discussed in \cite{Ruzicka07}. This section focuses on the observationally estimated
177: parameters of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction.
178:
179: Figure~\ref{LMC_SMC_pm}
180: shows the current proper motion of the LMC and the SMC
181: as estimated by various observational methods, together with
182: the portion of the velocity space that we studied.
183: For convenience, the proper motion vectors were decomposed into
184: the northern ($\mu^\mathrm{N}$) and the western ($\mu^\mathrm{W}$) components
185: \citep[see][]{KalliLMC}.
186: We included every case that is acceptable up to date.
187: In case of the LMC proper motion, the measurements by \cite{Jones94, Kroupa94, Kroupa97, Drake01, Pedreros02}
188: and \cite{KalliLMC} were considered. The proper motion errors for the SMC are based on the results
189: by \cite{Kroupa97, Irwin99, Freire03, Anderson04a, Anderson04b} and \cite{KalliSMC}.
190:
191: Efficiency and reliability of the optimization method -- genetic algorithms -- always depend
192: on the number of possible solutions, that is extremely high in case of the Magellanic parameter space.
193: To resolve the difficulty we performed a two--level search. First, the full volume of the parameter space was explored
194: (referred to as a "global scale" hereafter) to obtain a low resolution information about the behavior
195: of the tidal model for various combinations of the input parameters.
196: Subsequently, we reduced the volume of the parameter space by a factor of $10^4$ ("local scale" hereafter)
197: to study only the 1--$\sigma$ proper
198: motion errors by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} with high resolution. Finally, both searches were compared.
199: The extended ranges of the LMC and the SMC proper motion were
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: \mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc} & = & \langle -0.50,+1.80 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}
202: \label{lowres_pm_1}\\
203: \mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc} & = & \langle -2.23,-0.70 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}
204: \label{lowres_pm_2}\\
205: \mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{smc} & = & \langle -2.50,-0.46 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}
206: \label{lowres_pm_3}\\
207: \mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc} & = & \langle -2.05,+0.00 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}.
208: \label{lowres_pm_4}
209: \end{eqnarray}
210: To perform the high--resolution search, the volume of the parameter space was reduced
211: by adopting the proper motion values derived by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}:
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: \mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc} & = & \langle +0.39,+0.49 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}
214: \label{hires_pm_1}\\
215: \mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc} & = & \langle -2.11,-1.95 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}
216: \label{hires_pm_2}\\
217: \mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{smc} & = & \langle -1.35,-0.99 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}
218: \label{hires_pm_3}\\
219: \mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc} & = & \langle -1.34,-0.98 \rangle\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}.
220: \label{hires_pm_4}
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: The above introduced proper motion space for the Magellanic Clouds is illustrated by Fig.~\ref{LMC_SMC_pm}.
223:
224: Unlike the proper motion of the Clouds, their LSR radial velocities could be measured with high accuracy.
225: Following \cite{Vandermarel02}, we set \(\upsilon^\mathrm{rad}_\mathrm{lmc}=262.2\pm 3.4\)\,km\,s\(^{-1}\). The
226: SMC radial velocity error was estimated by \cite{Harris06} as
227: $\upsilon^\mathrm{rad}_\mathrm{smc}=146.0\pm 0.6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
228:
229: The heliocentric position vector of the LMC was adopted from \cite{Vandermarel02}, i.e.
230: the equatorial coordinates are
231: $(\alpha_\mathrm{lmc}, \delta_\mathrm{lmc})=(81.90^\circ\pm 0.98^\circ, -69.87^\circ\pm 0.41^\circ)$,
232: its distance modulus is ${(m-M)}_\mathrm{lmc}=18.5\pm 0.1$.
233: The equatorial coordinates of the SMC were set to the ranges
234: $(\alpha_\mathrm{smc}, \delta_\mathrm{smc})=(13.2^\circ\pm 0.3^\circ, -72.5^\circ\pm 0.3^\circ)$
235: \citep[see][and references therein]{Stanimirovic04}.
236: \cite{Vandenbergh00} provided a great compilation of various distance determinations for the SMC,
237: and we used his resulting distance modulus ${(m-M)}_\mathrm{smc}=18.85\pm 0.10$.
238:
239: Several observational determinations of the LMC disk plane orientation have been published
240: so far \citep[see, e.g.][]{Lin95}. In our parameter study, the LMC inclination $i$
241: and position angle $p$ together with their errors agree with \cite{Vandermarel02},
242: i.e. $i=34.7^\circ\pm 6.2^\circ$ and $p=129.9^\circ\pm 6.0^\circ$.
243: As the SMC misses a well defined disk, the orientation and the position angle usually refer to the
244: SMC "bar" defined by \cite{Gardiner96}. Based on the estimates by \cite{Vandenbergh00} or
245: \cite{Stanimirovic04},
246: we adopted the error ranges $i=60^\circ\pm 20^\circ$ and $p=45^\circ\pm 20^\circ$ for the SMC initial disk inclination
247: and position angle, respectively.
248:
249: \cite{Gardiner94} analyzed the H\,I surface contour
250: map of the Clouds to estimate the initial LMC and SMC disk radii
251: $r^\mathrm{disk}_\mathrm{lmc}$ and $r^\mathrm{disk}_\mathrm{smc}$, respectively.
252: Regarding the absence of a clearly defined disk of the SMC and
253: possible significant mass redistribution in the Clouds during their
254: evolution, the results require a careful treatment.
255:
256: Current total masses $m_\mathrm{lmc}$ and $m_\mathrm{smc}$ follow the estimates by
257: \cite{Vandenbergh00}.
258: The masses of the Clouds are functions of time and evolve due to the LMC--SMC exchange of matter,
259: and as a consequence of
260: the interaction between the Clouds and the MW. Our test--particle model does not allow for a reasonable treatment
261: of a time--dependent
262: mass--loss. Therefore, the masses of the Clouds are considered constant in time, and their initial values at the starting epoch
263: of simulations are approximated by the current LMC and SMC masses.
264:
265: The dynamics of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction is critically dependent on the density distribution and the total mass of the Galaxy.
266: We model the MW by the simple axially symmetric logarithmic potential involving 3 parameters
267: \citep{Binney87}.
268: Only the MW halo flattening $q$ was treated as a free parameter in this study, varying within the range
269: $\langle0.78,1.20\rangle$ \citep[see also][]{Ruzicka07}, and thus introducing a spread in the total mass of the Galaxy
270: $m_\mathrm{MW}(q) = \langle 0.92,2.15\rangle\cdot 10^{12}$\,M$_\odot$ within the radius of 200\,kpc.
271:
272: \section{Methodology}
273: We investigate the pure tidal models in this paper, as they were the first ones devised to explain the creation of
274: the Magellanic Stream \citep{Sofue76}. Beside that, the tidal stripping is intrinsically involved in every model
275: assuming the gravitational interaction.
276: The model itself is an advanced version of the scheme by \cite{Sofue76}: it is a restricted N--body (i.e. test particle)
277: code describing the gravitational interaction between the Galaxy and its dwarf companions. The potential of
278: the MW is dominated by the flattened dark matter halo, and the dynamical friction is exerted on the Magellanic
279: Clouds as they move through the halo. The LMC and the SMC are represented by Plummer spheres, initially
280: surrounded by test--particle disks. For further details see \cite{Ruzicka07}.
281: \subsection{Genetic algorithm search}
282: As mentioned already, the search itself was performed by GAs that mimic the selection strategy of the natural evolution.
283: \cite{Holland75} first proposed the application of such an approach on optimization problems in mathematics.
284: Recently, performance of GAs was studied for galaxies in interaction \citep[see][]{Wahde98,Theis99}.
285: As an example, \cite{Theis01} analyzed the parameter space
286: of two observed interacting galaxies -- NGC\,4449 and DDO\,125. GAs turned out to be very robust tools for such a task if the routine comparing
287: the observational and modeled data is appropriately defined. The approach by
288: \cite{Theis01} was later adopted and improved
289: in order to explore the interaction of the Magellanic Clouds and the Galaxy
290: \citep{Ruzicka07}. The comparison between the model and
291: observations became more efficient by involving an explicit search for the structural shapes in the data. Also
292: the significant system--specific features (such as a special geometry and kinematics) were taken into account,
293: further improving the GA performance for exploration of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction. More detailed information is to be found
294: in Sec.~\ref{understand_F} of this paper.
295:
296: \subsection{Comparison between model and observations: the Fitness Function}\label{understand_F}
297: The proposed automatic search of the parameter space is driven by the routine comparing the
298: modeled and observed H\,I distribution in the Magellanic System \citep{Bruens05}. The match is measured by
299: the \emph{fitness function} ($F$) which is, in fact, a function of all input parameters, since
300: every parameter set determines the resulting simulated H\,I data--cube. The devised function $F$
301: returns a floating--point number between 0.0 (complete disagreement) and 1.0 (perfect match),
302: and consists of three different comparisons, including search for structures and analysis of local kinematics.
303:
304: Efficiency of the GA is critically dependent on the applied fitness function.
305: \cite{Theis01} proposed a generally applicable technique based on comparing the relative intensities of the corresponding
306: pixels in the modeled and observed data--cubes. Such a fitness function was successfully used to analyze
307: an interaction involving two galaxies \citep{Theis01}. The mentioned comparison scheme became one of the three components
308: of the fitness function developed for this project. Both modeled and observed H\,I column
309: density values are scaled relative to their maxima to introduce
310: dimensionless quantities. Then, we get
311: \begin{equation}
312: F_1 = \frac{1}{N_{\upsilon} \cdot N_x \cdot N_y}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{\upsilon}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_y} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_x}
313: \frac{1}{1 + \left|\sigma_{ijk}^\mathrm{obs} - \sigma_{ijk}^\mathrm{mod}\right|},
314: \label{fitness1}
315: \end{equation}
316: where $\sigma_{ijk}^\mathrm{obs}$, $\sigma_{ijk}^\mathrm{mod}$ are
317: normalized column densities measured at the position [j, k] of the
318: i--th velocity channel of the observed and modeled data, respectively.
319: $N_{\upsilon} = 32$ is the number of separate LSR radial velocity channels in our data.
320: $(N_x \cdot N_y) = (32 \cdot 64)$ is
321: the total number of positions on the plane of sky for which observed and modeled H\,I column density values are available.
322:
323: \cite{Ruzicka07} further tested the performance of GA
324: for the problem of galactic interactions, and an additional comparison dealing with the
325: whole data--cubes was devised. It combines the enhancement of structures in the data by their Fourier
326: filtering with the subsequent check for empty/non--empty pixels in both data--cubes.
327: The corresponding component of the fitness function is defined as follows:
328: \begin{equation}
329: F_2 = \frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{\upsilon}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_y} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_x}
330: \mathrm{pix}_{ijk}^\mathrm{obs} \cdot \mathrm{pix}_{ijk}^\mathrm{mod}}
331: {\max\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{\upsilon}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_y} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_x}
332: \mathrm{pix}_{ijk}^\mathrm{obs},
333: \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{\upsilon}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{N_y} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{N_y}
334: \mathrm{pix}_{ijk}^\mathrm{mod}\right)},
335: \label{fitness2}
336: \end{equation}
337: where $\mathrm{pix}_{ijk}^\mathrm{obs}\in\{0,1\}$ and $\mathrm{pix}_{ijk}^\mathrm{mod}\in\{0,1\}$ indicate whether there is matter
338: detected at the position [i, j, k] of the 3\,D data on the observed and modeled Magellanic System, respectively.
339:
340: Effectively, such a comparison
341: is a measure for the agreement of the structural shape in the data.
342: No attention is paid to
343: specific H\,I column density values here. We only test whether both
344: modeled and observed emission is present at the same pixel of the
345: position--velocity space.
346: \cite{Ruzicka07} showed that the search for structures
347: significantly improves the GA performance if the structures of interest occupy only a small fraction of the system's
348: entire data--cube ($<10$\% in the case of the Magellanic Stream and the Leading Arm).
349:
350: \cite{Ruzicka07} also recommended and
351: successfully applied a system--specific comparison.
352: In case of the Magellanic Clouds, the very typical linear radial velocity
353: profile of the Stream including its high negative velocity tip was considered important.
354: The slope of the LSR radial velocity
355: function is a very specific feature, especially strongly dependent on
356: the features of the orbital motion of the Clouds.
357: Then, the third $F$ component is defined as
358: \begin{equation}
359: F_3 = \frac{1}{1 + \left|\frac{\upsilon_\mathrm{min}^\mathrm{obs} - \upsilon_\mathrm{min}^\mathrm{mod}}{\upsilon_\mathrm{min}^\mathrm{obs}}\right|},
360: \label{fitness3}
361: \end{equation}
362: where $\mathrm{\upsilon_{min}^{obs}}$ and
363: $\mathrm{\upsilon_{min}^{mod}}$ are the minima of the observed LSR
364: radial velocity profile of the Magellanic Stream and its model, respectively.
365: The resulting fitness function $F$ combines the above defined components in the following way:
366: \begin{equation}
367: %F = F_1 \cdot F_2 \cdot F_3.
368: F = F_1 F_2 F_3.
369: \label{fitnessA}
370: \end{equation}
371:
372: In principle, the GA is able to find the global maximum of $F$ (i.e. the best model over the studied
373: parameter space), but such a process may be very time--consuming due to the possibly slow convergence of
374: $F$ \citep[see][]{Holland75,Goldberg89}. In order to overcome such a difficulty, we searched the parameter space repeatedly
375: in a fixed number of optimization steps, i.e. generations of models, and collected 120 high--quality
376: models for either global or local scale of the parameter space.
377: Distribution of the 120 local peaks of $F$ helps to map the fitness function landscape but it
378: does not allow for conclusions on the behavior of $F$ either outside or inside the volume
379: populated by the localized models. Therefore, in the following paragraphs we intend to devise a reasonable
380: method for the further analysis of the fitness function $F$.
381:
382: At this point, the reader might ask why there is such an attention paid to the properties
383: of the fitness function itself if it, in fact, does not seem to provide any
384: physical information about the interacting system of the Galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds.
385: Indeed, the function $F$ serves
386: primarily as a driver to the GA engine. However, the search for
387: good models of the observed Magellanic System is efficient only if relevant astrophysical data
388: are supplied as the input to $F$. As already mentioned, our study deals with detailed morphological
389: and kinematic information from the 21\,cm survey by \citet{Bruens05}
390: and with the corresponding modeled data. The fitness function then makes a link between the observable
391: data and the initial state of the Magellanic System.
392: Here we came to the benefits of spending time on studying the function $F$: in principle,
393: it allows for identification of all points/regions in the parameter space leading to reproduction of
394: the observational data, and also an appropriate analysis of its behavior may evaluate sensitivity of the System to
395: variations in different parameters, i.e. their importance to the evolution of the System.
396:
397: The parameter space of the interacting Magellanic Clouds is very extended.
398: Acquiring helpful information about the function $F$ is quite a demanding task, but we consider
399: it feasible once the goals of such an analysis are properly defined.
400: The investigation of the fitness function $F$ is supposed
401: to help us to answer two questions already raised in Section~\ref{intro}:
402: Are all the studied parameters
403: of the same importance for the properties of $F$? Does $F$ of the system show similar behavior
404: over various scales in the parameter space?
405:
406: \subsection{Application of the Fitness Function}
407: As the first step towards better understanding of the fitness function,
408: we studied the 1\,D projections of $F$ to the plane of the j--th parameter
409: \begin{equation}
410: F^i(p_j) \equiv f(p^i_1,\ldots,p_j,\ldots,p^i_n),
411: \end{equation}
412: where ${p^i_1,\ldots,p^i_{j-1},p^i_{j+1},\ldots,p^i_n}$
413: are the specific values of the parameters corresponding to the \mbox{i--th} GA fit (point in the parameter space)
414: and the parameter $p_j$ is varied within a given range.
415: To quantify the sensitivity of $F^i(p_j)$ to changes in different variables (parameters)
416: several functions were defined. First, we have
417: \begin{equation}
418: \Delta^i_j \equiv \frac{\Sigma_j^i}{\overline{F^i(p_j)}},
419: \label{relative_dev}
420: \end{equation}
421: which is the relative deviation of the 1\,D projected fitness $F^i(p_j)$ from its mean value
422: $\overline{F^i(p_j)}$ on the studied interval, where
423: \begin{equation}
424: \Sigma_j^i \equiv \sqrt{\frac{1}{N_\mathrm{P}}\sum\limits_{k=0}^{N_\mathrm{P}-1}(F^i(p_{j,k})-\overline{F^i(p_j)})^2}
425: \label{standard_dev}
426: \end{equation}
427: is the corresponding deviation from $\overline{F^i(p_j)}$ expressed for $N_\mathrm{P}$ points $p_{j,k}$
428: of the projected function $F^i(p_j)$.
429: We also calculate the relative change in $F^i(p_j)$ as
430: \begin{equation}
431: \Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\frac{\max(F^i(p_j)) - \min(F^i(p_j))}{\overline{F^i(p_j)}}.
432: \label{relative_change}
433: \end{equation}
434:
435: The behavior of $F$ is analyzed here in terms of its deviation from the reference levels,
436: which are established by the mean values of the 1\,D projections $\overline{F^i(p_j)}$.
437: We found such an approach particularly useful
438: if one wishes to distinguish between the large--scale and localized significant changes in $F$.
439:
440: Low values of both, $\Delta^i_j$ and $\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}$, indicate presence of a global plateau of $F^i(p_j)$,
441: and thus weak dependence of the system on the j--th parameter.
442: If the corresponding $\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}$ is of a significantly higher value, local peaks (or wells) exist.
443: Similarly, the overall considerable evolution of $F^i(p_j)$
444: is revealed by high values of both $\Delta^i_j$ and $\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}$. In such a case
445: additional information is provided by the ratio of the functions (\ref{relative_dev}) and (\ref{relative_change}).
446: As the ratio approaches unity, abrupt changes in $F^i(p_j)$ are favored over its smooth and slow evolution.
447:
448: The intention of this section is to apply the method for the fitness function analysis introduced
449: in Sec.~\ref{understand_F} to the Magellanic System. The functions $\Delta^i_j$ and $\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}$
450: are helpful if features and behavior of the fitness function $F$ are studied in the neighborhood of an arbitrary
451: point in the parameter space. However, to answer the above raised questions, an approach somewhat less detailed
452: is sufficient. We suggest to treat the functions $\Delta^i_j$ and $\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}$ statistically and
453: to calculate their mean values $\Delta_j \equiv \overline{\Delta^i_j}$ and
454: $\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}} \equiv \overline{\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}}$ over all 120 GA fits for both
455: global and local scale cases. The function $F$ may be characterized by significantly different
456: values of $\Delta^i_j$ or $\Delta^i_{j,\mathrm{F}}$ depending on the selected point in the parameter space.
457: But for now, we are particularly interested in general trends in the behavior of the fitness function (i.e. the
458: behavior of our model for the interaction) that should be expected if one studies the impact of
459: variations in a selected parameter. As we will learn later, the identified
460: GA fits cover a large fraction of the total parameter space volume. This fact also justifies the proposed statistical
461: treatment of the 1\,D projections of the function $F$ in case the results apply on the entire parameter space.
462:
463: \section{Results}\label{results}
464: Regarding the immense difficulties accompanying the observational measurement of the proper motions
465: in case of the Magellanic Clouds, the models of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction were used to draw conclusions
466: on the motion of the Clouds \citep[e.g.][]{Sofue76,Gardiner94,Heller94, Gardiner96}.
467: The mentioned models preferred either the tidal or hydrodynamical interactions as
468: the processes dominating the evolution of the Magellanic System.
469: Generally speaking, the proposed formation mechanisms
470: are not efficient enough unless the Clouds orbit around the Galaxy.
471: Several perigalactic approaches of the Clouds are expected
472: by the tidal models \citep{Gardiner94, Connors05}. Shorter timescales for the interaction
473: may be sufficient within the ram pressure scenario \citep{Heller94,Mastropietro05}.
474: However, the proper motions by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC} lead to timescales further dramatically reduced,
475: as the Clouds should be approaching the Galaxy for the first time \citep{Besla07}.
476: The research of the dynamical evolution of the Magellanic System is at the point
477: where our theoretical understanding of the MW--LMC--SMC interaction is at odds
478: with some critical observational constraints.
479:
480: \cite{Ruzicka07} realized that the previous attempts to model the Magellanic System
481: always reduced the parameter and initial condition space for the interaction
482: by additional assumptions, such as omitting the SMC, or adopting a special orbit
483: for the LMC. However, the uniqueness of the models is unclear unless a systematic
484: analysis of the entire parameter space compatible with the available observations
485: is performed. The idea by \cite{Ruzicka07} was justified as they used
486: a tidal model of the interaction and reproduced the observed H\,I structures
487: for remarkably different histories of the System. Such a complex approach
488: requires a powerful search method.
489: \cite{Ruzicka07} resolved the difficulty by employing GAs as optimization tools characterized
490: by reliability and low sensitivity to local extremes \citep{Theis01}. We adopted
491: their approach to analyze the performance of pure tidal models in case of the Magellanic System
492: assuming the LMC and the SMC proper motions by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC}.
493:
494:
495: \subsection{Parameter Dependence}
496: The values of $\Delta_j$ and $\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}}$ were calculated for the fitness function $F$
497: over both global and local scales of the parameter space. Table~\ref{table_F}
498: presents the result in the descending order according to the value of the function $\Delta_j$.
499: Following the previous explanation it is clear, that the order reveals the sensitivity of the fitness
500: function to various parameters. At this point, we feel qualified to answer the first question raised in
501: Sec.~\ref{understand_F}: the parameters are not of the same importance for the properties of $F$.
502: Table~\ref{table_F} indicates that the sensitivity of the Magellanic System to the choice for the LMC/SMC proper motions
503: is significantly higher than in case of any of the remaining parameters
504: This conclusion is
505: well illustrated by Figure~\ref{2dvelocityLMC} depicting the fitness landscape projected
506: to the plane of the LMC proper motion components. The projection was made at the positions of the
507: best GA fits found for the global and local scale cases, respectively.
508:
509: Our analysis has shown the critical dependence of
510: the evolution of the Magellanic System on the LMC and the SMC spatial velocities.
511: The function \(\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}}\) is not only useful for the detailed
512: analysis of the fitness function, but can also serve to estimate the typical overall change in the fitness value
513: over the entire studied parameter range. The value of \(\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}}\) exceeds 0.15 for every
514: LMC/SMC proper motion component on the global scale (Tab.~\ref{table_F}).
515: Regarding the definition by Eq.~(\ref{relative_change}),
516: the mentioned values multiplied by the factor of 2.0 tell us how much
517: the 1\,D fitness projections $F^i(p_j)$ change typically compared to their mean values. As the usual mean value
518: $\overline{F^i(p_j)}$ equals to $\approx 0.3$, one may assume the global proper motion ranges
519: given by Eq.~(\ref{lowres_pm_1}) to~(\ref{lowres_pm_4}) to derive the following estimated changes in the
520: fitness of our models per the unit step in the proper motion value:
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: \Delta F(\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc})/\Delta\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc} & \simeq & 0.04\,\mathrm{mas^{-1}\,yr}
523: \label{fitness_step_1}\\
524: \Delta F(\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc})/\Delta\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc} & \simeq & 0.06\,\mathrm{mas^{-1}\,yr}
525: \label{fitness_step_2}\\
526: \Delta F(\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{smc})/\Delta\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{smc} & \simeq & 0.09\,\mathrm{mas^{-1}\,yr}
527: \label{fitness_step_3}\\
528: \Delta F(\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc})/\Delta\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc} & \simeq & 0.06\,\mathrm{mas^{-1}\,yr}
529: \label{fitness_step_4}
530: \end{eqnarray}
531: The above listed values should be treated very carefully, as they simplify the real behavior of the fitness function.
532: The fact that the proper motion of the SMC is even more critical than that of the LMC indicates, that both Clouds
533: serve as sources of matter for the Magellanic large scale structures, but the SMC contribution responds to the choice
534: for the orbit more strongly.
535: It is another nice illustration of how much information about the physical properties of the Magellanic System
536: can be actually obtained from the fitness function.
537:
538: The estimates given by the Eq.~(\ref{fitness_step_1}) to~(\ref{fitness_step_4}) give a hint at
539: the relation between the
540: fitness and the physical properties of our models. Later in Sec.~\ref{spatial_motion} the lower limit
541: for the fitness of the satisfactory models will be established and discussed. While the best model we found
542: yields $F_\mathrm{best}=0.514$, the fitness threshold level is $F_\mathrm{lim}>0.434$, i.e. all the acceptable
543: models are found within the fitness range $(F_\mathrm{best}-F_\mathrm{lim})=0.08$. If any of the LMC/SMC proper motion components
544: changes by 1\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$, the corresponding model is extremely likely to cross the border between the successful and
545: insufficient models.
546: If some of the remaining
547: parameters are altered by further observations, our findings concerning the motion of the Clouds
548: shall not be affected strongly.
549:
550: \subsection{Scale Dependence}
551: What if the volume of the parameter space is reduced substantially by changing the proper motion ranges
552: of the Clouds? To find the answer, let's take a look at Table~\ref{table_F}. It indicates that the most influential
553: parameters remain the same, if we zoom into the velocity space. The role of the choice for the LMC/SMC proper motion
554: is still dominant for the evolution of the System. Impact of different proper motion components may be altered if
555: their searched ranges are reduced.
556: It is also a notable fact that the values of both functions $\Delta_j$ and $\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}}$
557: decreased systematically over all studied parameters as we switched to the local scale of the parameter space.
558: It means that the fitness function $F$ does not have a fractal--like (irregular) structure,
559: and the probability of missing steep
560: high peaks (i.e. isolated quality models) in the fitness landscape may be reduced by running the GA search again
561: on that sub--region of the original parameter space, which is of a particular interest.
562: We demonstrated that the effective resolution of the GA search
563: may be improved by reducing the volume of the parameter space. Therefore, the exploration of the parameter
564: space for the MW--LMC--SMC interaction was performed in two levels. First, every LMC/SMC proper motion
565: estimate available was included. Subsequently, the proper motion spread was reduced to the 1--$\sigma$ error ranges
566: by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} to verify or eventually correct the global scale search.
567:
568: \subsection{Spatial motion and tidal models}\label{spatial_motion}
569: We have analyzed the influence of the involved parameters on the tidal interaction in the Magellanic System.
570: Reproduction of the H\,I observational data \citep{Bruens05} by the restricted N--body simulation
571: turned out to be critically dependent on the current spatial velocities of the Clouds.
572:
573: Since the effective resolution of the search can be improved by reducing the volume of the studied
574: parameter space (as justified earlier in this section), two sets of the LMC/SMC proper motion
575: ranges were assumed. After including every proper motion estimate available up to date,
576: only the values by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC} were involved to allow for a high--resolution search on the local scale
577: of the parameter space.
578: With the use of GA, $\approx 2\cdot 10^6$ parameter combinations, i.e. individual N--body simulations,
579: were tested in total, and 120 sets providing
580: the highest fitness
581: were collected for each of the studied
582: volumes of the parameter space.
583:
584: The resulting models are not considered acceptable unless they produce both
585: leading and trailing H\,I Magellanic structures (the Leading Arm and the Magellanic Stream).
586: Thus, to allow for quantitative statements, a threshold level of $F$ had to be established.
587: In order to do so, one needs to understand how the modeled H\,I morphology and kinematics
588: is reflected in the value of the fitness function.
589:
590: The modeled distribution and kinematics of H\,I in the Leading Arm region and around the
591: main LMC and SMC bodies remains similarly unsatisfactory over the entire parameter space,
592: especially failing to reproduce the observed
593: morphology of the Leading Arm (see Fig.~\ref{3d_maps}). In terms of the fitness function, the value of $F$ never exceeds 0.3 if calculated
594: only for the Leading Arm.
595:
596: It is the Magellanic Stream that turned to be very sensitive to the choice for the
597: model parameters, and critically influencing the resulting fitness. Figure~\ref{3d_maps}
598: illustrates the above discussed facts. While the model of $F=0.514$ (global scale) is able to fit the basic
599: features of the Magellanic Stream both in the projected H\,I distribution and the LSR radial velocity profile,
600: the best model for the increased LMC/SMC spatial velocities ($F=0.336$, local scale) places the Magellanic Stream to the
601: position--position--velocity space incorrectly, as the $\approx-400$\,km\,s\(^{-1}\) tip of the Stream
602: is shifted towards the Clouds by \(\approx20^\circ\) compared to the observations
603: (1 pixel in Fig.~\ref{3d_maps} equals roughly to \(2^\circ\) in the plane of sky),
604: and the modeled morphology differs seriously from the observed structure of the Magellanic Stream.
605: Generally speaking, the described behavior of the modeled trailing stream is responsible
606: for the resulting fitness of a given model, and was used to define the desired threshold level
607: of the \(F\) value.
608:
609: Unlike the local scale analysis, the global search of the entire parameter space
610: always resulted in a model placing the high negative radial velocity tip of the Stream to the
611: correct projected position, and the modeled trailing stream filled roughly the same area of the H\,I data--cube
612: as the observed Magellanic Stream. Following the mentioned fact, we selected the worst of the 120 fits
613: from the global scale search to represent the threshold level of the fitness and so $F>0.434$ defines
614: satisfactory models of the Magellanic System.
615:
616: Figure~\ref{2dvelocityLMC} indicates, that the
617: sub--region of the ($\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{N}$, $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}$)--plane
618: introduced by \cite{KalliLMC} does not allow for any satisfactory models assuming the pure tidal interaction.
619: Such a conclusion is also confirmed by the local scale search restricted to the HST proper motion data only
620: (lower plot of Figure~\ref{2dvelocityLMC}).
621: Thus, Fig.~\ref{2dvelocityLMC} denotes that it is not
622: possible to simulate the evolution of the Magellanic System by pure tidal models if the spatial
623: velocity of the LMC is as high as predicted by \cite{KalliLMC}. However, such a speculation can only be
624: confirmed if the entire parameter space of the interaction is explored, as it is based on the behavior
625: of the fitness function $F$ in the neighborhood of the selected point.
626:
627: Figure~\ref{fit-muLMC} summarizes our results. The value of every local peak of the fitness function $F$
628: (i.e. the fitness of every model identified by GA)
629: for the interaction of the MW--LMC--SMC system is plotted as function of the
630: $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{N}$ and $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}$ proper motion components for the LMC.
631: While the northern component $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{N}$ allows for satisfactory
632: modeling of the Magellanic System over the entire global range, the situation is quite
633: different for the LMC proper motion in the western direction ($\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}$).
634: The upper right plot of Figure~\ref{fit-muLMC} clearly indicates that the tidal scheme
635: fails unless the $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}$ values by \cite{KalliLMC}
636: are reduced by $\approx 40$\,\% to reach $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W} \gtrsim -1.3$\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$.
637: \cite{Besla07} have shown that the proper motion
638: component $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}$ controls the Galactocentric spatial velocity of the LMC.
639: Hence, one can easily see that the pure tidal models of the Magellanic System
640: constantly fail for the spatial velocities putting the LMC on highly eccentric
641: or maybe unbound orbits about the Galaxy \citep{Besla07}. This conclusion
642: was verified and confirmed by the local scale parameter study focusing
643: on the proper motion ranges by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}. Despite our efforts, no even decent
644: models were found over this portion of the parameter space (see the lower row of Figure~\ref{fit-muLMC}).
645: Please note also that the concentration of the GA fits towards lower values of
646: $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}$ still remains even for the reduced velocity ranges.
647:
648: Within the original volume of the parameter space, assuming the tidal interaction,
649: no satisfactory reproduction of the H\,I data
650: by \cite{Bruens05} was achieved for the HST proper motions.
651: In agreement with the previous studies, the model succeeded only if the Clouds were moving at
652: substantially lower Galactocentric velocities. The following high--resolution analysis
653: of the local scale of the parameter space (the proper motion ranges for the Clouds were restricted to the HST velocity data)
654: did not change the previous result and no specific quality parameter combinations
655: were revealed. Regarding the above summarized facts and results, we conclude that the dynamical evolution
656: of the Magellanic System with the currently accepted total mass of the MW
657: cannot be explained in the framework of pure tidal models for
658: the proper motion data by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC} within their 1--$\sigma$ errors.
659:
660: \section{Conclusions}
661: The new results introduced by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC} have serious consequences
662: for our understanding of the dynamical evolution of the Magellanic System, and in
663: a wider context
664: they influence our view of the Local Group and its formation. Such facts, together with the key result of this paper
665: indicating a conflict between the tidal models and observations of the Magellanic System,
666: lead us necessarily to the questions about the reliability of the original HST data and
667: correctness of their treatment by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC}.
668:
669: Unfortunately, the first issue cannot be addressed until the HST measurements are cross--checked
670: by an instrument of a competitive resolution and other significant physical characteristics.
671: In a close future, the GAIA mission should allow for high--precision astrometry, and hopefully
672: the Magellanic Clouds and their proper motions will become objects of its interest as soon as possible.
673:
674: Recently, an interesting constraint on the current velocity of the LMC was introduced by
675: \cite{Mcclure08}.
676: They were able to estimate the Galactocentric distance to the cross--section of the Magellanic Leading Arm
677: with the gaseous disk of the MW. Although the observed part of the Leading Arm does not necessarily
678: trace the future orbit of the LMC (the Leading Arm is believed to lead the Magellanic System),
679: the measured position puts the lower limit on the Galactocentric distance
680: to the point of the next passage of the LMC through the Galactic plane. Following
681: \cite{Mcclure08},
682: the estimated distance is not at odds with the value obtained by adopting the current LMC velocity by
683: \cite{KalliLMC}.
684: In addition to the above discussed issue, a verification of the distances to the main bodies
685: of the Clouds may be worth a consideration.
686: Space velocities also depend on the distances to the LMC/SMC, which should be
687: checked carefully in future to clarify how far they may influence our conclusions.
688:
689: Concerning the HST proper motion data processing by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}, both papers indicate that
690: the data were analyzed and interpreted very carefully and the adopted method is well justified.
691: A very strong support to the conclusions by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} came recently from the study
692: by \cite{Piatek07} who also derived the LMC and the SMC current proper motions from the original HST data.
693: \cite{Piatek07} introduced a different method to process the LMC/SMC stellar proper motions,
694: but their results agree with the findings by \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} very well.
695: They were able to reduce the LMC/SMC proper motion errors by the factor
696: of 3 compared to \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} due to their modified treatment
697: of the original data.
698: However, while their 1--$\sigma$ proper motion errors of the LMC are completely
699: embedded within the corresponding error estimates by \cite{KalliLMC},
700: the mean value of SMC proper motion component $\mu_\mathrm{smc}^\mathrm{W}$
701: is offset by +0.41\,mas\,yr\(^{-1}\) compared to \cite{KalliSMC} (see
702: Fig.~\ref{LMC_SMC_pm}).
703:
704: It means that the region of the parameter space
705: delimited by the 1--$\sigma$ proper motion errors by \cite{Piatek07}
706: entered our global scale analysis, but it was not explored
707: by the local scale search. Nevertheless, there is no indication that
708: such a high--resolution exploration might alter significantly the
709: results obtained for the global scale search.
710: Since the only difference between the results by \cite{KalliLMC,
711: KalliSMC} and those by \cite{Piatek07} exists for the western proper
712: motion component of the SMC, the Eq.~(\ref{fitness_step_4}) yields a
713: typical growth in the models' fitness of $\Delta F(\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc})\approx
714: +0.03$ as one switches from \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC}
715: to \cite{Piatek07}, because the $\mu_\mathrm{smc}^\mathrm{W}$ estimate by
716: \cite{Piatek07}
717: is by $\approx 0.4$\,mas\,yr\(^{-1}\) lower than the result by \cite{KalliSMC}.
718: The overall quality of the
719: models for the \cite{Piatek07} data is then well below the fitness threshold
720: level established in Sec.~\ref{spatial_motion}. Under such conditions it is extremely unlikely to expect any
721: significant revision of the global scale parameter search by the high resolution
722: analysis of the proper motions by \cite{Piatek07}.
723:
724: If we admit that the latest observational estimates of the current proper motion for
725: both Magellanic Clouds are correct, what would be the impact on our understanding
726: of the Magellanic System and its evolution? We showed that the pure tidal stripping
727: is insufficient to redistribute the H\,I gas in the System to conform the
728: available observations \citep{Bruens05}. Nevertheless, the classical model scheme by
729: \cite{Sofue76}
730: offers an extremely simplified view of the physical processes influencing galactic interactions.
731: Our results, together with the conclusions by \cite{Besla07}, do not allow for more than little
732: doubts, that despite the high spatial velocities of the Clouds, the models of the interaction
733: may succeed if sufficiently efficient physical mechanisms are introduced.
734:
735: In the first order, the ram pressure stripping \citep{Mastropietro05} scenario is well worth further efforts,
736: since its efficiency strongly depends on several only weakly constrained parameters, namely
737: the density of the extended gaseous halo of the Galaxy. Moreover, the ram pressure force scales
738: as $\upsilon^2$ with the relative velocity of the interacting objects, and so the high spatial velocities
739: of the Clouds by \cite{KalliLMC,KalliSMC} may compensate the effect of the corresponding reduced timescale
740: for the interaction with the gaseous halo of the Galaxy.
741: Recently, the paper by \cite{Nidever07}
742: offered an exciting alternative to the tidal/ram pressure models, considering the
743: possible intense ejection of mass from several star--forming regions in the LMC super--shells.
744:
745: {
746: \acknowledgments
747: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support
748: by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
749: (the Junior research grant KJB300030801 and the Institutional Research Plan AVOZ10030501),
750: by the project M\v{S}MT LC06014 Center for Theoretical Astrophysics, and also by the grant P20593--N16
751: of the FWF Austrian Science Fund.
752: }
753:
754: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
755: \bibitem[Bekki\,\&\,Chiba(2005)]{Bekki05} Bekki, K., \& Chiba, M. 2005, \mnras, 356, 680
756:
757: \bibitem[Anderson\,\&\,King(2004a)]{Anderson04a} Anderson, J., \& King, I. R. 2004, ACS Instrument
758: Science Report 04--15 (Baltimore: Space Telescope Science Institute)
759:
760: \bibitem[Anderson\,\&\,King(2004b)]{Anderson04b} Anderson, J., \& King, I. R. 2004, \aj, 128, 950
761:
762: \bibitem[Besla et al.(2007)]{Besla07} Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., Robertson, B., Cox, T. J.,
763: van der Marel, R. P., \& Alcock, C. 2007, \apj, 668, 949
764:
765: \bibitem[Binney\,\&\,Tremaine(1987)]{Binney87} Binney, J., Tremaine, S. D. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
766:
767: \bibitem[Br\"uns et al.(2005)]{Bruens05} Br\"uns, C., Kerp, J., Staveley--Smith, L.,
768: et al., 2005, \aap, 432, 45
769:
770: \bibitem[Connors et al.(2005)]{Connors05} Connors, T. W., Kawata, D., \& Gibson, B. K. 2006, \mnras, 371, 108
771:
772: \bibitem[Dehnen\,\&\,Binney(1998)]{Dehnen98} Dehnen, W., Binney, J. J. 1998, \mnras, 298, 387
773:
774: \bibitem[Drake et al.(2001)]{Drake01} Drake, A. J., Cook, K. H., Alcock, C., Axelrod, T. S.,
775: Geha, M., \& MACHO Collaboration, 2001, \baas, 33, 1379
776:
777: \bibitem[Freire et al.(2003)]{Freire03} Freire, P. C., Camilo, F., Kramer, M., Lorimer, D. R.,
778: Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., \& D'Amico, N. 2003, \mnras, 340, 1359
779:
780: \bibitem[Fujimoto\,\&\,Sofue(1976)]{Sofue76} Fujimoto, M., \& Sofue, Y. 1976, \aap, 47, 263
781:
782: \bibitem[Gardiner et al.(1994)]{Gardiner94} Gardiner, L. T., Sawa, T., \& Fujimoto,
783: M. 1994, \mnras, 266, 567
784:
785: \bibitem[Gardiner\,\&\,Noguchi(1996)]{Gardiner96} Gardiner, L. T., \& Noguchi, M. 1996, \mnras, 278, 191
786:
787: \bibitem[Goldberg(1989)]{Goldberg89} Goldberg, D. E. 1989, Genetic algorithms
788: in search, optimization and machine learning (New York: Addison--Wesley)
789:
790: \bibitem[Harris\,\&\,Zaritsky(2006)]{Harris06} Harris, J., Zaritsky, D. 2006, \aj, 131, 2514
791:
792: \bibitem[Heller\,\&\,Rohlfs(1994)]{Heller94} Heller, P., \& Rohlfs, K. 1994, \aap, 291, 3, 743
793:
794: \bibitem[Holland(1975)]{Holland75} Holland, J. H. 1975, Adaptation in
795: natural and artificial systems. An introductory analysis with
796: applications to biology, control and artificial intelligence (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press)
797:
798: \bibitem[Irwin(1999)]{Irwin99} Irwin, M. 1999, IAU Symposium 192, 409
799:
800: \bibitem[Jones et al.(1994)]{Jones94} Jones, B. F., Klemola, A. R., \& Lin, D. N. C. 1994, \aj, 107, 1333
801:
802: \bibitem[Kallivayalil et al.(2006a)]{KalliLMC} Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Alcock, C., Axelrod, T.,
803: Cook, K. H., Drake, A. J., \& Geha, M. 2006a, \apj, 638, 772
804:
805: \bibitem[Kallivayalil et al.(2006b)]{KalliSMC} Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., \& Alcock, C. 2006b, \apj,
806: 652, 1213
807:
808: \bibitem[Kroupa et al.(1994)]{Kroupa94} Kroupa, P., R\"{o}ser, S., \& Bastian, U. 1994, \mnras, 266, 412
809:
810: \bibitem[Kroupa\,\&\,Bastian(1997)]{Kroupa97} Kroupa, P., \& Bastian, U. 1997, \na, 2, 77
811:
812: \bibitem[Lin\,\&\,Lynden--Bell(1977)]{Lin77} Lin, D. N. C., \& Lynden--Bell, D. 1977, \mnras, 181, 59
813:
814: \bibitem[Lin\,\&\,Lynden--Bell(1982)]{Lin82} Lin, D. N. C., \& Lynden--Bell, D. 1982 , \mnras, 198, 707
815:
816: \bibitem[Lin et al.(1995)]{Lin95} Lin, D. N. C., Jones, B. F., \& Klemola,
817: A. R. 1995, \apj, 439, 652
818:
819: \bibitem[van der Marel et al.(2002)]{Vandermarel02} van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., \& Suntzeff, N. B. 2002, \aj, 124, 2639
820:
821: \bibitem[Mastropietro et al.(2005)]{Mastropietro05} Mastropietro, C., Moore, B., Mayer,
822: L., et al.\ 2005, \mnras, 363, 509
823:
824: \bibitem[McClure--Griffiths et al.(2008)]{Mcclure08} McClure--Griffiths, N. M., Staveley--Smith, L., Lockman, Felix J.,
825: Calabretta, M. R., Ford, H. A., Kalberla, P. M. W., Murphy, T., Nakanishi, H., \& Pisano, D. J. 2008, \apj, 673, L143
826:
827: \bibitem[Meurer et al.(1985)]{Meurer85} Meurer, G. R., Bicknell, G. V., \& Gingold, R. A. 1985, \pasa, 6, 2, 195
828:
829: \bibitem[Moore\,\&\,Davis(1994)]{Moore94} Moore, B., \& Davis, M. 1994, \mnras, 270, 209
830:
831: \bibitem[Murai\,\&\,Fujimoto(1980)]{Murai80} Murai, T., \& Fujimoto, M. 1980, \pasj, 32, 581
832:
833: \bibitem[Murai\,\&\,Fujimoto(1984)]{Murai84} Murai, T., \& Fujimoto, M. 1984, Proceedings of
834: the IAU Symposium No.\,108, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Co., 115
835:
836: \bibitem[Nidever et al.(2008)]{Nidever07} Nidever, D. L., Majewski, S. R., \& Butler B., W. 2008, \apj, 679, 432
837:
838: \bibitem[Pedreros et al.(2002)]{Pedreros02} Pedreros, M. H., Anguita, C., \& Maza, J. 2002, \aj, 123, 1971
839:
840: \bibitem[Piatek et al.(2008)]{Piatek07} Piatek, S., Pryor, C., \& Olszewski, E. W. 2008, \aj, 135, 1024
841:
842: \bibitem[Ruzicka et al.(2007)]{Ruzicka07} R\accent23u\v{z}i\v{c}ka, A., Palou\v{s}, J., \& Theis, C. 2007, \aap, 461, 155
843:
844: \bibitem[Sofue(1994)]{Sofue94} Sofue, Y. 1994, PASJ, 46, 4,431
845:
846: \bibitem[Stanimirovi\'c et al.(2004)]{Stanimirovic04} Stanimirovi\'c, S., Staveley--Smith, L., Jones, P. A. 2004, \apj, 604, 176
847:
848: \bibitem[Theis(1999)]{Theis99} Theis, Ch 1999, RvMA, 12, 309
849:
850: \bibitem[Theis\,\&\,Kohle(2001)]{Theis01} Theis, Ch., \& Kohle, S. 2001, \aap, 370, 365
851:
852: \bibitem[Van den Bergh(2000)]{Vandenbergh00} Van den Bergh, S. 2000, The galaxies
853: of the Local Group (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
854:
855: \bibitem[Wahde(1998)]{Wahde98} Wahde, M. 1998, \aap, 132, 417
856:
857: \end{thebibliography}
858:
859: \clearpage
860:
861: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrclrr}
862: \tablewidth{0pc}
863: \tablecolumns{7}
864: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
865: \tablecaption{Parameter dependence of the fitness function}
866: \tablehead{
867: \multicolumn{3}{c}{Global scale} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Local scale} \\
868: \cline{1-3} \cline{5-7} \\
869: \colhead{\(j\)} & \colhead{\(\Delta_j\cdot 10^{2}\)} & \colhead{\(\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}}\cdot 10^{2}\)} & \colhead{} &
870: \colhead{\(j\)} & \colhead{\(\Delta_j\cdot 10^{2}\)} & \colhead{\(\Delta_{j,\mathrm{F}}\cdot 10^{2}\)} \\
871: }
872: \startdata
873: $\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 15.96 & 31.03 & & $\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 3.09 & 5.53 \\
874: $\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 8.76 & 17.20 & & $\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 3.01 & 5.48 \\
875: $\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 8.55 & 18.92 & & $\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 2.64 & 4.85 \\
876: $\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 6.98 & 15.24 & & $\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 2.63 & 4.76 \\
877: $\alpha_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 4.22 & 8.34 & & $\alpha_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.77 & 3.31 \\
878: $(m-M)_\mathrm{smc}$ & 3.95 & 8.02 & & $R^\mathrm{disk}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.69 & 2.94 \\
879: $(m-M)_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 3.92 & 7.91 & & $M_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.69 & 3.11 \\
880: $M_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 3.86 & 7.78 & & $\epsilon_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.67 & 3.09 \\
881: $M_\mathrm{smc}$ & 3.48 & 6.93 & & $(m-M)_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.65 & 3.06 \\
882: $\Lambda$ & 3.46 & 6.95 & & $\Lambda$ & 1.63 & 2.98 \\
883: $\upsilon^\mathrm{rad}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 3.31 & 6.52 & & $(m-M)_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.59 & 2.95 \\
884: $\epsilon_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 2.60 & 5.36 & & $M_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.49 & 2.76 \\
885: $\delta_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 2.38 & 4.69 & & $R^\mathrm{disk}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.47 & 2.64 \\
886: $\epsilon_\mathrm{smc}$ & 2.23 & 4.62 & & $\upsilon^\mathrm{rad}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.41 & 2.64 \\
887: $\upsilon^\mathrm{rad}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.92 & 3.85 & & $\epsilon_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.40 & 2.69 \\
888: $\alpha_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.91 & 3.89 & & $\delta_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.03 & 1.90 \\
889: $i_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.89 & 3.80 & & $p_\mathrm{smc}$ & 0.99 & 1.80 \\
890: $\delta_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.83 & 3.73 & & $i_\mathrm{smc}$ & 0.88 & 1.59 \\
891: $p_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.75 & 3.62 & & $\alpha_\mathrm{smc}$ & 0.88 & 1.59 \\
892: $R^\mathrm{disk}_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 1.70 & 3.60 & & $\delta_\mathrm{smc}$ & 0.86 & 1.54 \\
893: $R^\mathrm{disk}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 1.55 & 3.30 & & $\upsilon^\mathrm{rad}_\mathrm{smc}$ & 0.78 & 1.47 \\
894: $i_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 0.70 & 1.39 & & $i_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 0.23 & 0.39 \\
895: $p_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 0.64 & 1.29 & & $p_\mathrm{lmc}$ & 0.21 & 0.37 \\
896: \enddata
897: \label{table_F}
898: \end{deluxetable}
899: \clearpage
900:
901: {
902: \onecolumn
903: \begin{figure}
904: \includegraphics[angle=90, scale=.55, clip]{f1.eps}
905: %\includegraphics[angle=0, scale=.6, clip]{f1b.eps}
906: \caption{The 2\,D projections of the Magellanic parameter space
907: to the ($\mu^\mathrm{N}$, $\mu^\mathrm{W}$)--plane for both the LMC (left plot) and the SMC.
908: The gray fillings mark the proper motion ranges explored by the GAs. The labels
909: indicate the proper motions as expected by various studies.
910: K06a stands for \cite{KalliLMC}, K06b for \cite{KalliSMC}, PI08
911: for \cite{Piatek07}, J94 for \cite{Jones94},
912: PPM for \cite{Kroupa94}, HIP for \cite{Kroupa97},
913: P02 for \cite{Pedreros02}, AKF for the value
914: combining \cite{Freire03} with \cite{Anderson04a, Anderson04b}.
915: The ellipses show the 68.3\,\% confidence regions.
916: \label{LMC_SMC_pm}}
917: \end{figure}
918: }
919: \clearpage
920:
921: {
922: \onecolumn
923: \begin{figure}
924: \includegraphics[bb=30 135 475 735, angle=90, scale=.257, clip]{f2a.eps}
925: \includegraphics[bb=30 135 475 735, angle=90, scale=.257, clip]{f2b.eps}
926: \includegraphics[bb=30 135 475 735, angle=90, scale=.257, clip]{f2c.eps}
927: \caption{Visualization of the entire 3\,D H\,I data--cube of the Magellanic System.
928: The column density isosurface $\Sigma = 10^{-5}\Sigma_\mathrm{max}$ is shown in every plot, together
929: with the data--cubes projected to the 2\,D maps of the integrated column density both in the position--position
930: and position--radial velocity spaces.
931: The best model ever found in the global scale search ($F = 0.514$,
932: $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{N}=-0.34\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$,
933: $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}=-0.70\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$, left hand plot) is compared to the best model identified for
934: the \cite{KalliLMC, KalliSMC} data, i.e. the proper motion region delimited by Eq.~(\ref{hires_pm_1}) to~(\ref{hires_pm_4}),
935: ($F = 0.336$,
936: $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{N}=-1.96\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$,
937: $\mu_\mathrm{lmc}^\mathrm{W}=+0.40\,\mathrm{mas\,yr^{-1}}$, right hand plot),
938: and to the low--resolution compilation of the H\,I data
939: by \cite{Bruens05}. The dashed line in the position--velocity projections depicts the mean radial velocity gradient along the observed
940: Magellanic Stream.
941: \label{3d_maps}}
942: \end{figure}
943: }
944: \clearpage
945:
946: %{
947: %\twocolumn
948: \begin{figure}
949: \includegraphics[bb=0 0 550 800,angle=90,scale=.28]{f3a_color.eps}\\
950: \includegraphics[bb=0 0 550 800,angle=90,scale=.28]{f3b_color.eps}
951: \caption{The (\(\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc}\), \(\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc}\))--planes for the 2\,D
952: projections of the function \(F\). For the moment, the remaining parameters are fixed to the values
953: corresponding to the best models for the original (upper plot) or the reduced
954: proper motion ranges, respectively. The best models are marked by the white crosses.
955: The white ellipse in the upper plot indicates the 68.3\,\% confidence region of the LMC proper motion by
956: \cite{KalliLMC}
957: and roughly corresponds to the entire (\(\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc}\), \(\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc}\))--plane
958: depicted in the lower plot.
959: \label{2dvelocityLMC}}
960: \end{figure}
961: %}
962: \clearpage
963:
964: {\onecolumn
965: \begin{figure}
966: \epsscale{1.11}
967: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.284]{f4a.eps}
968: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.284]{f4b.eps} \\
969: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.284]{f4c.eps}
970: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=.284]{f4d.eps}
971: \caption{Distribution of all GA fits of the Magellanic System over the analyzed ranges
972: for the LMC proper motion components \(\mu^\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{lmc}\) and
973: \(\mu^\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{lmc}\). The upper row presents the low--resolution search
974: of the original volume of the parameter space. The gray--filled areas indicate the reduced proper
975: motion intervals. They were studied subsequently and the resulting span of the 120 identified
976: GA fits is depicted in the lower row.
977: \label{fit-muLMC}}
978: \end{figure}
979: }
980: \clearpage
981:
982: \end{document}
983: