1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{amsmath}
4: \renewcommand\email\texttt
5: \shorttitle{The Luminosity Function of the Milky Way Satellites}
6: \shortauthors{Koposov et al.}
7: \def\Ss{S_{\rm star}}
8: \def\Sg{S_{\rm gal}}
9: \def\rh{r_{\rm h}}
10: \def\change#1{{#1}}
11: \begin{document}
12: \title{The Luminosity Function of the Milky Way Satellites}
13: \author{S. Koposov\altaffilmark{1,2},
14: V. Belokurov\altaffilmark{2},
15: N.W. Evans\altaffilmark{2},
16: P.C. Hewett\altaffilmark{2},
17: M.J. Irwin\altaffilmark{2},
18: G. Gilmore\altaffilmark{2},
19: D.B. Zucker\altaffilmark{2},
20: H.-W. Rix\altaffilmark{1},
21: M. Fellhauer\altaffilmark{2},
22: E.F. Bell\altaffilmark{1},
23: E.V. Glushkova\altaffilmark{3}
24: }
25: \altaffiltext{1}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, K\"{o}nigstuhl
26: 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
27: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA,
28: UK;\email{koposov,vasily,nwe@ast.cam.ac.uk}}
29: \altaffiltext{3}{Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Universitetskiy pr.,
30: 13, 119992, Moscow, Russia}
31: \begin{abstract}
32: We quantify the detectability of stellar Milky Way
33: satellites in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Data Release 5.
34: We show that the effective search volumes for the recently discovered
35: SDSS--satellites depend strongly on their luminosity, with their
36: maximum distance, $D_{max}$, substantially
37: smaller than the Milky Way halo's virial radius.
38: Calculating the maximum accessible volume, $V_{max}$, for all faint
39: detected satellites, allows the calculation of
40: the luminosity function for Milky Way satellite galaxies,
41: accounting quantitatively for their detectability.
42: We find that the number density of satellite galaxies continues to rise
43: towards low luminosities, but may flatten at $M_V \sim -5$; within
44: the uncertainties, the luminosity function can be described by a
45: single power law $dN/dM_{V}= 10 \times 10^{0.1 (M_V+5)}$, spanning
46: luminosities from $M_V=-2$ all the way to the luminosity of the Large
47: Magellanic Cloud.
48: Comparing these results to several semi-analytic galaxy
49: formation models, we find that their predictions differ significantly from
50: the data: either the shape of the luminosity function, or the surface
51: brightness distributions of the models, do not match.
52: \end{abstract}
53: \keywords{Galaxy: halo -- Galaxy: structure -- Galaxy: formation -- Local Group}
54: \section{Introduction}
55: \begin{figure}
56: \plotone{f1.eps}
57: \caption{The number of stars brighter than $r \simeq22.5 $ in random
58: realizations of Milky Way satellites of luminosity $M_r \sim -3, -5,
59: -7$ (from bottom to top) with M92-like stellar populations, as a
60: function of distance from the Sun. The approximate number of stars
61: required for a significant detection (by the algorithm described in
62: Section~\ref{algorithm_section}) is $\simeq$30.}
63: \label{nstars_vs_dist}
64: \end{figure}
65:
66: In Cold Dark Matter (CDM) models, large spiral galaxies like the Milky
67: Way and M31 form within extensive dark matter halos from the merging
68: and accretion of smaller systems. Although CDM models have had many
69: successes on larger scales, one of the most serious challenges facing
70: CDM models is the so-called ``missing satellite'' problem. First
71: identified by~\citet{Kl99} and \citet{Mo99}, the problem manifests
72: itself through the prediction by CDM models of at least 1-2 orders of
73: magnitude more low-mass sub-halos at the present epoch compared to the
74: observed abundance of dwarf galaxies surrounding the Milky Way and
75: M31.
76:
77: There have been a number of theoretical proposals to solve this
78: problem. For example, the satellites that are observed could be
79: embedded only in the rarer, more massive dark sub-halos~\citep{Sto02},
80: or, the satellites may form only in the rare peaks of halos that were
81: above a given mass at reionization~\citep{Di05,Mo06}. Alternatively,
82: star formation in low mass systems could be inhibited by
83: photoionization in the early Universe~\citep{Bu01,So02,Be02}. All
84: these ideas do not alter the abundance of dark matter sub-halos, but
85: propose to solve the observed discrepancy by producing a smaller
86: number of directly observable satellites, thus breaking any simple
87: relationship between mass and luminosity.
88:
89: The known Milky Way dwarf spheroidal (dSph) satellites have been
90: discovered by a variety of methods. The first seven were discovered
91: serendipitously by visual inspection of photographic plates, the
92: Sextans dSph was found using automated scans of photographic plates
93: and the Sagittarius dSph in a radial velocity survey of the Milky Way
94: bulge. All-sky photographic surveys cover most of the sky away from
95: the Zone of Avoidance, but searches of plates are limited to surface
96: brightnesses of $\sim 25.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ ~\citep{Wh07}. The
97: sample of known dSphs has long been bedeviled with selection effects,
98: which are difficult to model with any accuracy. This situation has
99: changed recently with the advent of very large area, homogeneous,
100: photometric surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York
101: et al. 2000). The SDSS makes it possible to carry out a systematic
102: survey for satellite galaxies, which are detectable through their
103: resolved stellar populations down to extremely low surface
104: brightnesses. In essence, SDSS greatly \change{facilitates} systematic
105: searches for overdensities of stars in position-color-magnitude space.
106: \begin{figure}
107: \begin{center}
108: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f2.eps}%plots/kernel.eps
109: \end{center}
110: \caption{Differential convolution kernel applied to the stellar
111: catalog to identify overdensities of a particular scale. A
112: one-dimensional slice of the two-dimensional kernel is shown, where
113: the width, or $\sigma$, of the inner Gaussian is 6\arcmin\ and of
114: the outer Gaussian is 60\arcmin.}
115: \label{kernel}
116: \end{figure}
117: %
118:
119: \citet{Wi02} carried out the first SDSS--based survey for resolved
120: Milky Way satellites, subsequently discovering a new dwarf galaxy,
121: Ursa Major \citep{Wi05a} as well as an unusually large globular
122: cluster, Willman 1~\citep{Wi05b} \change{ -- although later evidence
123: may favor its interpretation as a dark matter dominated dwarf galaxy
124: with multiple stellar populations \citep{Martin07}}. The color image
125: ``Field of Streams''~\citep{Be06}, composed of magnitude slices of the
126: stellar density in the SDSS around the North Galactic Cap, proved to
127: be a treasure-trove for dwarf galaxies, as Canes Venatici, Bootes~I
128: and Ursa Major~II~\citep{Zu06a,Zu06b,Be06b} were all found in quick
129: succession. A systematic search in the ``Field of Streams'' led to the
130: discovery of five more satellite galaxies, Canes Venatici~II, Leo~IV,
131: Hercules, Coma, and Leo T, as well as another large globular cluster,
132: Segue 1~\citep{Be07,Ir07}. Very recently, \citet{Wa07} discovered
133: another low luminosity satellite, Bootes~II.
134:
135: As the faintest Milky Way satellites currently constitute our best
136: markers of sub-halos, the faint end of the satellite luminosity
137: function of the Milky Way satellites can provide stringent constraints
138: on the process of galaxy formation, and can distinguish between a
139: number of dark matter, structure formation and reionization
140: models. So, it is important not merely to carry out a systematic
141: survey of the star overdensities in SDSS data for the discoveries per
142: se, but also to compute the detection limits. These detection limits
143: are the basis for a volume corrected luminosity function estimate and
144: ultimately for a quantitative connection of satellite frequency and
145: sub-halo abundance. Such is the purpose of this paper. It is
146: important to note that for a volume-corrected estimate of the
147: luminosity function, it is not necessary to use exactly the same
148: detection algorithms as \citet{Be07} or \citet{Wi05a}. Similarly, the
149: detection scheme does not need to be optimal for every individual
150: dwarf galaxy. Provided the automated algorithm is able to detect all
151: the Milky Way satellites, and the completeness properties of the
152: algorithm are quantified, an estimate of the true luminosity function
153: can be derived.
154:
155: \section{Detection of Satellite Galaxy Candidates in SDSS DR5}
156: \label{algorithm_section}
157: The SDSS Data Release 5 (DR5) covers $\sim 1/5$ of the sky, or $\sim
158: 8000$ square degrees around the North Galactic Pole. SDSS imaging data
159: are produced in five photometric bands, $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and
160: $z$~\citep{Fu96,Gu98,Ho01,Am06,Gu06}. The data are automatically
161: processed through pipelines to measure photometric and astrometric
162: properties \citep{Lu99,St02,Pi03,Tu06}. All magnitudes quoted in this
163: paper have been corrected for reddening due to Galactic extinction
164: using the maps of~\citet*{Sc98}. Sometimes it is convenient to report
165: our results in the $V$ band, for which we use the transformation
166: $V=g-0.55(g-r)-0.03$ given by~\citet{Sm02}.
167:
168: The SDSS data with the source catalogs used in this paper was
169: downloaded from the SAI CAS Virtual Observatory data
170: center\footnote{\url{http://vo.astronet.ru}}\citep{koposov_bartunov}
171: and was stored locally in the PostgreSQL database. To perform
172: queries rapidly on the large dataset, we used the Q3C plugin for the
173: spatial queries \citep{q3c}.
174:
175: All the recent SDSS discoveries of dSph around the Milky Way, bar Leo
176: T, are not directly visible in the flux-limited images, but were
177: detected as overdensities of resolved stars within certain magnitude
178: and color ranges. This makes it straightforward to automate a
179: detection method and assess its efficiency. The essence of any
180: detection algorithm is to count the number of stars in a certain
181: (angular) region on the sky, satisfying specified color and magnitude
182: criteria, and compare the number to the background value. The excess
183: of stars depends on the satellite's luminosity and distance. For a
184: given luminosity, the distance fixes the number of stars brighter than
185: the SDSS limiting magnitude, which is given by an integral over the
186: stellar luminosity function. A simple illustration of the
187: detectability of objects with a luminosity function like that of M92
188: is shown in Figure~\ref{nstars_vs_dist}. The curves show the number of
189: stars brighter than $r = 22.5$ for satellites of three different
190: absolute magnitudes. The maximal distance probed by surveys like SDSS
191: is controlled by the apparent magnitude of the brightest stars in the
192: satellite. For intrinsically luminous objects, like CVn~I ($M_V =
193: -7.9$) , we can detect stars at the tip of the red giant branch at
194: distances of up to $\sim$1\,Mpc. However, for satellites with many
195: fewer stars, like Hercules ($M_V = -5.7$), the giant branch tip is
196: simply not populated and we can only detect objects at distances up to
197: $\sim$300\,kpc.
198:
199: To identify the excess number of stars associated with a satellite,
200: a common approach is to
201: convolve the spatial distribution of the data with window functions or
202: filters~\footnote{This idea has a long history, particularly in
203: algorithms for searching for features and clusters in imaging data.
204: Widely used in astronomy are kernel-based density estimation
205: methods, in which the density is obtained by convolving all the data
206: points (interpreted as delta-functions) with smoothly decaying
207: kernels, which can be Gaussians \citep[see e.g.][]{silverman}. A
208: variant of this is used for feature detection in digital images in
209: so-called scale-space science
210: \citep{lindenberg93,lindenberg98,babaud}.}. To estimate the star
211: density on different scales, we use a Gaussian of width $\sigma$, that
212: is,
213: %
214: \begin{equation}
215: L(x,y,\sigma)=I(x,y)*g(x,y,\sigma),
216: \end{equation}
217: %
218: where
219: \begin{equation}
220: g(x,y,\sigma) = \frac{1}{2\pi
221: \sigma^2}\exp\left(-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)
222: \end{equation}
223: %
224: and $I(x,y)$ is the distribution of sources
225: \begin{equation}
226: I(x,y) = \sum\limits_i \delta(x-x_i,y-y_i)
227: \end{equation}
228:
229: %
230: This allows us to see the stellar density distribution at different
231: spatial scales. For example, structures with a characteristic size of
232: 1\arcmin\ will be more prominent when the stellar map is convolved
233: with a 1\arcmin\ kernel, and less prominent when the map is convolved
234: with 10\arcmin\ and 0.1\arcmin\ kernels. The resulting ``blobs'', or
235: overdensities, can be easily identified on the differential image
236: maps, namely
237: %
238: \begin{eqnarray}
239: \Delta L & = & L(x, y, \sigma_1) - L (x, y, \sigma_2) \nonumber \\
240: & = & I(x,y) * (g(x,y,\sigma_1)-g(x,y,\sigma_2))
241: \label{eq:convolve}
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: %
244: Such differential image maps are generally convolutions of the
245: original distribution with the kernel, which is a difference of two
246: Gaussians. A one-dimensional slice of a kernel is shown in
247: Figure~\ref{kernel}. When we convolve the map $I(x,y)$ with such a
248: kernel, we obtain an estimate of the local density minus an estimate of
249: the local background ($L(x,y,\sigma_2)$). This interpretation allows us to
250: quantify the
251: significance as
252: %
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: S(x,y,\sigma_1,\sigma_2) & = & {\frac{\Delta L}{\sigma_L}}
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: %
257: where $\sigma_L^2$ is the variance of $L(x, y, \sigma_1)$.
258: %
259: \begin{eqnarray}
260: \sigma_L^2 & = & Variance(L(x, y, \sigma_1))=\nonumber \\
261: &=& Variance(I(x, y)*g(x, y,
262: \sigma_1))= I(x,y)*g^2(x, y , \sigma_1) =\nonumber \\
263: &= & \sum\limits_{i,j} I(x_i,y_j)\,g^2(x-x_i,y-y_j,\sigma_1)\approx \nonumber \\
264: & \approx & \sum\limits_{i,j} L(x,y,\sigma_2)\,g^2(x- x_i,y-y_j,\sigma_1)=
265: \nonumber\\
266: &= & L(x, y, \sigma_2)\int\int g^2(x, y, \sigma_1)\,dxdy = \frac{L(x, y, \sigma_2)}{4 \pi \sigma_1^2}
267: \end{eqnarray}
268: %
269: \begin{eqnarray}
270: S(x,y,\sigma_1,\sigma_2) & = \sqrt{4 \pi}
271: \sigma_1 \frac{\Delta L} {\sqrt{L(x,y,\sigma_2)}},
272: \label{eq:sigmaL}
273: \end{eqnarray}
274: %
275: Under the
276: assumption that $\sigma_2 >> \sigma_1$ and a Poisson distribution of
277: the initial set of datapoints, the variance of $S(x,y)$ is
278: unity. This fact allows us to use the map of $S(x,y)$ to identify
279: overdensities above a specified significance threshold.
280:
281: %
282: \begin{figure}
283: \begin{center}
284: \includegraphics[height=4cm]{f3.eps}%plots/segmentation1.eps
285: \end{center}
286: \caption{The segmentation of the DR5 area into 17 $32^\circ \times
287: 32^\circ$ fields, used for the stellar overdensity search described in
288: the text.}
289: \label{segmentation}
290: \end{figure}
291: %
292: \begin{figure*}
293: \begin{center}
294: \includegraphics[height=8cm]{f4a.eps}%plots/stars_convolved_map.eps
295: \includegraphics[height=8cm]{f4b.eps}%plots/gals_convolved_map.eps
296: \end{center}
297: \caption{A sample $22^\circ \times 22^\circ$ area in the convolved maps of
298: the SDSS DR5 stellar (left) and galaxy (right) catalogs. The
299: positions of objects Ursa Major I and Willman 1 are marked by
300: circles. The positions of galaxy clusters Abell 773 and Abell 1000
301: are marked by diamonds, and demonstrate that galaxy clusters may
302: lead to significant peaks in the stellar map. The linear diagonal structures
303: seen in both images are caused by SDSS stripes. The images were produced
304: using a kernel specified by $\sigma_1 = 4'$ and $\sigma_2=60'$. We reject
305: peaks in the convolved stellar map if they coincide with significant peaks
306: in the galaxy distribution.}
307: \label{star_gal_maps}
308: \end{figure*}
309: %
310: \begin{figure}
311: \includegraphics[height=4.2cm]{f5a.eps}%plots/star_gal_pix_distrib.eps
312: \includegraphics[height=4.2cm]{f5b.eps}%plots/sigma_galaxies.eps
313: \caption{Left: The distribution of pixel values in the convolved star map
314: (solid line) and galaxy map (dashed line) for one of our 17 fields in DR5.
315: The Gaussian model curves
316: with width of 1.0 and 2.3 centered on zero are shown in red. Right:
317: The standard deviation in the galaxy map normalized by a
318: Poissonian standard deviation as a function of kernel size.}
319: \label{pix_distrib}
320: \end{figure}
321: %
322: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
323: \tablecaption{Objects Detected and Their Significances \label{tab:zzz}}
324: \tablehead{ \colhead{Right ascension} &
325: \colhead{Declination} & \colhead{$\Ss$} & \colhead{$\Sg$} &
326: \colhead{Name} }
327: \startdata
328: 205.539 & 28.382 & 170.13 & 8.24 & NGC 5272\\
329: 168.355 & 22.148 & 170.08 & 19.16 & Leo II\\
330: 198.220 & 18.159 & 165.00 & 16.48 & NGC5024\\
331: 152.100 & 12.289 & 123.86 & 14.94 & Leo I\\
332: 199.104 & 17.696 & 122.09 & 5.59 & NGC 5053\\
333: 211.359 & 28.527 & 121.91 & 5.61 & NGC 5466\\
334: 229.006 & -0.130 & 115.10 & 19.48 & Pal5\\
335: 260.038 & 57.914 & 100.02 & 15.64 & Draco\\
336: 250.426 & 36.467 & 94.10 & 2.80 & NGC 6205\\
337: 322.483 & 12.147 & 87.58 & 13.30 & NGC7078\\
338: 182.516 & 18.544 & 79.40 & 7.58 & NGC 4147\\
339: 260.008 & 57.765 & 75.07 & 11.27 & Draco\\
340: 114.534 & 38.873 & 72.28 & 6.80 & NGC 2419\\
341: 323.212 & -0.865 & 65.52 & -1.75 & NGC 7089\\
342: 187.670 & 12.395 & 59.69 & 3.25 & NGC 4486\\
343: 202.011 & 33.549 & 44.12 & 1.68 & CVn I\\
344: 187.419 & 8.003 & 37.18 & 0.93 & NGC 4472\\
345: 149.834 & 30.742 & 28.13 & 12.65 & Leo A\\
346: 190.698 & 2.682 & 27.73 & 5.51 & NGC 4636\\
347: 114.608 & 21.581 & 25.88 & -6.25 & NGC 2420\\
348: 259.027 & 43.063 & 22.76 & -5.60 & NGC 6341\\
349: 183.904 & 36.310 & 20.43 & 7.49 & NGC 4214\\
350: 185.036 & 29.286 & 17.28 & 0.63 & NGC 4278\\
351: 210.010 & 14.503 & 16.95 & 0.32 & Boo I\\
352: 190.773 & 11.598 & 16.84 & -1.52 & NGC 4647/4637/4638\\
353: 186.368 & 12.909 & 14.28 & 0.76 & NGC 4374\\
354: 178.814 & 23.371 & 13.90 & 19.34 & Abell 1413\\
355: 186.444 & 33.539 & 13.10 & 16.06 & NGC 4395\\
356: 148.904 & 69.081 & 13.08 & 19.85 & NGC 3031\\
357: 162.325 & 51.051 & 13.07 & 0.11 & Willman 1\\
358: 242.741 & 14.956 & 12.52 & -0.07 & Pal 14\\
359: 186.315 & 18.181 & 11.59 & -3.72 & NGC 4382\\
360: 132.830 & 63.124 & 11.40 & 0.92 & UMa II\\
361: 186.745 & 23.913 & 11.22 & -1.02 & Coma Berenices\\
362: 143.721 & 17.058 & 10.96 & 3.85 & Leo T\\
363: 188.911 & 12.544 & 10.91 & -0.97 & NGC 4552\\
364: 210.691 & 54.332 & 10.67 & 13.53 & NGC 5457\\
365: 151.369 & 0.070 & 10.64 & 4.11 & Pal 3\\
366: 186.109 & 7.294 & 9.85 & -0.76 & NGC 4365\\
367: 172.319 & 28.961 & 9.53 & 0.26 & Pal 4\\
368: 247.764 & 12.789 & 8.91 & 1.05 & Hercules\\
369: 197.870 & -1.335 & 8.23 & 22.00 & Abell 1689\\
370: 194.292 & 34.298 & 7.39 & -4.61 & CVn II\\
371: 196.743 & 46.569 & 7.30 & 8.29 & Abell 1682\\
372: 193.379 & 46.415 & 6.71 & -2.41 & Candidate X\\
373: 168.146 & 43.440 & 6.52 & -3.22 & Candidate Y\\
374: 352.182 & 14.714 & 6.39 & 1.47 & Pegasus\\
375: 202.388 & 58.404 & 6.37 & -0.59 & NGC 5204\\
376: 225.323 & 1.672 & 6.34 & 1.36 & NGC 5813\\
377: 187.038 & 44.090 & 6.13 & -2.49 & NGC 4449\\
378: 173.235 & -0.554 & 6.10 & 2.92 & Leo IV\\
379: 0.807 & 16.097 & 6.09 & -2.66 & NGC 7814\\
380: 179.144 & 21.049 & 6.05 & 1.14 & Candidate Z\\
381: 184.843 & 5.786 & 6.04 & -1.25 & NGC 4261\\
382: 149.993 & 5.316 & 6.03 & 2.12 & Sextans B\\
383: 139.470 & 51.718 & 5.97 & 17.86 & Abell 773\\
384: 179.223 & 23.379 & 5.96 & 5.22 & galaxy cluster\\
385: 158.695 & 51.918 & 5.95 & 3.72 & UMa I
386: \enddata
387: \end{deluxetable}
388: %
389: \begin{figure}
390: \includegraphics[height=8cm]{f6.eps}%sign_gal_star.eps%plots/star_gal.eps
391: \caption{Distribution of Milky Way satellite detections in the
392: $\Ss$ versus $\Sg$ plane. The
393: circles mark the known Milky Way satellites, the triangles are RC3
394: galaxies, and the rhomboids are galaxy clusters. Objects towards the top
395: left of the figure are likely the result of contamination by galaxy
396: clusters or spatially extended galaxies. The decision
397: boundary is shown as a dashed line; objects to the right and below the
398: dashed line are selected as candidate satellites.}
399: \label{sgalversussstar}
400: \end{figure}
401: %
402: \begin{figure*}
403: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f7a.eps}%plots/obj_193.379000_46.415800.eps
404: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f7b.eps}%plots/obj_168.146000_43.440000.eps
405: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{f7c.eps}%plots/obj_179.144000_21.049900.eps
406: \caption{Left to right: Hess diagrams for Candidates X, Y and Z listed in
407: Table~\ref{tab:zzz}}
408: \label{hess}
409: \end{figure*}
410:
411: \section{Application to SDSS data}
412: \label{observ_section}
413: SDSS's morphological parameters \citep{Lu01} derived from the imaging
414: data allow robust discrimination between stars and galaxies down to $r
415: = 21.5$. For $21.5 < r \lesssim 22.5$, the discrimination is still
416: reasonably reliable, but it becomes increasingly untrustworthy below
417: $r = 22.5$. Moreover, the catalog is 95$\%$ complete at $r =
418: 22.2$~\citep{St02} and drops quickly below this magnitude. At the
419: faint end, the ``stellar'' catalog of unresolved sources is polluted
420: by faint galaxies which are intrinsically strongly clustered. We will
421: see shortly that the main task in providing a clean sample of dwarf
422: galaxy candidates is removal of the extragalactic contaminants, for
423: which we will employ the SDSS galaxy catalog.
424:
425: To proceed with the convolution (Eq.~\ref{eq:convolve}), the DR5 field
426: of view is split into 17 segments as shown in
427: Figure~\ref{segmentation}. The division is for computational
428: convenience and to minimize distortion in the gnomonic projections.
429: In practice, we select stars and galaxies with a magnitude cut-off of
430: $r < 22.5$. Due to the properties of the kernel, we expect edge
431: effects at the boundaries of the DR5 footprint and we discard all
432: overdensities within 1$^\circ$ of a boundary. We use a color-cut of
433: $g-r < 1.2$ and kernel sizes with $\sigma_1 = 4'$ and $\sigma_2
434: =60'$. The color cut is chosen to be as conservative as possible as
435: regards inclusion of the tip of the red giant branch stars for
436: metal-poor populations, whilst the kernel size is of the order of the
437: angular size of the known dwarfs (see next section for details). The
438: color magnitude cut used in this work may not be optimal for the
439: detection of each individual dwarf galaxy (e.g. the isochrone masks
440: should definitely work better), but the primary goal here is not to
441: define an optimal algorithm, but rather to develop a consistent
442: algorithm that can detect known objects, for which the detection
443: efficiency can be determined. Figure~\ref{star_gal_maps} provides an
444: example of the application of the detection pipeline to the stellar
445: and galaxy catalogs of SDSS DR5. The method successfully removes the
446: varying background to leave underdensities (black regions) and
447: overdensities (white regions). The sample field of view chosen for
448: Figure~\ref{star_gal_maps} contains the already known Milky Way
449: satellites Willman 1 and Ursa Major I \citep{Wi05a,Wi05b}. They are
450: both recovered in the stellar map with significances of $\Ss = 13.07$
451: and $5.95$ respectively. However, as we see in
452: Figure~\ref{star_gal_maps}, unresolved sources in rich galaxy clusters
453: such as Abell 773 and 1000, visible as prominent overdensities in the
454: galaxy map, also show up in the stellar map as significant peaks.
455:
456: In order to remove false positives caused by galaxy clustering,
457: we need to understand the significance $\Sg$ of
458: overdensities in the map derived from the galaxy
459: catalog. Equation~(\ref{eq:sigmaL}) does not hold, because the
460: underlying distribution is no longer Poissonian
461: (Figure~\ref{pix_distrib}). The left panel shows the distributions of
462: $\Ss$ and $\Sg$ for all pixels in the same field of view as
463: Figure~\ref{star_gal_maps}. For the stars, the convolved source count
464: distribution is almost a Gaussian with unit standard deviation, whilst
465: the distribution for the galaxies is broader. The right panel shows
466: how the width of the $\Sg$ distribution grows with increasing kernel
467: width as the convolution samples coherent structures on larger scales.
468: To assign significance to the overdensities in galaxies,
469: we rescale $\Sg$, dividing by its standard deviation.
470:
471: Next, we remove obvious false positives by rejecting all objects
472: within the region marked by dashed lines in
473: Figure~\ref{sgalversussstar}, namely the intersection of the regions
474: $\Ss < 20$ and $\Sg > 2$. This removes most, but not all, the false
475: positives caused by galaxy clusters. Additionally, there remains
476: contamination from galaxies with large angular size. The SDSS
477: photometric pipeline mis-classifies HII regions and stellar clusters
478: in these galaxies as stars. We remove the contaminants by
479: cross-correlating with the positions of galaxies in the Third
480: Reference Catalogue (RC3) of \citet{rc3}. Even so, there still remain
481: objects at a moderately high level of significance whose nature is
482: unclear. Most of these are probably caused by galaxy clusters or
483: photometry artifacts, as judged from examination of Hess diagrams and
484: SDSS image cut-outs, but there may still be a very small number of
485: genuine Milky Way satellites.
486:
487: We detect all the known Milky Way satellites, except Boo~II, in a
488: catalog with magnitude limit $r < 22.5$, analyzed using a kernel with
489: $\sigma_1=4'$. The most marginal detections are Leo~IV and Ursa
490: Major~I, which have significances $\Ss = 6.10$ and $5.95$
491: respectively. Objects above the threshold are listed in
492: Table~\ref{tab:zzz}, and include three likely false positives, which
493: are ``Candidates'' X, Y and Z. The Hess diagrams of these three
494: detections are shown in Figure~\ref{hess}. The Hess diagrams offer
495: little evidence to support identification of the candidates as genuine
496: satellites. Deeper data are needed to provide definitive
497: classification of the candidates but for the purpose of determining
498: the satellite luminosity function we exclude all three candidates, as
499: false positives, from further consideration.
500:
501: It is prudent to search for candidate satellites on the map convolved
502: with different inner kernels, since the kernel biases the
503: algorithm towards objects of a preferred size. Therefore, we
504: performed a search on the map convolved with kernels of $2'$ and
505: $8'$. In the former case, setting the significance to $\Ss > 6.5$
506: results in the detection of all objects except UMa I and no false
507: positives; in the latter case, setting $\Ss > 6.0$ includes all objects
508: except CVn II, Leo IV, LeoT, UMa I and no false positives.
509:
510: Boo~II, found by \cite{Wa07}, is problematic for our algorithm. Boo~II
511: contains a very sparsely populated giant branch, and so the brightest
512: stars are sub-giants and turn-off stars at colors of $g-r <0.5$. Given
513: our preferred cuts, Boo~II is undetected. It can nonetheless be found
514: with our algorithm, but only by optimizing the color and magnitude
515: cuts, for example, to $g-r < 0.5$ and $21 < r <23$.
516:
517: \begin{figure*}
518: \begin{center}
519: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{f8a.eps}%plots/m92_clem_cmd.eps
520: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{f8b.eps}%plots/m92_lm_function.eps
521: \includegraphics[height=5cm]{f8c.eps}%plots/r_errors.eps
522: \end{center}
523: \caption{Left: M92 color-magnitude data from \citet{clem} used as a
524: template for our simulated Milky Way satellites, together with the ridge line
525: for the main sequence and red giant branch. The ridge line for the
526: horizontal branch is our fit to Clem's (2006) data. Center: The
527: observed luminosity function of main-sequence and red
528: giant branch stars in M92, together with our model fit of the luminosity
529: function used
530: in the simulations. Right: The photometric errors of the SDSS
531: $r$-band photometry and our model fit used in the simulations}
532: \label{m92_lmf}
533: \end{figure*}
534: \begin{figure*}
535: \begin{center}
536: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f9.eps}
537: \end{center}
538: \caption{Simulated color-magnitude diagrams for \change{hypothetical}
539: Milky Way satellite galaxies with properties close to those of
540: Canes Venatici~I, Hercules and Ursa Major~II---the actual
541: color-magnitude diagrams of these galaxies are given in
542: \citet{Zu06a,Zu06b} and \cite{Be07}.}
543: \label{simul_show}
544: \end{figure*}
545: %
546: \begin{figure*}
547: \begin{center}
548: \includegraphics[width=19cm]{f10.eps}
549: \end{center}
550: \caption{Detection efficiency maps for Milky Way satellites, shown as a
551: function of luminosity and size for different distance bins. White indicates
552: 100\% detection efficiency, black indicates 0\%. Red circles mark the
553: locations of the known dwarf galaxies, red triangles the known globular
554: clusters (data taken from~\citet{Ha96}). Notice that many of
555: the very recent SDSS satellite galaxy discoveries occur near the
556: boundary, where the detection efficiency is changing rapidly.}
557: \label{efficiencies_known}
558: \end{figure*}
559: %
560: \begin{figure}
561: \begin{center}
562: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{f11.eps}%plots/efficiency_model.eps
563: \end{center}
564: \caption{Characterizing the satellite galaxy detectability: this illustrative
565: figure shows the model function $\epsilon(M_V,\mu)$ (from
566: Eq.~\ref{eq:efficiency_model}) used to fit the observed detection
567: efficiencies from the simulations and demonstrating the role played
568: by the thresholds $M_{V,{\rm lim}}$ and $\mu_{\rm lim}$. The
569: function parameters used to produce the plot were
570: $M_{V,{\rm lim}}=-2\,{\rm mag}$,
571: $\mu_{\rm lim}=29.5\,{\rm mag\, arcsec^{-2}}$, $\sigma_M=1\,{\rm mag}$,
572: $\sigma_\mu=1\,{\rm mag}$}
573: \label{efficiency_model}
574: \end{figure}
575: %
576: \begin{figure*}
577: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f12a.eps}
578: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f12b.eps}%plots/mag_sb_vs_distance_colcut.eps
579: %\plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}%{plots/mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel.eps}
580: %\includegraphics[width=16cm]{plots/mag_sb_vs_distance_colcut.eps}
581: \caption{The known satellites and globular clusters shown in two-dimensional
582: plots of Galactocentric distance versus absolute magnitude (left) and surface
583: brightness (right). Circles mark the locations of the known dwarf galaxies,
584: triangles the globular clusters. The error bars show either $\sigma_M$ or
585: $\sigma_\mu$ derived from our model fits (see Eq.~\ref{eq:efficiency_model}).
586: The detectability of the objects depends on their location relative to the
587: limiting absolute magnitude (left) and surface brightness (right) as a function
588: of Galactocentric distance for each kernel size/color cut employed in the
589: search. Upper panels: The three lines show the detection limits for different
590: sizes of the inner Gaussian in the kernel (blue -- 2\arcmin, green -- 4\arcmin,
591: red -- 8\arcmin). Lower panels: The four lines show the detection limits for
592: the different $g-r$ color cuts employed (black -- 0.2, blue --
593: 0.4, green -- 0.6, orange -- 0.9, red --1.2) and fixed kernel size of 4\arcmin.
594: }
595: \label{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}
596: \end{figure*}
597:
598: \section{Application to Simulated Data}
599: To test our detection algorithm, we carry out an extensive set of
600: simulations in which we add mock dwarf galaxy satellites and globular
601: clusters to the SDSS DR5 catalog. In particular, we add to the
602: \change{catalog the} $g$ and $r$ magnitudes of stars from the
603: simulated objects, at specified right ascensions and declinations.
604: These augmented catalogs are then fed through our automated pipeline,
605: and the number of stellar overdensities with significance above the
606: threshold is calculated as a function of distance, size and
607: luminosity. We explore how changes in the $g-r$ color cuts and kernel
608: sizes ($\sigma_1$ from Eq.~\ref{eq:sigmaL}) affect the efficiency of
609: the algorithm.
610:
611: The $g$ and $r$ photometry of all simulated objects is based on that
612: of the globular cluster M92. The left panel of Figure~\ref{m92_lmf}
613: shows the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of M92, together with a
614: main-sequence and red giant branch ridgeline from~\citet{clem}, to
615: which we have added a horizontal branch ridgeline. From the $r$-band
616: data, we construct a main-sequence and red giant branch luminosity
617: function and approximate it with a smooth fit, as shown in the middle
618: panel of Figure~\ref{m92_lmf}. We also determine the luminosity
619: function for the stars on the horizontal branch ridgeline. We populate
620: the ridgelines using the luminosity function. The choice is appropriate,
621: as M92 (12 Gyrs, [Fe/H] $\approx -2$) is typical of the old,
622: metal-poor populations in the Milky Way
623: satellites~\citep[see e.g.][]{van00}.
624: Additionally, we add a scatter in $r$- and $g$-
625: magnitudes, derived from a fit to the errors in the SDSS point-spread
626: function photometry, as illustrated in the right panel of
627: Figure~\ref{m92_lmf}.
628:
629: The spatial distribution of stars in the simulated objects is chosen
630: to follow a Plummer law, which is a reasonable fit to
631: most of the Milky Way dwarf
632: spheroidals~\citep[see e.g. ][]{Ir95,Kl02}.
633: For ellipticities less than 0.5 -- which
634: corresponds to the most flattened of the SDSS discoveries, Hercules
635: and Ursa Major~II~\citep{Zu06b,Be07} -- the detection efficiency of
636: objects barely changes with ellipticity. The Plummer radius,
637: luminosity and distance are chosen to cover uniformly in logarithmic
638: space the following ranges: Plummer radius 1\,pc $<r_h<$ 1\,kpc,
639: luminosity $-11 \lesssim M_v \lesssim 0$ and heliocentric distance
640: 10\,kpc $< D <$ 1\,Mpc. We generate 8000 galaxies with random right
641: ascension and declination within the DR5 footprint. We then split the
642: simulated sample into 20 distance bins to eliminate overlap
643: between simulated objects. The stars from the simulated galaxies are
644: added to the DR5 stellar catalog. Figure~\ref{simul_show} shows mock
645: CMDs for simulated objects matching the recently discovered dwarf
646: galaxies Canes Venatici I, Hercules and Ursa Major
647: II~\citep{Zu06a,Be07,Zu06b}. These are good approximations
648: to the observed CMDs of these objects.
649:
650: In our simulations, we test several inner kernel sizes. The reason is
651: that for a given distance, the kernel size gives rise to an optimum
652: physical size of the detectable objects. For example, at a distance
653: of 50\,kpc, a kernel size of $4'$ corresponds to a physical size of
654: $\simeq$60\,pc. As we want our algorithm to be sensitive to objects
655: of different sizes, we use three different inner kernel sizes, namely
656: $\sigma_1 = 2'$, $4'$ and $8'$. An object is considered to be detected
657: if it is above a threshold on the map convolved with at least one of the
658: kernels (the threshold for the $2'$ kernel is 6.50, for the $4'$ kernel -- 5.95
659: and for the $8'$ kernel -- 6.00, see Section~\ref{observ_section}).
660: We refer to this procedure as the combined kernel. This is equivalent
661: to the algorithm used in the previous Section, because the list of
662: detections for $2'$, $4'$ and $8'$ kernels includes all the known
663: dwarfs.
664:
665: Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known} shows two-dimensional efficiency maps
666: as a function of luminosity and size in seven distance bins spanning
667: the range 8\,kpc to 1\,Mpc. For Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known}, we
668: have used the color cut of $g-r < 1.2$ and the combined kernel,
669: together with an outer kernel of size $\sigma_2 =60'$. Black
670: corresponds to zero detection efficiency, and white to unit
671: efficiency. The locations of the known Milky Way globular clusters
672: and dwarf galaxies in this parameter space are recorded as red
673: triangles and circles. While a number of known objects lie well within
674: the efficiency boundary, some of the recent discoveries lie close the
675: boundary. It is evident that there is no steady gradient in
676: efficiency, but rather a steep boundary between detectability and
677: non-detectability. In fact, the primary contribution to the
678: finite-extent of the gradient visible in the Figures is produced by
679: the significant extent of the individual distance bins (the width of
680: the distance bins is 0.3 dex). The pixel size in magnitude is 0.8, and
681: in $\log \rh$, it is 0.3. This means that there are typically 10
682: objects in each bin and so we expect moderate fluctuations due to shot
683: noise.
684:
685: As the efficiency changes so quickly near the boundary, and as several
686: objects lie close to this zone, we carried out more detailed
687: simulations on objects similar to the known dwarfs. We created 1000
688: Monte Carlo realizations of each of the known dwarfs, and fed them
689: into the pipeline. Table~\ref{tab:effs_simul} lists the derived
690: detection efficiencies for each object. The detection efficiencies are
691: $\gtrsim$ 50 \%, with the sole exception of Boo~II, confirming our
692: assertion that the known satellites possess high detection
693: probabilities.
694:
695: For the regime in which objects are larger than the kernel size, some
696: of the stars belonging to the satellite are missed by the window
697: function, and for such objects the detectability is determined by the
698: number of stars within the window function, i.e. the surface
699: brightness. This effect produces the surface brightness limit seen in
700: Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known}. For objects smaller than the kernel
701: size, all the stars are within the window function regardless of the
702: size of the objects, therefore for such objects, the detectability
703: doesn't depend on physical size, but depends only on the total number
704: of stars, i.e. the luminosity. \change{This} effect produces the rapid
705: change in detection efficiency at fixed absolute magnitude evident in
706: Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known}.
707: These two regimes can be modeled with thresholds in surface brightness
708: and absolute magnitude by adopting a functional form:
709: %
710: \begin{equation}
711: \epsilon (M_v, \mu) = G \left( \frac{M_V - M_{V,{\rm
712: lim}}}{\sigma_M} \right)
713: G \left( \frac{\mu - \mu_{\rm lim}}{\sigma_\mu} \right),
714: \label{eq:efficiency_model}
715: \end{equation}
716: %
717: where $G$ denotes the Gaussian integral, which is defined as
718: %
719: \begin{equation}
720: G(x) = {\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}} \int_{x}^\infty \exp(-t^2/2) dt. = \frac{1}{2}
721: \,erfc\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt 2}\right)
722: \end{equation}
723: %
724: To describe the detectability in each distance bin, there are four
725: parameters that are fitted -- namely the detection thresholds in
726: surface brightness $\mu_{\rm lim}$ and absolute magnitude
727: $M_{V,{\rm lim}}$, together with their widths $\sigma_\mu$ and $\sigma_M$.
728: As an illustrative example, the grey-scale map of the efficiency
729: function $\epsilon(M_{V},\mu)$ from~Eq.~\ref{eq:efficiency_model} is
730: shown in Figure~\ref{efficiency_model}, with dashed lines indicating
731: the thresholds. Note the shape of the detection boundary, with the
732: prominent ``knee'', which corresponds to the boundary between the two
733: detection regimes for objects of different sizes at fixed distance, as
734: described above.
735:
736: The two key parameters for the detection pipeline are the inner
737: kernel size $\sigma_1$ and the color cut applied to the source
738: catalogs. The top two panels of
739: Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel} show the dependence of
740: $M_{V,{\rm lim}}$ and $\mu_{\rm lim}$ on distance, when convolved with
741: the three different inner kernels. For a
742: given kernel, the limiting magnitude declines roughly linearly with
743: the logarithm of distance. Objects at the limiting magnitude have an
744: apparent size that is smaller than the kernel size and their
745: detection significance is reduced by the background
746: contribution. Shrinking the kernel size removes some of the background
747: and increases the significance of fainter satellites. The dependence of the
748: $M_{V,{\rm lim}}$ and $\mu_{\rm lim}$ on distance
749: for the combined kernel is not plotted, because in the top left panel of
750: Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel} the combined kernel basically follow the
751: dependence of $2\arcmin$ kernel and in the top right panel
752: of Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel} the combined kernel follow
753: the dependence of $8\arcmin$ kernel.
754: This is illustrated in the top left panel of
755: Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}, where it is clear that a
756: smaller kernel allows us to detect fainter objects. However, as the
757: top right panel shows, this is at the expense of satellite size.
758: Larger kernels pick up more stars from extended objects and hence
759: reach fainter surface brightness.
760: When combining different kernels in the pipeline, the overall
761: limits in surface brightness and absolute magnitude (2', 4',
762: 8', see Section~\ref{observ_section}) can be approximated by
763: the blue line in the top left panel of
764: Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel} and the red line in the
765: top right panel of Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}.
766: Smaller kernels allow the detection of galaxies that are low
767: in absolute magnitude, and larger kernels allow the detection
768: of galaxies that are fainter in surface brightness.
769: It is also reassuring to see that the error bars $\sigma_M$ are of the same
770: order as the difference in the limiting magnitude moving to a neighboring
771: bin.
772:
773: We explore the effects of changing color cuts and report the results
774: in the bottom two panels of
775: Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}. The color cut of $g-r < 0.4$
776: can improve slightly the magnitude limit for nearby objects by
777: selecting turn-off stars. This improvement deteriorates rapidly as we
778: exhaust the supply of turn-off stars. At larger distances, red color
779: cuts like $g-r < 1.2$ are more efficient at picking up giant
780: stars. The same effect explains the drop in $\mu_{\rm lim}$ and
781: $M_{V,{\rm lim}}$ at large distances for bluish color cuts. Our choice
782: of color cut $g-r < 1.2$ is conservative, mostly eliminating thin disk
783: stars, and is, overall, the best-behaved and most robust. It also allows
784: us to minimize the influence of metallicity and age changes in the
785: stellar population of the satellites.
786:
787: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
788: \tablecaption{Detection Efficiencies of Simulated Objects
789: Resembling Known Satellites.\label{tab:effs_simul}}
790: \tablehead{ \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Efficiency}}
791: \startdata
792: Bootes & 1.00\\
793: Draco & 1.00\\
794: Leo I & 1.00\\
795: Leo II & 1.00 \\
796: SEGUE 1 & 1.00 \\
797: Canes Venatici I& 0.99 \\
798: Willman I & 0.99\\
799: Coma & 0.97\\
800: Koposov 1 & 0.90\\
801: Leo IV & 0.79 \\
802: Ursa Major II & 0.78\\
803: Leo T & 0.76\\
804: Hercules & 0.72\\
805: Ursa Major I & 0.56\\
806: Koposov 2 & 0.48 \\
807: Canes Venatici II & 0.47\\
808: Boo II & 0.20\\
809: \enddata
810: \end{deluxetable}
811: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
812: \tablecaption{Limiting Satellite Absolute Magnitude and Surface
813: Brightness as a Function of Distance
814: %from the fits (using the Eq.~\ref{eq:efficiency_model}) of the
815: %detection efficiency maps
816: %(Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known})\label{tab:mag_mu_lim}
817: }
818: \tablehead{
819: \colhead{Distance} &
820: \colhead{$M_{V,lim}$} &
821: \colhead{$\mu_{lim}$}
822: \\
823: \colhead{kpc} &
824: \colhead{} &
825: \colhead{$\rm mag/\square''$}
826: }
827: \startdata
828: 11 & 0.6 & 27.5\\
829: 22 & 0.4 & 28.7\\
830: 45 & -1.9 & 29.6\\
831: 90 & -3.4 & 30.0\\
832: 180 & -4.4 & 29.9\\
833: 260 & -5.9 & 29.9\\
834: 720 & -7.5 & 29.6
835: \enddata
836: \end{deluxetable}
837: %
838: \begin{figure}
839: \plotone{f13.eps}
840: \caption{The accessible volume within \change{the} DR5 footprint for
841: galaxies with different luminosities and surface brightnesses
842: $\mu_{\rm lim}$, $\mu \lesssim 30\,mag/\Box''$
843: (see Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}. The volume limited by the
844: virial radius (280\,kpc) and within DR5 is shown by the dashed line.
845: %The full line is
846: % obtained using the pipeline with standard cuts $r<22$ and $\Ss
847: % >6.6$, the dashed line uses the cuts $r < 22.5$ and $\Ss> 5.9$.
848: }
849: \label{vmax}
850: \end{figure}
851: %
852: %\begin{figure}
853: %\includegraphics[height=15cm]{f14.eps}
854: %\includegraphics{f14b.eps}
855: % \plotone{f14.eps}%{plots/lf0_new.eps}
856: % \plotone{f14b.eps}%{plots/lf1_new.eps}
857: %\caption{Top: The luminosity functions of objects within $\sim 420$
858: % kpc inferred from the satellite data under the assumption of two
859: % different radial distributions of satellites (NFW-like (solid black
860: % line) and isothermal (dashed black line)). This uses the satellite
861: % list and the volume correction factor obtained with the pipeline
862: % using the standard cuts $r<22$ and $\Ss >6.6$. The theoretical
863: % prediction of Figure~1 of \citet{Be02} is shown in a red line, and
864: % the prediction of \citet{So02} for $z_{\rm reion}=10$ is shown in a
865: % blue line. Bottom: As the top panel, but now the pipeline uses
866: % $r<22.5$ and $\Ss >5.9$, so UMa~I and Leo~IV are included.}
867: % \label{satdist}
868: %\end{figure}
869: \begin{figure}
870: \plotone{f14.eps}
871: \caption{The luminosity functions of Milky Way satellite galaxies within
872: $\sim$280\,kpc (virial radius) inferred from our analysis under the
873: assumption of two different radial distributions of satellites, NFW-like
874: (solid black line) and isothermal (dashed black line). The
875: calculation uses the satellite list
876: and the volume correction factor obtained with the pipeline using
877: the cuts $r<22.5$ and $\Ss >5.95$. The arrows on error
878: bars indicate that there is only one galaxy in the particular bin,
879: and so the Poisson error is formally 100\%.
880: The theoretical prediction of
881: Figure~1 of \citet{Be02} is shown in a red line, and the prediction
882: of \citet{So02} for $z_{reion}=10$ is shown as a blue
883: line. Additionally, the luminosity function for the bright
884: ($M_V<-11$) satellites of the Milky Way sampled over the
885: whole sky together with the bright M31 satellites within 280\,kpc
886: from \citet{Me07} is plotted with filled small symbols (the list of
887: plotted objects consists of Sgr, LMC, SMC, Scu, For, LeoII, LeoI,
888: M32, NGC 205, And I, NGC 147, And II, NGC 185, And VII, IC 10).
889: The function $dN/dM_V=10\times 10^{0.1\,(M_V+5)}$ is shown in grey.
890: }
891: \label{satdist_models}
892: \end{figure}
893:
894: \section{The Luminosity Function}
895:
896: \subsection{Analysis of the detection efficiency maps}
897:
898: With \change{an understanding of which} satellite galaxies can be
899: detected in SDSS DR5, together \change{with our sample} of actual
900: detections, we can now estimate the luminosity function of faint Milky
901: Way satellites. We start by re-examining the efficiency maps in
902: Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known}, where the locations of the known
903: Milky Way globular clusters and dwarf galaxies are overplotted as red
904: triangles and circles respectively. We can conclude that within the
905: DR5 footprint there are certainly no bright satellites (either
906: globulars or galaxies) nearby ($D < 32$ kpc) that have eluded
907: discovery. However, the disrupting galaxy UMa~II~\citep{Zu06b}
908: provides a clue as to the likely locations of remnants. It is still
909: possible that disrupted galaxies remain undiscovered nearby. They can
910: lurk in the black portions of the uppermost two panels of
911: Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known}.
912:
913: All that has survived in the inner Galaxy ($8 < D< 16$ kpc) is a
914: population of globular clusters, which occupy a small region in the
915: luminosity and size parameter space. They are predominantly old
916: globular clusters belonging to the bulge. Only the densest survive
917: against the disruptive effects of Galactic tides and shocking, which
918: is illustrated by the apparent size bias. Notice that the datapoints
919: lie well away from the detection boundary, suggesting that the sample
920: is complete at least within $8 < D< 16$. Moving outwards ($16 <D< 32$
921: kpc), the globular clusters belong to the halo and may have been
922: accreted \citep{Mackey04}. Their size distribution is broader. Some
923: of these objects are in the process of disruption, such as Pal 5 and
924: NGC 5466 ~\citep{Od01,De04,Be06c,Fe07}. The very faint and distant
925: globular clusters discovered recently by \citet{Ko07} are visible in
926: the third panel of Figure~\ref{efficiencies_known} ($32 < D< 64$ kpc)
927: right on the border of detectability. Further such sparse globulars
928: may remain undetected.
929:
930: Beyond 30\,kpc, the dwarf spheroidals begin to appear. The
931: long-known dwarfs such as Draco and Sculptor lie far from the
932: boundary, in regions of the luminosity and size parameter space where
933: the DR5 search efficiency is unity. However, all the recent SDSS
934: discoveries, such as Canes Venatici I, Bootes and Hercules, lie close
935: to the detection boundary, where the efficiency declines rapidly
936: from unity to zero. \citet{Be07} claimed that there is a paucity of
937: objects with half-light radii between $\sim 40$\,pc and $\sim 100$\,pc.
938: Our calculations \change{support the idea that the gap is real and not
939: produced by selection effects}. If there were objects with radii
940: between $\sim 40$\,pc and $\sim 100$\,pc, there is a broad range of
941: parameter space in which they would have been found.
942:
943: Although most of the new detections lie in the gray areas of the plot,
944: the empty white regions with unit efficiency are telling us something
945: important. There are swathes of the parameter space in which
946: we would have detected objects if they existed. For example,
947: there are very few bright objects ($M_v < -6$). The absence of
948: detections of bright objects does by itself provide a strong
949: constraint on the luminosity function of Milky Way satellites. There
950: also do not appear to be any analogues of the extended, luminous star
951: clusters found in M31 by \cite{Hu05}. Although SDSS data may still
952: contain evidence for further, hitherto unknown, dwarf galaxies, it is
953: unlikely that their nature can be unambiguously established without
954: substantial quantities of follow-up imaging.
955: %, as they will lie in regions where the efficiency of our survey has
956: % fallen almost to zero.
957: \change{We emphasize that, since we never probe fainter than a
958: certain surface brightness limit, an even
959: larger population of very low surface brightness galaxies -- which can
960: not be detected with SDSS -- may exist.}
961:
962: \subsection{Estimation of the Luminosity function}
963:
964: Figure~\ref{vmax} shows the accessible volume for galaxies of
965: different luminosities probed by our algorithm (which in practice is a
966: function mostly of the luminosity) within the SDSS DR5 footprint. As the
967: logarithm of distance scales roughly linearly with limiting magnitude
968: (see Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}), so does the logarithm of
969: the accessible volume. Using this, and the fact that the SDSS survey
970: covers $\sim 1/5$ of the sky, we can convert the set of known objects
971: into a volume corrected luminosity function\footnote{The existing data
972: on the globular cluster population indicate that at least some
973: globular clusters have complicated metallicity, age distributions
974: and kinematics and may in fact be stripped nuclei of dwarf galaxies
975: \citep{Zi88,Pi07}. \change{The selection of such objects which are
976: considered as dwarf galaxies is an additional source of
977: uncertainty in any luminosity function determination.}}.
978:
979: The observed luminosity function is constructed using all the
980: well-established dwarf galaxies in DR5, namely Leo II, Draco, Leo I,
981: CVn I, Boo I, Hercules, UMa II, Com, CVn II, Leo T, UMa~I, Leo~IV as
982: well as the possible dwarf Willman 1. Segue 1 is not used because it
983: is not in DR5~\citep{Be07}, and Boo~II is not used because it is not
984: detected with our adopted identification-pipeline parameters. All the
985: satellites included in our calculation have a surface brightness of at
986: least $30$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. To relate the observed number of
987: satellite galaxies in our sample to the total number of satellites in
988: the Milky Way halo, it is necessary to adopt an underlying radial
989: distribution of satellite galaxies (see Appendix). In a given
990: magnitude interval, we know the observed number of satellites within
991: $V_{\rm max} (M_v)$ from Figure~\ref{vmax}, together with their
992: detection efficiencies from Table~\ref{tab:effs_simul}. If we assume a
993: number density law $n(r)$ for the satellites, then its normalization
994: at each magnitude interval can be fixed by integrating the density law
995: out to $V_{\rm max}$. The total number of satellites within 280\,kpc
996: (the virial radius of the halo)
997: %or within 420 kpc (the distance of Leo T)
998: is now the integral of the density law out to this limit.
999: Figure~\ref{satdist_models} shows the results of the
1000: calculation for two such density laws.
1001: The dashed line shows the luminosity
1002: function assuming the satellites are distributed in an isothermal
1003: sphere (namely, $n(r) \propto 1/r^2$). The solid line shows the
1004: luminosity function if the density fall-off is steeper at large radii
1005: ($n(r) \propto 1/r^3$, like Navarro-Frenk-White profile, although to prevent
1006: the $1/r^3$ profile from diverging in the MW center we use $n(r) \propto
1007: r^{-2}(r+r_{\rm c})^{-1}$ with the core radius $r_c = 10$\,kpc). Of
1008: course, the nature of some of the objects we have \change{included} in
1009: the dwarf galaxy luminosity function is still uncertain -- in
1010: particular, Willman 1 may be a globular cluster, although
1011: \citet{Martin07} provide evidence for a metallicity spread and dark
1012: matter content. It is unclear whether Leo T should be included or
1013: excluded, as it is most likely a transition object with rather
1014: different properties from the other dwarf spheroidal galaxies in our
1015: sample. The error bars in Figure~\ref{satdist_models} are given by
1016: the square root of the number of datapoints in the absolute magnitude
1017: interval divided by the volume correction factor. At the bright end,
1018: the error bars are large, since we have only two objects with $M_v<-9$,
1019: namely Leo~I ($M_v= -11.5$) and Leo~II ($M_v=-9.6$). At the faint end,
1020: the error bars are also large because of the substantial volume
1021: correction factor.
1022: %The two plots shown in Figure~\ref{satdist} refer
1023: %for two setups of the search pipeline. The top plot refer to $r<22$
1024: %magnitude cut and $S_{star}>6.6$ and therefore is based on the sample
1025: %without Leo IV and UMa I, while the bottom one is based on the
1026: %$r<22.5$ and $S_{gal}>5.9$ setup and all the known dwarf galaxies from
1027: %DR5.
1028: In Figure~\ref{satdist_models}, we show the luminosity function for
1029: satellites within 280\,kpc (a proxy for a Milky Way virial radius
1030: \citep{Kly02,Be02}). To define the bright end of the luminosity
1031: function, which cannot be reliably determined from our data
1032: \change{since DR5 does} not contain dwarfs brighter than $M_V \sim
1033: -11$, we have also included in Figure~\ref{satdist_models} the
1034: estimate of the luminosity function (filled points) for the bright
1035: satellites of the Milky Way sampled over \change{the full sky},
1036: together with the bright M31 satellites within 280\,kpc from
1037: \citet{Me07}. In Figure~\ref{satdist_models}, we also overplot the
1038: power-law function $dN/dM_V=10\times 10^{0.1\, (M_V+5)}$, which
1039: approximates the datapoints in the range of $-19<M_V<-2$ (with
1040: probably some flattening at $M_V\sim -4$). The integration of this
1041: power-law gives approximately 45 dwarfs brighter than -5.0, and 85
1042: dwarfs brighter than -2.0.
1043:
1044: %If one decides to fit mainly the luminosity function for the
1045: %$n(r) \varpropto 1/r^2$ density distribution, the approximate fitting
1046: %formula is $dN/dM_V=13\times 10^{0.115\, (M_V+5)}$).
1047: %A thorough interpretation of the obtained luminosity function in the
1048: %light of galaxy formation models is beyond the scope of this
1049: %paper. However
1050:
1051: There are a number of theoretical predictions of the luminosity
1052: function of the Local Group in the literature. For example,
1053: \cite{So02} shows the results of semi-analytic galaxy formation
1054: calculations, including the effects of supernova feedback and
1055: photoionization. The luminosity function from \citet{So02} for
1056: $z_{reion}=10$ \citep{Pa07} are plotted with blue line in
1057: Figure~\ref{satdist_models}. Although the numbers
1058: of luminous satellites are in reasonable agreement with the data, the
1059: shape of the luminosity function is not. All Somerville's (2002)
1060: luminosity functions turn over at $M_v \approx -9$ or brighter,
1061: depending on the epoch of reionization, whereas the luminosity
1062: function derived in Figure~\ref{satdist_models} turns
1063: over fainter than $M_V \approx -5$, if at all. Therefore,
1064: Somerville's (2002) theoretical calculations overproduce Draco-like
1065: objects ($M_V \approx -10$) by a factor of a few, and underproduce
1066: much fainter galaxies like Boo ($M_V \approx -6$) by almost an order
1067: of magnitude.
1068:
1069: \cite{Be02} also provides calculations of the luminosity function of
1070: the Milky Way satellites, including the effects of tidal disruption as
1071: well as photoionization. They report the luminosity functions for
1072: dwarfs with a range of of different central surface brightness cuts,
1073: namely $18, 20, 22, 24$ and $26$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$, the last of which
1074: is plotted in Figure~\ref{satdist_models} in a red line. At first
1075: glance, the fit seems plausible, especially given the size of the
1076: error bars on the datapoints. The turn over in Benson et al.'s
1077: luminosity function is at $M_V \approx -3$ and the numbers of
1078: predicted satellites at faint magnitudes are also consistent given the
1079: uncertainties. However, Benson et al.'s model significantly
1080: underproduces the number of bright satellites. Additionally, Benson et
1081: al.'s satellites have a much higher central surface brightness -- our
1082: SDSS survey corresponds to a surface brightness cut of $\sim 30$ mag
1083: arcsec$^{-2}$. Figure 2 of \citet{Be02} does show the luminosity
1084: function for all objects, irrespective of surface brightness.
1085: Although there has been a large change in the luminosity function on
1086: moving from a detection threshold of $22$ to $26$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$,
1087: there is only a small change on moving from $26$ to $\infty$ mag
1088: arcsec$^{-2}$.
1089:
1090: \section{Conclusions}
1091:
1092: There have been persistent discrepancies between the observed numbers
1093: of Milky Way satellites and the predictions from numerical simulations
1094: of galaxy formation for a number of years. Although here has been a
1095: cavalcade of discoveries of new Milky Way satellites using the SDSS
1096: over the last two years, a systematic search -- with quantifiable
1097: detection limits and efficiencies -- not been undertaken. In this
1098: paper we have presented a quantitative search methodology for Milky
1099: Way satellite galaxies in SDSS data and have used this method to
1100: \change{compute} detection efficiency maps, which ultimately allow the
1101: construction of the satellite galaxy luminosity function.
1102:
1103: In our method, the star count map is convolved with a family of
1104: kernels which are the difference of two Gaussians. Intuitively, this
1105: algorithm can be understood as constructing an estimate of the local
1106: stellar density minus the background. By attaching a statistical
1107: significance to the overdensities in the convolved image, this enables
1108: us to construct a ranked list of candidates. Although this idea is
1109: simple enough, its practical application is hampered by the fact that
1110: the separation between stars and galaxies by the SDSS pipeline becomes
1111: unreliable at magnitudes fainter than $r \simeq 22.5$. The resulting
1112: false positives must be removed by cross-correlating with galaxy
1113: catalogs. The significance threshold of peaks in our survey is set by
1114: requiring the detection pipeline to produce a ``clean'' list of Milky
1115: Way satellites.
1116:
1117: To compute the detection efficiency, we create mock SDSS catalogs with
1118: stars from simulated dwarf galaxies and use Monte Carlo methods to estimate
1119: recovery as a function of satellite galaxy parameters and heliocentric
1120: distance. There is a sharp boundary between detectability and
1121: non-detectability. The efficiency maps make clear that there are
1122: large domains in parameter space in which objects would have been
1123: detected had they existed. In particular, even at heliocentric
1124: distances as great as 1\,Mpc, objects brighter than $M_v \sim -8$ would
1125: have been detectable in SDSS. Similarly, populations of extended,
1126: luminous star clusters would have been found in SDSS, if they existed
1127: in the Milky Way.
1128:
1129: With the efficiency in hand, we can -- for the first time -- correct
1130: the observed luminosity function of the Milky Way satellites for
1131: selection effects and compute the true luminosity function. The
1132: number density of satellite galaxies continues to rise well below
1133: $M_V\sim -8^m$; depending on the radial distribution model assumed it
1134: may or may not flatten or turn over at $M_V \gtrsim - 5$. Overall,
1135: the luminosity function of {\it all} Milky Way satellites may be
1136: reasonably well described by a power-law, $dN/dM_{V}= 10 \times
1137: 10^{0.1 (M_V+5)}$ from $M_V=-2$ to -18. This power-law predicts
1138: $\sim$ 45 satellites brighter than $M_V=-5$, and $\sim$85 satellites
1139: brighter than $M_V=-2$. The normalization of the luminosity function
1140: is in reasonable agreement with the predictions of semi-analytic
1141: modeling of galaxy formation, but the shape is not. There also
1142: remains a discrepancy in the distribution of surface brightnesses of
1143: such objects, in the sense that the semi-analytic models underproduce
1144: dwarfs with a central surface brightness fainter than $26$ mag
1145: arcsec$^{-2}$.
1146:
1147: \acknowledgments
1148: S. Koposov is supported by the DFG through SFB 439 and by a EARA-EST Marie
1149: Curie Visiting fellowship. VB acknowledges the award of a a Postdoctoral
1150: Research Fellowship from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
1151: NWE, PCH and DZ acknowledge support from the STFC-funded Galaxy Formation and
1152: Evolution programme at the Institute of Astronomy. We thank Andrew Benson for
1153: supplying us with numerical data on his semi-analytic calculations. Funding for
1154: the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
1155: Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S.
1156: Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
1157: Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education
1158: Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
1159:
1160: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
1161: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
1162: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
1163: University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve
1164: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
1165: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
1166: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
1167: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
1168: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
1169: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),
1170: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
1171: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,
1172: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States
1173: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1174: This research has made use of the SAI Catalogue Access Services, Sternberg
1175: Astronomical Institute, Moscow, Russia
1176:
1177: \appendix
1178: \section{The Calculation of the Correction to the Luminosity Function}
1179:
1180: To calculate the luminosity function of Milky Way satellites within
1181: $r_{\rm LF}=280$\,kpc, we select all the satellites within DR5 which
1182: are interior to $r_{\rm LF}$, and construct the histogram of $M_V$ of
1183: these objects. From the simulations, we know that not all objects are
1184: detected with 100\% efficiency and the histogram $h(M_V)$ is weighted with the
1185: object detection efficiencies.
1186: $$h(M_V) = \sum\limits_i \frac{1}{\epsilon_i} \delta(M_V, M_{V,i})$$ where
1187: $\epsilon_i$ is the detection efficiency of i-th object, $M_{V,i}$ its
1188: luminosity, and $\delta(M_V, M_{V,i})=1$, if $M_V$ and $M_{V,i}$ are within one
1189: bin of the histogram, and 0 otherwise.
1190:
1191: Figure~\ref{mag_sb_vs_distance_kernel}, shows how
1192: the maximal accessible distance depends on the galaxy luminosity (the
1193: $r_{\rm max}(M_V)$ function).
1194: From this function, we can construct the
1195: maximal accessible volume within the DR5 footprint (which covers
1196: 1/5 of the sky) as a function of galaxy luminosity, namely $V_{\rm
1197: max}(M_V) = 4\pi/3\,f_{DR5}\,r_{\rm max}^3(M_V)$(see
1198: Figure~\ref{vmax}), where $f_{DR5}$ is the fraction of the sky covered
1199: by DR5 . Then we construct the incompleteness correction $c(M_V)$,
1200: using the probability distribution of the satellites $n(r)$. When the
1201: maximal accessible distance for a galaxy is greater than $r_{\rm LF}$,
1202: the correction is 1, if not it is equal to the ratio of number of satellites
1203: within $r_{\rm max}(M_V)$ to the number of satellites within $r_{\rm LF}$:
1204: %
1205: $$c(M_V)= \left\{
1206: \begin{array}{ll}
1207: {\displaystyle
1208: \frac{\int \limits_0^{r_{\rm max}(M_V)}n(r)r^2\,
1209: dr}{\int\limits_0^{r_{\rm LF}}n(r)r^2\,dr}} & if\ r_{\rm max}(M_V)<
1210: r_{\rm LF} \\
1211: 1 & if\ r_{\rm max}(M_V) \geq r_{\rm LF}
1212: \end{array}\right.$$
1213: %
1214: Finally, the luminosity function is obtained by dividing the
1215: histogram of luminosities $h(M_V)$ by the incompleteness correction
1216: $c(M_V)$
1217:
1218: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1219:
1220: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2006)]{Am06}
1221: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
1222: \bibitem[Babaud et al.(1986)]{babaud} Babaud J., A. P. Witkin,
1223: M. Baudin, and R. O. Duda. 1986, IEEE Trans. Pattern
1224: Anal. Mach. Intell., 8, 1, 26
1225: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006a)]{Be06} Belokurov, V., et
1226: al.\ 2006a, \apjl, 642, L137
1227: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006b)]{Be06b} Belokurov, V., et
1228: al. 2006b, \apjl, 647, L111
1229: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006c)]{Be06c} Belokurov, V., Evans,
1230: N.~W., Irwin, M.~J., Hewett, P.~C., \& Wilkinson, M.~I.\ 2006c, \apjl, 637,
1231: L29
1232: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2007)]{Be07} Belokurov, V., et al.\ 2007,
1233: ApJ, 654, 897
1234: \bibitem[Benson et al.(2002)]{Be02} Benson, A.~J., Frenk,
1235: C.~S., Lacey, C.~G., Baugh, C.~M., Cole, S. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 177
1236: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{Bu01} Bullock J.S.,
1237: Kravtsov A.V., Weinberg D.H. 2001, ApJ, 548, 33
1238: \bibitem[Clem(2006)]{clem} Clem, J.~L.\ 2006, Ph.D.~Thesis,
1239: \bibitem[Dehnen et al.(2004)]{De04} Dehnen W., Odenkirchen
1240: M., Grebel E.~K., Rix H.-W. 2004, AJ, 127, 2753
1241: \bibitem[Diemand et al.(2005)]{Di05} Diemand J., Madau P., Moore
1242: B. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 367
1243: \bibitem[Fellhauer et al.(2007)]{Fe07} Fellhauer M., et al. 2007,
1244: MNRAS, submitted
1245: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{Fu96} Fukugita M.,
1246: Ichikawa T., Gunn J.~E., Doi M., Shimasaku K., Schneider D.~P.\
1247: 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
1248: \bibitem[Koposov et al.(2007)]{Ko07_} Koposov, S.~E.,
1249: Glushkova, E.~V., \& Zolotukhin, I.~Y.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709,
1250: arXiv:0709.1275, accepted to A\&A
1251: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{Gu98} Gunn, J.E. et al. 1998, AJ, 116,
1252: 3040
1253: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{Gu06} Gunn, J.E. et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332
1254: \bibitem[Gnedin et al.(2002)]{Gn02} Gnedin, O.~Y., Zhao, H.,
1255: Pringle, J.~E., Fall, S.~M., Livio, M., \& Meylan, G.\ 2002, \apjl, 568,
1256: L23
1257: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Harris}{1996}]{Ha96}
1258: Harris W.E., 1996, AJ, 112 1487
1259: \bibitem[Huxor et al.(2005)]{Hu05} Huxor, A.~P., Tanvir,
1260: N.~R., Irwin, M.~J., Ibata, R., Collett, J.~L., Ferguson, A.~M.~N.,
1261: Bridges, T., \& Lewis, G.~F.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 1007
1262: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2001)]{Ho01} Hogg, D.W., Finkbeiner, D.P.,
1263: Schlegel, D.J., Gunn, J.E. 2001, AJ, 122, 2129
1264: \bibitem[Irwin \& Hatzidimitriou(1995)]{Ir95} Irwin M.~J.,
1265: Hatzidimitriou D.\ 1995, \mnras, 277, 1354
1266: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2007)]{Ir07} Irwin M.~J., et al.\
1267: 2007, ApJ, 656, L13
1268: \bibitem[Kleyna et al.(2002)]{Kl02} Kleyna, J., Wilkinson, M.~I.,
1269: Evans, N.~W., Gilmore, G., \& Frayn, C.\ 2002, \mnras, 330, 792
1270: \bibitem[Klypin et al.(1999)]{Kl99} Klypin A., Kravtsov
1271: A.~V., Valenzuela O., Prada F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
1272: \bibitem[Klypin et al.(2002)]{Kly02} Klypin, A., Zhao, H., \&
1273: Somerville, R.~S.\ 2002, \apj, 573, 597
1274: \bibitem[Koposov \& Bartunov(2006)]{q3c} Koposov, S., \&
1275: Bartunov, O.\ 2006, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV,
1276: 351, 735
1277: \bibitem[Koposov et al. (2007)]{koposov_bartunov}
1278: Koposov, S., Bartunov, O., Belinskiy, A., Karpov, S.\ 2007, Astronomical Data
1279: Analysis Software and Systems XVI, 376, 34
1280: \bibitem[Koposov et al.(2007)]{Ko07} Koposov, S., et al.\
1281: 2007, \apj, 669, 337
1282: \bibitem[Lindenberg(1993)]{lindenberg93} Lindenberg, T., 1993, International
1283: Journal of Computer Vision, 11 , 3, 283
1284: \bibitem[Lindenberg(1998)]{lindenberg98} Lindenberg, T., 1998, International
1285: Journal of Computer Vision, 30, 2, 79
1286: \bibitem[Lupton, Gunn, \& Szalay(1999)]{Lu99} Lupton, R., Gunn, J.,
1287: \& Szalay, A. 1999, \aj, 118, 1406
1288: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(2001)]{Lu01} Lupton, R., Gunn, J.~E.,
1289: Ivezi{\'c}, Z., Knapp, G.~R., \& Kent, S.\ 2001, Astronomical Data Analysis
1290: Software and Systems X, 238, 269
1291: \bibitem[Mackey \& Gilmore(2004)]{Mackey04} Mackey, A.~D., \&
1292: Gilmore, G.~F.\ 2004, \mnras, 355, 504
1293: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007)]{Martin07} Martin, N.~F., Ibata,
1294: R.~A., Chapman, S.~C., Irwin, M., \& Lewis, G.~F.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 281
1295: \bibitem[Metz et al.(2007)]{Me07} Metz, M., Kroupa, P., \&
1296: Jerjen, H.\ 2007, \mnras, 374, 1125
1297: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{Mo99} Moore B., Ghigna S.,
1298: Governato F., Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J., Tozzi P.\ 1999, ApJ,
1299: 524, L19
1300: \bibitem[Moore et al.(2006)]{Mo06} Moore B., Diemand J.,
1301: Madau P., Zemp M., Stadel J.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 563
1302: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Odenkirchen et al.}{2001}]{Od01}
1303: Odenkirchen M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 548, L165
1304: \bibitem[Page et al.(2007)]{Pa07} Page, L., et al.\ 2007,
1305: \apjs, 170, 335
1306: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{Pi03} Pier, J.R., Munn, J.A., Hindsley,
1307: R.B, Hennessy, G.S., Kent, S.M., Lupton, R.H., Ivezic, Z. 2003, \aj,
1308: 125, 1559
1309: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2007)]{Pi07} Piotto, G., et al.\
1310: 2007, \apjl, 661, L53
1311: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis]{Sc98}
1312: Schlegel, D. \ J., Finkbeiner, D.\ P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj,
1313: 500, 525
1314: \bibitem[Silverman(1986)]{silverman} Silverman, B.~W.\ 1986,
1315: Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, London: Chapman and Hall,
1316: 1986,
1317: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{Sm02} Smith, J.~A., et al.\ 2002, \aj,
1318: 123, 2121
1319: \bibitem[Somerville(2002)]{So02} Somerville, R.~S.\ 2002, ApJ, 572, L23
1320: \bibitem[Stoehr et al.(2002)]{Sto02} Stoehr F., White S.~D.~M., Tormen
1321: G., Springel V.\ 2002, MNRAS, 335, L84
1322: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{St02} Stoughton, C. et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485
1323: \bibitem[Tucker et al.(2006)]{Tu06} Tucker D., et al. 2006, AN, in
1324: press
1325: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et al.(1991)]{rc3} de Vaucouleurs,
1326: G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H.~G., Jr., Buta, R.~J., Paturel, G., \&
1327: Fouque, P.\ 1991, Volume 1-3, XII, 2069 pp.~7 figs..~ Springer-Verlag
1328: Berlin Heidelberg New York,
1329: \bibitem[van den Bergh(2000)]{van00} van den Bergh, S.\ 2000,
1330: The galaxies of the Local Group, by Sidney Van den Bergh.~Published by
1331: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000 Cambridge Astrophysics
1332: Series Series, vol no: 35, ISBN: 0521651816.,
1333: \bibitem[Walsh et al.(2007)]{Wa07} Walsh, S.~M., Jerjen, H.,
1334: \& Willman, B.\ 2007, \apjl, 662, L83
1335: \bibitem[Whiting et al.(2007)]{Wh07} Whiting, A.~B., Hau,
1336: G.~K.~T., Irwin, M., \& Verdugo, M.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 715
1337: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2002)]{Wi02} Willman, B., Dalcanton J.,
1338: Ivezi{\'c} {\v Z}., Jackson T., Lupton R., Brinkmann J.,
1339: Hennessy G., Hindsley R. 2002, AJ, 123, 848
1340: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2005a)]{Wi05a} Willman, B., et al.\
1341: 2005a, \apjl, 626, L85
1342: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2005b)]{Wi05b} Willman, B., et al.\
1343: 2005b, \aj, 129, 2692
1344: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york} York D.~G., et al.\ 2000,
1345: \aj, 120, 1579
1346: \bibitem[Zinnecker et al.(1988)]{Zi88} Zinnecker, H.,
1347: Keable, C.~J., Dunlop, J.~S., Cannon, R.~D., \& Griffiths, W.~K.\ 1988, The
1348: Harlow-Shapley Symposium on Globular Cluster Systems in Galaxies, 126,
1349: 603
1350: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2006a)]{Zu06a} Zucker D.~B., et al.\ 2006a,
1351: \apjl, 643, L103
1352: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2006b)]{Zu06b} Zucker D.~B., et al.\
1353: 2006b, \apjl, 650, L41
1354: \end{thebibliography}
1355: \end{document}
1356: