1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\etal}{{et al.}\@ }
3: \newcommand{\eg}{{e.g.,}\@ }
4: \newcommand{\ie}{{i.e.,}\@ }
5: \newcommand{\distmod}{($m-M_{\rm V}$)}
6: \newcommand{\Av}{$A_{\rm V}$}
7: \newcommand{\Vmax}{$1/V_{\rm max}${ }}
8: \newcommand{\Teff}{$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$}
9: \newcommand{\logg}{{log $g$}}
10: \shorttitle{WDLF from SDSS Spectra}
11: \shortauthors{DeGennaro \etal}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{White Dwarf Luminosity and Mass Functions from Sloan Digital Sky Survey Spectra}
16: \shorttitle{SDSS White Dwarf Luminosity Function}
17:
18: \author{Steven DeGennaro\altaffilmark{1}, Ted von Hippel\altaffilmark{1}, D. E. Winget\altaffilmark{1},
19: S. O. Kepler\altaffilmark{2}, Atsuko Nitta\altaffilmark{3}, Detlev Koester\altaffilmark{4},
20: Leandro Althaus\altaffilmark{5,6}}
21: \altaffiltext{1}{The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Astronomy, 1 University Station C1400, Austin, TX 78712-0259}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Instituto de F\'\i sica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 91501-900 Porto-Alegre,RS,Brazil}
23: \altaffiltext{3}{Gemini Observatory, Hilo, HI 96720, USA}
24: \altaffiltext{4}{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, Universit\"at Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany}
25: \altaffiltext{5}{Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'omicas y Geof\'{\i}sicas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, \
26: Paseo del Bosque S/N, 1900, La Plata, Argentina}
27: \altaffiltext{6}{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica La Plata, IALP, CONICET}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We present the first phase in our ongoing work to use Sloan Digital Sky
31: Survey (SDSS) data to create separate white dwarf (WD) luminosity functions
32: for two or more different mass ranges. In this paper, we determine
33: the completeness of the SDSS spectroscopic white dwarf sample by
34: comparing a proper-motion selected sample of WDs from SDSS imaging
35: data with a large catalog of spectroscopically determined WDs. We
36: derive a selection probability as a function of a single color ($g-i$)
37: and apparent magnitude ($g$) that covers the range $-1.0 < g-i < 0.2$
38: and $15 < g < 19.5$. We address the observed upturn in log $g$ for
39: white dwarfs with $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \lesssim$ 12,000K and offer
40: arguments that the problem is limited to the line profiles and is
41: not present in the continuum. We offer an empirical method of
42: removing the upturn, recovering a reasonable mass function for white
43: dwarfs with $T_{\mathrm{eff}}<$ 12,000K. Finally, we present a white
44: dwarf luminosity function with nearly an order of magnitude (3,358)
45: more spectroscopically confirmed white dwarfs than any previous work.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{white dwarfs --- stars: luminosity function --- stars: mass function}
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51: Because white dwarfs cannot replenish the energy they radiate
52: away---any residual nuclear burning is negligible and gravitational
53: contraction is severely impeded by electron degeneracy---their
54: luminosity decreases monotonically with time. A thorough knowledge
55: of the rate at which WDs cool can provide a valuable ``cosmic clock''
56: to determine the ages of many Galactic populations, including the
57: disk \citep{Winget87,LDM,Leggett98,Knox99}, and open and globular
58: clusters \citep{Claver95,vonHippel95,Richer98,Claver01,Hansen02,Hansen04,
59: vonHippel06,Hansen07,Jeffery07}. With more accurate models of the cooling
60: physics of white dwarfs, heavily constrained by empirical evidence,
61: it may be possible to determine absolute ages with greater precision
62: than using main-sequence evolution theory. In addition to applications
63: in astronomy, white dwarfs allow us to probe the physics of degenerate
64: matter at temperatures and densities no terrestrial laboratory can
65: duplicate.
66:
67: Attempts at an empirical luminosity function (LF) for white dwarfs
68: date as far back as \citet{Luyten58} and \citet{Weidemann67}. The
69: low-luminosity shortfall, discovered by \citet{Liebert79}, and
70: attributed by \citet{Winget87} to the finite age of the Galactic
71: disk, was confirmed and explored more fully when a greater volume
72: of reliable data on low-luminosity WDs became available
73: \citep{LDM, Wood92}. More recently, Sloan Digital Sky
74: Survey (SDSS) photometric data have been used to provide a much
75: more detailed luminosity function with more than an order of
76: magnitude more white dwarfs than previously attempted
77: \citep{Harris06}, as well a new LF of a large sample of
78: spectroscopically confirmed WDs \citep{Hu07}. However, to
79: date no one has published a well-populated luminosity function
80: that does not include a wide range of masses and spectral types.
81: Thus, much of the important physics of white dwarf cooling remains
82: buried in the data.
83:
84: Until recently, empirical WD luminosity functions, especially
85: those derived from stars with spectra, have been hampered
86: by a limited volume of reliable data. This has forced a trade-off
87: between the number of stars included in a sample, and their
88: homogeneity; either a broad range of temperatures, masses, and
89: spectral types must be used, or else the sample population of stars
90: would be so small as to render reliable conclusions difficult.
91: Recently, the situation has changed dramatically. Data from SDSS
92: DR4 have yielded nearly 10,000 white dwarf spectra. All of these
93: spectra have been fitted with model atmospheres to determine their
94: effective temperatures and surface gravities \citep{Kleinman04,
95: Krzesinski04, Eisenstein06, Hugelmeyer06, Kepler07}.
96:
97: In a companion paper to be published shortly, we intend to focus
98: on how the WD cooling rate changes with WD mass.
99: Theoretical work has been done in this area \citep{Wood92,
100: Fontaine01}, but to date, attempts at creating an empirical LF to
101: explore the effects of mass have relied on limited sample sizes
102: \citep{Liebert05}. In order to further isolate the effect of
103: mass, we have chosen to study only the DA white dwarfs---white
104: dwarfs which show only lines of hydrogen in their spectra---which
105: comprise $\sim$86\% of all white dwarfs.
106:
107: In addition to helping unlock the physics of white dwarfs,
108: creating luminosity functions for several mass bins can also
109: help to disentangle the effects of changes in cooling rates
110: from changes in star formation rates. A burst or dip in star
111: formation at a given instant in Galactic history should be
112: recorded in all of the luminosity functions, regardless of mass,
113: and could be confirmed by its position across the various mass bins.
114: For example, a short burst of increased star formation would be
115: seen as a bump in each luminosity function, occurring at cooler
116: temperatures in the higher mass LF (these stars, with shorter
117: MS lifetimes, have had longer to cool). On the other hand,
118: features intrinsic to the cooling physics of the white
119: dwarfs themselves should be seen in places that correspond
120: with the underlying physics, which may be earlier, later, or
121: nearly concurrent across mass bins. These effects include
122: neutrino cooling, crystallization, the onset of convective
123: coupling \citep{Fontaine01}, and Debye cooling
124: \citep{Althaus07}.
125:
126: The current paper lays the groundwork for this analysis.
127: In Section \ref{data}, we introduce the data, examining the methods
128: used to classify spectra and derive quantities of interest (dominant
129: atmospheric element, \Teff, and log $g$). We also address the observed
130: upturn in log $g$ for DAs below ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}} \sim$ 12,000K.
131: We present several lines of reasoning that the upturn is an artifact
132: of the line fitting procedure, and propose an empirical method for
133: correcting the problem. Section \ref{construction} outlines the
134: methods used to construct the luminosity and mass function and determine
135: error bars.
136:
137: In Section \ref{completeness}, we present an analysis of the
138: completeness of our data sample. We use a well-defined sample
139: of proper-motion selected, photometrically determined white
140: dwarfs in SDSS \citep{Harris06} to determine our completeness
141: and derive a correction as a function of $g-i$ color and $g$
142: magnitude. Finally, in Section \ref{discussion}, we present
143: our best luminosity and mass functions for the entire DA
144: spectroscopic sample and discuss the impact of both our
145: empirical log $g$ correction and our completeness correction.
146:
147: \section{The Data}
148: \label{data}
149: Our white dwarf data comes mainly from \citet{Eisenstein06}, a
150: catalog of spectroscopically identified white dwarfs from the
151: Fourth Data Release (DR4) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
152: \citep{York00}. The SDSS is a survey of $\sim$8,000
153: square degrees of sky at high Galactic latitudes. It is, first and
154: foremost, a redshift survey of galaxies and quasars. Large ``stripes''
155: of sky are imaged in 5 bands (u,g,r,i,z) and objects are selected,
156: on the basis of color and morphology, to be followed up with
157: spectroscopy, accomplished by means of twin fiber-fed spectrographs,
158: each with separate red and blue channels with a combined wavelength
159: coverage of about 3800 to 9200\AA{ }and a resolution of 1800. Objects
160: are assigned fibers based on their priority in accomplishing SDSS science
161: objectives, with high redshift galaxies, ``bright red galaxies'' and
162: quasars receiving the highest priority. Stars are assigned fibers for
163: spectrophotometric calibration, and other classes of objects are only
164: assigned fibers that are left over on each plate. More detailed
165: descriptions of the target selection and tiling algorithms can be found
166: in \citet{Stoughton02} and \citet{Blanton03}.
167:
168: Though white dwarfs are given their own (low priority) category in the
169: spectroscopic selection algorithms, very few white dwarfs are targeted
170: in this way. Rather, most of the white dwarfs in SDSS obtain spectra
171: only through the ``back door,'' most often when the imaging pipeline mistakes
172: them for quasars. \citet{Kleinman04} list the various
173: algorithms that target objects ultimately determined to be white
174: dwarfs in DR1 (their Table 1). White dwarfs are most commonly targeted
175: by the QSO and SERENDIPITY\_BLUE algorithms, with significant contributions
176: also from HOT\_STANDARD (standard stars targeted for spectrophotometric
177: calibration) and SERENDIPITY\_DISTANT. Of the significant contributors,
178: the STAR\_WHITE\_DWARF category contributes the least to the
179: population of WD spectra.
180:
181: The SDSS Data Release 4 contains nearly 850,000 spectra.
182: Several groups have already attempted to sort through them to find
183: white dwarfs: \citet{Harris03} for the Early Data Release,
184: \citet{Kleinman04} for Data Release 1 (DR1), and most recently,
185: \citet{Eisenstein06} for the DR4, from which the majority of our
186: data sample derives, though a handful of stars from DR1 omitted by
187: Eisenstein have been re-included from \citet{Kleinman04}. Most
188: recently, \citet{Kepler07} have refit the DA and DB stars from
189: \citet{Eisenstein06} with an expanded grid of models. A complete
190: analysis of the methods by which candidate objects are chosen, spectra
191: fitted, and quantities of interest are calculated can be found in
192: \citet{Kleinman04}, \citet{Eisenstein06}, and \citet{Kepler07}.
193: We put forth a brief outline here, with special attention paid to those
194: aspects important to our own analysis.
195:
196: Objects in the SDSS spectroscopic database are put through several
197: cuts in color designed to separate the WDs from the main stellar locus.
198: Figure 1 in \citet{Eisenstein06} shows the location of these cuts.
199: The chief failing of their particular choices of cuts, as noted by the
200: authors, is that WDs with temperatures below $\sim$8,000K begin to
201: overlap in color-color space with the far more numerous A and F stars,
202: and they have not attempted to dig these stars out. The SDSS
203: spectroscopic pipeline calculates a redshift for each object by
204: looking for prominent lines in the spectrum. Objects with redshifts
205: higher than z=0.003 are eliminated, unless the object has a proper
206: motion from USNO-A greater than 0.3'' per year. Because the
207: spectroscopic pipeline is fully automated, occasionally DC white
208: dwarfs show weak noise features that can be misinterpreted as
209: low-confidence redshifts. Other types of WD, particularly magnetic
210: WDs, can fool the pipeline as well. In the present paper we are
211: concerned chiefly with DA white dwarfs, so this incompleteness is
212: of importance only insofar as we use the entire set of white dwarf
213: spectral types to derive our completeness correction, as outlined
214: in Section \ref{completeness}. We explore the implications of this
215: more fully in that section.
216:
217: \citet{Eisenstein06} then use a $\chi^{2}$ minimization technique
218: to fit the spectra and photometry of the candidate objects with
219: separate model atmospheres of pure hydrogen and pure helium
220: \citep{Finley97, Koester01} to determine the dominant element,
221: effective temperature, surface gravity, and associated errors.
222: As their Figure 2 demonstrates, they recover a remarkably complete
223: and uncontaminated sample of the candidate stars. They
224: believe that they have recovered nearly all of the DA white dwarfs hotter
225: than 10,000K with SDSS spectra.
226:
227: These stars form the core of our data sample. Their final table lists
228: data on 10,088 white dwarfs. Of these, 7,755 are classified as single,
229: non-magnetic DAs. \citet{Kepler07} re-fit the spectra for these
230: stars using the same autofit method and Koester model atmospheres,
231: but with a denser grid which also included models up
232: to log $g$ of 10.0. Where they differ from Eisenstein's,
233: we use these newer fits in our analysis. Of these 7,755 entries,
234: $\sim$600 are actually duplicate spectra of the same star. For our
235: analysis we take an average of the values derived from each
236: individual spectra weighted by the quoted errors. Our final sample
237: contains 7,128 single, non-magnetic DA white dwarfs.
238:
239: As noted by \citet{Kleinman04} and others, the surface gravities
240: determined from Sloan spectra show a suspicious upturn below
241: temperatures of about 12,000K which increases at cooler temperatures,
242: as shown in our Figure \ref{upturn}.
243:
244: A number of separate pieces of evidence argue that this upturn
245: in log $g$---and thus mass---is an artifact of the models and not
246: a real effect. Not least among these is that no one has yet
247: provided any satisfactory mechanism by which WDs could gain
248: enough mass or shrink enough in radius as they cool to
249: account for the magnitude of the effect. We do expect a slight
250: increase in mass at cooler temperatures because in a galaxy of
251: finite age, the cooler white dwarfs must come from higher
252: mass progenitors. This is the reason for the upward slope of the
253: blue dashed line in Figure \ref{upturn}. However, this effect
254: is clearly small compared to the upturn observed in the actual data.
255:
256: Furthermore, \citet{Engelbrecht06}, and \citet{Kepler07}
257: demonstrated that the masses derived solely from the colors do not
258: show an increase in mass for cooler stars, which indicates that
259: the problem is not physical, but a result of either the line
260: fitting procedure or the line profiles themselves.
261:
262: Figure \ref{colors} further illustrates the above point. The upper
263: panel shows the colors derived from the synthetic spectra at the
264: values of \Teff{ }and log $g$ quoted by \citet{Kepler07} (\ie the
265: values in Figure \ref{upturn}), overlaid on the actual SDSS
266: photometry for the same objects. Contrast this with the lower panel,
267: which instead shows the colors derived from the synthetic spectra
268: when the excess log $g$ has been removed (in a manner described below;
269: the resulting values are shown in Figure \ref{noupturn}). The colors
270: in the latter figure agree much better with the measured color of
271: the object.
272:
273: Furthermore, \citet{Kepler07} found a similar increase
274: in mean mass for the SDSS DB white dwarfs below
275: {${T}_{\mathrm{eff}} \sim$ 16,000K}. They conclude that since
276: a) the problem only shows up in the line profiles and not
277: the continuum, and b) the onset of the effect in both hydrogen
278: (DA) and helium (DB) atmosphere WDs occurs at just the effective
279: temperature where the neutral species of the atmospheric element
280: begins to dominate, then the problem lies in the treatment of
281: line broadening by neutral particles. This is supported further
282: by the fact that as the species continues to become more
283: neutral (\ie as the temperature drops), the problem grows worse.
284:
285: However, more recent model calculations indicate that neutral
286: broadening is not important in the DA white dwarfs at temperatures
287: down to at least than 8,500K. Other possible mechanisms to explain
288: the observed upturn in log $g$ include a flawed or incomplete
289: treatment of convection, leading to errors in the temperature
290: structure of the outer layers of the WD models, or the
291: convective mixing of helium from a lower layer in the atmosphere
292: \citep{Bergeron90, Bergeron95b}. The latter would require a hydrogen
293: layer much thinner than any seismologically determined in a DA
294: so far \citep{Bradley98, Bradley01, Bradley06}.
295:
296: Until the problem with the model atmospheres is resolved, the best
297: we can do is to empirically remove the log $g$ upturn. For a given
298: \Teff, we subtract the excess in the measured mean value (as fit by
299: the red solid lines in Figure \ref{upturn}) over the theoretically
300: expected mean (blue dashed line). Figure \ref{noupturn} shows the
301: resulting values used. In fitting out the upturn this way,
302: we make two implicit assumptions. First, that the excess log $g$ is
303: a function only of \Teff; if the problem is indeed due to the
304: treatment of neutral particles, we would expect only a small
305: dependence on log $g$. Second, we assume that the problem affects
306: only the log $g$ determination and not \Teff. This latter assumption
307: is unlikely to be true, as the two parameters are correlated.
308: In Section \ref{discussion} we explore more fully the impact of
309: this fitting procedure on the luminosity and mass functions.
310:
311: \section{Constructing The Luminosity And Mass Functions}
312: \label{construction}
313:
314: Since we are dealing with a magnitude-limited sample, the most
315: luminous stars in our sample can be seen to much further distances
316: than the intrinsically fainter stars. We thus expect more of them,
317: proportionally, than we would in a purely volume-limited sample, and
318: must make a correction for the different observing volumes. As
319: shown by \citet{Wood98} and \citet{Geijo06}, the \Vmax
320: method of \citet{Schmidt68} \citep[described more fully in, e.g.][]{Green80,FLG}
321: provides an unbiased and reliable characterization of the WDLF.
322:
323: In the \Vmax method, each star's contribution to the total space density is
324: weighted in inverse proportion to the total volume over which it
325: would still be included in the magnitude limited sample. Since the
326: stars are not spherically distributed, but lie preferentially in the
327: plane of the Galaxy, an additional correction for the scale height of
328: the Galactic disk must be included. For the purposes of comparison
329: with previous work, we adopt a scale height of 250pc.
330:
331: To determine the absolute magnitude of each WD, we use the effective
332: temperatures and log $g$ values provided by \citet{Kepler07}---as
333: corrected in Section \ref{data}---and fit each WD with an
334: evolutionary model to determine the mass and radius. For
335: {$7.0 <$ log $g < 9.0$}, we use the mixed C/O models of \citet{Wood95}
336: and \citet{Fontaine01}, as calculated by \citet{Bergeron95a}. For
337: {$9.0 <$ log $g < 10.0$}, we use the models of \citet{Althaus05}
338: with O/Ne cores, including additional sequences for masses larger than
339: 1.3 ${M}_{\odot}$ calculated specifically for \citet{Kepler07}. Once we
340: know the radius, we can calculate the absolute magnitude in each Sloan
341: band by convolving the synthetic WD atmospheres of Koester \citep{Finley97,
342: Koester01} with the Sloan filter curves. We apply bolometric
343: corrections from \citet{Bergeron95a} to determine the bolometric
344: magnitude. For the handful of stars ($\sim$80-100) with log $g$ values
345: outside the range covered by Bergeron's tables, we use a simple
346: linear extrapolation.
347:
348: We then determine photometric distances to each star from the
349: observed SDSS $g$ magnitude. SDSS, being concerned mostly with
350: extragalactic objects, reports the total interstellar absorption
351: along each line of sight from the reddening maps of \citet{Schlegel98}.
352: Since the objects in our sample lie within the Galaxy, and most of
353: them within a few hundred parsecs, they are affected by only a
354: fraction of this reddening. Following \citet{Harris06}, we
355: therefore assume: 1) that objects within 100pc are not affected
356: by reddening, 2) objects with Galactic height $\left|{z}\right|$ $>$
357: 250pc are reddened by the full amount, and 3) that the reddening
358: varies linearly between these two values. The distances and
359: reddening are then fit iteratively from the observed and calculated
360: absolute $g$ magnitude. In practice, the reddening correction
361: makes very little difference to the final LF (typical ${A}_{g}$ values
362: range from 0.01 to 0.05).
363:
364: We calculate error bars on the luminosity function using a Monte-Carlo
365: simulation, drawing random deviates in \Teff, \logg, and each band of
366: photometry from gaussian distributions centered around the measured
367: value. The standard deviations in \Teff{ }and log $g$ we use for
368: this scattering are 1.2 times the formal errors quoted in
369: \citet{Eisenstein06} (their own analysis, based on repeated autofit
370: measurements on duplicate spectra of the same stars, suggests that
371: the formal errors derived by their method are $\sim$20\% too small).
372: The photometry errors come directly from the SDSS database. After
373: scattering the parameters in this way, we recalculate the LF. We then
374: add in quadrature the standard deviation of each LF bin after 200
375: iterations and the counting error for each bin (the errors for each
376: individual star---taken to be of the order of the star's \Vmax
377: statistical weight---summed in quadrature).
378:
379: At a S/N of 16---the mean for the stars in our sample brighter than
380: $g = 19.5$---formal errors in \Teff{ }and log $g$ are of order 1.5\%.
381: When propagated through our code, the mean errors in ${M}_{bol}$ and
382: mass are 0.35 dex and 9\% (0.05 ${M}_{\odot}$) respectively. For the
383: stars brighter than $g = 19.0$ used to compile our mass functions
384: the average S/N is 19.5, leading to errors in ${M}_{bol}$ and mass
385: of 0.35 dex and 7\% (0.04 ${M}_{\odot}$).
386:
387: \section{Completeness Corrections}
388: \label{completeness}
389:
390: The chief difficulty we have encountered in deriving our luminosity
391: functions is unraveling the complicated way in which SDSS objects
392: are assigned spectral fibers. SDSS is foremost a survey of
393: extragalactic objects and rarely targets white dwarfs for
394: follow up spectroscopy explicitly. Most of the objects in our sample
395: are targeted by some other algorithm. In particular, there is
396: considerable overlap in color between white dwarfs and many QSOs.
397:
398: A completeness correction could, in theory, be built from ``first principles.''
399: We know, for each object in the SDSS spectroscopic database, by which
400: algorithm(s) it was targeted (or rejected) for spectroscopy, and by which
401: algorithm it was ultimately assigned a fiber. And for each algorithm,
402: we know which objects were targeted, which were ultimately assigned a
403: fiber, and which, of the targeted objects, turned out to be WDs. However,
404: the selection process is a multi-variate function of 5 apparent magnitudes,
405: and colors in spaces of as many as 4 dimensions (which vary based on the
406: algorithm), as well as the complex tiling algorithm. We believe such an
407: undertaking to be unnecessary. Instead we have chosen to compare our
408: sample with the stars used to derive the WDLF of \citet{Harris06}.
409: Given certain assumptions about completeness and contamination in both
410: data sets, we derive a completeness correction as a function of a single
411: color index {($g - i$)} and $g$ magnitude.
412:
413: The \citet{Harris06} sample comes from photometric data in the
414: SDSS Data Release 3. They selected objects by using the reduced proper
415: motion diagram to separate WDs from more luminous subdwarfs of the
416: same color. Briefly, they used color and proper motion
417: \citep[from USNO-B][]{Munn04} to determine WD candidates from SDSS
418: imaging data. They then fit candidates with WD model atmosphere colors
419: to determine temperatures and absolute magnitudes, from which they derived
420: photometric distances and---together with proper motion---tangential
421: velocities. In order to minimize contamination, they adopted a tangential
422: velocity cutoff of 30 km/s and rejected all stars below this limit. The
423: remaining 6,000 objects are, with a high and well-defined degree of
424: certainty ($\sim98 - 99\%$), likely to be white dwarfs.
425:
426: If the database of SDSS spectra were complete, all of these objects would
427: (eventually) have spectra, and all but the 1-2\% of contaminating objects
428: would be confirmed to be WDs. Furthermore, all of the WDs that did
429: \emph{not} make it into the Harris \etal sample---because they were either
430: missing from the \citet{Munn04} proper motion catalog, or had a tangential
431: velocity below 30 km/s---would also all have spectra. In such a perfect
432: world, of course, no completeness correction would be necessary. However,
433: since SDSS does not obtain a spectrum of every object in its photometric
434: database, a significant percentage of the objects in Harris \etal will not
435: have spectra, or else will be dropped at some later point by Eisenstein \etal
436: and thus not make it into our spectroscopic sample. Our goal, then, is to
437: look at all of the WDs in the Harris \etal sample that potentially \emph{could}
438: have made it into our sample, and determine which ones in fact did. If we
439: assume that the WDs \emph{not} in Harris \etal follow the same distribution
440: (an assumption we discuss more fully below), then we can take this as a
441: measure of the overall detection probability and invert it to get a
442: completeness correction.
443:
444: The imaging area of the DR3, from which Harris \etal derive their sample,
445: is not the same as the spectroscopic area in the DR4. Therefore, for the
446: purposes of this comparison, we removed all stars not found in the area
447: of sky common to the two data sets from their respective samples. This
448: left 5,340 objects classified as white dwarfs by Harris \etal that could
449: potentially have been recovered by Eisenstein et al. Of these, 2,572 were
450: assigned spectral fibers in DR4, and 2,346 were ultimately confirmed by
451: Eisenstein \etal to be white dwarfs.
452:
453: Since we wish to restrict our analysis to single (\ie non-binary) DA white
454: dwarfs, we removed all stars classified as DA+M stars in either catalog.
455: Unfortunately, given that the Harris catalog contains no further
456: information as to the type of WD, we were unable to remove the non
457: DA stars and simply compare what remains with the Eisenstein sample.
458: Instead, we compute the completeness for all of the WDs, under the
459: assumption---explored more fully below---that DAs, as the largest
460: component of the WD population, dominate the selection function.
461:
462: Figure \ref{QSOfig} shows a comparison of the two samples. The open
463: symbols are the complete Harris \etal sample (excluding those, as
464: mentioned above, with {${V}_{tan} < 30$ km/s}, those not in the region of
465: sky covered by spectroscopy, and the DA+M stars). The gray squares lie
466: outside the cuts in color-color space imposed by Eisenstein {et al.}
467: They may have spectra in SDSS, but they were not fit by Eisenstein {et al.},
468: and therefore will not have made it into our sample. The filled green circles
469: are the stars that \emph{are} in Eisenstein \etal{ }In other words, if the
470: SDSS spectral coverage of WDs were complete, and Eisenstein \etal recovered
471: every WD spectra in SDSS, then all of the open circles would be filled. The
472: inside of the blue box is the exclusion region for SDSS's QSO targeting
473: algorithm \citep{Richards02}, specifically implemented to eliminate WDs
474: from their sample. Note that our sample is more complete for the stars outside
475: this region.
476:
477: Figure \ref{completenessfig} shows the discovery probability as a function of
478: $g-i$ color and $g$ magnitude. Darker areas mean a higher probability of
479: discovery, with black indicating that all the WDs in the Harris \etal
480: sample in that area of color-magnitude space made it into our sample.
481: We have performed a box smoothing to eliminate small scale fluctuations.
482:
483: There is a drop off in discovery probability for stars bluer than
484: ${g-i\sim -0.2}$ at all apparent magnitudes. This corresponds to the
485: red edge of the exclusion region of the QSO targeting algorithm, as noted above.
486: The QSO algorithm is also itself a function of apparent magnitude, which
487: accounts for the general decrease at fainter magnitudes in the
488: red half of the diagram, and the much steeper drop off between ${g\simeq19}$
489: and ${g\simeq19.5}$. The bluer stars (${g-i\lesssim -0.2}$), most of which
490: are targeted by the HOT\_STANDARD or SERENDIPITY\_BLUE algorithms,
491: show the opposite: a slight increase at fainter magnitudes.
492:
493: To give a better sense of the order of magnitude of our completeness,
494: Figure \ref{completenesshist} shows a histogram of the values in
495: Figure \ref{completenessfig}. For most of the cells that end up in
496: the bins for 0, 1, and 0.5, the Harris \etal sample contains only one
497: or two stars. The mean completeness for the whole sample is $\sim 51\%$.
498:
499: To derive our final completeness correction, we must further consider the
500: incompleteness and contamination in the Harris \etal sample itself.
501: Assuming that the SDSS photometric database is essentially complete
502: down to $g=19.5$, then the incompleteness in Harris \etal comes mainly from
503: two sources: 1) the incompleteness in the \citet{Munn04} proper motion
504: catalog, and 2) the tangential velocity limit of 30 km/s imposed, which
505: results in some low tangential velocity WDs being dropped from the sample.
506: However, with one negligible exception, none of the criteria used to target
507: objects for spectroscopy in SDSS, nor those used by Eisenstein \etal to
508: select white dwarf candidates, depends explicitly on proper motion or
509: tangential velocity. Thus we assume that the low-velocity stars---dropped
510: from the Harris \etal sample---will be recovered by Eisenstein with the
511: same probability as the high-velocity stars---\ie the stars in Figure
512: \ref{QSOfig}.
513:
514: Contamination poses a bit more challenging problem. At first glance,
515: it would seem that the reverse of the above process could be applied,
516: whereby those objects in Harris \etal which did get spectral
517: fibers---but were ultimately rejected as WDs by Eisenstein {et al.}---could
518: be removed from the sample, and those that did \emph{not}
519: get spectra could be assumed to follow the same distribution. This latter
520: assumption, however, is unlikely to be true. SDSS gives very low priority
521: to targeting white dwarfs specifically, and we would thus expect a larger
522: fraction of the objects that get spectral fibers to turn out to be
523: contaminating objects (in particular QSOs, of which we found 13 in the
524: Harris \etal sample) than if the fibers were assigned purely randomly.
525: Furthermore, many of the 225 objects which have spectra in DR4 but are
526: not included in the Eisenstein catalog may actually be white dwarfs
527: which Eisenstein's algorithms dropped for some other reason, e.g. they
528: lie outside the color and magnitude ranges used for initial candidate
529: selection, or there is a problem (low S/N, bad pixels) with the spectrum.
530: Approximately 100 appear to be DC white dwarfs to which the SDSS
531: spectroscopic pipeline assigned erroneous redhifts on the basis of weak
532: noise features. Ultimately, we have chosen to adopt the contamination
533: fraction of Harris \etal (2\%) for the whole sample, and have reduced
534: our final completeness correction accordingly. This choice has a
535: negligible effect on the small scale structure of the WDLF in which
536: we are interested.
537:
538: Finally, we note that the Harris \etal sample has an apparent magnitude
539: limit of ${g=19.5}$, whereas the spectroscopic sample contains objects
540: down to ${g\simeq20.5}$. Given that the SDSS targeting algorithms are
541: themselves functions of apparent magnitude, our completeness correction
542: is as well. An extrapolation of our discovery probability is problematic
543: in this area, though, because this is just the apparent magnitude where
544: the QSO targeting algorithm drops off rapidly. We have decided to impose
545: a magnitude cutoff of {$g=19.5$} in our sample. This reduces our
546: sample by nearly a half, with a corresponding increase in counting error.
547: However, because SDSS spectra have a small range of exposure times
548: (45-60min), fainter apparent magnitude usually translates directly
549: into lower S/N and larger errors in derived parameters.
550:
551: Figure \ref{mlimcomp} shows the luminosity functions we derive for
552: different choices of limiting magnitude. We take the generally good
553: agreement between the curves to indicate that our completeness correction
554: is doing its job correctly in the $g$ magnitude direction.
555:
556: Figure \ref{mlimmasscomp} similarly shows the mass functions we derive for
557: different choices of limiting magnitude. In the case of the mass function,
558: the S/N of the spectra becomes a much bigger factor. As a consequence of the
559: essentially constant exposure times of SDSS spectra, the parameters
560: (\Teff{ }and \logg) determined from the spectra of fainter objects
561: have larger errors, which causes a larger error in mass. Thus, the MF is
562: broadened when stars with ${g > 19.0}$ are included. For this reason,
563: \citet{Kepler07} limited their mass functions to stars with ${g \leq 19.0}$,
564: and we follow their lead for the remaining MFs in the current paper.
565:
566: \section{Luminosity Functions And Discussion}
567: \label{discussion}
568:
569: Figure \ref{wdmfcomp} shows the WD mass function we derive for all stars with
570: \Teff{ }$>12,000K$ and $g < 19.0$. The red dashed line is the MF corrected
571: only by \Vmax---\ie before we apply our completeness correction. It
572: generally shows good agreement with the MF derived in \citet{Kepler07}
573: (blue points), not surprising considering we use nearly the same
574: data set and very similar WD models. The small differences are
575: due to our use of slightly different sets of data and models, as well as
576: differing treatment of duplicate spectra, and can largely be considered
577: statistical fluctuations. We refer the interested reader to their paper
578: for a more in depth analysis of the WDMF.
579:
580: The solid black line in the upper panel shows our MF after correcting for
581: the completeness of the spectroscopic sample. This curve represents the true
582: local space density of WDs per cubic parsec per ${M}_{\odot}$ interval.
583: The bottom panel shows the total weight of each bin above the uncorrected
584: MF---essentially the final completeness correction for each bin. There is
585: little small scale variation from bin to bin, and our completeness correction
586: mainly has the effect of raising the normalization of the whole MF by a
587: factor of $\sim2.2$. In other words, the shape of the MF is not strongly
588: affected by the completeness correction.
589:
590: Figure \ref{allwdmf} is the WDMF for all stars down to 8,000K. The dashed red
591: line is for the data as reported by \citet{Kepler07}, the dotted blue line is
592: after our correction for the upturn in log $g$. The solid black line
593: is the WDMF for only those stars above 12,000K (\ie the same as Figure
594: \ref{wdmfcomp}) renormalized to the same scale for comparison purposes.
595: There are more high mass stars in general, and one spurriously large bin,
596: but on the whole, our log $g$ correction recovers a reasonable mass distribution
597: for stars cooler than 12,000K.
598:
599: Figure \ref{allwdlf} shows the luminosity function we derive for all
600: of the DA stars in our sample down to 7,000K for all stars with $g<19.5$.
601: In red is the LF for the data as reported; in black is the LF for the
602: data with the increase in log $g$ at low temperature removed. The
603: process of removing the excess log $g$ pushes stars to lower masses,
604: making them larger and therefore brighter for the same \Teff. In the
605: range plotted, the black curve contains a total of 3,358 WDs, while
606: the red contains 2,940.
607:
608: The lack of agreement between our best LF (black) and the \citet{Harris06}
609: luminosity function (blue) can be attributed, at least in part, to the
610: differing assumptions used in creating the two LFs. Harris \etal derived
611: their temperatures by fitting Bergeron models to the photometry assuming
612: a log $g$ of 8.0 for every star, a poor assumption for more than 30\% of WDs
613: \citep{Liebert05, Kepler07}. The temperatures they derive are
614: systematically different from the spectroscopic temperatures; Figure
615: \ref{Tcompfig} shows the fractional difference between the spectroscopically
616: and photometrically derived effective temperatures. When we use the
617: photometrically derived temperatures and set {log $g = 8.0$}, we recover
618: the Harris \etal LF fairly well.
619:
620: It should also be noted that the Harris \etal luminosity function is for
621: WDs of $all$ types, whereas ours is comprised only of the DAs. For
622: each bin in the Harris \etal LF, we have used the full \citet{Eisenstein06}
623: catalog to determine a rough DA fraction, and reduced the LF reported of
624: Harris \etal accordingly. This DA fraction---shown in Table 1---is in
625: generally good agreement with previous works \citep{FLG}, but we have
626: made no attempt to address selection biases in the Eisenstein \etal catalog.
627:
628: One other source of the discrepancy between our results and Harris \etal
629: is due to our assumption that whatever causes the observed upturn in log $g$
630: in the cooler stars affects only the log $g$ determination and does not
631: alter the spectroscopically derived \Teff. As the effects of the
632: two parameters on the line profiles are interdependent, this assumption is
633: probably not valid. The curves in Figure \ref{allwdlf} suggest that in
634: addition to the excess \logg, the temperatures determined by line fitting
635: for the cooler stars are probably too high. Ultimately, this area of the
636: spectroscopic WDLF will remain uncertain until the problems with the model
637: atmospheres have been resolved.
638:
639: The LF of \citet{Liebert05} shown in green in figure \ref{allwdlf} was
640: compiled from a small dataset (348 DA white dwarfs) based on a survey done
641: on photographic plates over 20 years ago on a 0.5m telescope. In addition
642: to low number statistics, the dataset suffers from a very difficult-to-quantify
643: incompleteness on the faint end, which is probably responsible for the lack of
644: agreement below ${M}_{bol}\sim9.5$.
645:
646: \section{Conclusions}
647:
648: Our eventual goal is to take advantage of the tremendous number of WDs
649: spectroscopically observed by SDSS and studied by \citet{Eisenstein06}
650: and others to create separate WD luminosity functions for two or more different
651: ranges of mass. This will effectively add a third dimension, currently
652: unexplored, to observational WD luminosity functions.
653:
654: In order to carry out this analysis, we must fully understand the manner
655: in which white dwarfs were selected to receive spectra in SDSS. By
656: comparing the proper-motion selected sample of \citet{Harris06} with
657: the spectroscopically determined WDs of \citet{Kleinman04} and
658: \citet{Eisenstein06}, we have derived a WD selection probability
659: over a range of parameters that includes nearly the entire useful range
660: of $g-i$ color ($-1.0 < g-i < 0.2$) and apparent $g$ magnitude ($15 < g < 19.5$).
661:
662: We have also presented additional arguments that the observed upturn in
663: \logg{ }is an artifact of the model atmosphere line-fitting procedure,
664: or---more likely---a problem with the line profiles themselves. Since it may
665: be some time before this problem is fully understood and addressed, we have
666: implemented a procedure to remove the excess \logg{ }empirically and
667: shown that the mass function recovered for the stars cooler than 12,000K
668: reasonably agrees with the MF for the hotter stars, which in turn agrees
669: well with previous work.
670:
671: Finally, we have presented the first WDLF for spectroscopically determined WDs
672: in the Fourth Data Release of the SDSS. In addition to addressing the
673: issues of completeness and the observed log $g$ upturn in a more systematic
674: manner than previously attempted, our LF contains the largest sample of
675: spectroscopically determined WDs to date (3,358), more than six times the
676: 531 presented in \citet{Hu07}, and more than an order of magnitude
677: more than the 298 stars included in the LF of \citet{Liebert05}.
678:
679: \acknowledgments
680: We would like to thank Scot Kleinman for providing unpublished fits of the
681: DA white dwarfs; Hugh Harris and Mukremin Kilic for access to the data and
682: code used to derive the \citet{Harris06} luminosity function, as well as
683: much helpful advice; Barbara Canstanheira, Elizabeth Jeffery, Agnes Kim,
684: Mike Montgomery, Fergal Mullally, and Kurtis Williams for many interesing
685: and insightful discussions.
686:
687: This material is based on work supported by the National Science
688: Foundation under grants AST 03-07315 and AST 06-07480. This material
689: is partially based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and
690: Space Administration under Grant No.\ NAG5-13070 issued through the
691: Office of Space Science.
692:
693: \begin{thebibliography}{50}
694: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
695:
696: \bibitem[{{Althaus} {et~al.}(2005){Althaus}, {Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro}, {Isern}, \&
697: {C{\'o}rsico}}]{Althaus05}
698: {Althaus}, L.~G., {Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro}, E., {Isern}, J., \& {C{\'o}rsico},
699: A.~H. 2005, \aap, 441, 689
700:
701: \bibitem[{{Althaus} {et~al.}(2007){Althaus}, {Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro}, {Isern},
702: {C{\'o}rsico}, \& {Rohrmann}}]{Althaus07}
703: {Althaus}, L.~G., {Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro}, E., {Isern}, J., {C{\'o}rsico}, A.~H.,
704: \& {Rohrmann}, R.~D. 2007, \aap, 465, 249
705:
706: \bibitem[{{Bergeron} {et~al.}(1995{\natexlab{a}}){Bergeron}, {Liebert}, \&
707: {Fulbright}}]{Bergeron95b}
708: {Bergeron}, P., {Liebert}, J., \& {Fulbright}, M.~S. 1995{\natexlab{a}}, \apj,
709: 444, 810
710:
711: \bibitem[{{Bergeron} {et~al.}(1995{\natexlab{b}}){Bergeron}, {Wesemael}, \&
712: {Beauchamp}}]{Bergeron95a}
713: {Bergeron}, P., {Wesemael}, F., \& {Beauchamp}, A. 1995{\natexlab{b}}, \pasp,
714: 107, 1047
715:
716: \bibitem[{{Bergeron} {et~al.}(1990){Bergeron}, {Wesemael}, {Fontaine}, \&
717: {Liebert}}]{Bergeron90}
718: {Bergeron}, P., {Wesemael}, F., {Fontaine}, G., \& {Liebert}, J. 1990, \apjl,
719: 351, L21
720:
721: \bibitem[{{Blanton} {et~al.}(2003)}]{Blanton03}
722: {Blanton}, M.~R. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 2276
723:
724: \bibitem[{{Bradley}(1998)}]{Bradley98}
725: {Bradley}, P.~A. 1998, \apjs, 116, 307
726:
727: \bibitem[{{Bradley}(2001)}]{Bradley01}
728: ---. 2001, \apj, 552, 326
729:
730: \bibitem[{{Bradley}(2006)}]{Bradley06}
731: ---. 2006, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 77, 437
732:
733: \bibitem[{{Claver}(1995)}]{Claver95}
734: {Claver}, C.~F. 1995, PhD thesis, AA(THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN.)
735:
736: \bibitem[{{Claver} {et~al.}(2001){Claver}, {Liebert}, {Bergeron}, \&
737: {Koester}}]{Claver01}
738: {Claver}, C.~F., {Liebert}, J., {Bergeron}, P., \& {Koester}, D. 2001, \apj,
739: 563, 987
740:
741: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Eisenstein06}
742: {Eisenstein}, D.~J. {et~al.} 2006, \apjs, 167, 40
743:
744: \bibitem[{{Engelbrecht} \& {Koester}(2007)}]{Engelbrecht06}
745: {Engelbrecht}, A. \& {Koester}, D. 2007, in press, Proceedings of the 15th
746: European Workshop on White Dwarfs, Leicester 2006
747:
748: \bibitem[{{Finley} {et~al.}(1997){Finley}, {Koester}, \& {Basri}}]{Finley97}
749: {Finley}, D.~S., {Koester}, D., \& {Basri}, G. 1997, \apj, 488, 375
750:
751: \bibitem[{{Fleming} {et~al.}(1986){Fleming}, {Liebert}, \& {Green}}]{FLG}
752: {Fleming}, T.~A., {Liebert}, J., \& {Green}, R.~F. 1986, \apj, 308, 176
753:
754: \bibitem[{{Fontaine} {et~al.}(2001){Fontaine}, {Brassard}, \&
755: {Bergeron}}]{Fontaine01}
756: {Fontaine}, G., {Brassard}, P., \& {Bergeron}, P. 2001, \pasp, 113, 409
757:
758: \bibitem[{{Geijo} {et~al.}(2006){Geijo}, {Torres}, {Isern}, \&
759: {Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro}}]{Geijo06}
760: {Geijo}, E.~M., {Torres}, S., {Isern}, J., \& {Garc{\'{\i}}a-Berro}, E. 2006,
761: \mnras, 369, 1654
762:
763: \bibitem[{{Green}(1980)}]{Green80}
764: {Green}, R.~F. 1980, \apj, 238, 685
765:
766: \bibitem[{{Hansen} {et~al.}(2002)}]{Hansen02}
767: {Hansen}, B.~M.~S. {et~al.} 2002, \apjl, 574, L155
768:
769: \bibitem[{{Hansen} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Hansen04}
770: ---. 2004, \apjs, 155, 551
771:
772: \bibitem[{{Hansen} {et~al.}(2007)}]{Hansen07}
773: ---. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
774:
775: \bibitem[{{Harris} {et~al.}(2003)}]{Harris03}
776: {Harris}, H.~C. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 126, 1023
777:
778: \bibitem[{{Harris} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Harris06}
779: ---. 2006, \aj, 131, 571
780:
781: \bibitem[{{Hu} {et~al.}(2007){Hu}, {Wu}, \& {Wu}}]{Hu07}
782: {Hu}, Q., {Wu}, C., \& {Wu}, X.-B. 2007, \aap, 466, 627
783:
784: \bibitem[{{H{\"u}gelmeyer} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Hugelmeyer06}
785: {H{\"u}gelmeyer}, S.~D. {et~al.} 2006, \aap, 454, 617
786:
787: \bibitem[{{Jeffery} {et~al.}(2007)}]{Jeffery07}
788: {Jeffery}, E.~J. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 658, 391
789:
790: \bibitem[{{Kepler} {et~al.}(2007)}]{Kepler07}
791: {Kepler}, S.~O. {et~al.} 2007, \mnras, 375, 1315
792:
793: \bibitem[{{Kleinman} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Kleinman04}
794: {Kleinman}, S.~J. {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 607, 426
795:
796: \bibitem[{{Knox} {et~al.}(1999){Knox}, {Hawkins}, \& {Hambly}}]{Knox99}
797: {Knox}, R.~A., {Hawkins}, M.~R.~S., \& {Hambly}, N.~C. 1999, \mnras, 306, 736
798:
799: \bibitem[{{Koester} {et~al.}(2001)}]{Koester01}
800: {Koester}, D. {et~al.} 2001, \aap, 378, 556
801:
802: \bibitem[{{Krzesi{\'n}ski} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Krzesinski04}
803: {Krzesi{\'n}ski}, J. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 417, 1093
804:
805: \bibitem[{{Leggett} {et~al.}(1998){Leggett}, {Ruiz}, \& {Bergeron}}]{Leggett98}
806: {Leggett}, S.~K., {Ruiz}, M.~T., \& {Bergeron}, P. 1998, \apj, 497, 294
807:
808: \bibitem[{{Liebert} {et~al.}(2005){Liebert}, {Bergeron}, \&
809: {Holberg}}]{Liebert05}
810: {Liebert}, J., {Bergeron}, P., \& {Holberg}, J.~B. 2005, \apjs, 156, 47
811:
812: \bibitem[{{Liebert} {et~al.}(1979){Liebert}, {Dahn}, {Gresham}, \&
813: {Strittmatter}}]{Liebert79}
814: {Liebert}, J., {Dahn}, C.~C., {Gresham}, M., \& {Strittmatter}, P.~A. 1979,
815: \apj, 233, 226
816:
817: \bibitem[{{Liebert} {et~al.}(1988){Liebert}, {Dahn}, \& {Monet}}]{LDM}
818: {Liebert}, J., {Dahn}, C.~C., \& {Monet}, D.~G. 1988, \apj, 332, 891
819:
820: \bibitem[{{Luyten}(1958)}]{Luyten58}
821: {Luyten}, W.~J. 1958, \emph{On the Frequency of White Dwarfs in Space}
822: (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Observatory)
823:
824: \bibitem[{{Munn} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Munn04}
825: {Munn}, J.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 3034
826:
827: \bibitem[{{Richards} {et~al.}(2002)}]{Richards02}
828: {Richards}, G.~T. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 2945
829:
830: \bibitem[{{Richer} {et~al.}(1998){Richer}, {Fahlman}, {Rosvick}, \&
831: {Ibata}}]{Richer98}
832: {Richer}, H.~B., {Fahlman}, G.~G., {Rosvick}, J., \& {Ibata}, R. 1998, \apjl,
833: 504, L91+
834:
835: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
836: {Davis}}]{Schlegel98}
837: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
838:
839: \bibitem[{{Schmidt}(1968)}]{Schmidt68}
840: {Schmidt}, M. 1968, \apj, 151, 393
841:
842: \bibitem[{{Stoughton} {et~al.}(2002)}]{Stoughton02}
843: {Stoughton}, C. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 485
844:
845: \bibitem[{{von Hippel} {et~al.}(1995){von Hippel}, {Gilmore}, \&
846: {Jones}}]{vonHippel95}
847: {von Hippel}, T., {Gilmore}, G., \& {Jones}, D.~H.~P. 1995, \mnras, 273, L39
848:
849: \bibitem[{{von Hippel} {et~al.}(2006)}]{vonHippel06}
850: {von Hippel}, T. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 645, 1436
851:
852: \bibitem[{{Weidemann}(1967)}]{Weidemann67}
853: {Weidemann}, V. 1967, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 67, 286
854:
855: \bibitem[{{Winget} {et~al.}(1987)}]{Winget87}
856: {Winget}, D.~E. {et~al.} 1987, \apjl, 315, L77
857:
858: \bibitem[{{Wood}(1992)}]{Wood92}
859: {Wood}, M.~A. 1992, \apj, 386, 539
860:
861: \bibitem[{{Wood}(1995)}]{Wood95}
862: {Wood}, M.~A. 1995, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol.
863: 443, White Dwarfs, ed. D.~{Koester} \& K.~{Werner}, 41
864:
865: \bibitem[{{Wood} \& {Oswalt}(1998)}]{Wood98}
866: {Wood}, M.~A. \& {Oswalt}, T.~D. 1998, \apj, 497, 870
867:
868: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000)}]{York00}
869: {York}, D.~G. {et~al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
870:
871: \end{thebibliography}
872:
873: \newpage
874:
875: \begin{figure}[!tp]
876: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f1color.eps}
877: \caption{log $g$ v. log ${T}_\mathrm{{eff}}$ for the white
878: dwarfs in our sample. At temperatures below $\sim$12,500K, the log $g$
879: values begin to rise to an extent unexplained by current theory. The
880: solid line is a function empirically fit to the real data. The dashed
881: line is the modest rise predicted by theory. The excess at a given \Teff{ }is
882: subtracted from the measured log $g$ value for some of our luminosity
883: functions.}
884: \label{upturn}
885: \end{figure}
886:
887: \begin{figure}[!tp]
888: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f2.eps}
889: \caption{log $g$ v. log ${T}_\mathrm{{eff}}$ with the upturn
890: in log $g$ removed.}
891: \label{noupturn}
892: \end{figure}
893:
894: \begin{figure}
895: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{f3color.eps}
896: \caption{A comparison of the theoretical colors of the SDSS
897: WDs, derived from the atmospheric fits (black triangles), with the
898: observed colors, as measured by the SDSS photometry (open blue circles).
899: In the upper panel, the colors of the model atmospheres do not agree
900: with the observed colors at low temperatures, indicating a problem with
901: the line fitting for stars cooler than $\sim$ 12,500K. In the lower panel,
902: where the excess log $g$ has been removed, the colors agree much better.}
903: \label{colors}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906: \begin{figure}[!tp]
907: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f4.eps}
908: \caption{Color-color plot of the white dwarfs in the two samples
909: used to derive our completeness correction. Open symbols are WDs from the Harris
910: \etal (2006) sample that a) were in the area of sky covered by spectroscopy in
911: DR4, b) had ${V}_{tan} \ge 30$km/s, and c) were not determined by $i$- and
912: $z$-band excess to be WD + main-sequence binaries. The filled circles
913: are the stars for which SDSS obtained spectra and \citet{Eisenstein06} confirmed
914: to be WDs. The dashed box shows a two-dimensional projection of the QSO
915: targeting algorithm's exclusion region. The open gray squares are the WDs from
916: Harris \etal that lie outside Eisenstein et al.'s color-color cuts. For clarity,
917: only half of the points have been plotted.}
918: \label{QSOfig}
919: \end{figure}
920:
921: \begin{figure}[!tp]
922: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f5.eps}
923: \caption{A map of our completeness correction. Darker
924: areas indicate more complete regions of the figure, with black being 100\%
925: complete. The overall completeness is of order $\sim$50\%.}
926: \label{completenessfig}
927: \end{figure}
928:
929: \begin{figure}[!tp]
930: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f6.eps}
931: \caption{A histogram of the completeness values in Figure
932: \ref{completenessfig}. Most of the 0, 1, and 0.5 values come from color-magnitude
933: regions in which there are only one or two stars in the Harris \etal sample available
934: for comparison.}
935: \label{completenesshist}
936: \end{figure}
937:
938: \begin{figure}[!tp]
939: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f7color.eps}
940: \caption{Luminosity functions for three different limiting
941: magnitudes. We take the good agreement between the curves to indicate that
942: our completeness correction (and the \Vmax correction) are working properly.}
943: \label{mlimcomp}
944: \end{figure}
945:
946: \begin{figure}[!tp]
947: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f8color.eps}
948: \caption{Mass functions for three different limiting
949: magnitudes. Because of the essentially fixed integration time for SDSS spectra,
950: objects with fainter apparent magnitudes generally have lower signal to noise,
951: which translates directly into larger uncertainties in the derived parameters
952: (\Teff, \logg, and mass). Hence, as we include stars with fainter apparent
953: magnitudes, more stars scatter out of the peak, broadening the mass function.}
954: \label{mlimmasscomp}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \begin{figure}[!tp]
958: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f9color.eps}
959: \caption{The white dwarf mass function for all WDs with
960: ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}} >$ 12,000K and $g < 19.0$. The dashed line in the upper
961: panel is the MF corrected only for {$1/V_{\rm max}$}, without our completeness
962: correction applied. It agrees very well with Kepler \etal (2007---dots).
963: The solid line is with our completeness correction applied, and represents
964: the true local space density of white dwarfs. The bottom panel shows the ratio
965: of our two mass functions---\ie the cumulative completeness correction for each
966: bin. The small variation indicates that the completeness correction, while
967: changing the overall normalization by roughly a factor of 2.2, has little effect
968: on the shape of the MF.}
969: \label{wdmfcomp}
970: \end{figure}
971:
972: \begin{figure}[!tp]
973: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f10color.eps}
974: \caption{White dwarf mass functions for WDs with ${T}_{\mathrm{eff}} >$
975: 8,000K and $g < 19.0$ both with and without the upturn in log $g$ for cooler stars
976: removed. The solid line is the MF from Figure \ref{wdmfcomp} renormalized
977: for comparison purposes.}
978: \label{allwdmf}
979: \end{figure}
980:
981: \begin{figure}[!tp]
982: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f11color.eps}
983: \caption{LFs derived in this paper. Removing the log $g$ upturn
984: makes each affected star less massive, and therefore larger and brighter,
985: pushing it to a more leftward ${M}_{bol}$ bin. The results of \citet{Harris06}
986: and \citet{Liebert05} are shown for comparison.}
987: \label{allwdlf}
988: \end{figure}
989:
990: \begin{figure}[!tp]
991: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\textwidth]{f12.eps}
992: \caption{A comparison of the spectrally and photometrically derived
993: temperatures for the WDs common to the \citet{Harris06} and Eisenstein \etal
994: (2006) samples.}
995: \label{Tcompfig}
996: \end{figure}
997:
998: \clearpage
999:
1000: \begin{table}[!htbp]
1001: \begin{center}
1002: \begin{tabular}[c]{|c|c|}
1003: \multicolumn{2}{p{8cm}}{\caption{The fraction of stars in
1004: \citet{Eisenstein06} listed as DA or DA\_auto. Though they generally
1005: agree with previous results, they should be used with much caution, as they
1006: were calculated crudely and we have taken no care to correct for biases in
1007: the sample. We have employed them here simply to compare our DA-only luminosity
1008: function to previous work.}} \\
1009: \hline
1010: ${M}_{bol}$ & DA Fraction\\
1011: \hline
1012: 7.25 & 0.9338 \\
1013: 7.75 & 0.9243 \\
1014: 8.25 & 0.9246 \\
1015: 8.75 & 0.8980 \\
1016: 9.25 & 0.8433 \\
1017: 9.75 & 0.8146 \\
1018: 10.25 & 0.7958 \\
1019: 10.75 & 0.8158 \\
1020: 11.25 & 0.7957 \\
1021: 11.75 & 0.7721 \\
1022: 12.25 & 0.7985 \\
1023: 12.75 & 0.7976 \\
1024: 13.25 & 0.8173 \\
1025: 13.75 & 0.8009 \\
1026: \hline
1027: \end{tabular}
1028: \end{center}
1029: \label{DAfrac}
1030: \end{table}
1031:
1032: \end{document}
1033: