1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4: \slugcomment{Accepted to AJ}
5:
6: \title{The Century Survey Galactic Halo Project III: A Complete 4300 deg$^2$ Survey
7: of Blue Horizontal Branch Stars in the Metal-Weak Thick Disk and Inner Halo}
8:
9: \author{Warren R.\ Brown}
10: \affil{Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 60 Garden St, Cambridge, MA 02138}
11: \email{wbrown@cfa.harvard.edu}
12:
13: \author{Timothy C.\ Beers}
14: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Center for the Study of
15: Cosmic Evolution, and Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics,
16: Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824}
17:
18: \author{Ronald Wilhelm}
19: \affil{Department of Physics, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409}
20:
21: \author{Carlos Allende Prieto}
22: \affil{McDonald Observatory and Department of Astronomy,
23: University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712}
24:
25: \author{Margaret J.\ Geller,
26: Scott J.\ Kenyon,
27: \and
28: Michael J.\ Kurtz}
29: \affil{Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 60 Garden St, Cambridge, MA 02138}
30:
31:
32:
33: \shorttitle{Century Survey Galactic Halo Project III}
34: \shortauthors{Brown et al.}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37:
38: We present a complete spectroscopic survey of 2414 2MASS-selected blue
39: horizontal branch (BHB) candidates selected over 4300 deg$^2$ of the sky. We
40: identify 655 BHB stars in this non-kinematically selected sample. We calculate the
41: luminosity function of field BHB stars and find evidence for very few hot BHB stars
42: in the field. The BHB stars located at a distance from the Galactic plane $|Z|<4$
43: kpc trace what is clearly a metal-weak thick disk population, with a mean
44: metallicity of [Fe/H] $=-1.7$, a rotation velocity gradient of $d
45: v_{rot}/d|Z|=-28\pm3.4$ km s$^{-1}$ in the region $|Z|<6$ kpc, and a density scale
46: height of $h_Z=1.26\pm0.1$ kpc. The BHB stars located at $5<|Z|<9$ kpc are a
47: predominantly inner-halo population, with a mean metallicity of [Fe/H] $=-2.0$ and a
48: mean Galactic rotation of $-4\pm31$ km s$^{-1}$. We infer the density of halo and
49: thick disk BHB stars is $104\pm37$ kpc$^{-3}$ near the Sun, and the relative
50: normalization of halo to thick-disk BHB stars is $4\pm1$\% near the Sun.
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \keywords{
55: stars: early types ---
56: stars: horizontal-branch ---
57: Galaxy: stellar content ---
58: Galaxy: halo
59: }
60:
61: \clearpage
62: \section{INTRODUCTION}
63:
64: Theoretical simulations show that the remnants of hierarchical galaxy
65: formation in the Milky Way should still be visible as star streams in the stellar
66: halo \citep{johnston96, harding01, abadi03b, bullock05, font06}. Star counts and
67: color-magnitude diagrams have proven very effective in identifying structures in the
68: halo, including the Sagittarius stream wrapping around the sky \citep{majewski03}
69: and overdensities in Monoceros \citep{newberg02,ibata03,yanny03}, Canis Major
70: \citep{martin04}, Triangulum-Andromeda \citep{rochapinto04}, Virgo
71: \citep{duffau06,vivas06,newberg07}, and elsewhere \citep{belokurov06, grillmair06a,
72: grillmair06b}. Stellar spectroscopy opens up the possibility of finding structures
73: in velocity \citep[such as the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, e.g.][]{ibata94}, in
74: metallicity, and in distance. The major difficulty in mapping the stellar halo is
75: finding tracer stars that are luminous enough to observe at great depths yet common
76: enough to densely sample the halo.
77:
78: In \citet[hereafter Paper I]{brown03}, we introduced the Century Survey
79: Galactic Halo Project, a photometric and spectroscopic survey from which we selected
80: Blue Horizontal-Branch (BHB) stars as probes of the Milky Way halo. BHB stars are
81: evolved, helium core-burning stars that serve as excellent ``standard candles.'' In
82: \citet[hereafter Paper II]{brown05b}, we explored the Two Micron All Sky Survey
83: \citep[2MASS]{skrutskie06} and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS]{adelman06}
84: as the basis for a large spectroscopic survey of BHB stars. In Paper II we
85: calculated the first field BHB luminosity function, and concluded that field BHB
86: stars are consistent with populations seen in most globular clusters, but
87: inconsistent with globular clusters that have substantial extended BHBs.
88:
89: Here we describe a complete, non-kinematically selected sample of BHB stars
90: covering 10\% of the entire sky. Our survey is inspired by \citet{brown04}, in
91: which we photometrically selected BHB candidates from the completed 2MASS catalog.
92: We have now obtained spectroscopy for 2414 2MASS-selected BHB candidates, allowing
93: us to measure velocities and metallicities for stars to a depth of 8 kpc over a 4300
94: deg$^2$ region. Such a large-area survey is necessary to unambiguously identify halo
95: structure: theoretical simulations predict that star streams cover hundreds of
96: square degrees on the sky \citep{bullock05, font06}.
97:
98: Previous spectroscopic surveys of field BHB stars \citep{pier83, sommer89,
99: arnold92, kinman94, wilhelm99b, kinman04, clewley04, clewley05, kinman07} have
100: identified BHB stars over relatively small fractions of the sky (10$^2$ - 10$^3$
101: deg$^2$) compared to the Century Survey Galactic Halo Project. The exception is the
102: sample of 1170 BHB stars observed by the SDSS as mis-identified quasars or as filler
103: objects in low density regions \citep{sirko04a, sirko04b, clewley06}. In
104: comparison, our spectroscopic survey of BHB stars is cleanly selected and is 100\%
105: complete within the selection limits.
106:
107: Although our large-area spectroscopic survey is a rich source for general
108: studies of the thick-disk and inner-halo populations, here we focus our attention on
109: the properties of the BHB stars. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for a structure
110: analysis to be presented in later paper (in preparation). In \S 2 we describe
111: spectroscopic observations of stars in the new 4300 deg$^2$ region, and discuss our
112: selection efficiency for BHB stars. In \S 3 we discuss the global properties of the
113: sample, including the mean galactic rotation and metallicity distribution of the
114: stars. In \S 4 we calculate the luminosity function of our clean sample of field
115: BHB stars. In \S 5 we fit for the density distribution of the BHB stars and
116: determine the relative normalization of thick disk to inner halo stars. We conclude
117: in \S 6.
118:
119:
120: \section{DATA}
121:
122: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 1: SKY MAP
123: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f1.eps}
124: \caption{ \label{fig:sky}
125: Aitoff sky map in Galactic coordinates, showing the number counts of
126: 2MASS-selected BHB candidates. Pixels are 1 deg$^2$ in size. Solid thick
127: lines indicate our survey regions. White regions in the disk are regions of
128: high reddening that are excluded. }
129: \end{figure}
130:
131: \subsection{Target Selection}
132:
133: Following \citet{brown04}, we select candidate BHB stars by color from the
134: 2MASS point source catalog \citep{skrutskie06}\footnote{Available at
135: \url{http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/}.} with $-0.2 < (J-H)_0 < 0.1$ and $-0.1 <
136: (H-K)_0 < 0.1$. We use de-reddened colors and magnitudes \citep{schlegel98} to
137: create a clean sample. The color selection is designed to provide a relatively high
138: selection efficiency ($\sim$40\%) for BHB stars, but a reduced completeness for BHB
139: stars. Comparison with the Paper I sample suggests that the color selection samples
140: $\sim$67\% of the BHB population \citep{brown04}.
141:
142: We select BHB candidates in the magnitude range $12.5 < J_0 < 15.5$. Our
143: goal is to sample BHB stars as distant as possible, yet at $J=15.5$ the uncertainty
144: in $(J-H)_0$ exceeds $\pm0.1$ and thus there is little point in going fainter than
145: $J=15.5$ with 2MASS. We set $J=12.5$ as our bright limit to avoid thin disk
146: contamination; a typical BHB star with $M_V=+0.6$ is 2 kpc distant at $J=12.5$.
147:
148: Figure \ref{fig:sky}, an Aitoff sky map plotted in Galactic coordinates,
149: shows our survey region. The greyscale indicates the number counts of 2MASS BHB
150: candidates in the magnitude range $12.5 < J_0 < 15.5$. Our survey region includes
151: the north Galactic cap opposite the bulge $90\arcdeg<l<270\arcdeg$,
152: $60\arcdeg<b<90\arcdeg$ plus an extension to $b>35\arcdeg$ at
153: $90\arcdeg<l<135\arcdeg$. In the south, our survey samples a similar region bounded
154: by $b<-35\arcdeg$, $l>90\arcdeg$, and Dec $>-10\arcdeg$. The survey areas cover
155: 2136 deg$^2$ in the north Galactic hemisphere and 2190 deg$^2$ in the south Galactic
156: hemisphere.
157:
158: There are 2414 BHB candidates in our survey region. The average surface
159: density of 2MASS-selected BHB candidates is 0.56 deg$^{-2}$. Our survey is 100\%
160: complete and can identify stars moving at any radial velocity.
161:
162:
163: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 2: BHB CLASSIFICATION
164: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f2.eps}
165: \caption{ \label{fig:bhball}
166: The four BHB classification techniques applied to our sample: (a)
167: the modified \citet{kinman94} method, (b) the \citet{wilhelm99a} method, (c)
168: the \citet{clewley02} $D_{0.15}$-Color method, and (d) the \citet{clewley02}
169: Scale width-Shape method. We consider objects satisfying 3 or more of the 4
170: techniques BHB stars ({\it solid symbols}).}
171: \end{figure}
172:
173: \subsection{Spectroscopic Observations}
174:
175: Spectroscopic observations were obtained with the FAST spectrograph
176: \citep{fabricant98} on the Whipple 1.5m Tillinghast telescope. Observations were
177: obtained over the course of 48 nights in 2004 and 2005. The spectrograph was
178: operated with a 600 line mm$^{-1}$ grating and a 2 arcsec slit, providing spectral
179: resolution of 2.3 \AA\ and wavelength coverage from 3450 to 5450 \AA. Exposure
180: times were chosen to yield a typical signal-to-noise $S/N=30$ in the continuum.
181:
182: Paper I contains details of the data reduction. We use the spectra to
183: measure radial velocities, spectral types, metallicities, effective temperatures,
184: and surface gravities of the 2414 BHB candidates. During the course of this survey
185: we re-observed 30 objects from Paper I. The scatter in the spectroscopic
186: measurements of the same objects provides us with a direct measurement of the
187: uncertainties: $\pm16$ km s$^{-1}$ in velocity, $\pm1.2$ sub-types in spectral
188: classification, $\pm0.4$ dex in [Fe/H], $\pm400$ K in effective temperature, and
189: $\pm0.3$ dex in surface gravity.
190:
191:
192: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 3: SELECTION EFFICIENCY - MAG
193: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.25in]{f3.eps}}
194: \caption{ \label{fig:frac1}
195: Fraction of all A-type stars and BHB stars in our sample as a function
196: of apparent $J$ magnitude. }
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: \subsection{BHB Classification}
200:
201: The major difficulty in using BHB stars as probes of Galactic structure is
202: the need to distinguish reliably between low surface-gravity BHB stars and higher
203: surface-gravity A-type dwarfs and blue stragglers. Although investigators once
204: thought blue stragglers were a minor component of the halo population, recent
205: studies \citep{norris91, kinman94, preston94, wilhelm99b, brown03, brown05b}
206: demonstrate that a surprisingly large fraction of faint stars in the color range
207: associated with BHB stars are indeed high-gravity stars, many of which are blue
208: stragglers \citep{preston00, carney05}.
209:
210: Our classification of BHB stars is identical to the approach described in
211: Paper I. In brief, we apply the techniques of \citet{kinman94}, \citet{wilhelm99a},
212: and \citet{clewley02, clewley04} to identify low surface-gravity BHB stars. Figure
213: \ref{fig:bhball} displays the results for our sample. We consider objects that
214: satisfy 3 or more of the 4 classification techniques as BHB stars (solid symbols in
215: Figure \ref{fig:bhball}); we identify 779 probable BHB stars.
216:
217: We expect halo stars to be largely a metal-poor population (e.g., Paper II), yet
218: 124 (16\%) of the BHB stars are relatively metal-rich [Fe/H] $>-0.6$. Curiously,
219: the BHB stars with [Fe/H] $>-0.6$ are systematically 0.06 mag bluer in (\bv)$_0$, or
220: 600 K hotter, than the more metal-poor BHB stars. Hot BHB stars have weak Ca {\sc
221: ii} K making metallicity measurements difficult. Furthermore, BHB and main-sequence
222: A stars have similar surface gravities at $\sim10^4$~K, making classification
223: difficult. Thus we consider the [Fe/H] $>-0.6$ BHB stars suspect and mark them as
224: BHB/A stars in Fig.\ \ref{fig:bhball}.
225:
226: Because our goal is to create a clean sample of non thin-disk BHB stars, we
227: consider the 655 probable BHB stars with [Fe/H] $<-0.6$ as our ``clean'' sample of
228: BHB stars. This is consistent with \citet{chiba00}, who use [Fe/H] $<-0.6$ to select
229: thick-disk and halo stars by metallicity. We use the clean sample of BHB stars for
230: the following analyses.
231:
232:
233: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 4: SELECTION EFFICIENCY - GLAT
234: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.25in]{f4.eps}}
235: \caption{ \label{fig:frac2}
236: Fraction of all A-type stars and BHB stars in our sample as a function
237: of Galactic latitude $|b|$. }
238: \end{figure}
239:
240: \subsection{Sample Selection Efficiency}
241:
242: Our net selection efficiency for BHB stars is 27\% (655 of 2414), and is a
243: function of both depth and Galactic latitude. Figure \ref{fig:frac1} plots the
244: fraction of all stars of spectral type A and the fraction of BHB stars as a function
245: of apparent $J$ magnitude in our sample. Our color selection is 90\% efficient for
246: selecting A-type stars in the interval $12.5 < J < 14.5$, but the efficiency
247: plummets to 40\% at $J=15.5$ due to increased photometric errors. Interestingly,
248: the relative fraction of A-type stars identified as BHB stars increases from 30\% at
249: $J=13$ to 40\% at $J=15$. The increasing percentage of BHB stars reflects the
250: relative fraction of different stellar populations at different depths in the halo.
251: This behavior is best illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:frac2}, which displays the
252: fraction of all A-types and BHB stars in our sample as a function of Galactic
253: latitude. BHB stars comprise 20\% of the entire sample with
254: $35\arcdeg<|b|<45\arcdeg$ and 50\% of the entire sample with
255: $80\arcdeg<|b|<90\arcdeg$.
256:
257: The non A-type stars in our sample are mostly early F-type stars scattering
258: into our color-selection region, plus a small number of hot subdwarfs and white
259: dwarfs with blue colors. We classify 46 objects (2\% of the sample) as subdwarfs
260: and 21 objects (1\% of the sample) as DA white dwarfs. One object, CHSS 3842
261: (2MASS J010324.54-063210.5), is a hot DB white dwarf.
262:
263: We present the photometric and spectroscopic parameters for all 2414 stars in
264: Appendix A.
265:
266: \subsection{Variable Stars}
267:
268: We don't expect to find RR Lyrae variables in our survey because our color
269: selection targets stars bluewards of the horizontal branch instability strip. That
270: said, our spectroscopy shows that 20\% of the sample is composed of redder, F-type
271: stars, and our survey is well matched to existing variability surveys such as the
272: All Sky Automated Survey \citep[ASAS,][]{pojmanski02} and the Northern Sky
273: Variability Survey \citep[NSVS,][]{wozniak04}.
274:
275: We match our entire target list to ASAS and find three variables: two RR
276: Lyraes (CHSS 3168 and CHSS 3704) and one eclipsing binary (CHSS 3341). The NSVS is
277: better matched to our survey region and survey depth. We find 1519 stars with NSVS
278: photometry, of which six have RMS photometric scatter greater than 3 times their
279: median photometric error. Of the six possible NSVS variables, two are RR Lyraes
280: (CHSS 1983 and CHSS 2983) and four show no clear periodicity. Thus our survey
281: contains a total of four known RR Lyraes, all of which fall in the reddest 15\% of
282: the sample. The four RR Lyraes are not part of the BHB sample.
283:
284:
285: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 5: STRANGE SPECTRUM
286: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5.eps}
287: \caption{ \label{fig:bestar}
288: 2MASS J002334.02+065647.6, possibly an accreting white dwarf.}
289: \end{figure}
290:
291: \subsection{A Possible Accreting White Dwarf}
292:
293: % An alternate explanation for this object is a hot B star heating the hydrogen
294: % atmosphere of a close companion into emission.
295:
296: The most unusual object in the sample is CHSS 3134 (2MASS
297: J002334.02+065647.6), possibly an accreting white dwarf. The object is identified
298: as a DA white dwarf in the \citet{berger80} catalog of blue objects. Our
299: higher-resolution spectrum (see Figure \ref{fig:bestar}), however, shows hydrogen
300: Balmer emission lines in the cores of the absorption lines from H$\beta$ to H10.
301: Be stars have similar spectra, but Be stars usually have Balmer emission in only
302: H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ \citep[e.g.,][]{bragg02}. The presence of strong He{\sc i}
303: 4471 indicates the star is hot, with $T_{\rm eff}\gtrsim25,000$ K, and the broad
304: Balmer absorption lines indicate the star has high surface gravity. Based on the
305: observed spectrum (Figure \ref{fig:bestar}), this star is possibly a white dwarf
306: accreting matter at low rates from a close binary companion. A white dwarf can
307: dominate the spectrum if mass transfer has reduced its donor star to almost nothing.
308: Alternatively, this star could be a compact binary in which the white dwarf is
309: illuminating a low-mass companion. Further spectroscopic follow-up is needed to
310: establish the exact nature of this unusual system.
311:
312:
313: \section{GLOBAL PROPERTIES}
314:
315: \subsection{Disk, Halo Models}
316:
317: Given the location and depth of our sample, we expect our BHB stars to
318: sample both the thick-disk and halo populations. The halo may not be a single
319: entity, and the recent \citet{carollo07} analysis of the abundances and kinematics
320: of $\sim$20,000 stars from SDSS paints a picture of 1) a flattened inner halo with
321: little or no rotation and with peak metallicity around [Fe/H] $=-1.6$, and 2) a more
322: spherical outer halo population that is strongly counter-rotating and with a peak
323: metallicity of around [Fe/H] $=-2.0$. Our sample of BHB stars reaches heliocentric
324: distances up to 10 kpc. Thus, in this picture, the majority of our halo stars are
325: associated with the ``inner-halo'' component of the halo.
326:
327: To provide context for discussing the properties of our sample, we begin by
328: investigating the expected contribution of the thick-disk and halo populations.
329: Figure \ref{fig:profile} shows star-count predictions from \citet{siegel02} for the
330: relative contribution of the thin disk, the thick disk, and the halo in our survey
331: volume. The two sets of lines (solid and dashed) illustrate the range allowed by
332: their best-fit parameters (see their Table 6).
333:
334:
335: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 6: STAR COUNT MODEL
336: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{f6.eps}}
337: \caption{ \label{fig:profile}
338: Relative contribution of thin disk, thick disk, and halo populations for two
339: representative star count models \citep{siegel02} calculated for our survey volume.
340: Solid line: $Z_{0,thin}=230$ pc, $R_{0,thin}=2$ kpc, $\rho_{thick}=10$\%,
341: $Z_{0,thick}=600$ pc, $R_{0,thick}=4$ kpc, $\rho_{halo}=0.15$\%, $c/a_{halo}=0.5$,
342: $r_{halo}^{-3.0}$. Dashed line: $Z_{0,thin}=230$ pc, $R_{0,thin}=2$ kpc,
343: $\rho_{thick}=10$\%, $Z_{0,thick}=600$ pc, $R_{0,thick}=3$ kpc, $\rho_{halo}=1$\%,
344: $c/a_{halo}=0.7$, $r_{halo}^{-3.5}$.}
345: \end{figure}
346:
347:
348: Figure \ref{fig:profile} shows that while the relative contribution of the
349: thick-disk and halo populations in our survey volume is uncertain, the thin-disk
350: population should be negligible. The star-count models suggest that the thick disk
351: should dominate our survey for $|Z|<4$ kpc, while the inner-halo should dominate for
352: $|Z|>6$ kpc. Given the uncertainties in the normalizations, however, we simply
353: conclude that our survey contains a mix of thick-disk and halo stars, and that the
354: halo contribution increases with distance from the plane.
355:
356: \subsection{Radial Velocities}
357:
358: Figure \ref{fig:stvel} displays our heliocentric radial velocities,
359: corrected for Solar motion relative to the local standard of rest \citep{hogg05}, as
360: a function of spectral type. The large group of stars near A0 are the BHB stars
361: (solid symbols). The other B-type objects are possibly hot BHB stars, blue
362: stragglers, or run-away B stars. The F- and late A-type stars exhibit a smaller
363: velocity dispersion than the BHB stars, consistent with their being mostly nearby
364: stars located in the disk. All of the high velocity stars are probably halo stars.
365: Because our sample covers a large area of the sky, we must remove the effects of
366: Galactic rotation before calculating the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the
367: halo stars. We calculate velocity dispersion and Galactic rotation below.
368:
369:
370: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 7: VELOCITY VS SPECTRAL TYPE
371: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f7.eps}
372: \caption{ \label{fig:stvel}
373: Spectral types and heliocentric radial velocities with respect to the
374: local standard of rest. Solid symbols mark the BHB stars. Errorbar indicates
375: the average uncertainty of the measurements.}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378:
379: \subsection{Proper Motions}
380:
381: It would be very interesting to know the full space motions of our stars.
382: We search existing proper motion catalogs and find 703 matches with the US Naval
383: Observatory CCD Astrograph Catalog \citep[UCAC2]{zacharias04}, 955 matches with the
384: US Naval Observatory B1 Catalog \citep[USNOB1]{monet03}, and 2414 matches with the
385: Guide Star Catalog 2.3 (GSC2.3, B.\ McLean, 2005 private communication). We proceed
386: cautiously, however, because our stars are relatively distant, at $2<d<10$ kpc, and
387: the reported proper motions are typically quite small, $\sim$10 mas yr$^{-1}$.
388:
389: We compare proper motions between the UCAC2, USNOB1, and GSC2.3 catalogs.
390: The UCAC2 and GSC2.3 proper motions correlate well, but USNOB1 proper motions are
391: systematically discrepant from the other two catalogs for proper motions less than
392: 10 mas yr$^{-1}$. The UCAC2 appears the most reliable of the three catalogs
393: \citep[see][]{mink04}. However, even the UCAC2 may contain systematic errors on the
394: scale of degrees (N.\ Zacharias, private communication, 2005), making comparison of
395: stars in different parts of the sky problematic. The dispersion of the proper
396: motions between the three catalogs is $\pm$7 mas yr$^{-1}$; we consider this
397: estimate a good measure of the accuracy of the catalogs over large areas of sky.
398:
399: If we restrict ourselves to proper motions with $>3\sigma$ confidence, the
400: number of stars with proper motions greater than 20 mas yr$^{-1}$ is approximately
401: 10\% of the catalog matches in all three catalogs. We estimate tangential
402: velocities for these stars by combining the proper motions with our distance
403: estimates (see below). The formal uncertainty of the tangential velocities is
404: approximately $\pm300$ km s$^{-1}$. Because the uncertainty greatly exceeds
405: expected stellar velocities, these tangential velocity estimates based on the best
406: proper motions are in practice useless for our analyses. Thus we ignore proper
407: motion in the remainder of our paper.
408:
409:
410: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 8: METALLICITY VS VELOCITY
411: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f8.eps}
412: \caption{ \label{fig:fehvel}
413: Distribution of metallicity [Fe/H] and heliocentric velocity corrected
414: to the Local Standard of Rest $v_{\sun,{\rm LSR}}$ for our sample of stars.
415: BHB and BHB/A stars are plotted on the left; non-BHB stars are plotted on the
416: right. Errorbar indicates the average uncertainty of the measurements.}
417: \end{figure}
418:
419: \subsection{Metallicities}
420:
421: The strongest indicator of metallicity in our A-star spectra is the 3933
422: \AA\ Ca {\sc ii} K line. We estimate stellar metallicities based on Ca {\sc ii} as
423: described in Paper I. In brief, we use three different techniques: the spectral
424: line indices of \citet{beers99}, the equivalent width of Ca {\sc ii} K plus a
425: chi-square comparison between metallic-line regions in synthetic and observed
426: spectra \citep{wilhelm99a}, and a Nelder-Mead algorithm that fits the entire
427: spectrum \citep{nelder65, allende03}. The final metallicities are the average of
428: the three techniques and have formal uncertainties of $\pm0.25$ dex. As mentioned
429: above, we re-observed 30 objects from Paper I and find that their metallicity
430: determinations have a $\pm0.4$ dex RMS scatter.
431:
432: Figure \ref{fig:fehvel} plots the metallicities and velocities of the BHB
433: and BHB/A stars ({\it left panel}) and all the other non-BHB stars ({\it right
434: panel}) in our sample. The extra stars at [Fe/H] $=-3$ and 0 are artifacts of our
435: method; our measurements are restricted to $-3 <$ [Fe/H] $< 0$.
436:
437: Examination of Figure \ref{fig:fehvel} reveals that the BHB stars are more
438: metal-poor than the other stars in our sample. Excluding the stars at the [Fe/H]
439: limits, the BHB stars have a median [Fe/H] $=-1.7$. By comparison, the non-BHB
440: stars in our sample are more metal-rich, with a median [Fe/H] $=-0.8$. The
441: distributions of metallicity and velocity are consistent with the BHB stars
442: constituting a largely halo population and the non-BHB stars constituting a largely
443: thick-disk population.
444:
445: \subsection{Distances}
446:
447: BHB stars are approximate standard candles with luminosities dependent on
448: effective temperature (color) and on metallicity. We estimate (\bv)$_0$, which we
449: label BV0, for our BHB stars using 2MASS photometry and Balmer line strengths (and
450: SDSS photometry, where available), as described in Paper I. We then calculate
451: luminosities for our BHB stars by adapting the $M_V(BHB)$ relation from
452: \citet{clewley04}. This relation assumes the {\it Hipparcos}-derived zero point,
453: $M_V(RR) =0.77\pm0.13$ at [Fe/H] = $-1.60$ \citep{gould98}, a $M_V$-metallicity
454: slope $0.214\pm0.047$ based on RR Lyrae stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud
455: \citep{clementini03}, and a cubic relation in (\bv)$_0$ \citep{preston91} to provide
456: a temperature correction. A detailed comparison of the luminosity function of field
457: BHB stars and globular cluster BHB stars in Paper II revealed a systematic 0.3 mag
458: offset of the Clewley et al.\ $M_V(BHB)$ relation with respect to the globular
459: clusters. Therefore, we adjust the zero-point 0.3 mag brighter:
460: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:mvbhb}
461: M_V(BHB) = 1.252 +0.214{\rm [Fe/H]} -4.423(\bv)_0 +17.74(\bv)_0^2 -35.73(\bv)_0^3.
462: \end{equation} Although our zero-point adjustment suggests that the error in the
463: absolute scale of BHB luminosities may be substantial, we expect that the {\it
464: relative} BHB luminosities are precise to better than 10\% for our sample.
465:
466: There are also 526 stars with early A spectral types between B8 and A3 that
467: are not BHB stars (see Figure \ref{fig:stvel}). These high surface-gravity stars
468: likely comprise a mix of old blue stragglers and young main-sequence stars: two
469: thirds of the early A-type stars have low mean metallicity [Fe/H] $\simeq-0.9$; one
470: third are consistent with solar metallicity [Fe/H]=0. We use the $M_V(A)$ relation
471: of \citet{sarajedini93} and \citet{kinman94} to estimate luminosities for the 526
472: early A-type stars and the 124 BHB/A stars:
473: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:mvbs}
474: M_V(A) = 1.32 + 4.05(\bv)_0 -0.45{\rm [Fe/H]}
475: \end{equation} This relation is based on a fit to globular cluster blue stragglers
476: of similar spectral type.
477:
478: We estimate distances using the calculated luminosities and the observed
479: magnitudes. We convert 2MASS $J$ magnitudes to $V$ magnitudes by taking our
480: $(\bv)_0$ estimate and looking up the corresponding $(V-J)_0$ in \citet{kenyon95}
481: for a star of that color. This conversion adds additional uncertainty to our
482: distance estimates. Thus a typical BHB star with [Fe/H] $=-1.7$ and $(\bv)_0=0.07$
483: has $M_V(BHB)=+0.65$ and a distance of 9.3 kpc at our limiting magnitude $J=15.5$,
484: with typical uncertainty of 9\% in distance. By comparison, a non-BHB, early A-type
485: star with [Fe/H] $=-0.9$ and $(\bv)_0=0.07$ has $M_V(A)=+2.0$ and a distance of 5.0
486: kpc at our limiting magnitude, with a typical uncertainty of 12\% in distance.
487: These distance uncertainties do not include systematic errors.
488:
489: Stars of later spectral type than the BHB / early A stars are intrinsically
490: less luminous objects in the nearby disk; we exclude these objects from our analysis
491: and do not calculate their luminosities and distances.
492:
493:
494: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 9: ROTATION
495: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f9.eps}
496: \caption{ \label{fig:rot}
497: Mean rotation ({\it upper panel}) and line-of-sight velocity dispersion
498: ({\it lower panel}) of 1225 BHB and early A stars located $8<R<11$ kpc ({\it solid
499: lines}). We divide the sample into thirds by [Fe/H] and find that the most
500: metal-rich third [Fe/H] $>-0.69$ ({\it dotted lines}) has systematically higher
501: rotation velocity and lower velocity dispersion than the most metal-poor third
502: [Fe/H] $<-1.63$ ({\it dashed lines}).}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: \subsection{Mean Galactic Rotation}
506:
507: Previous surveys provide conflicting measurements of the stellar halo
508: rotation: it may be prograde \citep{chiba00, sirko04b}, retrograde
509: \citep{majewski92, majewski96, carney96, spagna03, kinman04, kinman07, carollo07},
510: or nothing at all \citep{layden96, gould98, martin98, gilmore02, brown05b}.
511: Curiously, measurements of retrograde rotation mostly come from surveys of the north
512: Galactic pole. Differences in the observed halo rotation may also arise from the
513: manner in which different samples have selected from inner-halo and outer-halo
514: populations, which \citet{carollo07} argue have quite different rotation
515: characteristics. Our large area survey is ideal for measuring the bulk rotation of
516: the inner stellar halo. Our stars are selected photometrically without any
517: kinematic bias, and our survey is 100\% complete over two large contiguous regions.
518:
519: We calculate mean rotation using the formalism of \citet{frenk80}. We
520: assume the stars are in pure rotation with uniform velocity about the rotation axis
521: of the Galactic disk, and project the observed radial velocity onto the azimuthal
522: (rotation) direction. The \citet{frenk80} formalism provides an estimate of both
523: rotation velocity $v_{rot}$ and the line-of-sight dispersion $\sigma_{los}$ for a
524: set of stars.
525:
526: Figure \ref{fig:rot} plots the results of this analysis as a function of
527: $|Z|$. We bin in $|Z|$ by binning together 78 stars ordered in $|Z|$, and moving
528: through the sample in steps of 10 stars. We adopt this approach to avoid any
529: effects of arbitrary placement of bins on the results; bins are typically $\sim$0.6
530: kpc in size, growing to $>1$ kpc at $|Z|>5$ kpc. We consider three different
531: samples of stars: the clean sample of 655 BHB stars (solid line), a combined sample
532: of 344 metal-poor BHB and early A-type stars with [Fe/H] $<-1.8$ (dashed line), and
533: a combined sample of 541 intermediate metallicity BHB and early A-type stars with
534: $-1.8<$ [Fe/H] $<-0.6$ (dotted line). The latter two metallicity cuts are intended
535: to select halo and thick disk stellar populations, respectively, following
536: \citet{chiba00}.
537:
538: All stars rotate well below the solar value; $v_{rot}$ drops monotonically
539: with $|Z|$. This conclusion is valid for stars in the region $8<R<12$ kpc and
540: $2<|Z|<9$ kpc. A linear least squares fit to the clean sample of BHB stars
541: yields $v_{rot(BHB)} = (-28\pm3.4) |Z| + (175\pm16)$ km s$^{-1}$. The observed
542: velocity gradient is statistically identical to the $-30\pm3$ km s$^{-1}$
543: gradient found for thick disk stars in the region $0<|Z|<4$ kpc by
544: \citet{chiba00} and by \citet{girard06} (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:rot}).
545: What is remarkable, however, is that all three of our samples show the same
546: velocity gradient. The metal-poor stars have only a marginally shallower
547: velocity gradient and lower zero-point $v_{rot(metal~ poor)} = (-20\pm3) |Z| +
548: (129\pm13)$ km s$^{-1}$ than the intermediate-metallicity stars with
549: $v_{rot(intermediate~ metallicity)} = (-24\pm4) |Z| + (166\pm13)$ km s$^{-1}$.
550: Thus the mean rotation velocities suggest that our samples contain significant
551: numbers of thick disk stars with $|Z|\lesssim5$ kpc.
552:
553: The BHB and A stars located at $1.5<|Z|<3$ kpc have $v_{rot}\sim100$ km
554: s$^{-1}$, consistent with the rotation measured from faint F and G stars at similar
555: distances \citep{gilmore02,wyse06}. \citet{gilmore02} argue that a single, coherent
556: thick disk should have a constant rotation velocity far from the plane, and thus the
557: observed intermediate $\sim$100 km s$^{-1}$ rotation is evidence for a merger origin
558: for the thick disk. However, our sample clearly contains a mix of stellar
559: populations with different kinematics: the metal-poor sample has a systematically
560: larger line-of-sight velocity dispersion than the intermediate metallicity sample at
561: a given $|Z|$.
562:
563: The lower panel of Figure \ref{fig:rot} plots the line-of-sight velocity
564: dispersion $\sigma_{los}$ of the stars as a function of $|Z|$. The line-of-sight
565: velocity dispersion of the clean BHB sample is statistically consistent with a
566: constant value of $103\pm6$ km s$^{-1}$. This is consistent with the $\sim$100 km
567: s$^{-1}$ velocity dispersion measured for thick disk stars at the same depth towards
568: the south Galactic pole \citep{girard06}. Yet the metal-poor sample of stars has
569: $\sigma_{los}=+117\pm10$, consistent with a more halo-dominated population.
570: Clearly, our BHB stars are a mix of thick-disk and halo populations. We note that the
571: drop in velocity dispersion at $|Z|>4$ kpc seen in the metal-poor stars, though not
572: statistically significant, may in fact be a real feature due to velocity structure
573: in the sample.
574:
575: We find no evidence for significant rotation of the inner halo in the range
576: $5.5<|Z|<9$ kpc. Figure \ref{fig:rot} shows that the formal $v_{rot}$ values dip
577: below zero in the region $6<|Z|<8$ kpc, but the uncertainties are large (note the
578: error bars in Fig.\ \ref{fig:rot}). Interestingly, the final bins of both the clean
579: BHB sample and the [Fe/H] $<-1.8$ BHB and A star sample have values around zero.
580: In the volume $5.5<|Z|<9$ kpc, the clean BHB sample contains 131 stars with a formal
581: $v_{rot}=-4\pm31$ km s$^{-1}$, while the metal-poor sample contains 76 stars with a
582: formal $v_{rot}=-3\pm37$ km s$^{-1}$.
583:
584:
585: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 10: FEH vs Z
586: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f10.eps}}
587: \caption{ \label{fig:fehzz}
588: Position and metallicity of our clean sample of BHB stars. Solid squares
589: are the average metallicity found in bins of 50 stars. A linear least squares fit
590: of the thick disk metallicity gradient $2<|Z|<4$ kpc finds d[Fe/H]/d$Z=-0.03 \pm
591: 0.05$. The mean metallicity of BHB stars with $5< |Z| < 9$ kpc is [Fe/H]$=2.0$.}
592: \end{figure}
593:
594: \subsection{The Metal-Weak Thick Disk}
595:
596: The thick disk is generally understood to have a metallicity distribution
597: that peaks around [Fe/H] $\sim-0.7$ \citep[e.g.][]{gilmore95,allende06}. This
598: conclusion is at odds with the low metallicity of our BHB stars located at $|Z|<4$.
599: Figure \ref{fig:fehzz} plots the position $Z$ and metallicity of our clean
600: sample of BHB stars. Solid squares are the average metallicity found in bins of 50
601: stars. BHB stars located at $2<|Z|<4$ kpc have an average metallicity of
602: [Fe/H] $=-1.7$; including the BHB/A stars increases the average metallicity only
603: slightly, to [Fe/H] $=-1.4$. The average metallicity of BHB stars in our sample
604: with $5<|Z|<9$ kpc is [Fe/H] $=-2.0$. The small numbers of stars in this region
605: prevent a determination of a significant metallicity gradient, however it is
606: interesting that the average metallicity is {\it lower} than one might have
607: expected from a canonical halo population with peak metallicity [Fe/H] $= -1.6$
608: \citep{carney96}. It may be that we are seeing evidence for the transition
609: of inner- to outer-halo populations in this interval, as suggested by
610: \citet{carollo07}.
611:
612: One explanation for both the low metallicity and the thick-disk-like
613: kinematics (Figure \ref{fig:rot}) of our BHB stars at $|Z|<4$ kpc is provided by the
614: existence of a metal-weak thick disk \citep[e.g.,][]{norris85, morrison90, chiba00,
615: beers02}. BHB stars are associated with metal-poor populations, such as globular
616: clusters, thus it may be that our survey for BHB stars preferentially traces the
617: metal-weak thick disk. In any case, the existence of very metal-poor BHB stars with
618: thick-disk kinematics presents another clue for formation scenarios of the Milky
619: Way.
620:
621: A linear least-squares fit to the BHB stars located at $2<|Z|<4$ kpc reveals
622: a weak metallicity gradient, d[Fe/H]/d$Z=-0.03 \pm 0.05$ (solid line in Figure
623: \ref{fig:fehzz}), consistent with zero. Previous studies find no evidence for a
624: vertical metallicity gradient in the more commonly studied (metal-rich) thick disk
625: \citep{gilmore95, allende06}.
626:
627:
628: \section{LUMINOSITY FUNCTION OF BHB STARS}
629:
630: Understanding the luminosity function of field BHB stars is important for
631: interpreting our maps of the Galactic halo. BHB stars have a distribution of
632: intrinsic luminosities, thus we sample different luminosity BHB stars to different
633: depths. The luminosity function describes the number of BHB stars per unit volume
634: in the luminosity interval $M_V$ to $M_V+dM$. While we must infer a star's
635: luminosity from its color and metallicity, the $M_V(BHB)$ relation (Eqn.\
636: \ref{eqn:mvbhb}) specifies only how a particular color and metallicity map to a
637: particular $M_V$. We emphasize that it is the {\it observed distribution} of BHB
638: colors and metallicities that determines the form of the luminosity function.
639: Paper II presents a more extensive discussion of this issue and the underlying
640: physics.
641:
642: We calculate the field BHB luminosity function using the \citet{eep}
643: non-parametric maximum-likelihood method. An important feature of this method is
644: that the density terms drop out, thus the luminosity function calculation is
645: unbiased by density variations. In other words, the maximum-likelihood method does
646: not require knowledge of the halo density distribution $\rho(R,Z)$, it only requires
647: that the luminosity function is independent of position in the volume sampled.
648: Because stellar density varies with position in the Milky Way, we compute only the
649: {\it form} of the luminosity function and arbitrarily normalize the luminosity
650: function to one.
651:
652:
653: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 11: LUMINOSITY FUNCTION
654: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f11.eps}
655: \caption{ \label{fig:lf}
656: Luminosity function of field BHB stars, calculated for the observed sample
657: (dashed line) and corrected for completeness (solid line). If we include the BHB/A
658: stars with [Fe/H] $>-0.6$ (dotted line) a faint tail appears. However, it is clear
659: that hot, intrinsically faint extended BHB stars are not a significant fraction of
660: the field BHB population.}
661: \end{figure}
662:
663:
664: Figure \ref{fig:lf} plots the luminosity function of the clean sample of BHB
665: stars (dashed line). The luminosity function rises steeply at bright luminosities,
666: peaks at $M_V=0.64$, and falls rapidly with a tail at faint luminosities. Although
667: our statistics are greatly improved over the field BHB luminosity function measured
668: in Paper II, we caution that our BHB sample is incomplete for stars $(J-H)_0>0.1$.
669:
670: In principle, we can correct for our sample incompleteness. The Paper I
671: sample is complete over a much broader range of color than our 2MASS-selected
672: sample. Thus the Paper I sample can provide us with the distribution of BHB colors
673: with $(J-H)_0>0.1$ that are missing from our 2MASS-selected sample. We estimate the
674: luminosities of the missing, redder BHB stars as follows. First, we determine the
675: distribution of BV0 colors of our stars as a function of $(J-H)_0$. Second, we
676: determine the distribution of [Fe/H] for BHB stars with colors near $(J-H)_0=0.1$.
677: Third, we construct cumulative distributions of BV0 and [Fe/H] from our
678: observations, and then sample these distributions to obtain the expected
679: distribution of $M_V$'s for the missing stars. Finally, we correct the luminosity
680: function bins for the appropriate fraction of missing stars as determined from the
681: Paper I sample.
682:
683: Figure \ref{fig:lf} plots the BHB luminosity function corrected for
684: incompleteness (solid line). The effect of the incompleteness correction is to
685: increase the fraction of redder, more luminous stars, and thus shift the peak of the
686: distribution to $M_V=0.60$. We also plot the corrected luminosity function for the
687: combined sample of BHB and BHB/A stars. Because the BHB/A stars have [Fe/H] $>-0.6$
688: and bluer colors, on average, than the BHB stars, they are intrinsically
689: under-luminous and fall entirely in the faint tail of the luminosity function.
690: These stars are possibly hot extended BHB stars, though such a strong preference for
691: high metallicities is not observed in globular clusters. For example, NGC 7078 has
692: [Fe/H] $=-2.25$ \citep{harris96} and contains a large number of extended BHB stars.
693: Even if the BHB/A stars are all BHB stars, it is clear from Figure \ref{fig:lf} that
694: extended BHB stars are not a significant fraction of the field BHB population.
695:
696:
697: \begin{figure*} % FIGURE 12: DENSITY MODEL FIT
698:
699: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f12a.eps}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f12b.eps}}
700: \caption{ \label{fig:modfinal}
701: a) Best-fit density distribution (solid line) and the observed density of
702: BHB stars at $R=9$ kpc (points). The extrapolation (dashed line) suggests there are
703: $78\pm30$ kpc$^{-3}$ halo and thick disk BHB stars at $(R, Z)=(9, 0)$ kpc. b) The
704: fraction of thick disk and halo BHB stars in our survey volume located $8<R<10$ kpc.}
705: \end{figure*}
706:
707:
708: \section{DENSITY DISTRIBUTION OF FIELD BHB STARS}
709:
710: Our sample of BHB stars can potentially provide an excellent measure of the
711: density distribution of the thick-disk and inner-halo stellar populations.
712: Traditionally, the Galaxy's density distribution is measured with star counts. The
713: star-count technique is powerful because can use photometric catalogs containing
714: millions of stars \citep[e.g.][]{siegel02, larsen03}. However, stellar populations
715: are a complex function of both color and apparent magnitude. Thus star-count
716: techniques suffer from uncertainties in stellar color-luminosity relations, as well
717: as contamination from binaries and non-stellar objects. By comparison, our survey
718: provides a very clean sample of spectroscopically identified BHB stars. Although the
719: numbers of BHB stars is much smaller than samples of stars used by star counts, our
720: spectra provide precise metallicity and distance determinations for every star.
721:
722: We begin by considering the volume of space sampled by our survey. Using
723: the BHB luminosity function, we calculate the fraction of stars at a given distance
724: that fall within our survey magnitude limits. We expect that our survey is more
725: than 50\% complete for BHB stars in the range $2.5 < d < 9.5$ kpc. This range of
726: heliocentric distance samples the region $8<R<12$ kpc and $2<|Z|<8.5$ kpc for our
727: predominantly high Galactic-latitude survey region. Thus we restrict our density
728: distribution analysis to the above ranges of $d$, $R$, and $Z$. There are 544 BHB
729: stars that fall within these ranges.
730:
731: Before calculating the density distribution, we correct the observed BHB
732: sample for incompleteness. First, the BHB luminosity function tells us the fraction
733: of stars missing at each distance $d$. Because of our restriction in distance, this
734: correction applies to only a handful of stars near the boundaries of the sample.
735: Second, the ratio of the observed and corrected luminosity functions tells
736: us the fraction of BHB stars missing at each $M_V$ because of our color selection;
737: we weight stars at a given $M_V$ appropriately. Finally, we use Figure
738: \ref{fig:frac1} to estimate the fraction of faint BHB stars missing because of
739: increased photometric errors, and give additional weight to stars with $J>14.5$.
740:
741: We assume the density distribution is a sum of a thick-disk and halo
742: population with the canonical forms:
743: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:density}
744: \rho(R,Z) = \rho_{0,thick} \exp{(-Z/h_Z)} \exp{(-R/h_R)} + \rho_{0,halo} / (a_0^n +
745: R_g^n)
746: \end{equation} where $R_g = \sqrt{R^2 + (z~c/a)^2}$ and $c/a$ is the halo axial
747: ratio. These are the same relations used by \citet{siegel02} in their fits to star
748: counts. Selecting a power-law halo instead of a de Vaucouleurs halo is mostly a
749: cosmetic choice; our BHB sample provides very little leverage on the halo density
750: profile. Our sample is a high Galactic-latitude sample best suited to measuring
751: $h_Z$ and the relative normalizations of thick disk and halo BHB star densities.
752:
753: \citet{girard06} caution that distance uncertainties, convolved with the
754: sharply falling density distribution of stars, can alter the ``observed'' density
755: distribution from the actual, intrinsic form. Thus, we mimic their procedure, and
756: artificially partition each star into 100 positions in distance, with a distribution
757: of distances described by a Gaussian distribution around the best value for each
758: star. We then apply our limits in $d$, $R$, and $Z$ to the subunits. This
759: procedure allows stars that would otherwise be excluded by distance cuts to
760: contribute a small amount of weight appropriate to the uncertainty in their distance
761: estimate. We bin the subunits into volumes at fixed intervals $R$ and $Z$, and
762: perform our density fits to these bins using $\chi^2$ minimization techniques
763: \citep{press92}.
764:
765: We start by testing fits to the different components of our BHB sample.
766: The density distribution of stars located at $-4<Z<-2$ kpc and $2<Z<4$ kpc are very
767: similar. In the final fit we consider stars above and below the plane together as a
768: function of $|Z|$. We try different bin sizes and different ranges of $R$ and $Z$,
769: and find that stars located at $2<|Z|<4$ kpc prefer thick-disk scale lengths in the
770: ranges $2.5<h_R<4$ kpc and $1<h_Z<2$. Unfortunately, stars located farther out, at
771: $5<|Z|<8.5$ kpc, provide very little constraint on the form of the halo profile. If
772: we fix the core radius to $a_0=6.3$ kpc \citep{girard06} and the halo axial ratio to
773: $c/a=0.7$ \citep{robin00,siegel02}, our sample prefers an halo power-law index in
774: the range $2.5<n<3$.
775:
776: We fit Equation \ref{eqn:density} to the full BHB sample, holding $c/a=0.7$
777: fixed and fitting the other 6 parameters. Table \ref{tab:fit} gives the best-fit
778: parameters and Figure \ref{fig:modfinal} shows the results. Figure
779: \ref{fig:modfinal}a plots the observed density of BHB stars at $R=9$ kpc, the
780: best-fit density distribution (solid line), and the thick-disk and halo components
781: (dotted lines). Figure \ref{fig:modfinal}b plots the fraction of thick-disk and
782: halo stars in our survey volume located $8<R<10$; the components contribute equal
783: fractions of BHB stars at $|Z|\sim4.5$ kpc.
784:
785: We map out contours of $\chi^2$ to understand the uncertainty in our
786: best-fit parameters. We caution that our sample provides little constraint on
787: $a_0$, and that there is a significant degeneracy between the thick-disk scale
788: length, $h_R$, and the halo power law index $n$. Star-count models give similar
789: results to our best-fit halo power-law index $n\sim2.5$ \citep[e.g.]{robin00,
790: siegel02}. In contrast, \citet{chiba00} find $n\sim3.5$ from their spectroscopic
791: sample of metal-poor stars. Given the uncertainties, however, our BHB stars provide
792: no significant constraint on the shape of the halo. What we can measure with
793: certainty is the normalization of halo to thick disk BHB stars.
794:
795: The density of halo and thick disk BHB stars is $104\pm37$ kpc$^{-3}$ near
796: the Sun $(R, Z) = (8, 0)$ kpc, in good agreement with \citet{green93}'s lower limit
797: of $51\pm17$ kpc$^{-3}$. \citet{kinman94} report a three times smaller density of
798: 30 kpc$^{-3}$, but their sample has little constraint on thick disk BHB stars that
799: dominate the BHB density near the Sun. We find that the relative normalization of
800: halo to thick disk BHB stars is $4\pm1\%$ near the Sun.
801:
802:
803: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl} % BEST-FIT DENSITY PARAMETERS
804: \tablewidth{0pt}
805: \tablecaption{BHB DENSITY DISTRIBUTION\label{tab:fit}}
806: \tablehead{ \colhead{Param} & \colhead{Value} & \colhead{Units} }
807: \startdata
808: $\rho_{0,thick}$& $ 960 \pm 170 $ & kpc$^{-3}$ \\
809: $h_Z$ & $ 1.26 \pm 0.1 $ & kpc \\
810: $h_R$ & $ 3.5 \pm 0.5 $ & kpc \\
811: $\rho_{0,halo}$ & $1040 \pm 180 $ & kpc$^{-3}$ \\
812: $a_0$ & $ 5.8 \pm 3 $ & kpc \\
813: $n$ & $ -2.5 \pm 0.5 $ & \\
814: $c/a$ & $\equiv 0.7$ & \\
815: \enddata
816: \end{deluxetable}
817:
818:
819: Our high-latitude sample also provides a good constraint on the vertical
820: density distribution of BHB stars in the thick disk. To obtain a self-consistent
821: picture of the relationship between the thick-disk scale lengths $h_Z$ and $h_R$, we
822: fix the form of the halo power law (see Table \ref{tab:fit}), vary $h_Z$ and $h_R$
823: across a grid of values, and fit only the normalizations. This approach results in
824: contours of $\chi^2$ illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:chisq}. The contours do not
825: correspond to exact significance levels, but we have chosen the inner contour to
826: match our best estimate of 1$\sigma$ significance based on boot-strap resampling.
827: The asterisk in Figure \ref{fig:chisq} marks our best-fit values of $h_Z$ and $h_R$.
828:
829: Previous star-count models for the thick disk find either a large scale
830: height (1.2 - 1.4 kpc) and low normalization \citep{gilmore83, morrison00, reid93,
831: juric05} or a smaller scale height (0.75 - 1.0 kpc) and high normalization
832: \citep{robin96, siegel02, robin03, cabrera05, du06, girard06}. Our scale height
833: $h_Z=1.26\pm0.1$ is consistent with the larger scale heights.
834:
835: \begin{figure} % FIGURE 13:
836: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.0in]{f13.eps}}
837: \caption{ \label{fig:chisq}
838: $\chi^2$ contours for thick disk scale lengths; the asterisk marks our
839: best-fit values for $h_Z$ and $h_R$. We calculate these contours by fixing the the
840: halo power law and fitting the thick disk and halo normalizations. The inner
841: contour matches our best estimate of 1$\sigma$ significance based on boot-strap
842: resampling. }
843: \end{figure}
844:
845: The thick-disk scale length is interesting because it determines the
846: rotational-equilibrium of thick disk stars. Star-count estimates range from
847: $2.5\pm0.3$ kpc \citep{robin96, robin03} to $4.3\pm07$ kpc \citep{larsen03}. Our
848: scale length, $h_r=3.5\pm0.5$ kpc, falls in the middle of this range, similar to
849: determinations from \citet{siegel02} and \citet{juric05}. This agreement shows the
850: power of a clean, even if small, spectroscopic sample. If our BHB stars preferentially
851: trace the metal-weak thick disk, then the density parameters in Table 1 reflect the
852: density distribution of the metal-weak thick disk.
853:
854:
855: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
856:
857: We discuss a complete spectroscopic survey of 2414 2MASS-selected BHB
858: candidates over 4300 deg$^2$ of sky. We identify 655 BHB stars in this
859: non-kinematically selected sample. The luminosity function of the field BHB stars
860: has a median value of $M_V=0.65$ and a small tail extending to $M_V>1$, but shows
861: very few extended BHB stars.
862:
863: The BHB stars located at $|Z|<4$ kpc have a mean Galactic rotation and
864: density distribution remarkably consistent with a metal-weak thick-disk population.
865: The $|Z|<4$ kpc BHB stars have a mean metallicity of [Fe/H] $=-1.7$, a velocity
866: gradient of $d v_{rot}/d|Z|=-28\pm3.4$ km s$^{-1}$, and a vertical scale height of
867: $h_Z=1.26\pm0.1$ kpc. We infer a space density of $100\pm36$ kpc$^{-3}$ thick disk
868: BHB stars near the Sun. RR Lyrae stars, by comparison, have a much less prominent
869: disk component near the Sun \citep{martin98}. The existence of metal-poor BHB stars
870: with thick-disk kinematics and scale heights present another clue for formation
871: scenarios of the Milky Way.
872:
873: The BHB stars located at $5<|Z|<9$ kpc have a mean Galactic rotation and
874: density distribution consistent with a predominantly halo population. The halo BHB
875: stars have a mean metallicity of [Fe/H] $=-2.0$, a mean Galactic rotation of
876: $-4\pm31$ km s$^{-1}$, and relative normalization of $4\pm1$\% with respect to the
877: thick disk near the Sun $(R, Z)=(8, 0)$ kpc. This is the best currently
878: available measurement of the relative normalization of the halo and thick disk, an
879: important quantity that enters into all models of the local structure of the Galaxy.
880:
881: In the future, having established the global properties of our survey, we
882: hope to analyze the BHB sample for structure in space, velocity, and metallicity.
883:
884: \acknowledgements
885:
886: We thank Perry Berlind and Mike Calkins for their dedicated observing at the
887: Whipple 1.5 m Tillinghast telescope.
888: This project makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey,
889: which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared
890: Processing and Analysis Center/Caltech, funded by NASA and the NSF.
891: This project makes use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic
892: Services.
893: This work was supported in part by W.\ Brown's Clay Fellowship and the
894: Smithsonian Institution.
895: T.C.B.\ acknowledges partial funding for this work from grants AST 04-06784,
896: AST 06-07154, and PHY 02-16873: Physics Frontier Center / Joint Institute for
897: Nuclear Astrophysics (JINA), both awarded by the National Science Foundation.
898: C.A.P.\ acknowledges partial funding for this work from NASA grants NAG
899: 5-13057 and NAG 5-13147.
900:
901: % \clearpage
902:
903: % REFERENCES
904: % \bibliographystyle{/home/wbrown/lib/apj} \bibliography{/home/wbrown/text/RefHS}
905: \begin{thebibliography}{91}
906: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
907:
908: \bibitem[{{Abadi} {et~al.}(2003){Abadi}, {Navarro}, {Steinmetz}, \&
909: {Eke}}]{abadi03b}
910: {Abadi}, M.~G., {Navarro}, J.~F., {Steinmetz}, M., \& {Eke}, V.~R. 2003, \apj,
911: 597, 21
912:
913: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2006)}]{adelman06}
914: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
915:
916: \bibitem[{{Allende Prieto}(2003)}]{allende03}
917: {Allende Prieto}, C. 2003, \mnras, 339, 1111
918:
919: \bibitem[{{Allende Prieto} {et~al.}(2006){Allende Prieto}, {Beers}, {Wilhelm},
920: {Newberg}, {Rockosi}, {Yanny}, \& {Lee}}]{allende06}
921: {Allende Prieto}, C., {Beers}, T.~C., {Wilhelm}, R., {Newberg}, H.~J.,
922: {Rockosi}, C.~M., {Yanny}, B., \& {Lee}, Y.~S. 2006, \apj, 636, 804
923:
924: \bibitem[{{Arnold} \& {Gilmore}(1992)}]{arnold92}
925: {Arnold}, R. \& {Gilmore}, G. 1992, \mnras, 257, 225
926:
927: \bibitem[{{Beers} {et~al.}(2002){Beers}, {Drilling}, {Rossi}, {Chiba}, {Rhee},
928: {F{\" u}hrmeister}, {Norris}, \& {von Hippel}}]{beers02}
929: {Beers}, T.~C., {Drilling}, J.~S., {Rossi}, S., {Chiba}, M., {Rhee}, J., {F{\"
930: u}hrmeister}, B., {Norris}, J.~E., \& {von Hippel}, T. 2002, \aj, 124, 931
931:
932: \bibitem[{{Beers} {et~al.}(1999){Beers}, {Rossi}, {Norris}, {Ryan}, \&
933: {Shefler}}]{beers99}
934: {Beers}, T.~C., {Rossi}, S., {Norris}, J.~E., {Ryan}, S.~G., \& {Shefler}, T.
935: 1999, \aj, 117, 981
936:
937: \bibitem[{{Belokurov} {et~al.}(2006)}]{belokurov06}
938: {Belokurov}, V. {et~al.} 2006, \apjl, 642, L137
939:
940: \bibitem[{{Berger} \& {Fringant}(1980)}]{berger80}
941: {Berger}, J. \& {Fringant}, A.-M. 1980, \aaps, 39, 39
942:
943: \bibitem[{{Bragg} \& {Kenyon}(2002)}]{bragg02}
944: {Bragg}, A.~E. \& {Kenyon}, S.~J. 2002, \aj, 124, 3289
945:
946: \bibitem[{{Brown} {et~al.}(2003){Brown}, {Allende Prieto}, {Beers}, {Wilhelm},
947: {Geller}, {Kenyon}, \& {Kurtz}}]{brown03}
948: {Brown}, W.~R., {Allende Prieto}, C., {Beers}, T.~C., {Wilhelm}, R., {Geller},
949: M.~J., {Kenyon}, S.~J., \& {Kurtz}, M.~J. 2003, \aj, 126, 1362~(Paper I)
950:
951: \bibitem[{{Brown} {et~al.}(2004){Brown}, {Geller}, {Kenyon}, {Beers}, {Kurtz},
952: \& {Roll}}]{brown04}
953: {Brown}, W.~R., {Geller}, M.~J., {Kenyon}, S.~J., {Beers}, T.~C., {Kurtz},
954: M.~J., \& {Roll}, J.~B. 2004, \aj, 127, 1555
955:
956: \bibitem[{{Brown} {et~al.}(2005){Brown}, {Geller}, {Kenyon}, {Kurtz}, {Allende
957: Prieto}, {Beers}, \& {Wilhelm}}]{brown05b}
958: {Brown}, W.~R., {Geller}, M.~J., {Kenyon}, S.~J., {Kurtz}, M.~J., {Allende
959: Prieto}, C., {Beers}, T.~C., \& {Wilhelm}, R. 2005, \aj, 130, 1097~(Paper II)
960:
961: \bibitem[{{Bullock} \& {Johnston}(2005)}]{bullock05}
962: {Bullock}, J.~S. \& {Johnston}, K.~V. 2005, \apj, 635, 931
963:
964: \bibitem[{{Cabrera-Lavers} {et~al.}(2005){Cabrera-Lavers}, {Garz{\'o}n}, \&
965: {Hammersley}}]{cabrera05}
966: {Cabrera-Lavers}, A., {Garz{\'o}n}, F., \& {Hammersley}, P.~L. 2005, \aap, 433,
967: 173
968:
969: \bibitem[{{Carney} {et~al.}(1996){Carney}, {Laird}, {Latham}, \&
970: {Aguilar}}]{carney96}
971: {Carney}, B.~W., {Laird}, J.~B., {Latham}, D.~W., \& {Aguilar}, L.~A. 1996,
972: \aj, 112, 668
973:
974: \bibitem[{{Carney} {et~al.}(2005){Carney}, {Latham}, \& {Laird}}]{carney05}
975: {Carney}, B.~W., {Latham}, D.~W., \& {Laird}, J.~B. 2005, \aj, 129, 466
976:
977: \bibitem[{{Carollo} {et~al.}(2007)}]{carollo07}
978: {Carollo}, D. {et~al.} 2007, preprint astro-ph/0706.3005
979:
980: \bibitem[{{Chiba} \& {Beers}(2000)}]{chiba00}
981: {Chiba}, M. \& {Beers}, T.~C. 2000, \aj, 119, 2843
982:
983: \bibitem[{{Clementini} {et~al.}(2003){Clementini}, {Gratton}, {Bragaglia},
984: {Carretta}, {Di Fabrizio}, \& {Maio}}]{clementini03}
985: {Clementini}, G., {Gratton}, R., {Bragaglia}, A., {Carretta}, E., {Di
986: Fabrizio}, L., \& {Maio}, M. 2003, \aj, 125, 1309
987:
988: \bibitem[{{Clewley} \& {Kinman}(2006)}]{clewley06}
989: {Clewley}, L. \& {Kinman}, T.~D. 2006, \mnras, 371, L11
990:
991: \bibitem[{{Clewley} {et~al.}(2004){Clewley}, {Warren}, {Hewett}, {Norris}, \&
992: {Evans}}]{clewley04}
993: {Clewley}, L., {Warren}, S.~J., {Hewett}, P.~C., {Norris}, J.~E., \& {Evans},
994: N.~W. 2004, \mnras, 352, 285
995:
996: \bibitem[{{Clewley} {et~al.}(2002){Clewley}, {Warren}, {Hewett}, {Norris},
997: {Peterson}, \& {Evans}}]{clewley02}
998: {Clewley}, L., {Warren}, S.~J., {Hewett}, P.~C., {Norris}, J.~E., {Peterson},
999: R.~C., \& {Evans}, N.~W. 2002, \mnras, 337, 87
1000:
1001: \bibitem[{{Clewley} {et~al.}(2005){Clewley}, {Warren}, {Hewett}, {Norris},
1002: {Wilkinson}, \& {Evans}}]{clewley05}
1003: {Clewley}, L., {Warren}, S.~J., {Hewett}, P.~C., {Norris}, J.~E., {Wilkinson},
1004: M.~I., \& {Evans}, N.~W. 2005, \mnras, 362, 349
1005:
1006: \bibitem[{{Du} {et~al.}(2006){Du}, {Ma}, {Wu}, \& {Zhou}}]{du06}
1007: {Du}, C., {Ma}, J., {Wu}, Z., \& {Zhou}, X. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1304
1008:
1009: \bibitem[{{Duffau} {et~al.}(2006){Duffau}, {Zinn}, {Vivas}, {Carraro},
1010: {M{\'e}ndez}, {Winnick}, \& {Gallart}}]{duffau06}
1011: {Duffau}, S., {Zinn}, R., {Vivas}, A.~K., {Carraro}, G., {M{\'e}ndez}, R.~A.,
1012: {Winnick}, R., \& {Gallart}, C. 2006, \apjl, 636, L97
1013:
1014: \bibitem[{{Efstathiou} {et~al.}(1988){Efstathiou}, {Ellis}, \&
1015: {Peterson}}]{eep}
1016: {Efstathiou}, G., {Ellis}, R.~S., \& {Peterson}, B.~A. 1988, \mnras, 232, 431
1017:
1018: \bibitem[{{Fabricant} {et~al.}(1998){Fabricant}, {Cheimets}, {Caldwell}, \&
1019: {Geary}}]{fabricant98}
1020: {Fabricant}, D., {Cheimets}, P., {Caldwell}, N., \& {Geary}, J. 1998, \pasp,
1021: 110, 79
1022:
1023: \bibitem[{{Font} {et~al.}(2006){Font}, {Johnston}, {Bullock}, \&
1024: {Robertson}}]{font06}
1025: {Font}, A.~S., {Johnston}, K.~V., {Bullock}, J.~S., \& {Robertson}, B.~E. 2006,
1026: \apj, 638, 585
1027:
1028: \bibitem[{{Frenk} \& {White}(1980)}]{frenk80}
1029: {Frenk}, C.~S. \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1980, \mnras, 193, 295
1030:
1031: \bibitem[{{Gilmore} \& {Reid}(1983)}]{gilmore83}
1032: {Gilmore}, G. \& {Reid}, N. 1983, \mnras, 202, 1025
1033:
1034: \bibitem[{{Gilmore} {et~al.}(1995){Gilmore}, {Wyse}, \& {Jones}}]{gilmore95}
1035: {Gilmore}, G., {Wyse}, R.~F.~G., \& {Jones}, J.~B. 1995, \aj, 109, 1095
1036:
1037: \bibitem[{{Gilmore} {et~al.}(2002){Gilmore}, {Wyse}, \& {Norris}}]{gilmore02}
1038: {Gilmore}, G., {Wyse}, R.~F.~G., \& {Norris}, J.~E. 2002, \apjl, 574, L39
1039:
1040: \bibitem[{{Girard} {et~al.}(2006){Girard}, {Korchagin}, {Casetti-Dinescu}, {van
1041: Altena}, {L{\'o}pez}, \& {Monet}}]{girard06}
1042: {Girard}, T.~M., {Korchagin}, V.~I., {Casetti-Dinescu}, D.~I., {van Altena},
1043: W.~F., {L{\'o}pez}, C.~E., \& {Monet}, D.~G. 2006, \aj, 132, 1768
1044:
1045: \bibitem[{{Gould} \& {Popowski}(1998)}]{gould98}
1046: {Gould}, A. \& {Popowski}, P. 1998, \apj, 508, 844
1047:
1048: \bibitem[{{Green} \& {Morrison}(1993)}]{green93}
1049: {Green}, E.~M. \& {Morrison}, H.~L. 1993, in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ 48, The Globular
1050: Cluster-Galaxy Connection, ed. G.~H. {Smith} \& J.~P. {Brodie} (San
1051: Francisco: ASP), 318
1052:
1053: \bibitem[{{Grillmair}(2006)}]{grillmair06b}
1054: {Grillmair}, C.~J. 2006, \apjl, 645, L37
1055:
1056: \bibitem[{{Grillmair} \& {Dionatos}(2006)}]{grillmair06a}
1057: {Grillmair}, C.~J. \& {Dionatos}, O. 2006, \apjl, 643, L17
1058:
1059: \bibitem[{{Harding} {et~al.}(2001){Harding}, {Morrison}, {Olszewski},
1060: {Arabadjis}, {Mateo}, {Dohm-Palmer}, {Freeman}, \& {Norris}}]{harding01}
1061: {Harding}, P., {Morrison}, H.~L., {Olszewski}, E.~W., {Arabadjis}, J., {Mateo},
1062: M., {Dohm-Palmer}, R.~C., {Freeman}, K.~C., \& {Norris}, J.~E. 2001, \aj,
1063: 122, 1397
1064:
1065: \bibitem[{{Harris}(1996)}]{harris96}
1066: {Harris}, W.~E. 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
1067:
1068: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2005){Hogg}, {Blanton}, {Roweis}, \&
1069: {Johnston}}]{hogg05}
1070: {Hogg}, D.~W., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Roweis}, S.~T., \& {Johnston}, K.~V. 2005,
1071: \apj, 629, 268
1072:
1073: \bibitem[{{Ibata} {et~al.}(1994){Ibata}, {Gilmore}, \& {Irwin}}]{ibata94}
1074: {Ibata}, R.~A., {Gilmore}, G., \& {Irwin}, M.~J. 1994, \nat, 370, 194
1075:
1076: \bibitem[{{Ibata} {et~al.}(2003){Ibata}, {Irwin}, {Lewis}, {Ferguson}, \&
1077: {Tanvir}}]{ibata03}
1078: {Ibata}, R.~A., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Lewis}, G.~F., {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., \&
1079: {Tanvir}, N. 2003, \mnras, 340, L21
1080:
1081: \bibitem[{{Johnston} {et~al.}(1996){Johnston}, {Hernquist}, \&
1082: {Bolte}}]{johnston96}
1083: {Johnston}, K.~V., {Hernquist}, L., \& {Bolte}, M. 1996, \apj, 465, 278
1084:
1085: \bibitem[{{Juri\'c} {et~al.}(2005)}]{juric05}
1086: {Juri\'c}, M. {et~al.} 2005, preprint, astro-ph/0510520
1087:
1088: \bibitem[{{Kenyon} \& {Hartmann}(1995)}]{kenyon95}
1089: {Kenyon}, S.~J. \& {Hartmann}, L. 1995, \apjs, 101, 117
1090:
1091: \bibitem[{{Kinman} {et~al.}(2004){Kinman}, {Bragaglia}, {Cacciari}, {Buzzoni},
1092: \& {Spagna}}]{kinman04}
1093: {Kinman}, T.~D., {Bragaglia}, A., {Cacciari}, C., {Buzzoni}, A., \& {Spagna},
1094: A. 2004, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 75, 36
1095:
1096: \bibitem[{{Kinman} {et~al.}(2007){Kinman}, {Cacciari}, {Bragaglia}, {Buzzoni},
1097: \& {Spagna}}]{kinman07}
1098: {Kinman}, T.~D., {Cacciari}, C., {Bragaglia}, A., {Buzzoni}, A., \& {Spagna},
1099: A. 2007, \mnras, 375, 1381
1100:
1101: \bibitem[{{Kinman} {et~al.}(1994){Kinman}, {Suntzeff}, \& {Kraft}}]{kinman94}
1102: {Kinman}, T.~D., {Suntzeff}, N.~B., \& {Kraft}, R.~P. 1994, \aj, 108, 1722
1103:
1104: \bibitem[{{Larsen} \& {Humphreys}(2003)}]{larsen03}
1105: {Larsen}, J.~A. \& {Humphreys}, R.~M. 2003, \aj, 125, 1958
1106:
1107: \bibitem[{{Layden} {et~al.}(1996){Layden}, {Hanson}, {Hawley}, {Klemola}, \&
1108: {Hanley}}]{layden96}
1109: {Layden}, A.~C., {Hanson}, R.~B., {Hawley}, S.~L., {Klemola}, A.~R., \&
1110: {Hanley}, C.~J. 1996, \aj, 112, 2110
1111:
1112: \bibitem[{{Majewski}(1992)}]{majewski92}
1113: {Majewski}, S.~R. 1992, \apjs, 78, 87
1114:
1115: \bibitem[{{Majewski} {et~al.}(1996){Majewski}, {Munn}, \&
1116: {Hawley}}]{majewski96}
1117: {Majewski}, S.~R., {Munn}, J.~A., \& {Hawley}, S.~L. 1996, \apjl, 459, L73
1118:
1119: \bibitem[{{Majewski} {et~al.}(2003){Majewski}, {Skrutskie}, {Weinberg}, \&
1120: {Ostheimer}}]{majewski03}
1121: {Majewski}, S.~R., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {Weinberg}, M.~D., \& {Ostheimer}, J.~C.
1122: 2003, \apj, 599, 1082
1123:
1124: \bibitem[{{Martin}(2004)}]{martin04}
1125: {Martin}, J.~C. 2004, \aj, 128, 2474
1126:
1127: \bibitem[{{Martin} \& {Morrison}(1998)}]{martin98}
1128: {Martin}, J.~C. \& {Morrison}, H.~L. 1998, \aj, 116, 1724
1129:
1130: \bibitem[{{Mink} {et~al.}(2004){Mink}, {Brown}, \& {Kurtz}}]{mink04}
1131: {Mink}, D.~J., {Brown}, W.~R., \& {Kurtz}, M.~J. 2004, in ASP Conf. Ser. 314:
1132: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed.
1133: F.~{Ochsenbein}, M.~G. {Allen}, \& D.~{Egret} (San Francisco: ASP), 141
1134:
1135: \bibitem[{{Monet} {et~al.}(2003)}]{monet03}
1136: {Monet}, D.~G. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 984
1137:
1138: \bibitem[{{Morrison} {et~al.}(1990){Morrison}, {Flynn}, \&
1139: {Freeman}}]{morrison90}
1140: {Morrison}, H.~L., {Flynn}, C., \& {Freeman}, K.~C. 1990, \aj, 100, 1191
1141:
1142: \bibitem[{{Morrison} {et~al.}(2000){Morrison}, {Mateo}, {Olszewski}, {Harding},
1143: {Dohm-Palmer}, {Freeman}, {Norris}, \& {Morita}}]{morrison00}
1144: {Morrison}, H.~L., {Mateo}, M., {Olszewski}, E.~W., {Harding}, P.,
1145: {Dohm-Palmer}, R.~C., {Freeman}, K.~C., {Norris}, J.~E., \& {Morita}, M.
1146: 2000, \aj, 119, 2254
1147:
1148: \bibitem[{{Nelder} \& {Mead}(1965)}]{nelder65}
1149: {Nelder}, J.~A. \& {Mead}, R. 1965, Computer Journal, 7, 308
1150:
1151: \bibitem[{{Newberg} {et~al.}(2007){Newberg}, {Yanny}, {Cole}, {Beers}, {Re
1152: Fiorentin}, {Schneider}, \& {Wilhelm}}]{newberg07}
1153: {Newberg}, H.~J., {Yanny}, B., {Cole}, N., {Beers}, T.~C., {Re Fiorentin}, P.,
1154: {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Wilhelm}, R. 2007, \apj, in press
1155:
1156: \bibitem[{{Newberg} {et~al.}(2002)}]{newberg02}
1157: {Newberg}, H.~J. {et~al.} 2002, \apj, 569, 245
1158:
1159: \bibitem[{{Norris} {et~al.}(1985){Norris}, {Bessell}, \& {Pickles}}]{norris85}
1160: {Norris}, J., {Bessell}, M.~S., \& {Pickles}, A.~J. 1985, \apjs, 58, 463
1161:
1162: \bibitem[{{Norris} \& {Hawkins}(1991)}]{norris91}
1163: {Norris}, J.~E. \& {Hawkins}, M.~R.~S. 1991, \apj, 380, 104
1164:
1165: \bibitem[{{Pier}(1983)}]{pier83}
1166: {Pier}, J.~R. 1983, \apjs, 53, 791
1167:
1168: \bibitem[{{Pojmanski}(2002)}]{pojmanski02}
1169: {Pojmanski}, G. 2002, Acta Astronomica, 52, 397
1170:
1171: \bibitem[{{Press} {et~al.}(1992){Press}, {Teukolsky}, {Vetterling}, \&
1172: {Flannery}}]{press92}
1173: {Press}, W.~H., {Teukolsky}, S.~A., {Vetterling}, W.~T., \& {Flannery}, B.~P.
1174: 1992, {Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing} (Cambridge:
1175: University Press, 2nd ed.)
1176:
1177: \bibitem[{{Preston} {et~al.}(1994){Preston}, {Beers}, \&
1178: {Shectman}}]{preston94}
1179: {Preston}, G.~W., {Beers}, T.~C., \& {Shectman}, S.~A. 1994, \aj, 108, 538
1180:
1181: \bibitem[{{Preston} {et~al.}(1991){Preston}, {Shectman}, \&
1182: {Beers}}]{preston91}
1183: {Preston}, G.~W., {Shectman}, S.~A., \& {Beers}, T.~C. 1991, \apj, 375, 121
1184:
1185: \bibitem[{{Preston} \& {Sneden}(2000)}]{preston00}
1186: {Preston}, G.~W. \& {Sneden}, C. 2000, \aj, 120, 1014
1187:
1188: \bibitem[{{Reid} \& {Majewski}(1993)}]{reid93}
1189: {Reid}, N. \& {Majewski}, S.~R. 1993, \apj, 409, 635
1190:
1191: \bibitem[{{Robin} {et~al.}(1996){Robin}, {Haywood}, {Creze}, {Ojha}, \&
1192: {Bienayme}}]{robin96}
1193: {Robin}, A.~C., {Haywood}, M., {Creze}, M., {Ojha}, D.~K., \& {Bienayme}, O.
1194: 1996, \aap, 305, 125
1195:
1196: \bibitem[{{Robin} {et~al.}(2000){Robin}, {Reyl{\'e}}, \&
1197: {Cr{\'e}z{\'e}}}]{robin00}
1198: {Robin}, A.~C., {Reyl{\'e}}, C., \& {Cr{\'e}z{\'e}}, M. 2000, \aap, 359, 103
1199:
1200: \bibitem[{{Robin} {et~al.}(2003){Robin}, {Reyl{\'e}}, {Derri{\`e}re}, \&
1201: {Picaud}}]{robin03}
1202: {Robin}, A.~C., {Reyl{\'e}}, C., {Derri{\`e}re}, S., \& {Picaud}, S. 2003,
1203: \aap, 409, 523
1204:
1205: \bibitem[{{Rocha-Pinto} {et~al.}(2004){Rocha-Pinto}, {Majewski}, {Skrutskie},
1206: {Crane}, \& {Patterson}}]{rochapinto04}
1207: {Rocha-Pinto}, H.~J., {Majewski}, S.~R., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {Crane}, J.~D., \&
1208: {Patterson}, R.~J. 2004, \apj, 615, 732
1209:
1210: \bibitem[{{Sarajedini}(1993)}]{sarajedini93}
1211: {Sarajedini}, A. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 53: Blue Stragglers, ed. R.~A.
1212: {Saffer}, 14
1213:
1214: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1215: {Davis}}]{schlegel98}
1216: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1217:
1218: \bibitem[{{Siegel} {et~al.}(2002){Siegel}, {Majewski}, {Reid}, \&
1219: {Thompson}}]{siegel02}
1220: {Siegel}, M.~H., {Majewski}, S.~R., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Thompson}, I.~B. 2002,
1221: \apj, 578, 151
1222:
1223: \bibitem[{{Sirko} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{sirko04a}
1224: {Sirko}, E. {et~al.} 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 127, 899
1225:
1226: \bibitem[{{Sirko} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{sirko04b}
1227: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 127, 914
1228:
1229: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006)}]{skrutskie06}
1230: {Skrutskie}, M.~F. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
1231:
1232: \bibitem[{{Sommer-Larsen} {et~al.}(1989){Sommer-Larsen}, {Christensen}, \&
1233: {Carter}}]{sommer89}
1234: {Sommer-Larsen}, J., {Christensen}, P.~R., \& {Carter}, D. 1989, \mnras, 238,
1235: 225
1236:
1237: \bibitem[{{Spagna} {et~al.}(2003){Spagna}, {Cacciari}, {Drimmel}, {Kinman},
1238: {Lattanzi}, \& {Smart}}]{spagna03}
1239: {Spagna}, A., {Cacciari}, C., {Drimmel}, R., {Kinman}, T., {Lattanzi}, M.~G.,
1240: \& {Smart}, R.~L. 2003, in ASP Conf.\ Ser.\ Vol.\ 298, 137
1241:
1242: \bibitem[{{Vivas} \& {Zinn}(2006)}]{vivas06}
1243: {Vivas}, A.~K. \& {Zinn}, R. 2006, \aj, 132, 714
1244:
1245: \bibitem[{{Wilhelm} {et~al.}(1999{\natexlab{a}}){Wilhelm}, {Beers}, \&
1246: {Gray}}]{wilhelm99a}
1247: {Wilhelm}, R., {Beers}, T.~C., \& {Gray}, R.~O. 1999{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 117,
1248: 2308
1249:
1250: \bibitem[{{Wilhelm} {et~al.}(1999{\natexlab{b}}){Wilhelm}, {Beers},
1251: {Sommer-Larsen}, {Pier}, {Layden}, {Flynn}, {Rossi}, \&
1252: {Christensen}}]{wilhelm99b}
1253: {Wilhelm}, R., {Beers}, T.~C., {Sommer-Larsen}, J., {Pier}, J.~R., {Layden},
1254: A.~C., {Flynn}, C., {Rossi}, S., \& {Christensen}, P.~R. 1999{\natexlab{b}},
1255: \aj, 117, 2329
1256:
1257: \bibitem[{{Wo{\'z}niak} {et~al.}(2004)}]{wozniak04}
1258: {Wo{\'z}niak}, P.~R. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 2436
1259:
1260: \bibitem[{{Wyse} {et~al.}(2006){Wyse}, {Gilmore}, {Norris}, {Wilkinson},
1261: {Kleyna}, {Koch}, {Evans}, \& {Grebel}}]{wyse06}
1262: {Wyse}, R.~F.~G., {Gilmore}, G., {Norris}, J.~E., {Wilkinson}, M.~I., {Kleyna},
1263: J.~T., {Koch}, A., {Evans}, N.~W., \& {Grebel}, E.~K. 2006, \apjl, 639, L13
1264:
1265: \bibitem[{{Yanny} {et~al.}(2003)}]{yanny03}
1266: {Yanny}, B. {et~al.} 2003, \apj, 588, 824
1267:
1268: \bibitem[{{Zacharias} {et~al.}(2004){Zacharias}, {Urban}, {Zacharias},
1269: {Wycoff}, {Hall}, {Monet}, \& {Rafferty}}]{zacharias04}
1270: {Zacharias}, N., {Urban}, S.~E., {Zacharias}, M.~I., {Wycoff}, G.~L., {Hall},
1271: D.~M., {Monet}, D.~G., \& {Rafferty}, T.~J. 2004, \aj, 127, 3043
1272:
1273: \end{thebibliography}
1274:
1275:
1276:
1277: % FIGURES
1278: % \clearpage
1279:
1280:
1281: \appendix
1282: \section{DATA TABLES}
1283:
1284: Tables \ref{tab:dat1} and \ref{tab:dat2} contain the photometric and
1285: spectroscopic measurements for the 2414 2MASS-selected BHB candidates. Our survey
1286: boundaries include 100 objects previously observed as part of Papers I and II. We
1287: include the previously published objects in Tables \ref{tab:dat1} and \ref{tab:dat2}
1288: for completeness. Tables \ref{tab:dat1} and \ref{tab:dat2} are presented in their
1289: entirety in the electronic edition of the Astronomical Journal. A portion of the
1290: tables are shown here for guidance regarding their format and content.
1291:
1292: Table \ref{tab:dat1} summarizes photometry and positions. Column (1) is our
1293: identifier. The designation CHSS stands for Century Halo Star Survey and is chosen
1294: to be unique from previous surveys. Column (2) is the J2000 right ascension in
1295: hours, minutes, and seconds. Column (3) is the J2000 declination in degrees,
1296: arcminutes, and arcseconds. Column (4) is the extinction-corrected 2MASS $J_0$
1297: magnitude. Columns (5) and (6) are the extinction-corrected 2MASS colors $(J-H)_0$
1298: and $(H-K)_0$. Column (7) is the $E(B-V)$ reddening value from \citet{schlegel98}.
1299: Columns (8) and (9) are the Galactic coordinates, in degrees. Column (10) is our
1300: $BV0$ color predicted from 2MASS photometry and Balmer line strengths (and SDSS
1301: photometry, where available).
1302:
1303: Table \ref{tab:dat2} summarizes the spectroscopic and stellar parameters.
1304: We include all the DA white dwarfs and subdwarfs in this table, but we omit their
1305: stellar parameters as our analysis is meaningless for these objects. We also omit
1306: stellar parameters for a few dozen objects with unusually low signal-to-noise
1307: spectra. Column (1) is our identifier. Column (2) is the heliocentric radial
1308: velocity in km s$^{-1}$. Column (3) is the spectral type, where B0=10, A0=20,
1309: F0=30, and so forth. Column (4) is the effective temperature in K. Column (5) is
1310: the surface gravity in cm s$^{-2}$. Column (6) is the metallicity given as the
1311: logarithmic [Fe/H] ratio relative to the Sun. Column (7) is our classification:
1312: BHB = blue horizontal branch star, BHB/A = possible blue horizontal branch star with
1313: [Fe/H] $>-0.6$, A = high surface gravity, early A-type star, DA = DA white dwarf, sd
1314: = subdwarf. Column (8) is the absolute $M_V$ magnitude estimated from Equations
1315: \ref{eqn:mvbhb} and \ref{eqn:mvbs} for BHB and A stars, respectively. Column (9) is
1316: the estimated distance in kpc. Absolute magnitude and distance estimates are only
1317: provided for BHB and A-type stars, as described in Section 3.5.
1318:
1319:
1320: % TABLES
1321: % \clearpage
1322:
1323: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrccccccc} % DATA TABLE I
1324: \tablecolumns{10} \tablewidth{0pt}
1325: \tabletypesize{\small}
1326: \tablecaption{PHOTOMETRY\label{tab:dat1}}
1327: \tablehead{
1328: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$J_0$} &
1329: \colhead{$(J-H)_0$} & \colhead{$(H-K)_0$} & \colhead{$E(\bv)$} &
1330: \colhead{$l$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{$BV0$} \\
1331: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{$\alpha_{\rm J2000}$} & \colhead{$\delta_{\rm J2000}$} &
1332: \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} &
1333: \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(deg)} & \colhead{(mag)} \\
1334: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} &
1335: \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} &
1336: \colhead{(8)} & \colhead{(9)} & \colhead{(10)} \\
1337: }
1338: \startdata
1339: CHSS 3014 & 0:01:29.2 & 16:01:51 & $13.26 \pm 0.026$ & $ 0.06 \pm 0.04$ & $ 0.07 \pm 0.05$ & 0.037 & 105.787 & $-45.172$ & $ 0.17$ \\
1340: CHSS 3015 & 0:01:31.4 & 18:36:09 & $14.20 \pm 0.028$ & $ 0.04 \pm 0.05$ & $ 0.08 \pm 0.07$ & 0.033 & 106.753 & $-42.696$ & $ 0.24$ \\
1341: CHSS 3016 & 0:01:32.9 & 22:58:26 & $15.01 \pm 0.040$ & $-0.18 \pm 0.11$ & $ 0.02 \pm 0.17$ & 0.079 & 108.220 & $-38.468$ & $ 0.08$ \\
1342: CHSS 3017 & 0:01:59.2 & 25:01:07 & $13.77 \pm 0.027$ & $-0.05 \pm 0.05$ & $ 0.01 \pm 0.07$ & 0.088 & 108.964 & $-36.508$ & $ 0.12$ \\
1343: \enddata
1344: \tablecomments{Table \ref{tab:dat1} is presented in its entirety
1345: in the electronic edition of the Astronomical Journal. A portion is shown
1346: here for guidance and content.}
1347: \end{deluxetable}
1348:
1349:
1350: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccc} % DATA TABLE II
1351: \tabletypesize \small
1352: % \tablewidth{0pt}
1353: \tablecaption{SPECTROSCOPIC AND STELLAR PARAMETERS\label{tab:dat2}}
1354: \tablecolumns{9}
1355: \tablehead{
1356: \colhead{} & \colhead{$v_{radial}$} & \colhead{} &
1357: \colhead{$T_{eff}$} & \colhead{$\log{g}$} & \colhead{} &
1358: \colhead{} & \colhead{$M_V$} & \colhead{Dist} \\
1359: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{Type} &
1360: \colhead{(K)} & \colhead{(cm s$^{-2}$)} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} &
1361: \colhead{Class} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(kpc)} \\
1362: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} &
1363: \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} &
1364: \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)} & \colhead{(9)} \\
1365: }
1366: \startdata
1367: CHSS 3014 & $-163 \pm 11$ & $20.3 \pm 2.1$ & 7644 & 3.26 & $-1.02$ & BHB & $0.61 \pm 0.08$ & $ 4.01 \pm 0.31$ \\
1368: CHSS 3015 & $ -54 \pm 12$ & $27.1 \pm 1.9$ & 7356 & 3.54 & $-0.65$ &\nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
1369: CHSS 3016 & $-247 \pm 13$ & $20.7 \pm 2.4$ & 8388 & 3.51 & $-1.34$ & BHB & $0.70 \pm 0.10$ & $ 7.85 \pm 0.64$ \\
1370: CHSS 3017 & $ -10 \pm 14$ & $22.2 \pm 1.7$ & 8195 & 4.20 & $-0.18$ & A & $1.90 \pm 0.20$ & $ 2.67 \pm 0.32$ \\
1371: \enddata
1372: \tablecomments{Table \ref{tab:dat2} is presented in its entirety
1373: in the electronic edition of the Astronomical Journal. A portion is shown
1374: here for guidance and content.}
1375: \end{deluxetable}
1376:
1377:
1378: \end{document}
1379: