1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
4:
5: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6:
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8:
9: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
10:
11: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
12:
13: \def\msun{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}
14: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
15: \newcommand{\myemail}{ahmic,rayjay@astro.utoronto.ca}
16:
17: \shorttitle{Multiplicity Among Young Brown Dwarfs}
18: \shortauthors{Ahmic et al.}
19:
20: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
21: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
26: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
27: %% you desire.
28:
29: \title{Multiplicity Among Young Brown Dwarfs and Very Low Mass Stars\altaffilmark{*}}
30:
31: \author{Mirza Ahmic\footnote{e-mail: ahmic@astro.utoronto.ca}, Ray Jayawardhana,
32: Alexis Brandeker\altaffilmark{**},\\ Alexander Scholz\altaffilmark{***}, Marten H. van Kerkwijk}
33: \affil{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of Toronto,
34: Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada}
35: %\email{rayjay@astro.utoronto.ca}
36:
37:
38: \author{Eduardo Delgado-Donate}
39: \affil{Instituto de Astrof\'isica de Canarias, E38205 - La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain}
40:
41: \and
42:
43: \author{Dirk Froebrich}
44: \affil{Centre for Astrophysical and Planetary Science, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NH, United Kingdom}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{*}{We dedicate this paper to the memory of our co-author, Eduardo Delgado-Donate, who died in a hiking accident in Tenerife earlier this year.}
47: \altaffiltext{**}{Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova University Center, SE-105 91 Stockholm, Sweden}
48: \altaffiltext{***}{School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of St. Andrews, North Haugh, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, United Kingdom}
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51: Characterizing multiplicity in the very low mass (VLM) domain
52: is a topic of much current interest and fundamental importance.
53: Here we report on a near-infrared adaptive optics imaging
54: survey of 31 young brown dwarfs and VLM stars,
55: 28 of which are in the Chamaeleon I star-forming region,
56: using the ESO Very Large Telescope. Our survey is sensitive
57: enough to detect equal mass binaries down to separations of
58: 0.04--0.07$\arcsec$ ($\sim$6--10 AU at 160 pc) and, typically,
59: companions with mass ratios ($q=m_2/m_1$) as low as 0.2
60: outside of 0.2$\arcsec$ ($\sim$30 AU). We resolve the suspected
61: 0.16$\arcsec$ ($\sim$26 AU) binary ChaH$\alpha$ 2 and present two
62: new binaries, Hn 13 and CHXR 15, with separations of 0.13$\arcsec$
63: ($\sim$ 20 AU) and 0.30$\arcsec$ ($\sim$ 50 AU) respectively;
64: the latter system is one of the widest VLM systems discovered to date.
65: We do not find companions around the majority of our targets giving an
66: overall binary frequency of $11^{+9}_{-6}\%$, thus confirming the trend
67: for a lower binary frequency with decreasing mass. By combining our work
68: with previous surveys of VLM objects (VLMOs) in other star forming regions,
69: we arrive at the largest sample of young VLMOs (72) with high angular resolution
70: imaging to date. Its multiplicity fraction is in statistical agreement
71: with that for VLMOs in the field. In addition we
72: note that many field stellar binaries with lower binding energies and/or wider
73: cross sections have survived dynamical evolution and that statistical models
74: suggest tidal disruption by passing stars is unlikely to affect the binary
75: properties of our systems. Thus, we argue that there is no significant
76: evolution of multiplicity with age among brown dwarfs and VLM stars in OB and
77: T associations between a few Myr to several Gyr. Instead, the observations to
78: date suggest that VLM objects are either less likely to be born in fragile
79: multiple systems than solar mass stars or such systems are disrupted very
80: early (within the first couple of Myr).
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \keywords{stars: formation -- stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs
84: -- stars: luminosity function, mass function -- binaries: general
85: -- planetary systems}
86:
87: \section{Introduction}
88: Over the past decade, hundreds of brown dwarfs (BDs) have been
89: identified in the solar neighborhood and in star-forming regions, yet there is no consensus on their origins. One possibility is
90: that they form like stars, as a result of the
91: turbulent fragmentation and collapse of molecular cloud cores
92: (e.g., Padoan \& Nordlund 2004). Another scenario, which has gained
93: popularity in recent years, is that BDs are stellar embryos ejected
94: from multiple proto-stellar systems (Reipurth \& Clarke 2001; Bate et
95: al. 2002).
96: %Other suggestions include gravitational instability in circumbinary
97: %disks (Jiang et al. 2004) and photoevaporation of massive protostellar
98: %cores (Whitworth \& Zinnecker 2004).
99:
100: Recent observations have attempted to distinguish among these
101: scenarios, by comparing physical properties of brown dwarfs and
102: very low mass stars (which we refer to together as very low mass
103: objects, or VLMOs, here) with those of solar-mass stars. Numerous
104: studies have shown that many {\it young} VLMOs exhibit infrared
105: excesses (e.g., Muench et al. 2001; Natta et al. 2002; Jayawardhana
106: et al. 2003a; Scholz et al. 2007) and spectroscopic signatures
107: of accretion (e.g., Jayawardhana et al. 2002, 2003b;
108: Natta et al. 2004; Mohanty et al. 2005), indicative of disks.
109: But both these diagnostics are only sensitive to the innermost
110: portions of the disk and therefore cannot test whether BD disks
111: are truncated, as expected in the ejection scenario. Recently,
112: by modeling mid-infrared and millimeter emission, Scholz et al.
113: (2006) found that $>$25\% of Taurus BDs in their sample have
114: disks with radii $>$10 AU, contrary to predictions of certain
115: ejection simulations, but some truncated disks may be hidden
116: among their non-detections at 1.3mm. The spatial distribution
117: and kinematics of BDs, in comparison with stars, do not provide
118: definitive tests either; ejection models predict velocities
119: comparable to the velocity dispersions of star-forming
120: associations and clusters, i.e., 1-2 km/s (Moraux \& Clarke 2005).
121:
122: In this context, the multiplicity properties of VLMOs --such as
123: frequency, separations, and mass ratios-- could be among the
124: most important diagnostics of their origin. In particular, ejection
125: models predict a very low rate of binaries among BDs ($<$5-8\%) and
126: does not favor the formation of many wide ($>$20 AU) binary
127: systems (e.g., Bate et al. 2002). Direct imaging surveys
128: of (old) field VLMOs have yielded a binary frequency of $\sim$15\% for
129: (apparent) separations $a>$1 AU, with maximum separations of
130: $\approx$20 AU (e.g., Bouy et al. 2003; Burgasser et al. 2003). A
131: search for spectroscopic binaries among the field VLMOs add another
132: $\sim$11\% (Basri \& Reiners 2006). Open clusters older than $\sim$100
133: Myr also appear
134: to lack wide binary brown dwarfs (e.g., Mart\'in et al. 2003; Bouy
135: et al. 2006a). At face value, these findings seem to support the
136: ejection scenario --though typical binary separation may decrease
137: at lower masses even in the turbulent fragmentation model.
138:
139: However, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, several wide binary VLM systems
140: have been discovered within the past few years. Among them are:
141: 2MASS J1101-7732 ($a \approx$240 AU) in the $\sim$2-Myr-old Chamaeleon I
142: star-forming region (Luhman 2004), 2MASS J1207-3932 ($a \approx$40 AU)
143: in the $\sim$8-Myr-old TW Hydrae association (Chauvin et al. 2004; Mohanty
144: et al. 2007), DENIS-P J161833-251750 and USCO-160028.4 ($a \approx$140
145: and 120 AU, respectively) in the $\sim$5-Myr-old Upper Scorpius
146: association (Luhman 2005; Bouy et al. 2006b), Oph 162225-240515
147: ($a \approx$240 AU) in
148: the $\sim$1-Myr-old Ophiuchus region (Jayawardhana \& Ivanov 2006), and
149: DENIS-J055146.0-443412.2 ($a>$200 AU) in the field (Bill\`eres et al. 2005).
150: 2MASS J1207-3932 and Oph 1622-2405 are especially intriguing because
151: the secondaries have masses approaching the planetary regime.
152:
153: If wide binaries, such as these six, are common among VLMOs, that would
154: present a critical challenge to ejection models. Recent high angular resolution surveys in Taurus and Upper Scorpious by Kraus et al.
155: (2005, 2006) and Konopacky et al. (2007) have turned up 4 VLM binary systems (all in the Konopacky et al. 2007 sample) that would be considered wide by the ejection model standards.
156: Here we report on an additional effort to constrain the frequency of wide VLM systems in other star forming regions. In particular, we describe a near-infrared adaptive optics imaging survey of
157: 28 VLMOs in Chamaeleon I designed to investigate whether multiplicity in the
158: VLM regime depends on age.
159:
160: \section{Observations and Data Analysis}
161: Given its proximity (160\,pc; Whittet et al. 1997) and youth ($\sim$2\,Myr;
162: Luhman 2004), the Chamaeleon I star-forming region is well suited for
163: investigating multiplicity of young VLMOs. We observed 28 targets with spectral
164: types of M5.25--M8 from the recent compilation by Luhman (2004); their membership
165: in Cha I is supported by several diagnostics including proper motion, radial
166: velocity and position on the H-R diagram. Six additional (random) VLM members
167: reported in the census (3 M5.25, 1 M5.5, 1 M5.75, 1 M6) were not observed due
168: to worsening atmospheric conditions. According to Baraffe et al. (1998, 2003)
169: models, our targets span the mass range of $\sim 0.03\,-0.15 \msun$ (Table 1).
170:
171: We obtained near-infrared $H (1.66 \mu m)$- and $K_s (2.16 \mu m)$-band
172: images of 26 of these targets with the
173: NAOS-CONICA (NACO, for short) instrument on the 8.2m Yepun unit of the European
174: Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope on Paranal, Chile over three
175: consecutive nights starting on March 24, 2006. We used the high-resolution lens
176: of NACO, with a pixel scale of 13.26 mas/pix and a field-of-view of
177: $13.6\arcsec\times13.6\arcsec$. For all observations, we utilized the infrared
178: wavefront sensor (WFS) mode N90C10, which directs 90\% of the light to the WFS
179: and the rest to CONICA. Targets themselves served as natural guide stars (NGSs)
180: for the WFS. For each target, six 20 second exposures were combined to produce
181: the final image.
182:
183: Two other Cha I targets, ChaH$\alpha2$ and ESO559, were observed in service
184: mode between 2005 May--September using the same instrument set up, along with
185: C-41 in Chamaeleon II (see Barrado y Navascu\'es \& Jayawardhana 2004), GY 5
186: in $\rho$ Oph (Greene \& Young 1992) and 2MASSW J1207334-393254 in the TW Hydrae
187: association (Gizis 2002). The latter is known to harbor a planetary mass companion
188: at a separation of
189: $\sim$40 AU (Chauvin et al. 2004; Mohanty et al. 2007), and thus served as a
190: cross-check on our sensitivity. These five targets were observed only in the
191: $K_s$-band, each with a total integration time of 18 minutes.
192: We inspected the final images, reduced in a standard manner using the NACO
193: pipeline software, visually to look for possible companions. In order to
194: determine our ability to detect companions, we also derived contrast
195: sensitivity curves through statistical analysis of the noise in annuli
196: surrounding the central object. Then we calculated the 5-$\sigma$ detection
197: limit as a function of separation from the primary for each of the targets.
198: More details on the algorithm for deriving these sensitivities are given
199: in Brandeker et al. (2006). We checked the accuracy of the procedure by
200: artificially inserting faint companions into the images at various
201: separations and trying to recover them; the results were consistent.
202:
203: We converted the contrast sensitivity limits into mass detection limits given
204: the spectral type of the primaries, Luhman et al. (2003) temperature conversion scale and
205: Baraffe et al. (1998, 2003) models for the appropriate age: 2 Myr for
206: Cha I, 1 Myr for $\rho$ Oph and Cha II, and 8 Myr for TW Hydrae.
207:
208: To search for companions at smaller separations, we carried out
209: point spread function (PSF) subtraction for the Cha I targets from the
210: primary NACO run. To construct a template PSF, we averaged the
211: PSFs of our brightest targets. By varying the combinations of objects used
212: for the template PSF and comparing the results for consistency, we made sure
213: not to include a binary in the template PSF. None of our objects shows a clear
214: signature of a companion after PSF subtraction. For a more quantitative check,
215: we used an approach similar to the procedure suggested by Bouy et al. (2006a):
216: After PSF subtraction, we measured the residual scatter and looked for
217: objects which show excessive noise in the PSF area. Again, none of our objects
218: shows significantly increased noise, defined as 3$\sigma$ excess above the
219: average.
220:
221: To probe the adequacy of this test, we inserted artificial companions for
222: selected objects at separations of 10\,AU and 6\,AU with roughly
223: equal brightness. Companions at 10\,AU were reliably detected, by visually
224: inspecting the image before and after PSF subtraction. They
225: also cause clearly enhanced scatter after PSF subtraction. Thus, we are
226: confident that our companion search is complete down to 10\,AU for roughly
227: equal mass systems. At 6\,AU, we can still recover artificial companions
228: around the brightest of our targets, but for the fainter ones both the
229: visual inspection and the noise analysis fail. We conclude that our
230: companion search is probably not complete for separations $<10$\,AU. For
231: the brightest $\sim 5$ objects, however, we can safely exclude the
232: existence of roughly equal mass companions down to separations of 6\,AU.
233:
234: \section{Results}
235: \subsection{Resolved Binaries}
236: We find three resolved binaries in the Cha I sample: ChaH$\alpha$~2, CHXR 15 and Hn~13
237: (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The first was suspected to be a binary by Neuh\"auser
238: et al. (2002) based on its elongated PSF in {\it Hubble Space Telescope}
239: images. We are also able to recover the previously known companion to
240: 2M1207 in our images. We do not find companions to any other targets.
241:
242: Interestingly, ChaH$\alpha$~2, CHXR 15 and Hn~13 are all at the high mass end of our
243: target sample: all have masses $>0.1\msun$, clearly above the sub-stellar
244: boundary. Two of the binaries, ChaH$\alpha$~2 and Hn~13, have mass ratios close to unity
245: ($q=m_2/m_1>$0.9) and are slighthly wider ($20\mathrm{AU}<a<30\mathrm{AU}$) than most binaries
246: found in the field. CHXR 15 stands out more: it has a lower mass ratio ($q=0.64$)
247: and a wider separation ($\sim50\mathrm{AU}$).
248:
249: \subsection{Binary Frequency}
250: Fig. 2 shows our detection limits as a function of companion mass (according
251: to Baraffe et al. models) and separation (assuming a distance of 160 pc).
252: The survey is able to detect binaries with mass ratios ($q$) as low as 0.2 for all but one target
253: at 50 AU, and planetary mass companions at larger separations. Our results
254: suggest that wide VLM systems with ultra low mass companions, such as Oph 1622-2405 (Jayawardhana
255: \& Ivanov 2006), are rare. We return to this point in the discussion.
256:
257: For comparison, we also plot the binaries found by Fischer \& Marcy (1992)
258: among field stars with primary masses of 0.1-0.6\,$\msun$ and by Close et al.
259: (2003), Burgasser et al. (2003) and Siegler et al. (2005) among field VLM objects with $0.05$--$0.1\msun$. Our survey would have
260: detected nearly all binaries with $>$20 AU and $q>$ 0.6 in these comparison
261: samples. For our Cha I sample, with primary masses between $\sim$0.02-0.2\,$\msun$,
262: we find a binary frequency of $11^{+9}_{-6}\%$ in the regime where our survey is
263: sensitive to companions ($a>20\mathrm{AU}, q>0.6$).
264:
265: \section{Discussion}
266: Our findings in Cha I are similar to what Kraus et al. (2005, 2006) have reported
267: for VLMOs in Taurus and Upper Scorpius star-forming regions. A recent survey of Taurus by Konopacky et al. (2007) targeting mainly VLM stars has revealed a larger multiplicity fraction of wider systems with lower mass ratios, although the binary frequency is still in statistical agreement with our results\footnote{We are not
268: able to extend the analysis to include the Bouy et al. (2006b) survey in Upper
269: Scorpius because that paper does not list the targets and their properties.}.
270: In fact, the four surveys target primaries in the same mass range and have
271: comparable detection limits for companions\footnote{We removed three objects in the Konopacky et al. (2007) sample whose masses are greater than $0.15\msun$.}. Thus, we can combine the results
272: of all four surveys (12 VLM targets in Upper Scorpius, 32 in Taurus and 28 in Chamaeleon I) to arrive at a more statistically significant sample of
273: 72 young VLMOs with an overall resolved binary frequency of $7^{+4}_{-3}\%$. If we just consider T-associations (Taurus and Chamaeleon I), then the multiplicity fraction is $5^{+5}_{-3}\%$. In both cases we use $a>8\mathrm{AU}$ and $q>0.8$ as our sensitivity limit.
274:
275: We can now compare the binary properties of young VLMOs with other populations
276: of interest, such as field VLMOs and young stars, to explore possible variations
277: with mass and/or age. We used a Fisher ``exact'' statistical test for comparing samples of binomial distributions, as detailed in Appendix B of Brandeker et al. (2006). The results are given in Table 3, where
278: ``likelihood'' refers to the probability that the multiplicity frequencies
279: of the two samples are the same.
280:
281: \subsection{Mass Dependance of Binarity}
282: In order to explore the dependence of the binary frequency on mass we
283: statistically compare several samples spanning different mass bins.
284: As shown in Table 3 and Fig. 4, we constrain the $q$ and separation range as
285: appropriate to ensure that the two samples being compared have the
286: same sensitivity limits for companions. We ensure that samples that are compared are of similar age by only comparing binaries from young associations (Cha I, Taurus and Upper Scorpius). In addition we also address the potential concern about the environmental effects by performing every comparison with and without the 12 targets in Upper Scorpius as it is the only higher density association that contributes binaries to our combined sample. We find that our conclusions are not affected by inclusion of these additional binaries.
287:
288: We start by dividing the young VLMOs themselves into two groups, following
289: Kraus et al. (2006): one with primary masses less than 0.07 $\msun$ and
290: the other with primary masses greater than 0.07 $\msun$. All eight resolved
291: VLMO binaries within the sensitivity limits (Fig. 4A) are in the higher mass bin. The likelihood of the two mass bins having the same binary frequnecy if only T-associations are compared is low ($\sim 8\%$), but not insignificant. If we increase the sample size by adding the Upper Scorpius members, 6 to the lower and 6 to the higher mass bin, the likelihood
292: that the two mass bins have the same binary distribution becomes even lower ($\sim 2\%$). In addition, we also note that 4 systems that are outside of the sensitivity range fall in the higher mass bin and thus further reinforce our point.
293: We can also compare
294: the young VLMO sample with young stars ($\sim$0.57-1.40 $\msun$) in Taurus and Cha I
295: surveyed by Ghez et al. (1993, 1997) in the sensitivity regime outlined in Fig. 4B. The result (likelihood
296: of $\sim 1\%$ and $\sim 2\%$ if we include or exlude the Upper Scorpius sample respectively; Table 3) bolsters the case for a decreasing wide binary frequency with mass.
297:
298: What could account for this observed trend? One possibility is that less
299: massive, and therefore fainter, primaries will have even fainter companions
300: that might not be detectable by surveys. However, all of the samples presented here are sensitive to mass ratios of $q\geq0.5$ at
301: separations greater than $30\mathrm{AU}$ and even lower mass ratios at wider separations (Fig 2. and Fig 4.) for the young
302: VLMO sample, allowing us to rule out such a bias. Another possibility is
303: that binary separations (i.e., system size) decreases with mass below our
304: detection limits. A radial velocity survey of Cha I VLMOs finds only
305: one candidate companion (Joergens 2006) at $\lesssim$0.1 AU among
306: 10 targets while Basri \& Reiners (2006) find a spectroscopic binary fraction of $\sim$11\%
307: in the 0-6 AU separation range among field VLMOs. Imaging surveys of field
308: VLMOs (eg., Close et al. 2003, Siegler et al. 2005), which have typical sensitivities of
309: $q\sim0.85$ at $3\mathrm{AU}$, also do not reveal a significant number of companions closer
310: to the primaries. Thus, it appears unlikely
311: that a decrease in separations is the primary reason for the observed drop
312: in multiplicity in the VLM regime. Instead, we conclude that the binary
313: frequency most likely decreases with mass.
314:
315: \subsection{Age Dependance of Binarity}
316: We investigate whether binarity in the VLM regime depends on age by
317: comparing the young VLMO sample with the late M and early L field dwarfs
318: surveyed by Close et al. (2003). They found three nearly equal mass
319: $(q>0.85)$ pairs wider than $\sim$7.5 AU among 85 targets in the
320: $\sim$0.05-0.1 $\msun$ mass range, resulting in a binary fraction
321: of $4^{+6}_{-4}\%$, which is in good agreement with that for young VLMOs suggesting that binarity in the VLM regime does not depend strongly on age between a few Myr and several Gyr. One concern is that environments from which these two samples are drawn may be different. The young VLMO sample comes from low density T-associations (and OB-associations if we choose to include Upper Scorpius), while most of the field objects probably formed in higher density clusters. Thus one can argue that the multiplicity fraction we see today in the surveyed SFRs might decrease over time below that seen in the field. It is unlikely, however, that this will happen because the field VLMOs have survived more dynamically active environments.
322:
323: We also examine the stability of VLM binaries by calculating their binding
324: energies in comparison to those of other binary populations. Fig.~3 shows
325: that even though there is significant overlap of young and field VLM binaries
326: on the binding energy vs. separation plot, young unbound associations also have
327: a significant population of wider binaries. As this is the population that might
328: be disrupted by dynamical encounters, exploration of stability of such systems
329: is important. Regarding this problem, we note that a number
330: of field star systems (those in the boxed area of the figure) are more
331: fragile than the young VLM binaries, even though the former have evolved
332: dynamically already. This is all the more surprising if one considers the fact
333: that these field systems were most likely born in higher density regions where
334: dynamical evolution would have had a more profound effect. Therefore, it is
335: unlikely that the ``harder'' VLM
336: binaries, would be disrupted, again supporting
337: the conclusion that age is not a major factor affecting binarity in the
338: VLM regime, at least when one considers OB and T associations\footnote{To
339: date, 3 very wide ($\geq220$\,AU) field VLM systems have been discovered
340: (Bill\'eres et al. 2005; Caballero et al. 2007; Artigau et al. 2007). These
341: are not included in our analysis as they are not part of a defined sample.
342: Nevertheless, their existence shows that at least some very wide VLM binaries
343: could survive their birth environment.}
344:
345: Weakly bound binaries can be disrupted by gravitational perturbations from both
346: stellar encounters and giant molecular clouds, as discussed by Weinberg
347: et al.\ (1987). Burgasser et al.\ (2003) applied the formalism of
348: Weinberg et al.\ (1987) to the BD regime, and found that a pair of
349: 0.05\,$M_{\odot}$ BDs separated by 10\,AU would be completely impervious to
350: disruption by stellar encounters in the field. Scaling the result of
351: Burgasser et al.\ (2003) to the most weakly bound system in our combined young
352: VLMO sample, with a total mass of $0.16\,M_{\odot}$ and a separation of $100$\,AU,
353: we get expected disruption timescales from field stars that are on the order
354: of 600\,Gyr, more than 10$^5$ times older than the age of the systems.
355: These estimates are based on field star densities of $n_* = 0.05$\,pc$^{-3}$
356: (Bahcall \& Soneira 1980), which is a critical parameter, as the disruption
357: timescale $\tau \propto n_*^{-1}$. But even
358: assuming a stellar density as high as $n_* = 200$\,pc$^{-3}$, corresponding to
359: the outer regions of the Orion Nebula Cluster (K\"ohler et al.\ 2006), the
360: disruption timescale would be 150\,Myr, two orders of magnitude longer than the
361: present age of the system. This estimate suggests that encounters with other
362: stars do not disrupt even the most weakly bound systems in our sample, either in
363: their birth environments (i.e., in OB or T associations) or later as the stellar
364: densities drop to match that in the field. Since perturbations from giant
365: molecular clouds are insignificant in comparison to stellar encounters
366: (Burgasser et al. 2003), the VLM binaries in our sample are likely to survive
367: almost indefinitely.
368:
369: \subsection{Frequency of Ultra Low Mass Companions}
370: In recent years, several VLM systems that appear to diverge from established trends
371: have been reported. In particular very wide systems such as Oph162225-240515 with
372: ultra low mass companions stand out from field VLM systems whose separation tends to
373: decrease with mass. Because the presence of such systems imposes additional
374: constraints on formation mechanisms, it is important to determine their frequency.
375: Fig. 5 shows that our survey is sensitive to nearly planetary mass companions
376: (down to 9M$_{\mathrm{J}}$) around 23 targets in the Cha I sample at separations
377: greater than $100\mathrm{AU}$. In addition, such systems could be detected around
378: all 34 targets from the Kraus et al. (2005, 2006) surveys of Upper Scorpius and Taurus.
379: Yet, no ultra low mass companions at wide separations are detected in these three surveys,
380: giving a frequency of no more than 2\% and thus confirming their rarity.
381:
382: Since the typical primary mass of the combined VLMO sample is 110M$_{\mathrm{J}}$, and
383: the imaging surveys are sensitive to $q\sim0.1$ companions (i.e., secondaries with
384: 9--15M$_{\mathrm{J}}$) at $>100\mathrm{AU}$, we can also compare our results to surveys
385: for sub-stellar companions to solar analogs. For example, Metchev \& Hillenbrand (2005)
386: targeted 100 F5-K5 primaries to look for brown dwarf companions. Based on a single detection,
387: they derive a sub-stellar companion freqency of at least $1\%$, and possibly on the order
388: of a few percent. This result is in statistical agreement with the frequency of $q\sim0.1$
389: systems around VLM primaries in our combined young sample. Therefore, even though VLM systems
390: with planetary mass companions are rare, the frequency of $q\sim0.1$ binaries in the VLM
391: regime is no different from that for solar-type stars.
392:
393: \section{Concluding Remarks}
394: Our survey of VLMOs in Chamaeleon~I lends additional support to the established trend for a
395: lower binary frequency with decreasing primary mass. By comparing the multiplicity
396: properties of young VLMOs with those of field VLMOs and stars, we conclude that there is likely
397: no evolution of multiplicity after the first few\,Myr for objects formed in low density regions.
398:
399: While our survey of Cha I and the surveys of Kraus et al. (2005, 2006) and Konopacky et al. (2007)
400: show that wide VLM systems with ultra-low-mass companions -- thought to be a critical challange to
401: the ejection formation mechanism -- are infrequent, they also reveal a significant fraction of
402: systems considered wide by the ejection scenario ($>20\mathrm{AU}$). Seven out of thirteen reported
403: systems have separations wider than $20\mathrm{AU}$, with three systems separated by more than
404: $\sim50\mathrm{AU}$. Bate et al. (2005) have recently reported that their simulations can produce
405: binaries wider than the initial $20\mathrm{AU}$ limit, albeit via a different mechanism than the
406: one responsible for the production of tighter pairs (i.e., simultaneous ejection and capture of
407: previously unassociated objects vs. ejection of coupled tight binaries). However, since their
408: hydrodynamic simulations are not followed up with N-body calculations, it is difficult to make a
409: direct comparison; many of the reported simulated binaries are still accreting and likely unstable
410: and the statistics are still somewhat limited; there may also be a spread in the ages of objects
411: in a given SFR. In addition, most simulations model higher density regions, more akin to the Orion
412: Nebula Cluster rather than the diffuse T associations that we and other observers have surveyed mostly.
413: Nevertheless, a successful model for star formation has to account for observed binary properties in the
414: VLM domain, including the existence of some wide pairs.
415:
416: \acknowledgments
417: This paper is based on observations collected at the European Southern
418: Observatory, Chile under programs 075.C-0042 and 076.C-0579. We thank
419: the ESO staff for carrying out some observations in service mode and
420: for assistance during a visitor run. We are grateful to the anonymous
421: referee for a careful review. This research was supported by an NSERC grant
422: and an Ontario Early Researcher Award to RJ. MA was funded in part by an
423: Ontario Graduate Scholarship and an NSERC Canadian Graduate Scholarship.
424: DF received support from the Cosmo Grid project, funded by the Program for
425: Research in Third Level Intitutions under the National Development Plan and
426: with assistance from the European Regional Development Fund.
427: This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
428:
429: \begin{thebibliography}{}
430: \bibitem[Artigau et al. (2007)]{ar07}
431: Artigau, \'E., Lafreni\'ere, D., Doyon, R., Albert, L., Nadeau, D., Robert, J., 2007, \apj, 659L, 49A
432:
433: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Soneira (1980)]{bah80}
434: Bahcall, J.~N., Soneira, R.~M.\ 1980, ApJS, 44, 73
435:
436: \bibitem[Baraffe et al. (1998)]{b98}
437: Baraffe, I., et al. 1998, A\&A, 337, 403
438:
439: \bibitem[Baraffe et al. (2003)]{bar03}
440: Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Barman T., Allard F. \& Hauschildt P. 2003, \aap, 402, 701
441:
442: \bibitem[Barrado y Navascu\'{e}s \& Jayawardhana (2004)]{BJ04}
443: Barrado y Navascu\'{e}s, D. \& Jayawardhana, R. 2004, ApJ, 615, 840
444:
445: \bibitem[Basri \& Reiners (2006)]{br06}
446: Basri, G. \& Reiners, A. 2006, \aj, 132, 663
447:
448: \bibitem[Bate, Bonnell and Bromm (2002)]{Bat02}
449: Bate, M., Bonnell, I. \& Bromm, V. 2002, \mnras, 332, L65
450:
451: \bibitem[Bill\`eres et al. (2005)]{b05}
452: Bill\`eres, M., et al. 2005, A\&A, 440, L55
453:
454: \bibitem[Bouy et al.(2003)]{b03}
455: Bouy, H., et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 1526
456:
457: \bibitem[Bouy et al.(2006a)]{b06a}
458: Bouy, H., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 637, 1056
459:
460: \bibitem[Bouy et al.(2006b)]{b06b}
461: Bouy, H., et al. 2006b, A\&A, 451, 177
462:
463: \bibitem[Brandeker et al. (2006)]{bjk06}
464: Brandeker, A., Jayawardhana, R., Khavari, P., Haisch, K.E., Jr.
465: \& Mardones, D. 2006, \apj, 652, 1572
466:
467: \bibitem[Burgasser et al.(2003)]{Bur03}
468: Burgasser, A.J., et al. 2003, \apj, 586, 512
469:
470: \bibitem[Caballero (2007)]{cab07}
471: Caballero, J.A., 2007, A\&A, 462, L61
472:
473: \bibitem[Chauvin et al.(2004)]{Cha04}
474: Chauvin G., et al. 2004, \aap, 425, L29
475:
476: \bibitem[Close et al.(2003)]{clo03}
477: Close, L., Siegler, N., Freed, M. \& Biller, B. 2003, \apj, 587, 407
478:
479: \bibitem[Comer\'on et al.(2004)]{Com04}
480: Comer\'on, F., Reipurth, B., Henry, A. \& Fern\'andez, A. 2004, \aap, 417, 583
481:
482: \bibitem[Delgado-Donate et al.(2004)]{Del04}
483: Delgado-Donate, E.J., Clarke, C.J., Bate, M.R. \& Hodgkin, S.T. 2004, \mnras, 351, 617
484:
485: \bibitem[Fischer and Marcy (1992)]{Fis92}
486: Fischer D. \& Marcy G. 1992, \apj, 396, 178
487:
488: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(1993)]{Ghe93}
489: Ghez, A., Neugebauer, G. \& Matthews, K. 1993, \aj, 106, 200
490:
491: \bibitem[Ghez et al.(1997)]{Ghe97}
492: Ghez A., McCarthy D., Patience J. \& Beck T. 1997, \apj, 481, 378
493:
494: \bibitem[Gizis (2002)]{Giz02}
495: Gizis, J. 2002, \apj, 575, 484
496:
497: \bibitem[Greene \& Young (1992)]{gy92}
498: Greene, T.P. \& Young, E.T. 1992, ApJ, 395, 516
499:
500: \bibitem[Jayawardhana et al.(2002)]{jmb02}
501: Jayawardhana, R., Mohanty, S., Basri, G. 2002, ApJ, 578, L141
502:
503: \bibitem[Jayawardhana et al.(2003a)]{jas03}
504: Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 1515
505:
506: \bibitem[Jayawardhana et al. (2003b)]{jmb03}
507: Jayawardhana, R., Mohanty, S., Basri, G. 2003, \apj, 592, 282
508:
509: \bibitem[Jayawardhana \& Ivanov (2006)]{ji06}
510: Jayawardhana, R. \& Ivanov, V.D. 2006, Science, 313, 1279
511:
512: \bibitem[Joergens (2006)]{Joe06}
513: Joergens, V. 2006, \aap, 446, 1165
514:
515: \bibitem[Konopacky et al. (2007)]{Kon07}
516: Konopacky Q., Ghez A., Rice E. \& Duch\^ene G. 2007, \apj, 663, 394
517:
518: \bibitem[Kraus et al.(2005)]{Kra05}
519: Kraus A., White R. \& Hillenbrand L. 2005, \apj, 633, 452
520:
521: \bibitem[Kraus et al.(2006)]{Kra06}
522: Kraus A., White R. \& Hillenbrand L. 2006, \apj, 649, 306
523:
524: \bibitem[Luhman (2004)]{Luh04a}
525: Luhman K.L. 2004, \apj, 602, 816
526:
527: \bibitem[Luhman (2005)]{Luh05}
528: Luhman K.L. 2005, \apj, 633, L41
529:
530: \bibitem[Mart\'{i}n et al.(2003)]{Mar03}
531: Mart\'{i}n, E.L., Barrado y Navascu\'{e}s, D., Baraffe I., Bouy, H. \&
532: Dahm S., 2003, \apj, 594, 525
533:
534: \bibitem[Mathis (1990)]{Mat90}
535: Mathis, J. 1990, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 28, 37
536:
537: \bibitem[Mohanty, Jayawardhana, \& Basri(2005)]{mjb05}
538: Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R., Basri, G. 2005, \apj, 626, 498
539:
540: \bibitem[Mohanty et al. (2006)]{m06}
541: Mohanty, S., Jayawardhana, R., Hu\'elamo, N. \& Mamajek, E. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1064
542:
543: \bibitem[Moraux \& Clarke (2005)]{mc05}
544: Moraux, E. \& Clarke, C. 2005, A\&A, 429, 895
545:
546: \bibitem[Muench et al. (2001)]{m01}
547: Muench, A.A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 558, L51
548:
549: \bibitem[Natta et al.(2002)]{n02}
550: Natta, A., et al. 2002 \aap, 393, 597
551:
552: \bibitem[Natta et al.(2004)]{ntm04}
553: Natta, A., et al. 2004 \aap, 424, 603
554:
555: \bibitem[Neuh\"{a}user et al.(2002)]{Neu02}
556: Neuh\"{a}user, R., Brandner, W., Alves, J., Joergens, V. \& Comer\'{o}n, F. 2002, \aap, 384, 999
557:
558: \bibitem[Padoan and Nordlund(2004)]{Pad04}
559: Padoan P. \& Nordlund A. 2004, \apj, 617, 559
560:
561: \bibitem[Patience et al.(2002)]{Pat02}
562: Patience J., Ghez A., Reid I. \& Matthews K. 2002, \aj, 123, 1570
563:
564: \bibitem[Reipurth and Clarke(2001)]{Rep01}
565: Reipurth, B. \& Clarke, C. 2001, \aj, 122, 432
566:
567: \bibitem[Scholz et al. (2006)]{sc06}
568: Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R. \& Wood, K. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1498
569:
570: \bibitem[Scholz et al. (2007)]{sc07}
571: Scholz, A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1517
572:
573: \bibitem[Siegler et al. (2005)]{Sie05}
574: Siegler, N., Close, L.M., Cruz, K.L., Mart\'in, E.L., Reid, I.N. 2005, \apj, 621, 1023
575:
576: \bibitem[Weinberg et al. (1987)]{we87}
577: Weinberg, M.D.; Shapiro, S.L.; Wasserman, I. 1987, \apj, 312, 367
578:
579: \bibitem[Whittet et al. (1997)]{w97}
580: Whittet, D.C.B., et al. 1997, A\&A, 327, 1194
581:
582: \end{thebibliography}
583:
584: \newpage
585:
586: \begin{figure}
587: \begin{center}
588: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f1a.ps} \ \ \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f1b.ps} \ \ \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f1c.ps}
589: \end{center}
590: \caption{Resolved binary systems ChaH$\alpha2$, CHXR 15 and Hn 13 with separations of $0.164\pm0.003\farcs$, $0.305\pm0.002\farcs$ and $0.128\pm0.002\farcs$ respectively. All images are taken with $\mathrm{K}_{\mathrm{s}}$ filter. N is up and E is to the left in all three images.}
591: \label{Fig. 1}
592: \end{figure}
593:
594: \begin{figure}
595: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f2.ps}
596: \caption{Mass sensitivity plot for our survey targets (based on Baraffe et al. 1998, 2003 models).
597: Also included are all resolved young VLMO binaries from Kraus et al. (2005,2006), Konopacky et al. (2007) as well as our Cha I sample, field VLMO binaries (Close et al. (2003), Burgasser et al. (2003), Siegler et al. (2005)) and field stellar binaries (Fischer \& Marcy (1992)). For a typical object, we are sensitive to Ks = 16.7 beyond 70AU. (best case Ks = 18.3, worst case Ks = 15.5)}
598: \label{Fig. 2}
599: \end{figure}
600:
601: \begin{figure}
602: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f3.ps}
603: \caption{Binding energy of young and field VLMOs and field stars. Symbols are the same as those in Fig. 2. We also include the mass dependant definition of wide systems explored by Burgasser et al. (2003), where a wide binary is any system such that $a>1400\times\left(\frac{\mathrm{M_{tot}}}{\msun}\right)^2\mathrm{AU}$. Four young VLMOs that are wider than the given limit come from the recent speckle survey of Taurus-Auriga by Konopacky et al. (2007); if these four are unresolved triples --i.e., one component is actually an unresolved equal-brightness binary-- then two of
604: them would still be considered wide by the Burgasser et al. (2003) threshold, while if they are unresolved quadruples, all four would satisfy the derived limit.
605: }\label{Fig. 3}
606: \end{figure}
607:
608: \begin{figure}
609: \begin{center}
610: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.60]{f4a.epsi} \ \ \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.60]{f4b.epsi}
611: \end{center}
612: \caption{Sensitivity limits used for comparisons -- (LEFT) between different mass bins in the combined young VLM sample -- (RIGHT) between the combined young VLM sample and young stars. We are sensitive to companions up and to the right of the thicker solid line which traces out sensitivity limits from the four surveys of young VLMOs (Kraus et al. (2005,2006), Konopacky et al. (2007) and this survey). Thin solid lines are the sensitivity limits from the Chamaeleon I sample, dotted lines are from the speckle imaging survey of Taurus (Konopacky et al. 2007), while dashed lines are sensitivity limits for the Kraus et al. (2006) Taurus sample, which were determined using the same techniques as those used for the Chamaeleon I sample. Since the Upper Scorpius observations are carried out with the same instument setup (ACS/HST), we assume the sensitivity limits for that sample are similar.
613: In the figure to the right, lower sensitivity limits are achieved by removing two worst offenders (one from the Cha I sample and one from Konopacky et al. (2007) Taurus sample) in order to include as many binaries as possible. The two offenders, especially the one from the Konopacky et al.\,(2007) survey, are atypical compared to the sample, justifying their removal in order to gain access to a wider parameter space. The solid dots are binaries from the combined young VLM sample while the open circles represent stellar binaries ($0.57-1.40\msun$) from Ghez et al. (1993,1997) surveys of Taurus and Chamaeleon I.}
614: \label{Fig. 4}
615: \end{figure}
616:
617: \begin{figure}
618: \begin{center}
619: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f5.ps}
620: \end{center}
621: \caption{Sensitivity limits of our sample in terms of mass. Once again symbols are the same as those in Fig. 2. The thick solid line outlines a region in the top right part of the plot in which we are sensitive down to 9M$_{\mathrm{J}}$ companions for most of our sample.}\label{Fig. 5}
622: \end{figure}
623:
624:
625: \newpage
626:
627: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
628: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
629: %%\rotate
630: \tablecaption{VLMOs imaged with NACO/VLT \label{TABLE 1}}
631: \tablewidth{0pt}
632: \tablehead{
633: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$\alpha$(J2000.0)\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\delta$(J2000.0)\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$K_S\tablenotemark{a}$} & \colhead{$SpT\tablenotemark{b}$} & \colhead{Mass($M_J$)\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{$T_\mathrm{eff}$\tablenotemark{d}}
634: }
635: \startdata
636: ChaH$\alpha$11 & 11 08 29.27 & -77 39 19.8 & 13.54 & M7.25 & 60 & 2838\\
637: ChaH$\alpha$10 & 11 08 24.04 & -77 39 30.0 & 13.24 & M6.25 & 92 & 2962\\
638: ISO138 & 11 08 18.50 & -77 30 40.8 & 13.04 & M6.5 & 83 & 2935\\
639: CHSM17173 & 11 10 22.27 & -76 25 13.8 & 12.45 & M8 & 40 & 2710\\
640: ChaH$\alpha$7 & 11 07 37.76 & -77 35 30.8 & 12.42 & M7.75 & 45 & 2752\\
641: ChaH$\alpha$1 & 11 07 16.69 & -77 35 53.3 & 12.17 & M7.75 & 45 & 2752\\
642: CHSM10862 & 11 07 46.56 & -76 15 17.5 & 12.33 & M5.75 & 117 & 3024\\
643: ISO147 & 11 08 26.51 & -77 15 55.1 & 12.35 & M5.75 & 117 & 3024\\
644: CHSM1982 & 11 04 10.60 & -76 12 49.0 & 12.12 & M6 & 102 & 2990\\
645: ISO252 & 11 10 41.41 & -77 20 48.0 & 12.27 & M6 & 102 & 2990\\
646: ChaH$\alpha$12 & 11 06 38.00 & -77 43 09.1 & 11.81 & M6.5 & 83 & 2935\\
647: ISO220 & 11 09 53.37 & -77 28 36.6 & 12.23 & M5.75 & 117 & 3024\\
648: ISO28 & 11 03 41.87 & -77 26 52.0 & 11.69 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
649: ESO559\tablenotemark{d} & 11 06 26.3 & -76 33 42 & 11.49 & M6 & 102 & 2990\\
650: ChaH$\alpha$9 & 11 07 18.61 & -77 32 51.7 & 11.80 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
651: ISO165 & 11 08 54.97 & -76 32 41.1 & 11.44 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
652: ChaH$\alpha$2\tablenotemark{d,e} & 11 07 42.45 & -77 33 59.4 & 10.68 & M5.25 & 153 & 3091\\
653: ChaH$\alpha$4 & 11 08 18.96 & -77 39 17.0 & 11.02 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
654: ChaH$\alpha$3 & 11 07 52.26 & -77 36 57.0 & 11.10 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
655: ChaH$\alpha$6 & 11 08 39.52 & -77 34 16.7 & 11.04 & M5.75 & 117 & 3024\\
656: Hn12W & 11 10 28.52 & -77 16 59.6 & 10.78 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
657: CHXR84 & 11 12 03.27 & -76 37 03.4 & 10.78 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
658: Hn13\tablenotemark{e} & 11 10 55.97 & -76 45 32.6 & 9.91 & M5.75 & 117 & 3024\\
659: ChaH$\alpha$13 & 11 08 17.03 & -77 44 11.8 & 10.67 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
660: ChaH$\alpha$5 & 11 08 24.11 & -77 41 47.4 & 10.71 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
661: ISO235 & 11 10 07.85 & -77 27 48.1 & 11.34 & M5.5 & 134 & 3058\\
662: CHXR78C & 11 08 54.22 & -77 32 11.6 & 11.22 & M5.25 & 153 & 3091\\
663: CHXR15\tablenotemark{e} & 11 05 43.00 & -77 26 51.8 & 10.23 & M5.25 & 153 & 3091\\
664: \hline
665: ChaIIC41\tablenotemark{d} & 12 59 09.8 & -76 51 04 & 11.4 & M5.5 & 109 & 3058\\
666: GY 5\tablenotemark{d} & 16 26 21.4 & -24 25 59 & 10.92 & M6 & 81 & 2990\\
667: 2MASS1207-3932\tablenotemark{d} & 12 07 33.4 & -39 32 54 & 11.95 & M8 & 42 & 2710\\
668: \enddata
669: \tablenotetext{a}{2MASS Point Source Catalogue (Cutri et al. 2003), save for ESO559 and GY5, which are
670: from Com\'eron et al. (2004) and Natta et al. (2002).}
671: %\tablenotetext{b}{$A_K$ calculated using Mathis (1990) extinction laws
672: %from $A_J$ reported in Com\'eron et al. (2004) for ESO559, Natta et al. (2002) for GY 5,
673: %and Luhman (2004) for other Cha I members. $A_K=0$ assumed for 2MASS1207-3932 and
674: %ChaII C41 as there are no extinction measurements in the literature)}
675: \tablenotetext{b}{Spectral types from Com\'eron et al. (2004) for ESO559, Natta et al. (2002) for GY 5,
676: Barrado \& Jayawardhana (2004) for ChaII C41, Gizis (2002) for 2MASS1207-3932,
677: and Luhman (2004) for all others. Effective temperature is obtained from the spectral types using the Luhman et al. (2003) temperature conversion scale. For the binaries, we assume that the
678: quoted effective temperature is the temperature of the
679: brighter component.}
680: \tablenotetext{c}{Masses calculated from $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and evolutionary models of Baraffe et al.\,(1998,2003)
681: assuming an age of 2 Myr for Cha I, 1 Myr for $\rho$ Oph and Cha II, and 8 Myr for TW Hydrae. We also make a cautionary note: pre-main-sequence mass models are poorly calibrated and are also vulnerable to the age spread of Cha I, resulting in significant uncertainties.}
682: \tablenotetext{d}{Object observed during the preliminary survey from May to September 2005.}
683: \tablenotetext{e}{Detected binaries. Masses of the primaries are listed.}
684: \end{deluxetable}
685:
686:
687: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
688: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
689: %%\rotate
690: \tablecaption{Resolved Binaries \label{TABLE 2}}
691: \tablewidth{0pt}
692: \tablehead{
693: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{Sep($\arcsec$)\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{PA($\degr)$\tablenotemark{a,b}} & \colhead{Band} & \colhead{$m_A$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$m_B$} & \colhead{mass ratio\tablenotemark{c}}
694: }
695: \startdata
696: ChaH$\alpha$2 & $0.164 \pm 0.003$ & $40.6 \pm 1.9$ & Ks & $11.39 \pm 0.05$ & $11.47 \pm 0.06$ & 0.94 \\
697: Hn13 & $0.128 \pm 0.002$ & $318.0 \pm 1.9$ & Ks & $10.62 \pm 0.04$ & $10.70 \pm 0.04$ & 0.95 \\
698: Hn13 & $0.128 \pm 0.002$ & $318.7 \pm 1.9$ & H & $11.11 \pm 0.05$ & $11.25 \pm 0.05$ & --- \\
699: CHXR15 & $0.305 \pm 0.002$ & $200.0 \pm 1.4$ & Ks & $10.73 \pm 0.05$ & $11.33 \pm 0.07$ & 0.64 \\
700: CHXR15 & $0.304 \pm 0.003$ & $200.0 \pm 1.4$ & H & $11.14 \pm 0.05$ & $11.67 \pm 0.07$ & --- \\
701: \enddata
702: \tablenotetext{a}{Position angle is measured from north to east.}
703:
704: \tablenotetext{b}{Photometry and astrometry measurements (along with uncertainties) of the two
705: components were obtained with the DAOPHOT routine in IRAF. Additionally, there
706: is a 1$\degr$ systematic uncertainty on the position angle. After measuring the flux
707: ratio of the primary and the secondary, we use it along with the 2MASS catalogue
708: K$_{\mathrm{s}}$ and H magnitudes for the combined flux to determine the magnitudes of each
709: component. We obtain the masses from effective temperatures.}
710:
711: \tablenotetext{c}{Uncertainties in the mass ratio are dominated by systematics (eg.,
712: unresolved higher order multiplicity, intrinsic variability of young VLMOs).}
713: \end{deluxetable}
714:
715:
716: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
717: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
718: %%\rotate
719: \tablecaption{Statistical Sample Comparison \label{TABLE 3}}
720: \tablewidth{0pt}
721: \tablehead{
722: \colhead{\# of Binaries/Sample A Size} &
723: \colhead{\# of Binaries/Sample B Size} & \colhead{Likelihood}
724: }
725: \startdata
726: \sidehead{\textbf{Lower Mass Young VLMOs $(<0.07 \msun)$ \& Higher Mass Young VLMOs ($0.07-0.15 \msun$)}}
727: 0/27,0/21 & 8/45,6/39 & 0.02,0.08 \\
728: \hline
729: \sidehead{\textbf{Young VLMOs ($0.04-0.15 \msun$) \& Young Stars ($0.57-1.40 \msun$)}}
730: 9/70,7/58 & 12/34,12/34 & 0.02,0.01 \\
731: \hline
732:
733: \enddata
734: %%\tablenotetext{a}{Position angle is measured from north to east}
735: \tablecomments{Entries listed in each column represent samples and statistical comparisons with and without Upper Scorpius members.}
736: \end{deluxetable}
737: \end{document}
738:
739: %%
740: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
741: