1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: \shorttitle{M31's  inner and outer halo}

3: \shortauthors{Koch et al.}

4: \slugcomment{Accepted to the Astrophysical Journal}

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: 

8: \title{Kinematic and Chemical constraints on the formation of M31's inner and outer 

9: halo\altaffilmark{$\dagger$}}

10: 

11: \author{Andreas Koch\altaffilmark{1},  R.~Michael Rich\altaffilmark{1}, David B. Reitzel\altaffilmark{1}, 

12: Nicolas F. Martin\altaffilmark{2}, Rodrigo A. Ibata\altaffilmark{3}, Scott C. Chapman\altaffilmark{4}, 

13: Steven R. Majewski\altaffilmark{5},  Masao Mori\altaffilmark{6}, Yeong-Shang Loh\altaffilmark{1},  

14: James C. Ostheimer\altaffilmark{5}, and Mikito Tanaka\altaffilmark{7}}

15: \email{akoch@astro.ucla.edu}

16: 

17: % 

18: \altaffiltext{$\dagger$}{Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is 

19: operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of 

20: California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible 

21: by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.} 

22: \altaffiltext{1}{UCLA, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Los Angeles, CA, USA}

23: \altaffiltext{2}{Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}

24: \altaffiltext{3}{Observatoire de Strasbourg, F-67000 Strasbourg, France}

25: \altaffiltext{4}{Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK}

26: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA}

27: \altaffiltext{6}{Center for Comuputational Sciences, University of Tsukuba,

28: Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan}

29: \altaffiltext{7}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa,

30: Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}

31: 

32: \begin{abstract}

33: The halo of M31 shows a wealth of substructures, some of which are 

34: consistent with the assembly from satellite accretion. 

35: Here we report on kinematic and abundance results from Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopy in the 

36: near-infrared calcium triplet region  

37: of  over 3500 

38: red giant star candidates along the minor axis and in off-axis  spheroid fields of M31. 

39: These data reach out to large radial distances of 

40: about  160 kpc. 

41: %

42: The derived radial velocity distributions show an indication of a kinematically cold substructure 

43: around $\sim 17$ kpc,   

44: which has been reported before. 

45: We devise a new improved method to measure spectroscopic metallicities from 

46: the calcium triplet in low signal-to-noise spectra 

47: using a weighted coaddition of the individual lines. 

48: The resulting distribution (accurate to $\sim$0.3 dex down to signal to noise ratios of 5) 

49: leads us to note an even stronger gradient in the abundance distribution 

50: along M31's minor axis and in particular towards the outer halo fields than previously detected. 

51: The mean metallicity in the outer fields reaches below $-2$ dex, with individual values 

52: as low as $\la -2.6$ dex. This is the first time such a metal poor halo has been detected in M31. 

53: In the fields towards the inner spheroid we find a sharp decline of $\sim$0.5 dex in metallicity in 

54: a region at  $\sim$20 kpc, which roughly coincides with the edge of an  extended disk, previously 

55: detected from star count maps. 

56: A large fraction of red giants that we detect in the most distant fields are likely members of 

57: M33's overlapping halo. 

58: %

59: A comparison of our velocities with those predicted by new N-body 

60: simulations argues that the event responsible for the giant Stream is most 

61: likely not responsible for the full population of the inner halo. 

62: We show further 

63: that the abundance distribution of the Stream is different from that of the 

64: inner halo, from which it becomes  evident, in turn, that the merger event that formed the 

65: Stream and the outer halo cannot have contributed any significant material 

66: to the inner spheroid. All these  

67: severe structure changes in the halo suggest a  high degree of infall and  

68: stochastic abundance accretion governing the build-up of M31's inner and outer halo. 

69: \end{abstract}

70: \keywords{Galaxies: abundances --- Galaxies: evolution --- Galaxies: kinematics --- 

71: Galaxies: structure ---  Galaxies: stellar content --- Galaxies: structure --- 

72: Galaxies: individual (\objectname{M31})}

73: 

74: \section{Introduction}

75: With the discovery of the Giant Stream (Ibata et al. 2001), the mapping

76: of complex structures in the ``halo'' of M31 (Ferguson et al. 2002; Gilbert et al. 2007; Ibata et al. 2007), and

77: the isolation of an

78: extended kinematic disk structure (Ibata et al. 2005) the idea that the radially more 

79: distant populations of M31 originate in accretion events has become 

80: established.   Even a subset 

81: of M31 satellites might relate to the breakup

82: of a massive progenitor, based on the polar and planar alignment

83: of a number of its early-type satellite galaxies (Koch \& Grebel 2006).

84: 

85: Prior to this paradigm shift in the description of the M31 halo,

86: relatively shallow Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imagery revealed what appeared to be a mostly

87: metal rich M31 halo (e.g. Rich et al. 1996; Bellazini et al. 2003). 

88: Mould \& Kristian (1986) were the first to find a metal rich (47

89: Tuc-like) halo population, using ground-based imaging.

90: The widespread presence of this metal

91: rich population as well as the descending red giant branch (RGB; in contrast

92: to the metal poor globular clusters) was noted by Bellazzini et al.

93: (2003).  Ground-based minor axis star counts appear to show a smooth

94: $r^{1/4}$ spheroid (Pritchet \& van den Bergh 1994), and some studies

95: have argued that the metal rich halo population is an extension of the

96: metal rich bulge (e.g. Mould \& Kristian 1986; Guhathakurta et al. 2006).

97: But alternatively, the case has been made that the metal rich stars more closely

98: coincide with the perturbed regions (Ferguson et al. 2002).

99: 

100: Metal poor stars around M31 were already indicated in photometric studies 

101: of its halo at projected distances of 7 kpc (Mould \& Kristian 1986) to 20 kpc (Durrell 2001).  

102: Subsequent spectroscopic surveys then fully revealed a complex picture of the

103: halo composition:   

104: Using the well-established near-infrared calcium triplet (CaT) as a metallicity indicator, 

105: Reitzel \& Guhathakurta (2002) find metal

106: poor stars at 19 kpc on the minor axis.  Benefitting from much larger

107: samples, Chapman et al. (2006) and Kalirai et al. (2006a) argue based on

108: kinematics and metallicity that the

109: expected metal poor halo population is in fact present.

110: Giants with the radial velocity of M31 are claimed

111: as members of the halo to distances in excess of 100 kpc 

112: (Ostheimer 2003; Gilbert et al. 2006) and an overall metallicity

113: gradient of the M31 halo is proposed by Kalirai et al. (2006a).   Yet,

114: over much of this region, Ibata et al. (2007) find clear evidence of

115: density enhancements associated with accretion.   What

116: fraction of the outer halo is then comprised of such recently accreted material?  

117: In particular the chemical composition of the outer stars remains unknown, and 

118: depending on the adopted [$\alpha$/Fe] ratio,  Kalirai et al. (2006a) estimate a 

119: mean metallicity in the outermost field $\sim$0.3 dex higher than the mean Milky Way metallicity 

120: (for Solar scaled abundances), or  a mean that is comparable to the Milky Way halo under the 

121: assumption of strong $\alpha-$enhancement. 

122: 

123: In fact, pencil beam ultradeep imaging using the Advanced Camera for

124: Surveys (ACS) on board the HST, offers a complementary

125: picture of the complexity present in the halo populations.   The placement

126: of these deep imaging fields has benefitted from the starcount maps and

127: Keck/DEIMOS kinematic studies. 

128: Brown et al. (2003) first demonstrated that a minor axis field projected

129: at 11 kpc contains an indisputable range in age and abundance,

130: extending to nearly-Solar, and a predominant age

131: range from 6--10 Gyr.  Comparing 3 fields, in the inner spheroid (at 11\,kpc),  the M31 disk 

132: and on the Ibata et al. (2001) debris stream, Brown et al. (2006) find the disk to be younger and 

133: more metal rich, and lacking old stars. 

134: They find the stream and spheroid fields to be indistinguishable based on their color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs), leading to the conclusion that only one progenitor is responsible for the debris field in the inner halo region.  However, if dynamical mixing were efficient in these regions, it could also erase the signatures from different sources.

135: Brown et al. (2007) investigate a field at 21 kpc and find

136: evidence that its population  is marginally older and more metal

137: poor than the inner halo field. 

138: 

139: The present-day pencil beam surveys  have found clear

140: evidence of an age range in every field studied and appear to support

141: other evidence of a gradient in age and abundance.  What has been lacking

142: to date has been a survey of abundances and kinematics that ties these

143: fields together and provides a context for the interpretation of these

144: deep fields.  This is 

145: one aim of this paper, and a natural extension of our systematic survey of

146: the structure and kinematics of M31 along its southwest minor axis.

147: 

148: While it is attractive to seek {\it one} massive progenitor for the inner debris

149: field 

150: there are several arguments against this

151: position.  First, the existence of both the giant stream and the extended

152: disk suggest at least two very different sources for the debris field at 11 kpc. 

153: Second, the dramatic variation of the extended spatial structure of the debris

154: field as a function of metallicity and age (Ferguson et al. 2002)

155: is best understood by invoking  multiple events involving different accretors. 

156: Moreover, the distant rotating disk-like population (Ibata et

157: al. 2005) is superposed on other, likely unrelated, structures that are

158: suggestive of shells associated with the giant Stream merger (see also Ibata et al. 2007).  

159: It is then an intriguing question, whether a corresponding measurable abundance

160: change occurs at the point where this field ends.  

161: 

162: In the context of CDM models (e.g. Bullock \& Johnston 2005) halos

163: are thought, in general, to accrete from the debris of lower mass

164: satellites.   Yet Mouhcine et al. (2005) find a correlation between parent

165: galaxy luminosity and halo metallicity. Nominally,   M31 has a high metallicity halo

166: and falls in this relationship alongside galaxies with more prominent

167: bulges. There is a paradox: how can the halo of M31 be dominated by stochastic accretion

168:  events, yet still have an $r^{1/4}$ profile and still appear to follow trends set by luminosities 

169:  of the host galaxies?

170: 

171: We report here the culmination of an observational campaign begun in

172: 2002; Table~1 lists the observing run details by Principal Investigator. 

173: %

174: This Paper is organized as follows: 

175: In \textsection 2 we present our observations and the standard reduction steps taken, while 

176: \textsection 3 describes our radial velocity measurements.  The dwarf/giant separation 

177: is discussed in \textsection 4 and in \textsection 5 we devise a new technique to measure 

178: spectroscopic metallicities from the CaT. The following sections are then dedicated to 

179: the analysis of kinematic (\textsection 6) and abundance (\textsection 7) substructures and gradients 

180: in M31's halo. Finally, \textsection 8  summarizes our findings.  

181: 

182: \section{Observations and reduction}

183: In the course of an ongoing  large Keck program (PI: R.~M. Rich) that aims at elucidating the 

184: formation history of M31's halo structures based on the kinematics and chemical analyses 

185: of red giants, we collected a vast spectroscopic data set, which covers, amongst others, 

186: fields on the minor axis of M31 reaching from 9 kpc out to large projected distances of $\sim$160 kpc towards the 

187: south-east\footnote{Throughout this work we will adopt a distance to M31 of 784 kpc (Stanek \& 

188: Garnavich 1998)}. These fields were originally imaged by Ostheimer (2003). 

189: Two additional fields at 60 kpc on the minor axis were obtained in the course of a large DEIMOS 

190: survey covering a wide set of fields spread across M31's full halo and disk components (PI: S. Chapman; see Chapman et al. 2006). 

191:  In this Paper, we will focus on the analysis of the minor axis data and those off-axis fields 

192:  in the southeast halo quadrant, while the 

193: fields located on top of the Giant Stellar Stream (Ibata et al. 2001), 

194: and those coinciding with the HST fields of Brown et al. (2003; 2006; 2007) will be the subject of a 

195: series of forthcoming papers.  

196: For details on the overall target selection, observation strategy and data collection for the whole 

197: project we refer the reader to Kalirai et al. (2006a,b) and Gilbert et al. (2006, 2007). 

198: 

199: \subsection{Observations}

200: Observations were carried out using the DEIMOS multislit spectrograph at the 

201: Keck\,II 10\,m telescope over a number of observing runs from 2002 through 2006 (Table~1), using 

202: a slit width of 1''.   

203: We used the 1200 line mm$^{-1}$ grating, which gives a dispersion of 0.33\,\AA\,pixel$^{-1}$ 

204: and a spectral resolution of 1.41\AA, as estimated from the width of the sky lines.  

205: The majority of the spectra were centered at a wavelength of 7800\AA, yielding  

206: a full spectral coverage of $\sim$6500--9200\AA, which comprises the dominant near infrared lines 

207: of the CaT around 8500\AA.  

208: %

209: Typical integration times were 1 hour per mask, while setup f109\_1 (at 9 kpc) was exposed 

210: for 3 hours in total. 

211: Fig.~1 shows the location of the slit masks discussed in this paper on an INT based star count map 

212: (M. Irwin, private communication; Ibata et al. 2007).

213: Details on these masks are given in Table~1. 

214: 

215: \subsection{Data reduction}

216: Reduction of the spectra was performed with the {\em spec2d} pipeline, which 

217: has been designed at the University of California, Berkeley for the DEEP2 survey\footnote{

218: \url{http://astron.berkeley.edu/$\sim$cooper/deep/spec1d/primer.html}}.  

219: The standard reduction steps comprise flat fielding, wavelength calibration via arc lamp spectra 

220: and sky spectrum removal. 

221: %

222: The total number of extracted science spectra\footnote{The pipeline also extracts additional 

223: point sources that serendipitously fell on the slit during the exposures. 

224: These objects are not considered 

225: in the present work.} finally amounts to 3631 (see Table~2), where   the 

226: signal to noise ($S/N$) ratios typically range from 2 to 60 per pixel 

227: (although a handful of the brightest foreground 

228: dwarf spectra reach as high as $\sim$120) with a median of 8.5.  

229: Fig.~2 displays a number of sample spectra of both high and low $S/N$ around 

230: the CaT and the sodium doublet region, which we will utilize to separate M31 giants from foreground dwarfs in 

231: Section 4. 

232: 

233: \subsection{Photometry}

234: The photometry of our targets, which will be required later on to perform a color-based foreground 

235: separation and to calibrate our spectroscopic metallicity measurements, was taken from two sources: 

236: For the fields targeted in the outer regions of M31's halo (R$\ga$25 kpc) 

237: we used the Washington $M$, $DDO51$ and $T_2$ photometry of 

238: Ostheimer  (2003), which provides a strong separation criterion for red giant selection 

239: (Palma et al. 2003). 

240: These filters were transformed from the Washington system into standard Johnson-Cousins 

241: V and I magnitudes by applying eqs.~1,2 of Majewski (2000). 

242: 

243: The photometry of targets in our inner fields  (R$\la$25 kpc) on M31's minor axis was, on the other 

244: hand, taken from the MegaCam/Megapipe archive (Gwyn 2008). These data are  

245:  available in $i'$ and either $g'$ or $r'$.   Typical exposure times range from 800

246: to 3757 s for $i'$, 1600 to 3200 s for $r'$ and 1445 to 3468 s for $g'$.   

247: %

248: Photometric errors in the catalog are below 0.1 mag for $g' < 24$ mag, and rise to 0.25 mag 

249: at $g = 26$ mag.  The errors in $r'$ are well below $0.1$ mag for $r' < 24$ mag and reach 0.2 mag

250: at $r' = 25$ mag.   Finally,  errors on the $i'$-band magnitudes are below 0.1 mag for almost the entire sample below 22.5 mag, with a maximum error of  0.15 mag at $i'=24$ mag.  

251: %

252: The photometric data was then  matched to our spectroscopic catalog by 

253:  requiring the coordinates from the two sets to match within better than 1$\arcsec$.  

254:  In most cases, the match was better than 0.2$\arcsec$.    

255: 

256: In order to determine the spectroscopic metallicity of each star, V-band magnitudes in 

257: the Johnson-Cousins system are 

258: required.  As only the $g'$ or $r'$ and $i'$ filters in the photometric system of the CFHT are available, 

259: a transformation to V magnitudes is determined from the latest  Padova stellar isochrones (Marigo et al.

260: 2008),  which are available in the CHFT photometric system as well as  for Johnson V.

261: In practice, we obtained transformations from 

262: isochrones with metallicities ranging from $-$2.3 to +0.18 dex and ages of 10 and 12 Gyr.

263:  The transformation from $g',i'$ to V was obtained in four sections: 

264: %

265: \begin{equation}

266: \begin{array}{c@{V=g'}r@{\,(g'-i')}r@{;\qquad}r@{g'-i'}r}

267: & +0.39 & +0.010& & <1.25\\

268: & -0.34  & -0.050 &   1.25 \le &  < 1.70 \\

269: & -0.06 & -0.525 & 1.70 \le & < 3.85\\

270: & -0.22 & +0.740 &3.85 \le &

271: \end{array}

272: %V &=& g'  + 0.39\,(g'-i') + 0.0102; \qquad(g'-i' < 1.25) \\

273: %V &=& g'  - 0.34\,(g'-i')  - 0.05; \qquad(1.25 \le g'-i' < 1.7)\\

274: %V &=& g'  - 0.06\,(g'-i') - 0.525 ;\qquad(1.7 \le g'-i'< 3.85)\\

275: %V &=& g'  - 0.215\,(g'-i') + 0.74; \qquad(3.85 < g'-i')

276: \end{equation}

277: %

278: On the other hand, the transformation from $r,'i'$ to V is defined as follows:

279: %

280: \begin{equation}

281: \begin{array}{c@{V=r'}r@{\,(r'-i')}r@{;\qquad}r@{r'-i'}r}

282: & \,+\,0.98 & \,+\,0.048 & & <1.8\\

283: & \,+\,0.19  & \,+\,0.445 &   1.8 \le &  < 4.0 \\

284: & \,+\,1.03 & \,-\,1.500 & 4.0 \le & \\

285: %V &=& r' + 0.98\,(r'-i') + 0.048 ; r'-i' < 1.8 \\

286: %V &=& r' + 0.19\,(r'-i') +  0.445; 1.8 \le r'-i' < 4 \\

287: %V &=& r  + 1.03\,(r'-i')  - 1.5;  4 < r'-i'

288: \end{array}

289: \end{equation}

290: 

291: Typically, these equations are insensitive to the adopted metallicity and age of the isochrones 

292: and differences in V-magnitude from the different isochrones are less than 0.05 mag. 

293: Only for the super-solar isochrone, the overall systematic errors increase to 0.1 mag.  

294: To account for this we  add a 0.1 mag uncertainty in quadrature to the final error estimates 

295: on the V-band magnitude.

296: 

297: The resultant CMDs for all targeted objects are shown in Fig.~3, separately for M31 giant candidates, 

298: foreground dwarfs and contaminating background galaxies that were separated using the methods 

299: outlined in Sect.~4.  

300: 

301: 

302: \section{Velocity measurements}

303: Radial velocities were measured  by cross correlating our DEIMOS spectra against 

304: a high $S/N$ template spectrum of the bright 

305: K1 red giant HD139195, which was observed using the same instrumental setup as 

306: our observations  (M. Geha, private communication; Simon \& Geha 2007). 

307: In this way we avoid any  systematic uncertainties occurring from 

308: potentially different spectral resolutions and dispersions. 

309: The correlation was performed using  {\sc 

310: iraf}'s\footnote{{\sc iraf} is distributed by the National Optical

311: Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of

312: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative

313: agreement with the National Science Foundation.} {\em fxcor} task. 

314: Preferentially, the entire covered spectral region was used in the correlation,    

315: where we rejected the wavelength regions of telluric absorption, in particular 

316: the prominent atmospheric A- and B-bands at $\lambda\lambda$\,7600, 6860\AA.  

317: For cases in which the correlation of the entire spectrum produced weak or no 

318: correlation peaks, i.e., for the lowest $S/N$ spectra, we restricted the windows to single narrow 

319: regions around prominent 

320: absorption features, such as the CaT from 8475--8662\AA\ and/or the Na doublet from  

321: 8179--8200\AA.   

322: Choice of these band passes will minimize the contribution of potential residual telluric absorption 

323: lines (e.g., Schiavon et al. 1997). 

324: 

325: Each correlation peak was examined by eye to avoid spurious detections, which 

326: might lead to significantly erroneous  velocity estimates.  A Gaussian fit to the strongest 

327: correlation peak then yielded the final relative radial velocity value for the respective spectrum. 

328: Finally, heliocentric corrections were computed for each star individually to yield 

329:  heliocentric radial velocities, v$_{\rm HC}$, that we will use for the remainder of this work. 

330: 

331: The measurement errors on the radial velocities are returned by {\em fxcor} and 

332: are internally computed based on the Tonry-Davis 

333: $R$-value (Tonry \& Davis 1979) of the cross correlation. 

334: Thus our median random velocity error amounts to 8.0 km\,s$^{-1}$. 

335: %

336: Due to our interactive procedure of assessing each spectrum by eye, we were able to 

337: discard bad spectra and cases in which no correlation peak could be discerned 

338: on the spot from our sample. These are not considered for the remainder of this work. 

339: Moreover, red background galaxies, which significantly contaminate our target sample  

340: (of the order of 11\% by numbers),  were identified based on their emission and absorption lines 

341: and culled from the present sample (see appendix). 

342: 

343: A total of 110 stars were observed on adjacent masks. These repeat observations allow us 

344: to further assess the accuracy of our velocity measurements. We find an overall good 

345: agreement between the independent velocity measurements of the same stars from 

346: different masks: the mean deviation is 0.3 km\,s$^{-1}$ and the 1\,$\sigma$ scatter amounts to 

347: 8.2 km\,s$^{-1}$, which is consistent with our measurement errors. 

348: The according reduced 

349: $\chi^2=1/N\,\sum_i\frac{(v_{i,1}-v_{i,2})^2}{(\sigma_{i,1}^2+\sigma_{i,2}^2)}$ 

350: is close to unity. Thus we conclude that our duplicate velocity measurements 

351: are consistent within the uncertainities.  Moreover, this shows that the formal errors returned 

352: by {\em fxcor} correctly reflect the accuracy of our data, also in the light of potential 

353: template-target mismatches in stellar type (e.g., Majewski et al. 2004), so that there is no need 

354: to re-scale these values (cf. Koch et al. 2007). 

355: As the final velocity for stars with repeat measurements we adopted the error-weighted 

356: mean of the individual values. 

357: As as result, reliable velocities could be determined for 2262 of our stars (see Table~2). 

358: 

359: \section{Membership separation}

360: In order to isolate the true sample of M31 member stars from undesired  

361: contamination of numerous foreground Milky Way dwarfs, we utilize the three strongest 

362: discriminators, viz. 

363:  $V-i'$ color, the equivalent width (EW) of the \ion{Na}{1} doublet at $\lambda\lambda$\,8189, 8193\AA, 

364: and radial velocity.  In practice, the EWs of the two Na lines were measured by 

365: numerically integrating the spectral flux within a bandpass from 8179\AA\ to 8200\AA\ with 

366: suitable continuum bandpasses (Gilbert et al. 2006), and the errors were obtained  by Monte Carlo 

367: simulations accounting for the continuum variance of the spectra. 

368:  

369: To achieve a separation of dwarfs and giants, we follow Gilbert et al. (2006) 

370: in splitting our complete observed data set into one dwarf- and one giant training sample:  

371: %

372: For this purpose, all stars with radial velocities below $-200$ km\,s$^{-1}$ were considered to be M31 red giants, 

373: whereas those exceeding $-50$ km\,s$^{-1}$ are most likely  foreground stars. 

374: Since it cannot be assumed {\em a priori} that the color or Na EW distributions constitute well defined 

375: analytical, e.g. Gaussian,  profiles, we instead  

376: define empirical probability distributions (PDFs) $P$ 

377: from the actual observed training samples in color and Na EW space. 

378: The PDFs were then convolved with the individual measurement errors. 

379: Likewise, for defining the PDF with respect to  radial velocity, we adopted a color cut at  $V-i'$=2.0, where stars above this limit 

380: are taken to be dwarf candidates. In parallel, 

381: taking advantage of the surface gravity sensitivity of the Na doublet (Schiavon et al. 1997), we 

382: flagged stars with EWs above  2.5\AA\ as dwarfs. These empirical limits were chosen because 

383: they turned out 

384: to optimize the separation in the  $V-i'$ vs. Na EW parameter space. 

385: For the M31 giant radial velocity distribution, on the other hand, we adopted a one-sided Gaussian centered 

386: at a systemic velocity of $-$300 km\,s$^{-1}$ with a radial velocity dispersion of 85 km\,s$^{-1}$, in concordance 

387: with the  values of M31's outer halo component (e.g., Reitzel \& Guhathakurta 2002).  

388: All stars with velocities below 

389: $-$300 km\,s$^{-1}$ were assigned a probability of unity  in the giant training sample. 

390: 

391: Although the number of dwarf stars in this low-velocity regime is expected to be well below 1\% 

392: and their contribution to the final velocity 

393: histograms may be negligible (Gilbert et al. 2006), we will turn to a detailed treatment of this component 

394: in  Sect.~4.1. 

395: 

396: Fig.~4 shows the resulting PDFs of the training samples as dashed lines. 

397: %

398: The final probability of any star from our sample, with its set of ($v_{\rm HC}$, $V-i'$, Na EW),  

399: to be either a dwarf or a giant was then determined 

400: from the PDFs, normalized to unity, 

401: in each parameter and combining these values into a total probability of being a giant: 

402: $P_{\rm giant}=P_{\rm giant}$($V-i'$)$\,\times\,P_{\rm giant} $(Na EW)$\,\times\,P _{\rm giant}$(v$_{\rm HC}$),  

403: and likewise for the probability of being a dwarf. If the resulting logarithmic likelihood 

404: $L=\log\left(P_{\rm giant} / P_{\rm dwarf} \right)$ is less than zero, the star is considered a dwarf, while 

405: $L>0$ signifies  likely giant star candidates (Gilbert et al. 2006).  

406: The {\em a posteriori} histograms in Fig.~4 illustrate our full data set, based  on the selection 

407: method described above. It is evident that the selected samples in all parameters are  fully compatible 

408: with the pre-defined simple training samples and that the number of remaining dwarf contaminants in 

409: our cleaned M31 giant sample can be expected to be negligible. 

410: There is nonetheless a considerable overlap of dwarf and giant stars in color space. Moreover, 

411: we note the presence of a population of stars, flagged as dwarfs based on the full likelihood analysis, 

412: which exhibit small EWs of the Na doublet. From this it becomes obvious that it is in fact necessary to 

413: include the entire set of available information in color, EW and velocity in the analysis to obtain an optimal separation. 

414: On the other hand, there will be an inevitable, though small, fraction of interlopers that cannot be 

415: reliably detected using the traditional separation criteria, due to potential 

416: covariances between each of the parameters. For instance, we note the 

417: presence of one star with colors and moderate Na widths representative of a dwarf star (as 

418: subsequently verified by its spectral features), but with  

419: a high negative velocity of $-$280 km\,s$^{-1}$. In this case, the velocity criterion will 

420: override the other discriminators and lead to classifying this star as an M31 member. 

421: Such cases could be mainly resolved by visual inspection of the individual spectra. 

422:     

423: We also note  that we refrain in our dwarf/giant separation from adopting 

424: additional secondary parameters 

425: such as weaker spectral features (e.g., \ion{K}{1} EWs, TiO bands, embedded within telluric absorbtion 

426: bands) to avoid adding further noise to 

427: the final PDFs. 

428: Furthermore, we did not weight our combined likelihood by the number 

429: of available diagnostics to account for potential outliers in either of the parameters, thereby yielding

430:  a statistically more robust and uniform rejection of dwarfs  (cf. Gilbert et al. 2006). 

431:  %

432: 

433: To assess the accuracy and efficiency of the separation methods described above, we ran 

434: a comprehensive suite of {\em Monte Carlo simulations}.  To this end, each of the three indicators

435: was varied 10$^4$ times by its measurement uncertainty, from which subsequently new PDFs 

436: were built and each target's dwarf/giant status was re-determined. 

437: {\em As a result, 92\% of those 

438: stars previously classified as giants were still classified as such in 95\% (2$\sigma$) of the 

439: Monte Carlo realizations.  Thus we are convinced to have obtained a solid dwarf/giant 

440: separation of our sample.

441:  In particular, none of the results obtained in this work changes 

442: significantly, whether ``all'' giants are included or only those with secure, 2$\sigma$-classifications}. 

443: %

444: The final number of 

445: giant candidates per field is listed in Table~2. 

446: The ratio of giant to dwarf stars decreases

447: with increasing radial distance from M31 (Fig.~4, bottom right),

448: as expected as the M31 halo density levels off, 

449: until the halo of M33 contributes giants in the

450: outermost fields.

451: 

452: 

453: 

454: There is still a non-negligible fraction of stars classified as giants present  

455: in a transitional region around $-$150 km\,s$^{-1}$ ($\sim 1.7\,\sigma$ above the systemic velocity), which 

456: prevails in the outermost minor axis fields (Sect.~6.2). 

457: Another noteworthy outcome of our 

458: dwarf removal is that the addition of velocity as a membership criterion 

459: effectively deprives the sample of red giants above $-$100 km\,s$^{-1}$.

460: This limit already corresponds to removing 

461: stars that deviate by more than approximately 2.3\,$\sigma$ from the sample, and we do not expect the presence of 

462: any major population of M31 stars in this high velocity regime.  

463: %

464: Considering the limited S/N of the spectra in our dataset as well as that of the photometry, we have 

465: concluded that it is essential to use radial velocity as a dwarf/giant separation criterion. As a result, the velocities 

466: of our dwarf-cleaned sample span a full range from $-$570 to $-100$ km\,s$^{-1}$.  

467: %We further 

468: %suspect that the predominance of dwarfs for $V_{\rm HC}>-100$ km s$^{-1}$ 

469: %would render any dwarf/giant separation problematic in that velocity range.

470: Additionally, the constancy of the foreground Galactic dwarf sample's velocity and dispersion  (Fig.~11, 

471: bottom left) over the entirety of the M31 halo strengthens further our case for efficient dwarf/giant separation.

472: 

473: In a recent work, Sherwin et al. (2008) predicted that a total number of $\sim$5 hypervelocity stars 

474: with velocities below $-$420 km\,s$^{-1}$ should be identifiable in M31's halo. 

475: However, given M31's large overall velocity dispersion and the low number of stars with the highest negative velocities, it is  impossible to resolve, whether any 

476: of those stars in our sample are in fact ejected from the center of M31, 

477: or if they are canonical (2$\sigma$-) members of its genuine halo. 

478: %

479: \subsection{Comparison with the Besan\c con model}

480: As Fig.~3 shows, there are still a number of stars present bluewards  of the most metal poor isochrone 

481: that were classified as M31 giants based on all separators. However, it cannot be excluded that a subset 

482: of these may be blue, metal poor Galactic halo dwarfs, which typically have negligible Na doublet lines and 

483: a broad range in radial velocities (Fig.~5). Thus these contaminants are indistinguishable from the giant sample 

484: and their separation is insoluble based on the canonical membership criteria. 

485: It is important to assess the fraction of these blue stars, since their systematically weaker 

486: CaT lines will yield falsified, low metallicities. 

487: 

488: To this end, we queried models of the Besan\c con Galactic foreground population (Robin et al. 2003) 

489: using color cuts and spatial locations in analogy to the observed samples. The resulting distribution 

490: for the outermost field at 160 kpc is illustrated in Fig.~5 (right panel). We chose to exemplary plot  

491: this outermost field, because it is the one for which the Milky Way contamination is expected to be the highest. 

492: The first thing to note is that there is in 

493: fact a non-zero population of Galactic stars predicted  at M31's systemic velocity,  

494: with  radial velocities as low as $-$420 km\,s$^{-1}$ (although we note that the velocity dispersion in 

495: the Galactic model may in fact be overestimated).  Most of the contaminants are, however, 

496: distinguishable, either by their  high velocities or their redder colors. We thus estimate the number 

497: of undetectable blue stars in our sample by determining the {\em predicted fraction of dwarfs} with 

498: v$_{\rm HC}\la-150$ km\,s$^{-1}$ and $V-i'\la1$ to those dwarf stars in the color-velocity space that 

499: we are able to distinguish (Fig.~4; Sect.~4). Multiplying this fraction with the number  of our observed 

500: giant candidates (Table~2) then shows that there are typically no more than 0--2  blue 

501: dwarf stars to be expected per field in our giant sample that cannot separated by any of the observable criteria 

502: (see also Fig.~5, right panel), leading to a total predicted number of 35 such contaminants in the entire 

503: sample. If present, these will have a negligible effect on the more populous, true giant sample. 

504: 

505: Martin et al. (2007) model the CMD of these fields, reaching fainter than the limit of our spectroscopy,   

506: and find no evidence for excess star counts of Galactic members. 

507: In principle, dwarf members of the Andromeda-Triangulum 

508: stream or a potential contaminant may be present, especially in the M31 giant-poor outer fields.  

509: Rocha-Pinto et al. 

510: (2004) have measured radial velocities of Andromeda-Triangulum stream members, finding one star 

511: with $-245$ km\,s$^{-1}$, but with most stars at  higher velocity.  

512: Furthermore, the Monoceros Ring, whose main sequence stars can overlap with M31 stars near the 

513: Tip RGB, have a radial velocity that is high enough (at $-$75  km\,s$^{-1}$ with a dispersion of 

514: 26  km\,s$^{-1}$; Martin et al. 2006a) so that they are not an issue in the analysis. 

515: Based on these studies, neither of the  systems 

516: poses any risk for contaminating the field with stars at the radial velocity of M31.

517: 

518: \section{A new method for calcium triplet metallicities}

519: %

520: In the frequent cases of low spectral resolution and/or low $S/N$ ratios the last resort is to 

521: measure gravity and/or abundance-sensitive indices in 

522: band passes a few times the spectral resolution,  

523: which are then calibrated theoretically via a grid of synthetic spectra (e.g., Jones et al. 1996). 

524: The latter is in general a critical endeavor for the CaT, since these lines are formed 

525: in the upper chromospheres of the stars, which ideally requires a full non-local thermodynamic 

526: equilibrium treatment  (Smith \& Drake 1990; J{\o}rgensen et al. 1992). 

527: Detailed model computations are however sparse so that present-day studies of stellar 

528: populations mostly rely on empirical calibrations (Cenarro et al. 2001; and references therein). 

529: 

530: Canonically, the line strength of the near-infrared CaT, $\Sigma W$, has been defined 

531: by a weighted sum of the three individual lines' pseudo equivalent widths, EW$_i$: 

532:  %

533: \begin{eqnarray}

534: \Sigma W \, = \, \sum_{i=1}^{3}w_i\,EW_i 

535: \, = \, \sum_{i=1}^{3}w_i\int_{BP_i}\left(1 - \frac{F	(\lambda)}{F_{c,i}}\right)\,d\lambda,    

536: \end{eqnarray}

537: %

538: where $F$ denotes the flux in a predefined set of line band passes ($BP_i$) and 

539: $F_c$ is the continuum level as determined in a set of continuum bands. 

540: %

541: There is no physical motivation to prefer any set of the weight factors $w_i$ over the other, 

542: as long as a consistent definition is used between the target red giants to be calibrated and those 

543: in the calibrator systems, i.e., the high $S/N$ Galactic globular cluster spectra. 

544: The choice of the weights is mostly governed by the spectral quality and measurability of each of the 

545: Ca lines. 

546: In this vein, the most frequently used weights throughout the literature are  

547:  ($w_i$=1 $ \forall i$; e.g., Armandroff \& Zinn 1988),  

548:  ($w_1=0$,  $w_2=1$,  $w_3=1$; e.g., Armandroff \& DaCosta 1991) and 

549:  ($w_1=0.5$,  $w_2=1$,  $w_3=0.6$; e.g., Rutledge et al. 1997a).  

550: The EWs are then either determined by numerically integrating the spectral flux 

551: over the full bandpass or by fitting an analytical function $F(\lambda$)

552: to the line profile. However, both methods tend to fail at the lowest $S/N$ ratios,  

553: where a pure numerical integration merely reflects the noise of the spectrum rather than 

554: the actual EWs,Ê while the lines cannot be reliably fit anymore in the low $S/N$ regime. Typically, 

555: the limiting $S/N$ for which CaT based [Fe/H] measurements are given 

556: in the literature lies at 10--15. 

557: 

558: At the low $S/N$ ratios of our faintest DEIMOS targets, which reach as low as 2--5, 

559: a reliable determination of the CaT EWs is not feasible. Moreover, the presence 

560: of sky line residuals around the CaT  often leads to artificially increased widths if  

561: uncritically integrated over the respective band passes. 

562: In particular, the third of the CaT lines at 

563: 8662\AA\ is susceptible to this increased noise component. 

564: 

565: Hence, in order to enhance the $S/N$ in the CaT of each individual spectrum, we define a coadded line strength $<$$\Sigma$$W$$>$  

566: in that we interchange the order of summation and integration in eq.~3:  

567: %

568: \begin{equation}

569: <\Sigma W>=\int_{<BP>}\sum_{i=1}^{3}w_i\left(1 - \frac{F(\lambda-\lambda_{0,i})}{F_{c,i}}\right)

570: \,d(\lambda-\lambda_{0,i}).

571: \end{equation}

572: %

573: That is, each line center is shifted towards a zero wavelength before performing a weighted coaddition of the 

574: three lines in this rest frame, using the identical weight factors as in the canonical 

575: definition. Mathematically, this expression is fully equivalent to the traditional 

576: definition in eq.~3, but it provides the advantage of integrating the {\em coadded flux}, resulting in an 

577: increased effective $S/N$.   

578: The integration is then carried out over a single common band pass. 

579: This procedure strictly presupposes that the individual band passes $BP_i$ all have the same 

580: width and location relative to the line center so that $BP_i - \lambda_i$ is the same 

581: for each of the lines. 

582: However, we will tie our measurements to a metallicity reference scale by 

583: using our own suite of measurements in Galactic globular clusters. Thus 

584: possible differences in the band passes will affect the reference spectra and our target spectra 

585: in the same manner and these will not introduce any systematic bias.  

586:  In the following, we will follow the prescription of Rutledge et al. (1997a) 

587:  by adopting the line weights of 0.5, 1 and 0.6. 

588:  %

589: Our coaddition method will improve the effective $S/N$ in the CaT region by a factor 

590: of $\sqrt{\sum w_i}$, or 1.45, so that we will be capable of measuring metallicities 

591: even with $S/N$ as low as $\sim$7--10. Furthermore, the coadded line is more robust 

592: against potential sky residuals and noise spikes, enabling us 

593: to fit a line profile 

594: (see the illustration in Fig.~6). 

595: In practice, we fit the resulting line with a Penny function, i.e., a Gaussian plus a Lorentz 

596: component, which has proven to provide the best representation of  the line wings (Cole et al. 2004). 

597: 

598: In order to tie our CaT metallicity measurements in the M31 stars to a reference  

599: scale, we performed the identical coaddition technique as described above 

600: on a sample of globular clusters of known 

601: metallicity and thus derived the CaT line strengths of the 

602: globular cluster stars. 

603: %

604: Since no observations of globular cluster standard stars were taken for the 

605: present project 

606: using the same instrumental set up as for the M31 science observations, 

607: we exploited the  data set of 

608: Koch et al. (2006), which consists of high $S/N$ spectra of 80 red giants in four Galactic 

609: clusters, 

610: NGC\,3201, 4590, 4147 and 5904, obtained with the FLAMES spectrograph at ESO/VLT (Pasquini 

611: et al. 2002). Since the FLAMES spectrograph provides a higher spectral 

612: resolution than DEIMOS,  we  degraded the spectral resolution of the FLAMES spectra 

613: to match that of DEIMOS.  

614: The final calibration of the line strengths onto metallicity was then achieved 

615: accounting for the stars' magnitude above the horizontal branch (HB; e.g., Rutledge et al. 1997a,b), where  

616: we find the following relations 

617: %

618: \begin{eqnarray}

619: W' &=& <\Sigma W> +\,0.55\,(V-V_{\rm HB})\\

620: \mathrm{[Fe/H]}_{\rm CaT}  &=&-2.90 + 0.45\,W' 

621: \end{eqnarray}

622: %

623: with an r.m.s. scatter of 0.02 dex on the [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}$ calibration of eq.~6. 

624: These relations from the FLAMES data are shown in Fig.~7.

625: In this calibration we explicitly adopted the globular cluster metallicity 

626: scale of Carretta \& Gratton (1997). Furthermore, we assumed 

627: a HB apparent magnitude of 25.17\,mag for the M31 stars, which 

628: corresponds to the mean magnitude of its halo red HB population (Holland et al. 1996).  

629: The extent of M31's halo will inevitably lead to a spread of distances along the sight 

630: so that the adoption of a single HB magnitude is a simplifying assumption. 

631: Ibata et al. (2007) estimate that, for an extended $\rho (r) \propto r^{-2.9}$ density 

632: profile, the variation in the distance modulus is typically less than 0.5 mag. 

633: Translating this into a HB spread and by applying our calibrations (Eqs.~ 5,6) this 

634: leads to an uncertainty of 0.12 dex on the spectroscopic metallicities. 

635: Given the {\em a priori} unknown distance of individual red giants, this 

636: source of uncertainty  cannot be eliminated and will affect all spectroscopic metallicity 

637: measurements in M31. 

638:  %

639:  Furthermore, the adoption of the HB of the oldest stars will introduce a systematic effect on 

640:  spectroscopic [Fe/H] estimates in the presence of a non-negligible intermediate-age population. 

641: Koch et al. (2006) estimate that the simplification of a single-age HB results in in a bias 

642: of the order of $-$0.1 dex, that is, the intermediate-age  stars may be 0.1 dex too metal poor. 

643: This is the same order of magnitude that Cole et al. (2004) find from their cluster sample, 

644: which includes a number of young open clusters.

645: Of course, one cannot assess which stars are affected to what extent, since their 

646: ages cannot be assigned {\em a priori}. 

647:  %

648: In this context, we note that also the M31 globular clusters show a mild trend

649: in mean $M_v$(HB) vs. [Fe/H]; this may be lessened

650: by the brighter HBs of intermediate age populations.

651: This trend is 0.4\,mag but has a full

652: width of 0.6\,mag (Rich et al. 2005, their Fig.~12), with a 1$\sigma$ scatter of 

653: 0.2 dex. 

654: %

655: This compares to a small formal random uncertainty of typically less than 0.01 dex 

656: on [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}$ that is introduced by the photometric errors through Eqs. 5,6.  

657: Even an unrealistically large error of 1mag on a star's $V$ magnitude would result in 

658: a metallicity error of 0.23 dex. 

659: 

660: We note that the coefficients of our relations in Eqs. 5,6 are slightly different from 

661: the standard calibration of Rutledge et al. (1997b), but for the sake of consistency between 

662: our own measurements and our own suite of calibration clusters, we will use these 

663: relations for the remainder of this work (see also the discussions in Koch et al. 2006). 

664: 

665: In order to estimate the random and systematic measurement uncertainties on our 

666: derived coadded CaT metallicity, we performed a set of Monte Carlo simulations 

667: (e.g., Simon \& Geha 2007), accounting for three effects. 

668: For this purpose, we added artificial Poisson noise to theoretical spectra, consisting of three 

669: Penny lines with line strengths representative of typical red giants as expected 

670: in our M31 sample. This noise addition accounts for the spectral quality in terms 

671: of the $S/N$ ratio and the variance of the continuum.

672: Secondly, we also added additional random 

673: noise peaks and troughs on top of the individual CaT lines, thus  simulating 

674: potentially bad sky subtraction residuals that hamper CaT measurements.  

675: %

676: Even if one were to assume that the individual line profiles were perfect Penny functions,  

677: the (weighted) sum will not necessary be a Penny anymore. 

678: By thus measuring the simulated coadded spectrum and comparing the 

679: obtained line strength with the traditional strength of the individual theoretical 

680: line profiles in the unperturbed spectrum according to eq.~3, we 

681: can finally estimate the influence of random noise, residual noise peaks and deviations 

682: from the assumed analytical line profile. In this vein, we adopt the standard deviation 

683: of the difference of the measured $<$$\Sigma$$W$$>$ in the noise added spectrum and 

684: the $\Sigma W$ of the input spectrum as a measure of the measurement uncertainty 

685: as a function of the spectral $S/N$ ratio and continuum variance. 

686: Thus Fig.~8 depicts the resulting relative uncertainty estimates. Typically, the widths 

687: measurements are accurate to the 15\% level at a $S/N$ of 10 and the relative error on 

688: the widths, $\sigma$$<$$\Sigma$$W$$>$$/$$<$$\Sigma$$W$$>$, generally does not exceed 

689: 25\% at the spectral quality of our DEIMOS data. Applying our calibration from above (Eqs.~5,6), 

690: this translates  into typical metallicity errors of (0.32,0.25,0.2) dex at $S/N$ of  (5,10,20). 

691: As another potential source of uncertainty, we estimate that a conservative continuum placement 

692: error of 2\% will result in metallicity errors less than 0.1 dex. 

693: 

694: Spectra with too low a $S/N$ ratio to even measure the coadded line strengths were 

695: discarded from our sample on the spot so that we end up with a total number of 

696: 1673 CaT measurements (Table~2). 

697: %

698: An aggravating factor for using the CaT as a proxy for metallicity is the onset of strong 

699: TiO absorption in the coolest stars. Increasing strength of the TiO band at 8500\AA\ 

700: progressively depresses the CaT lines for redder stars so that the line strength $\Sigma$$W$ 

701: starts to turn over towards lower values for colors redder than $V-i'\ga2$ (e.g., Garnavich et al. 

702: 1994; their Fig.~13). This ambiguity, which also reflects in an overturn of the RGBs of metal rich globular 

703: clusters, 

704: prompted us to only include stars with $V-i'\le2$ in the present chemical analysis. 

705: In this way we avoid an underestimate of the metallicities of the reddest stars. 

706: Thus {\em 64 giant stars} with velocities compatible with the M31 mean  were removed from the CaT sample.  We note that most of the reddest, nominally most metal poor stars 

707: that were thus rejected, are mostly found within $\sim$40 kpc so that they do not affect our 

708: later conclusions about the overall large-scale radial metallicity distributions.  

709: %

710: \subsection{On photometric metallicities} 

711: %

712: %

713: As a secondary estimate, we derived photometric metallicities of our stars by following isochrone 

714: fits laid out in Reitzel \& Guhathakurta (2002). For this purpose we adopted 

715: individual corrections for reddening from the Schlegel et al. (1998) maps.   

716: %

717: In practice, we fit a set of isochrones to our CMD (Fig.~3), 

718: where we employed the 

719: stellar tracks without $\alpha$-enhancement  

720: from the Padova group (Marigo et al. 2008).

721: Our choice to negelect $\alpha$ enhancement is justified

722: by the age range in M31's halo (Brown et al. 2006): 

723: Stellar populations with a wide age range have had sufficient time for supernovae of type I 

724: to contribute iron and therefore the composition trends toward Solar.

725: %

726: Each star's locus in the CMD  was then fit by a surface, using a 12th order function 

727: in both  $g'-i'$ and $i'$, with full cross terms, to the metallicity. In practice, we generated 

728: a grid of isochrones from the group's web-interface\footnote{ 

729: \url{http://stev.oapd.inaf.it/$\sim$lgirardi/cgi-bin/cmd}},   

730: covering $0.0001\le Z \le 0.03$ with a spacing of 0.001. 

731: Moreover, we adopted the set corresponding to a population of 12.7\,Gyr age, in concordance 

732: with the oldest populations found in the  M31 halo (but see also Brown et al. 2003, 2006, 2007). 

733: 

734: As the comparison with our CaT measurements in Fig.~9 indicates, the dwarf stars clearly deviate from 

735: unity, while the metallicities from both methods agree better for the giant candidates, albeit with a 

736: broad scatter (see also Kalirai et al. 2006a). The overall agreement within this scatter is notable 

737: down to the lowest metallicities. 

738: %

739: We will exclusively rely on our {\em spectroscopic} metallicities throughout this 

740: work, since the photometric metallicity estimates are generally prone to a number of inconsistencies:  

741: Among these are the strong influence of photometric uncertainties. 

742: The median error on our colors is 0.05 mag, but it reaches $\sim 0.15$ mag for a number of our targets. 

743: For the more metal rich stars, the {\em formal} metallicity errors due to photometric errors 

744: are below 0.05 dex, but they exceed 0.1 dex for stars bluer than a  $g'-i'$ of $\sim$1.5 and can 

745: reach as high as 0.5--1 dex for the bluest giants. 

746: In this locus, the more metal poor isochrones become more and more degenerate and do not permit 

747: a reliable metallicity determination (see Fig.~3). 

748: In contrast, the CaT method has its greatest sensitivity at the metal poor end. 

749: 

750: For populations with [Fe/H]$> -1$ dex, the red giant branch curves both red and faint in a complex way, 

751: due to the onset of TiO absorption in the coolest stars (e.g., Garnavich et al. 1994).  

752: This behavior is not well modeled and 

753: certainly affected by $\alpha$-enhancement.  The assignment of metallicity becomes a complex function of both 

754: color and magnitude.  

755: Moreover, the systematic uncertainties on the photometric metallicities 

756: will be inevitably large, given the 

757: {\em a priori} unknown age- and abundance distribution of our stellar sample that 

758: is drawn from a patchwork of M31's populations.

759: In this context, the presence of a broad distribution in stellar ages has been confirmed within the inner spheroid fields by the 

760: deep HST/ACS based CMDs of  Brown et al. (2003, 2006, 2007), where 

761: in fact 30\% of the stars in minor axis fields at 11 and 21 kpc were found to be 

762: 6--8\,Gyr old.  

763:        

764: Likewise, the unknown effects of varying distance modulus (Ibata et al. 2007) can easily move stars between different isochrones and pose an additional source of uncertainty.

765: % 

766: A plausible distance modulus spread of 0.5 mag  translates into a 0.12 dex variation in the  spectroscopic metallicities. 

767: This uncertainty in the stellar magnitudes will have, however,  much larger effect on the photometric values.   

768: We will return to the issue  of photometric metallicities in Sect.~7.1.

769: %

770: \section{Velocity substructures}

771: We shall now turn to the analysis of the dwarf cleaned M31 velocity distribution. 

772: For this purpose, we compare our observed data to a new suite of $N$-body simulations. 

773: %

774: \subsection{Simulating satellite accretion into M31's halo}

775: In a new set of $N$-body simulations by Mori \& Rich (2008)  

776: a satellite galaxy is accreted onto M31, for which the self-consistent 

777: potential of Widrow et al. (2003; their model A) was used. This potential is essentially a three component disk/bulge/halo 

778: model, the parameters of which were optimized to match M31's rotation curve and its surface brightness and 

779: velocity dispersion profiles. 

780: 

781: Mori \& Rich (2008) adopt the orbit of Fardal et al. (2006), which was originally 

782: constrained to reproduce the stellar distribution of the observed giant stream. 

783: For the accreted galaxy itself a total mass of $10^9\,M_{\odot}$ distributed as a 

784: Plummer sphere with a scale radius of 1 kpc  was used. The progenitor mass can in general be well 

785: constrained by means of the observed thickness of the M31 disk (at $z_d$=300 pc; Kuijken \& Dubinski 

786: 1995)  -- excessive masses would have led to 

787: an early destruction of the thin disk component as we observe it today. 

788: In practice, the disk was represented by 7.4$\times$10$^6$ particles with a total  mass of 

789: 7$\times$10$^{10}M_{\sun}$ and a scale length of 5.4 kpc.  

790: The bulge  mass was assumed as 2.5$\times$10$^{10}M_{\sun}$ (2.6$\times$10$^6$ 

791: particles), whilst the halo contained 3.2$\times$10$^{11}M_{\sun}$ (30.8$\times$10$^6$ particles) 

792: with a tidal radius of 80 kpc. 

793: %

794: Yet, there is generally a 

795: significant lack of knowledge about the outer density profile of the

796: dark matter halo. Therefore, one cannot avoid ambiguities in 

797: estimating  the tidal radius and the total halo mass.  

798: In particular,  the model of Mori \& Rich (2008) has a smaller

799: radius and mass compared to those of earlier studies (cf. 

800: 8.8$\times$10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$ and a radius of 195 kpc;  Fardal et al. 2007). 

801: However, since the satellite orbit is mainly followed within 50 kpc from the center of M31,

802: the outer structure of the dark matter halo is of little

803: relevance to the dynamics of the satellite. 

804: 

805: In fact, the Mori \& Rich (2008) simulation gives results similar to those of Fardal et al. (2007) 

806: who have a more massive dark matter halo, but which otherwise have the

807:  same satellite orbit and position (by construction) and similar disk and bulge mass.

808: 

809: Apart from the vastly increased number of particles in the work of Mori \& Rich (2008), the novelty of these  simulations is the use of a self-gravitating, {\em live} disk and bulge that respond to 

810: the actual infall by  particle motions of the underlying components. Thus we cannot only trace stars that were 

811: torn from the satellite in the course of the accretion, but also follow the fate of mutually removed disk and bulge stars.  

812: Hence we may assess how ejected disk stars might contribute to the halo in comparison to stars originating in the disrupted satellite.  Another important feature of including the live disk and halo is that an accounting can be made of energy input into these populations from the collision event.  This aspect affects the kinematics of the satellite's stars following the collision.

813: 

814: Projections of the simulation at $t=1$ Gyr in the standard M31 coordinate system are shown 

815: in Fig.~10, separately for disk, halo and satellite particles, as well as the combined simulation data.  

816: As these plots show, the main features observed in surface density maps of M31's halo, such as 

817: the Giant Stellar Stream (Ibata et al. 2001) 

818: and the bubble-like feature in extension of the stream (the Eastern and Western shelves; 

819: Ferguson et al. 2002, 2005; Irwin et al. 2005; Ibata et al. 2007) 

820: are well reproduced by the simulations.  

821: 

822: 

823: \subsection{Minor axis fields}

824: The results from our simulations are shown in  Fig.~11, in comparison with the 

825: observed distribution of 

826: stars on the minor axis in the analogous velocity vs. location space. It is evident that the simulations yield 

827: a characteristic triangular shape of the satellite particles' velocity as a function of projected 

828: distance, indicative of its disruption during the accretion (e.g., Merrifield \& Kuijken 1998). 

829: This feature is also discernible in our observed data (top panel), though to a lesser extent, 

830: and is consistent with 

831: the findings of  kinematically cold, i.e., low-radial velocity dispersion, 

832: localized substructure in Gilbert et al. (2007). While the simulations 

833: predict the maximum density of this shell-like feature to occur at a projected distance of $\sim 1.4\degr$ 

834: (19 kpc), the observations indicate  an onset of this cold structure slightly inwards, at $\sim 1.1\degr$ (15--16 kpc). 

835: Using the Kayes Mixture Modeling algorithm of Ashman et al. 

836: (1994), we decomposed the (unbinned) velocity data at this location into two Gaussian components, 

837: thereby verifying the likely presence of a considerably colder substructure with a radial velocity 

838: dispersion of (29$\pm$22) km\,s$^{-1} $ plus an underlying canonical halo component with 

839: a dispersion of (110$\pm$10) km\,s$^{-1}$. The population ratios, by number, of these 

840: components are 24\% vs. 76\%, in good agreement with Gilbert et al. (2007). 

841: It has been suggested by Gilbert et al. (2007) and  

842: Fardal et al. (2007) that such kinematic substructure is probably a realization of spatially localized 

843: shelves, which may provide the forward continuation of the giant stream. 

844: %

845: %

846: Other kinematic 

847: substructures other than the distinct V-shape in our data 

848: towards the inner spheroid are less conspicuous 

849: and the inner regions in our observations appear smoother

850: compared to both the simulations and

851: in the sample of Gilbert et al. (2007).  

852: 

853: \subsection{Outer halo fields}

854: Although the radial scale in Figs.~11 and 12  (top panel) was chosen so 

855: as to emphasize the substructure and  build-up of the inner halo within $\sim 35$ kpc, 

856: we note that we detect stars that were flagged 

857: as genuine M31 red giants out to large radial distances of 

858: 160 kpc (see Fig.~12, bottom panel), thus strengthening the claim for the 

859: large radial extent of M31's stellar halo by Guhathakurta et al. (2006) and Kalirai et al. (2006a). 

860: Nevertheless, the number  density of confirmed members at large radii is sparse (these are 

861: addressed in further detail in Fig.~19). 

862: The outermost field at 160 kpc (m11) contains 16 giant candidates with a mean velocity of $-$180 km\,s$^{-1}$, 

863: nine of which lie above $-200$ km\,s$^{-1}$ and seven with velocities in excess of $-150$ km\,s$^{-1}$. 

864: In the adjacent, second most remote field (m8), 

865: seven stars survived the criteria for being selected as giants,  although only one exhibits a 

866: radial velocity close to M31's systemic mean, while the remainder shows velocities between 

867: $-180$ and $-120$ km\,s$^{-1}$, thus about of the order of 1.2--1.8$\sigma$ above 

868: M31's mean velocity. While we cannot exclude the possibility that these stars are in fact 

869: members of M31's outermost, extended halo, we labeled their mean velocities as 

870: upper limits in Fig.~12 (bottom). 

871: All in all, there is a progressively larger  relative contribution of stars at higher velocities with respect to  

872: M31's mean towards outer fields. 

873: % 

874: Based on their star count maps, Ibata et al. (2007) estimate that the field covered by our 

875: four m11 masks should contain 

876: 0--2 M31 red giants. In fact Kalirai et al. (2006a) report 

877: on the presence of 3 bona fide giants in this field. Given the location of this field at a separation of 

878: 4$\degr$ ($\sim$ 50 kpc) of M33, it is then conceivable that the 

879: stars towards the higher velocity tail are part of the overlapping, extended halo component of M33, as 

880: suggested by Ibata et al. (2007). 

881: %

882: With its distance from the Sun of 849 kpc (Galleti et al. 2004) , 

883: M33 is located at a distance  of 220 kpc from M31 (e.g., Koch \& Grebel 2006) and its 

884: systemic velocity lies at $-180$ km\,s$^{-1}$ (e.g., McConnachie et al. 2006).  

885: Judging by the surface brightness profiles of Ibata et al. (2007; e.g. their Fig.~28), the contribution 

886: of M33 stars (coupled with the inevitable foreground component)  appears to set in at radial 

887: distances $\ga 11\degr$ ($\sim$150 kpc).  

888: 

889: \subsection{The halo's merger origin}

890: It is then intriguing to ask, to what extent the full halo of M31 has been assembled via the accretion 

891: of  one or more accretion events such as the one simulated in Mori \& Rich (2008). 

892: Is there a necessity to invoke more  such 

893: mergers or is there evidence of several disruptive events involving many smaller satellite systems?

894: In fact, Ibata et al. (2007) have revealed a wealth of substructures and stellar streams that 

895: haunt the full extent of M31's halo, thereby complicating the interpretation of 

896: this halo as a single, smooth entity. 

897: %

898: Therefore, we show in Fig.~13 our observed radial velocity distributions against the simulated ones 

899: as a function of radial distance. The simulation particles shown were selected 

900: from locations that coincide with our observed fields, but we inflated the respective selection boxes,  where necessary, so as to ensure the same number of observed and simulated stars for the 

901: comparison. 

902: 

903: The first thing to note is the 

904: presence of two major velocity peaks in the simulated data, which reflects the wrap of the 

905: material stripped from the disrupted satellite galaxy around the M31 disk, as is in fact observed 

906: in the form of the Giant Stellar Stream.  The regions of the aforementioned cold substructure 

907: are contained within the $R=17$ kpc histogram, yet there is no clear resemblance 

908: between observations 

909: and simulations in this regard. 

910: While the simulations still show the apparent kinematic bifurcation with 

911: pronounced peaks at $-400$ and $-200$ km\,s$^{-1}$,  the observations indicate the narrow 

912: population peaking at M31's systemic velocity of $-300$ km\,s$^{-1}$, with an underlying, smoother and broader genuine halo population. 

913: To this end, we also plot in Fig.~13 (dashed lines) the contribution of original M31 halo stars from our simulation (again selected from the same spatial locations as above), i.e., 

914: those, which are not related to the disrupting satellite in any way.  

915: It is striking that a major part of our velocity histograms at all radii closely resembles this genuine halo 

916: component, and that the strongest deviations of the velocity distributions from the simulations 

917: occur towards the fields at approximately 

918: 13--17 kpc.  

919: Furthermore, there is a  clear discrepancy  

920: between the model predictions and the observed distribution in the innermost spheroid ($\lesssim$13 kpc).  

921: %

922: This kinematic evidence suggests that the inner spheroid of M31 cannot entirely consist of debris 

923: from one collision like the one responsible for the Giant Stellar Stream. In fact most of the observations at all radii appear to strongly overlap with the prevalent

924:  M31 halo component, again showing that the accretion of a massive satellite galaxy 

925: did presumably not  single-handedly drive the build-up of the inner halo of  M31.  

926: 

927: 

928: Moreover, the discovery of at least 4 major streams perpendicular to M31's minor axis, which also 

929: intersect our observed fields (Ibata et al. 2007) clearly shows that essentially all of 

930: our targeted fields are contaminated by a more or less  significant fraction of 

931: stars originating in the mergers of the systems responsible for these streams (Chapman et al. 2008). 

932: %

933: Although the exact shape of the simulations' velocity distribution depends on the 

934: extensive parameter space of progenitor structure, its kinematics and orbit, 

935: the overall trends and 

936: discrepancies between model and observations discussed above will not sensitively rely 

937: on such parameter variations and are expected to persist, in particular, since the Mori \& Rich (2008)  

938: model reproduces the structural features in the halo observed in the surface brightness maps 

939: remarkably well. 

940: 

941: The observed velocity distributions (Figs.~12,13) 

942: in the Giant Stream fields H13s and a3 

943: (at 21 and 32 kpc) show the clear signatures at $-520$ and $-400$ km\,s$^{-1}$ (H13s) and 

944: $-450$ km\,s$^{-1}$ (a3). In accordance with Kalirai et al. (2006b) 

945: we find the H13s peak at $-520$ km\,s$^{-1}$ 

946: to be more prominent relative to the one at higher velocities. 

947: It is then noteworthy that, while well predicting the Stream component at $-$400 km\,s$^{-1}$ 

948: at $\sim$17 kpc (bottom left panel of Fig.~13), our simulations and the models of Fardal et al. 

949: (2006, 2007), on which our orbit is based, fail to reproduce the primary, low-velocity   

950: peak prominently seen in the 22 kpc histogram, as well as the outer stream field in 

951: the data 30 kpc. This feature is, however, well reproduced by the simple orbit model by Ibata et al. 

952: (2004). 

953:  

954: Interestingly, neither disk, nor bulge stars, ejected 

955: during the simulated merger event contribute any considerable fraction to any of 

956: the potential substructures in the velocity histograms. 

957: Only a few of these ejected disk stars are to be found within the innermost 10 kpc: 

958: The number ratios of model particles 

959: within a region corresponding to the observed field f109 are 0:2:280:1 (bulge/disk/halo/satellite). 

960: None of the disk particles ventures any further out. 

961: At a total of 158 giant stars in this field, we would expect no more than 1--2 stars ejected 

962: from the M31 disk. 

963: 

964: \section{Abundance substructures -- a strong gradient}

965: %

966: In Fig.~14 we show our metallicity results from the new coaddition measurements (Sect.~5) 

967: as a function of radial velocity and radial distance. 

968: It is worth noticing that the distribution of these spectroscopic metallicities with velocity (left panels) 

969: appears to be a powerful dwarf/giant discriminator that can be efficiently employed in cases, where 

970: not all of the traditional indicators are available (cf. Sect.~4). 

971: In this representation, the dwarf stars occupy a narrow range above $\ga -150$ km\,s$^{-1}$ 

972: around ``[Fe/H]''$\sim -2$ dex. Given the lack of knowledge of their distances, their assignment 

973: relative to a HB magnitude becomes meaningless. It is also far from self-evident that the 

974: CaT linestrength correlates with metallicity in the dwarf stars as in the giants. 

975: For this reason, the traditional calibrations (Rutledge et al. 1997a, 1997b; eqs. 5,6) are not valid 

976: for dwarfs anymore and their application leads  to their clear separation in Fig.~14. 

977: 

978: Contrary to the strong clumping 

979: in velocity space (Figs.~11,12), there is no apparent population substructure discernible within the 

980: inner fields of $R\la$20 kpc, nor in the Stream fields at 21 and 32 kpc. More striking is  the sudden decrease in the mean metallicity  

981: towards larger projected radii that becomes already visible in this representation. 

982: It is at these distances, where a transition from the dominant, more metal rich bulge population 

983: towards a more metal poor halo component may occur (Ostheimer 2003; Kalirai et al. 2006a). 

984: This view would also conform with the claim of a break in M31's surface brightness profile

985: between an inner $R^{1/4}$ profile (de Vaucouleurs 1958) and a gradual transition to 

986: an $R^{-2}$ power-law surface brightness profile that defines an outer halo 

987: (Irwin et al. 2005; Guhathakurta et al. 2006; Chapman et al. 2006). 

988: Interestingly, the run of the strength of the TiO band\footnote{The TiO$_{7100}$ band pass is a classical 

989: discriminator of spectral types (O'Connell 1973) and we measure its strength by a straight integration 

990: of the line band pass from 7055--7245\AA\ with respective continuum bands. Larger values of 

991: TiO$_{7100}$ indicate the presence of cool, metal rich giants.}  

992: at 7100\AA\ (top left panel of Fig.~15)  lends strong support to this scenario. While a number of TiO-strong, thus more metal rich, giants are predominant in the bulge and inner halo regions, these are clearly missing in the outer parts beyond $\sim$50 kpc. 

993: 

994: 

995: In Fig.~15 (top right panel) we separate our full  data set into three radial bins, comprising 

996: the inner spheroid ($R<$20 kpc), the transitional region (20--40 kpc) and the outer halo fields from 

997: 40 kpc out to our last data at 160 kpc. There is a clear indication that the outer fields are distinctly more 

998: metal poor by more than 1 dex compared to the inner spheroid: while the inner 20 kpc's metallicity 

999: distribution function (MDF) peaks at $\sim -0.6$ dex, the mean metallicity shifts progressively towards 

1000: $\sim -1.2$ dex  for 20 kpc$<R<$40 kpc. This region already contains a considerable component  

1001: below $-2$ dex, which becomes the characteristic metallicity regime in the outermost fields. 	

1002: A K-S test reveals that the MDFs from all three regions are unlikely to originate from the 

1003: same parent distribution, with all probabilities being consistent with zero. 

1004: %

1005: This suggests that there is in fact a mixture of populations, possibly 

1006: from the inner spheroid and an outer halo component. Nevertheless, we note that the 

1007: dispersion of the MDF (as derived from an iterative  Gaussian likelihood estimator accounting for 

1008: measurement errors; Koch et al. 2007) does not increase considerably due to the 

1009: potential overlap of two populations of separate peak metallicities: at  

1010: (0.47$\pm$0.02) and 

1011: (0.46$\pm$0.03) the dispersions are practically indistinguishable. 

1012: However, it is perilous  to compare these numbers, when 

1013: splitting the sample in only these two regions along a broad spatial range. 

1014: 

1015: Thus we plot in the middle panel of  Fig.~16 the dispersion in metallicities 

1016: versus radius in smaller radial bins that were, for R$<$40 kpc, chosen such as to maintain 

1017: the same number  of stars (viz. 100). 

1018: This way, we guarantee a proper statistical sampling; furthermore, since 

1019: the data were analyzed in a homogeneous manner, no systematic biasses will be introduced 

1020: when averaging data 

1021: across adjacent masks. 

1022: Only for the  three outermost fields 

1023: beyond 85 kpc do we group the sparse data by field (11, 5, and 10 giants in m6, m8, and m11) 

1024:  to avoid averaging across the large radial 

1025: gap.  These fields are separated by 40 kpc (already the size 

1026: of the entire inner spheroid) and it is further likely that these fields are contaminated by both 

1027: substructure and the halo of M33.

1028: 

1029: The  bin  at 16 kpc shows a metallicity dispersion that 

1030: is higher by 0.24 dex than the average, while the adjacent bin at $\sim$18 kpc 

1031: again exhibits an average dispersion. It is worth noticing that the dispersion in our data 

1032: around 13--14 kpc shows a remarkably smaller internal (i.e., accounting for measurement errors)  dispersion in [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}$ of 

1033: $\sigma = 0.21\pm 0.03$ dex (at a mean metallicity of $-0.84\pm 0.07$ dex). In fact, this region corresponds to the approximate location 

1034: of the kinematic substructure discussed in the previous section and by Gilbert et al. (2007). 

1035: Without applying any further velocity cuts to extract substructure stars by isolating 

1036: their triangular distribution in velocity space, these regions are expected to contain an overlap of 

1037: giants from the intrinsic inner spheroid population and those forming the substructure itself. 

1038: As Gilbert et al. (2007) argue, the resulting, intermixed MDF should be expected to 

1039: be slightly more metal rich than adjacent other fields. The radial bin in question 

1040: is slightly more metal rich on average by $\sim$0.11 dex than the next inner data (at a significance of 

1041: 0.9$\sigma$). Hence, our mean abundances in the inner spheroid and the substructure do not lend strong  support to the cold structure being significantly more metal rich than its surroundings. 

1042: 

1043: However, the mean [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}$ significantly drops by about 0.4 dex 

1044: (2.5$\sigma$) between approximately 16 and 20 kpc (Fig.~16), while this trend even proceeds further outwards. 

1045: We note that 

1046: this sharp drop coincides with the edge of disturbed region  visible in the Ferguson et al. (2002) maps. 

1047: As Ibata et al. (2005) show, the majority of the  photometric contrast

1048: in the Ferguson et al. (2002) maps, leaving the impression of an edge, 

1049: is due to an extended, rotating disk component (see also Fig.~1, top panel).  

1050: As this structure has a high [Fe/H], 

1051: the transition that we map in the metallicities is mostly a result of 

1052: moving off the rotating component and into the underlying halo dominance, where the halo falls off 

1053: much more slowly than the exponential disk. 

1054: 

1055: Beyond 40 kpc, the MDF contains 108 stars (Fig.~15, top right), 

1056: but it is evident that the majority of these 

1057: M31 red giant candidates are more metal poor than the crossover region by $\sim -1$ dex. 

1058: In particular, the 60 kpc fields provide a transition from the metal poor outermost fields 

1059: and the more metal rich inner parts, which is to be expected as they are dominated by the more metal rich tangential streams they lie on (see Fig.~1, bottom panel; Chapman et al. 2008). 

1060: %

1061: All in all, there is a pronounced metallicity gradient seen throughout our fields within M31's spheroid, 

1062: which becomes even more striking in the plot of individual metallicities as a function of distance from 

1063: M31 (bottom panel of Fig.~15). 

1064: 

1065: 

1066: \subsection{Comparison with previous detection of a gradient}

1067: %

1068: A distinct metallicity  gradient in M31's halo has already been proposed 

1069: by Kalirai et al. (2006a),  who 

1070: find a more gradual leveling of their MDFs,  based on {\em photometric}  metallicities, 

1071: from $-0.47$ dex within 20 kpc to $-0.94$ dex 

1072: around 30 kpc down to $-1.26$ dex beyond 60 kpc (open squares in the top and bottom panels of Fig.~16).  

1073: Thence their data imply a smooth decline as ($-0.77\pm$0.09) dex\,(100 kpc)$^{-1}$. 

1074: The analysis of our data, on the other hand, yields a steeper   

1075: radial metallicity gradient of the order of ($-1.50\pm0.08$) dex\,(100 kpc)$^{-1}$. 

1076: Our finding of a clear abundance gradient is underscored by the disappearance of 

1077: TiO strong, metal rich giants in the outermost fields (Fig.~15, top left panel). In fact, the outermost radii appear to be 

1078: dominated by a purely metal poor population. 

1079: %

1080: Another significant difference between the gradients derived in this work and 

1081: suggested by Kalirai et al. (2006a)  is the overall lower metallicity 

1082: at almost any given radius in our analysis. On average, our  {\em mean} abundances in those fields in common with their data 

1083: are  more metal poor by 0.75 dex. Given the quoted measurement errors from both sources, 

1084: this discrepancy is significant at the $3.4\,\sigma$ level and the  

1085: reason for such a deviation merits careful investigation.  

1086: 

1087: In the top panel of Fig.~16, we only include the minor axis data, which were radially binned 

1088: such as to guarantee the same, statistically significant number ($\sim$100) of stars per bin. 

1089: %

1090: Our  data and those of Kalirai et al. (2006a) additionally  includes off-axis fields, 

1091: which we highlight with the encircled points in the top panel  of Fig.~16. 

1092: Two of these are located directly on the Giant  stream (H13s and a3), while also 

1093: a13 and b15 fall towards the edge of the stream feature at a projected 

1094: distance  of $\sim 50$ kpc. 

1095:  It is known from previous spectroscopic measurements (Guhathakurta et al. 2006; Kalirai et al. 2006b) 

1096: that the stream is intrinsically more metal rich than the halo. 

1097: %

1098: One other field in Kalirai et al. (2006a) lies on  the dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxy And\,III 

1099: (d3), which exhibits a population representative of M31's moderately metal poor satellite galaxies 

1100: (with a mean abundance of  $\sim -1.7$ dex; McConnachie et al. 2005). 

1101: As the field may well be contaminated with dSph members, we do not consider it a representative 

1102: choice for a study of the pure M31 halo. 

1103: %

1104: Due to our inclusion of the inner spheroid fields, we have significantly greater numbers 

1105: within 20 kpc. 

1106: In order to evaluate the influence of the off-axis fields on the metallicity gradient, we 

1107: include in the bottom panel of Fig.~16 all our measurements throughout M31's  spheroid, separated 

1108: by field (see also the color coded map in Fig.~1, bottom panel). 

1109: These fields include H13s, a3, a13, a19 and b15, which were also targeted by Kalirai et al. (2006a). 

1110: Nevertheless, it is obvious that the strong character of the gradient persists disregarding whether 

1111: we focus on the minor axis or on the whole spheroid. Thus the metallicity gradient is likely a 

1112: characteristics associated with M31's full halo. 

1113: 

1114: One major source of uncertainty is in general the use of photometric metallicities. Larger photometric errors, 

1115: the choice of the adopted set of isochrones, the general failure of stellar 

1116: evolutionary tracks to simultaneously reproduce the major features of CMDs 

1117: (Gallart et al. 2005; and references therein) and undesired age-metallicity degeneracies on the RGB  

1118: render photometry the less reliable metallicity indicator as compared to spectroscopic estimates. 

1119: Isochrone fits produce values for the actual stellar metallicity, $Z$, which incorporates 

1120: the admixture of heavy elements, in particular the $\alpha$-elements. 

1121: In this vein, any unknown $\alpha$-enhancement can considerably 

1122: alter the derived photometric metallicities. Kalirai et al. (2006a) demonstrate that 

1123: an [$\alpha$/Fe] ratio of +0.3, as found in the Milky Way halo, yields results  

1124: more metal poor by 0.22 dex  compared to those derived from scaled-solar isochrones 

1125: (but see also Koch et al. 2006 for a discussion of the systematics of 

1126: $\alpha$-variations on CaT metallicities). In order to reconcile the spectroscopic (this work) and photometric  (Kalirai et al. 2006a) metallicities a strong enhancement 

1127: in these elements of at least 1 dex would be required. This seems an unreasonably high 

1128: value, even if the formation of the outer halo regions were dominated 

1129: by early star formation bursts.

1130: 

1131: Photometric metallicities are especially susceptible to overestimating the metallicities of metal poor stars.  

1132: For stars with  [Fe/H]$<-1.5$\, dex, there is relatively little difference in the metal line blanketing in the V  band:  

1133: In color-magnitude diagrams such as Fig.~3, 

1134:  a 1 dex decrease in metallicity causes little discernable change in color.  

1135: Given that for many distant systems, the only accessible metallicity estimate is photometric metallicity, we would thus urge the use of bluer filters, and greater caution in the interpretation of results.

1136: It is reassuring, though, that despite the large overall discrepancy between the 

1137: Kalirai et al. (2006a) and our measurements, there is a significant agreement  

1138: between the two studies in  field m8 (at 120 kpc).  In this  field, we

1139:  find 7 giant candidates, for 5 of which we could measure an [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}$. 

1140: If we discarded those two stars with the largest velocities that are in the transition 

1141: higher-velocity tail of our distribution ($\sim$1.2--1.5\,$\sigma$ above the systemic mean), 

1142: the mean abundance would even drop by another 0.1 dex, confirming the 

1143: dominance of metal poor of stars in these outer fields. 

1144: We note in passing that m8 constitutes one of the fields for which Ibata et al. (2007) 

1145: exclude the occurrence of any substructure, so that it may in fact be 

1146: a contender for representing M31's genuine underlying metal poor halo (see also Chapman et al. 

1147: 2006, 2008).

1148: 

1149: Finally, we add to  Fig.~16  the mean spectroscopic [Fe/H]

1150:  in a minor axis field at 19 kpc, based on the 29 confirmed red giant members 

1151: of Reitzel \& Guhathakurta (2002; their Fig.~17). These authors not only find that their spectroscopic 

1152: metallicities are systematically lower than the photometric counterparts, but they also 

1153: detect a distinct metal poor tail in this MDF, reaching as low as   [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}=-2.85$ 

1154: on the scale of Carretta \& Gratton (1997). By comparing their MDF to those of 

1155: Galactic and M31 globular clusters and of Local Group dSph galaxies,  

1156: they attributed its shape and the presence of such metal poor stars to the build-up of M31's 

1157: halo from the accretion of many a small subsystems. As this comparison with our data 

1158: shows, the mean metallicity in the Reitzel \& Guhathakurta (2002) field is 

1159: in good agreement with our measurement in the respective radial bin. 

1160: The most recently discovered faint dSph satellites around M31 are predominantly 

1161: characterized by mean metallicities between $-1.3$ and $-1.7$ dex (Martin et al. 2006b; Majewski 

1162: et al. 2007), which agrees well with  the field star population's abundance over a radial range from 

1163: $\sim$20--50 kpc.

1164: 

1165: 

1166: \subsection{Andromeda's metal poor outer halo}

1167: In contrast, the significant discrepancy of the mean metallicity estimates in the outermost 

1168: field, m11, is an issue of concern: While Kalirai et al. (2006a) state a value of $\sim -0.92$ dex 

1169: from their three confirmed red giant members, we find a value as low as $\sim -2.6$ dex 

1170: from 10 red giant candidates stars in total. It is then fair to ask {\em how reliable are our low

1171:  metallicities} in this highly foreground contaminated field and how trustworthy is our  

1172:  detection of metal poor stars at all radii? 

1173: First, if those marginal stars with potentially too high velocities were removed from m11, 

1174: the mean value in this field would essentially remain unaltered -- {\em the metal poor nature and 

1175: strong gradient do persist}. All in all, there are 56 stars with [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT} < -2.3$ found 

1176: at all radii from 9 to 160 kpc. Based on their higher radial velocities, no more than 6--8 of these 

1177: could be potential remaining foreground contaminants. 

1178: Furthermore, it was verified by visual inspection that none of the stars is a potential mismatch 

1179: in spectral type or exhibits spurious noise peaks. 

1180: Also, we note that the median log-likelihood $L$ (Sect.~4) amounts to 0.7 for these stars so that it is 

1181: 5 times more likely that they are M31 red giants than Milky Way stars based on 

1182: the adopted discriminant indicators. 

1183: As we have shown in Sect.~4.1, there may be $\sim$35 undetectable blue dwarfs in our whole 

1184: sample (Table~2), based on the Besan\c con predictions. Furthermore, the model predicts that 

1185: only 15\% of these stars have nominal metallicities below $-2.3$ dex,  which translates into 

1186: $\sim$5 such undetectable contaminants in our sample. 

1187: 

1188: The principal caveat against deriving a metal poor tail in stellar populations is that, 

1189: generally, no calibrations of the CaT strength exist below $-2.1$ dex. 

1190: Neither the original sample of Rutledge et al. (1997a, 1997b) 

1191:  included any system more metal poor than $-2.02$ dex (on the scale of Carretta \& Gratton 

1192: 1997), nor did our calibration clusters (Fig.~7). 

1193: Nevertheless, the CaT technique is widely applied throughout the literature of metal poor 

1194: stellar populations and can 

1195: still maintain its prime role in at least a relative ranking of stars towards the metal poor 

1196: extrapolations (Koch et al. 2006; Simon \& Geha 2007; Battaglia et al. 2008)\footnote{The same holds for   

1197: the calibration of metal rich stars:  the most metal rich globular cluster in our sample, M5, has [Fe/H]$_{\rm CG97}=-1.12$ 

1198: dex), while a small fraction of our  measured M31 stars nominally reach above solar values. 

1199: That the CaT calibration is still valid   

1200: up to +0.47 dex has recently been demonstrated by Carrera et al.  (2007).}. 

1201: We plot in Fig.~17 a series of spectra that were grouped and coadded in 

1202: various metallicity bins.  It becomes obvious that the expected trend of increasing 

1203: CaT line strength with increasing [Fe/H] is also visible in our data so that our 

1204: metallicity scale and ranking derived from the CaT coaddition did not introduce any grossly falsified 

1205: results, in particular towards the metal poor spectra. This coaddition of the spectra also 

1206: emphasizes a number of \ion{Fe}{1} and \ion{Ti}{1} lines that clearly scale with metallicity  

1207: in our spectra and will allow us to estimate  chemical abundance ratios in future works 

1208: (see also Kirby et al. 2008). 

1209: 

1210: As a further comparison, we generated synthetic spectra of red giants, using Kurucz model atmospheres\footnote{\url{http://kurucz.harvard.edu} }

1211: with representative stellar parameters, i.e., 

1212: (T$_{\rm eff}$=4000 K, log\,$g$=1.0, $\xi$=1.5 km\,s$^{-1}$), and solar-scaled opacity distributions\footnote{\url{http://wwwuser.oat.ts.astro.it/castelli}} (e.g., Koch et al. 2008). In Fig.~18, we show the 

1213: resulting syntheses for different metallicities of the atmospheres. These spectra have been degraded to 

1214: match the spectral resolution of DEIMOS and, in the bottom panel, convolved with an additional noise 

1215: component the mimic a representative spectrum with $S/N$=10. 

1216: %

1217: Apart from the expected weakening of the CaT, there is a visible decrease in the strength of the 

1218: weak \ion{Fe}{1} absorption features (e.g., at $\lambda\lambda 8514.1,8468.4,8621.6,8674.7$\AA) adjacent to the CaT (see also Bosler et al. 2007) towards lower metallicities. 

1219: This decrease is even discernible in the low $S/N$ spectra and in fact observable in our 

1220: coadded spectra (Fig.~17). 

1221:  

1222: One might then argue that the metal poor stars could be an artifact of the new coaddition technique and its calibration devised in Sect.~5. To test this, we grouped the spectra of progressively 

1223: metal poor stars, and applied the same method as before on the coadded spectra. 

1224: It transpires that the metal poor character  of these spectra persist and there is 

1225: a tight, close-to-unity relation between the metallicity bin of the individual stars to be grouped, and 

1226: the final coadded estimate from the coadded spectra.  

1227: %

1228: Moreover, the use of our own consistent 

1229: calibrations (eqs.~5,6) does not alter the qualitative detection of metal poor stars: 

1230: if we were instead to use  the canonical calibration of Rutledge et al. (1997a, 1997b), 

1231: we would observe a shift of the measurements towards [Fe/H] lower by 0.2 dex at $-$3 -- 

1232: if anything, our calibration would overestimate the metallicities so that 

1233: the metal poor character of the distribution remains.  

1234: Further tests that we employed to ascertain the reality of the gradient and the metal poor 

1235: stars verified that there is no unusual trend of the [Fe/H] with magnitude discernible, nor 

1236: does the gradient change when we restrict the analyses only to the high- or low-$S/N$ spectra, respectively. 

1237: Moreover, to test the influence of potential remaining dwarf contamination, we 

1238: constructed another test sample by only including stars with radial velocities below $-$300 km\,s$^{-1}$. 

1239: Apart from increased statistical uncertainties due to the decreased sample size, the 

1240: outer regions do remain metal deficient and the gradient perseveres. On average, the ``pure'', 

1241: velocity restricted  giant sample yields mean  metallicities in each field 

1242: that are  more metal poor by 0.04 dex (r.m.s. scatter of 0.50 dex) on average than the full giant data. 

1243: %

1244: Essentially, the same holds if we inflict a strict color cut to select a ``pure'' giant sample: 

1245: a gradient persists even for a, say, $V-i'>1$ subset. Neither are any significant changes found if we 

1246: restrict the analysis only to giants classified as such in $>95$\% of the Monte Carlo runs of the 

1247: dwarf/giant separation  (Sect.~4). The median difference between the mean metallicities from 

1248: ``all'' giants and the $2\sigma$ cases is $<0.01$ dex (r.m.s. 0.08 dex). 

1249: Moreover, our dwarf sample does not exhibit any significant sign of a gradient 

1250: (at 0.06$\pm$0.04 dex\,(100 kpc)$^{-1}$), 

1251: which is expected, since the CaT is no metallicity indicator for these stars so that 

1252: their [Fe/H] are randomly distributed. 

1253: %

1254: 

1255: The color coded CMD in Fig.~3 then verifies that the trend of metallicity with location on the RGB 

1256: is in fact as expected, with the more metal rich stars (red points) 

1257: exhibiting progressively redder colors, and the most metal poor stars (blue points) being 

1258: predominantly located towards blue colors. 

1259: %

1260: We also note the presence of $\sim$40 giants that fall bluewards of the most metal poor isochrone 

1261: in Fig.~3.  Given our discussion in Sect.~4.1, it appears unlikely that these are Galactic contaminants. 

1262: Although their spectroscopic metallicities indicate them to be metal poor objects, 

1263: their remarkably blue colors  are surprising. If one were to assign these colors to erroneous photometry, 

1264: and thus redden these objects towards the [Fe/H]=$-2.3$ isochrone, this color difference translates 

1265: (Eqs. 5,6) into a spectroscopic metallicity uncertainty of less than 0.30 dex 

1266: with a median of 0.03 dex  (r.m.s. scatter 0.09 dex). 

1267: %

1268: All in all,  we are left to believe that  there is in fact a detectable, real population of 

1269: considerably metal poor red giants present in M31's inner halo that becomes yet more 

1270: prominent in its outer halo.

1271: 

1272: This fact then confirms 

1273: the view of an accretion origin of the inner halo, presumably by several events, 

1274: and argues strongly in favor of the same mechanism governing the formation 

1275: of the inner and the outer halo. 

1276: %

1277: Moreover, there is additional evidence (Chapman et al. 2008, in prep.) that halo fields at 

1278: 110 kpc are not affected by any of the substructures in the Ibata et al. (2007) maps and are consequently 

1279: a plausible true halo component; they are found to have [Fe/H]$\sim-2$.

1280: 

1281: Given that the halo of M33 itself is also metal poor (at around $-$1.5 dex; McConnachie et al. 2006) 

1282: it is again feasible that a major fraction of the red giants in the outermost fields,  are members of 

1283: M33, the more so, since their velocities appear to be similar to the systemic velocity of M33. At present, there 

1284: is no compelling evidence against the hypothesis that  {\it all} the

1285: candidate giants in these distant fields $\ga 120$ kpc are genuine M33 members. 

1286: Fig.~19 (left panel) shows the metallicities and velocities of stars in the three most 

1287: distant fields,  where we schematically overplot each galaxy's velocity distribution, using 

1288: the stellar halo parameters from McConnachie et al. (2006) for M33 and those derived in this work for 

1289: M31. Under the simplifying assumption that these fields contain an equal mix of M33 and M31 

1290: stars, we can estimate, based on our targets' velocities,   that 85\% of the red giant members 

1291: in field m11 and m8, and 37\% of those in m6, might actually belong to M33's halo.  

1292: Statistical removal of this contribution  would yield mean metallicities of 

1293: ($-1.94\pm 0.52$, $-2.00\pm 0.60$, $-1.60\pm 0.38$) dex in m6, m8, and m11. However, there 

1294: is no way of reliably separating the mutual overflow of giants into each other galaxy's halo 

1295: at present. 

1296:  

1297: The more metal rich stars at [Fe/H]$\ga-1.2$ dex 

1298: and velocities around $-325$ km\,s$^{-1}$, on the other hand, 

1299: might plausibly be considered to have originated

1300: in a radial collision,  presumably like the one that bore 

1301: the ancient Giant Stream (see Mori \& Rich 2008).  

1302: This hypothesis is also consistent with them being close to the systemic velocity of M31. 

1303: In particular, there are no stars found with very high negative velocities relative to M31 --  

1304: all giants in these fields have velocities well within $\sim1.5\sigma$ of the M31 mean in 

1305: the negative velocity tail (which does account for M31's radially decreasing velocity dispersion).   

1306: 

1307: \section{Conclusions}

1308: %

1309: From a spectroscopic analysis of 1316 confirmed red giant stars along the 

1310: minor axis on M31 and in spheroid fields out to 160 kpc 

1311: we  find and confirm the following structural specific features in M31's inner 

1312: and outer halo:  

1313: %

1314: \begin{enumerate}

1315: %

1316: \item 

1317: There is evidence of an abundance substructure in the sense that  the mean stellar metallicity 

1318: strongly declines at $\sim$20 kpc, where the abundance range within this radius is typically 

1319: $-0.5$ to $-1$ dex and falls towards $-1.4$ dex at 20--40 kpc. The latter values are consistent 

1320: with those detected within a smooth underlying M31 halo (Ostheimer 2003; Guhathakurta et al. 2006; 

1321: Kalirai et al. 2006a; Chapman et al. 2006).  

1322: Interestingly, the location of the break in the metallicity profile coincides with the edge of the metal rich,  

1323: extended rotating disk reported by  Ibata et al. (2005), but it cannot be entirely ruled out that 

1324: there is also a contribution from the kinematic substructure (Gilbert et al. 2007), which would bias  the 

1325: inner regions towards marginally higher metallicities.   

1326: %

1327: A metallicity gradient has been detected by 

1328: Kalirai et al. (2006a), but here we show that the decline in our spectroscopic 

1329: measurements appears to proceed even stronger towards the outermost fields at 160 kpc, 

1330: where we find mean values around and even below $-2$ dex.  

1331: %

1332: \item In particular, there is a considerable fraction of metal poor stars below [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}\la -2$ 

1333: found at almost all radii.

1334: Their presence is not utterly surprising, and red giants that metal poor have been claimed to exist  

1335: in M31's halo before (e.g., Reitzel \& Guhathakurta 2002). Furthermore, their established prominence  

1336: in the Milky Way halo (Carney et al. 1996; 

1337: Chiba \& Beers 2000; Carollo et al. 2007) raises the question, why there 

1338: should not be a comparable distribution present in the M31 halo, if both systems had experienced 

1339: a similar formation and accretion history.  

1340: %

1341: \item 

1342: A considerable fraction of stars in the outermost fields beyond $\sim$100 kpc 

1343: (which corresponds to about 100 kpc projected distance to M33) exhibit velocities and metallicities 

1344: consistent with those of M33 halo stars. This confirms earlier findings from star count maps (Ibata et al.  

1345: 2007), according to which the stellar halos of these major Local Group spirals overlap to a large extent. 

1346: %

1347: \item 

1348: We confirm the earlier detection of a kinematically cold  substructure (Gilbert et al. 2007), 

1349: located at a radial distance of  15--20 kpc. By comparison of new N-body simulations (Mori \& Rich 

1350: 2008), we show that 

1351: such a substructure is consistent with having originated in the merger event that 

1352: produced M31's Giant Stellar Stream (Ibata et al. 2001, 2004). Nevertheless, the full radial 

1353: velocity distribution along the minor axis is difficult to reconcile with a single collisional  

1354: event of this kind, and it is more likely that a wealth of accretions occurred and formed 

1355: the halo, which is concordant with the progressive detections of stream-like substructures 

1356: in star count maps (Ibata et al. 2007). 

1357: %

1358: \item 

1359: There is a considerable contribution of stars from a  genuine, ancient M31 halo, 

1360: potentially ejected during 

1361: such merger events,  to the velocity distribution at any radius. 

1362: Moreover, neither stars from the pristine bulge or disk components are likely to be found 

1363: in the outer or even inner spheroids. 

1364: %

1365: \end{enumerate}

1366: %

1367: This leaves us with a picture in which the progenitor that produced the giant Stream 

1368: and thus presumably donated a major part of M31's halo  cannot be single-handedly 

1369: responsible for all the substructures seen in our and previous studies -- outside the 

1370: present-day Stream's sphere of influence,  one sees a predominant occurrence of 

1371: minor substructures or streams from many a past mergers. 

1372: A large number of  accretion events is also thought to have contributed to  the formation of M31's disk (e.g., Pe\~narrubia et al. 2006), as this would produce the proper, observed mix of metallicities. 

1373:  %

1374: Ibata et al. (2007) note that the radial metallicity gradient is a mere reflection of Stream 

1375: debris and numerous  other substructures 

1376: in the {\em inner} regions, which is in concordance with model predictions.  In this context the 

1377: metal rich, genuine Stream material is more centrally concentrated, leaving the impression 

1378: of a more extended underlying metal poor halo (cf. the stream distribution in Fig.~13).  

1379: It is unclear at present, whether the gradient is intrinsic to the inner substructures becoming 

1380: more metal poor with radius, or whether the underlying halo, with its larger dominance 

1381: in the outer regions, is becoming more metal poor. 

1382: %

1383: Note that Brown et al. (2007) find that an HST field at 25 kpc ($\sim 1.5\degr$) is 

1384: both more metal poor and older than the innermost HST field projected at 11 kpc.

1385: Hence, also the HST pointings appear not to be dominated by the canonical Stream's 

1386: debris.

1387: %

1388: Moreover,  we find that the innermost deep HST field (Brown et al. 2003) is situated in a region that has some potential contribution from tidal debris, but appears to be dominated by a more metal rich "inner halo" population with a {\it smooth}  velocity distribution, free of the  structures 

1389: at the velocity extremes that are predicted to be present from interaction models (see left middle panel 

1390: of Fig.~13). 

1391:   The Brown et al. (2003) 11 kpc field appears to be free of major contamination from an infall event.  The 21 kpc field lies  just outside of the metal rich inner region; Brown et al. (2007) suggest a lower metallicity for this field, which we confirm from our CaT analysis.  The field at 35 kpc apears to be yet more metal poor and may be genuinely representative of the outer halo.  

1392: %

1393: We note that all the HST fields at 11, 21 and 35 kpc have very different circular orbital periods 

1394: (derived from a simple mass model and the assumption of circular orbits) of $\sim$0.2, 0.5 and 1\,Gyr, respectively.  

1395: The characteristics of the HST deep fields will be discussed in a forthcoming paper (Rich et al.  in prep).

1396: 

1397: Using the same arguments, we find large 

1398: orbital periods of $\sim$6\,Gyr at 160 kpc, which presupposes them to be bound to M31 (see also 

1399: Majewski et al. 2007). 

1400: It is hard to reconcile these time scales with a scenario, in which these distant  

1401: M31 members are  pressure supported. 

1402: It is rather an attractive notion that these distant stars might be ejecta 

1403: of collisions, not yet having completed a single orbit around M31.  

1404: 

1405: The fact that the new metallicity scale we framed in this work is in good agreement 

1406: with the moderately metal poor  character of the dSph satellites of M31 (Reitzel \& Guhathakurta 2002; McConnachie 

1407: et al. 2005; Martin et al. 2006b; Majewski et al. 2007) further support 

1408: the idea that the outer halo might plausibly emanate from a population similar to the dSphs. 

1409: %

1410: Moreover, the presence of the more metal rich stars beyond 100 kpc  

1411: suggest an origin of these stars in collisions rather than in a primordial halo. Yet it is challenging to reconcile this scenario with 

1412: the number count maps of Ibata et al. (2007), 

1413: which are smooth to within the sensitivity of the MegaCam survey   

1414:  in these regions and with the presence of very metal poor stars:  

1415: there are no very metal poor stars detected in the Galactic dSphs (Koch et al. 2006; Helmi et al. 2006), 

1416: nor in the faintest M31 satellites (Martin et al. 2006b, 2007),  

1417: so that it remains unclear whether systems like the  present-day observed dwarf satellites are responsible for the bulk of the halo.  

1418: 

1419: While our observed radial metallicity gradient stretches 1.5--2 dex over the full extent of our data 

1420: of 160 kpc, simulations of the hierarchical assembly of Galactic halos do not reproduce 

1421: any considerable gradients. In this context, the study of Font et al. (2006) predicts gradients in 

1422: [Fe/H] {\em averaged} over each full simulated halo of at most 0.5 dex over a few tens of kpc. 

1423: 

1424: Our findings lend striking support to paralleling the M31 and Galactic halos: 

1425: In a recent work  Carollo et al. (2007) detected a dichotomy 

1426: in the Milky Way's stellar halo.  In this sense, there exists a clear kinematic and 

1427: chemical separation into an inner halo (with stars on more eccentric orbits, 

1428: metallicities around $-1.6$ dex, a flattened density distribution and no considerable rotation) 

1429: and an outer, independent halo component, which is more spherical in shape, shows 

1430: evidence of rotation {\em and is more metal poor} on average. 

1431: In particular, the outer Galactic halo exhibits a peak metallicity of $-2.2$ dex.  

1432: The presence of two distinct halos 

1433: is well explicable in the context of  cosmological structure formation models 

1434: and incorporates the continuous, chaotic accretion of distinct subhalos that follow 

1435: an earlier stage of the dissipative merging of massive, yet sub-galactic fragments 

1436: (see Carollo et al. 2007 for a  discussion of the detailed formation scenario).  

1437: If structure formation proceeded in analogy to form M31 -- 

1438: and in the light of $\Lambda$CDM this is likely -- 

1439: then the clear distinctness of at least two halo components visible in 

1440: the MDFs in our M31 study is a natural outcome of the accompanying stochastic abundance 

1441: accretion.  

1442: 

1443: 

1444: As a concluding, independent remark, we note that a further benefit of the present study is the 

1445: derivation of a new improved method to measure metallicities from the calcium triplet, which 

1446: allowed us, and should encourage future works,  to extract reasonably accurate information

1447: from low $S/N$ spectra.  

1448: 

1449: \acknowledgments

1450: Support was provided by NSF (AST-0307931, AST-074979),  

1451: HST (GO-10265, 10816) and by R.M. Rich. 

1452: The authors thank Stephen Gwyn for assistance with obtaining the

1453: photometry from the CFHT archive.

1454: We gratefully acknowledge P. Guhathakurta and J. Kalirai for assisting in the Keck observations.

1455: H. Ferguson is thanked for helpful comments. 

1456: We are also grateful to Marc Davis and the DEEP team, and to Phil Choi and George Helou, for obtaining some of the observations used in this study. 

1457: We are grateful to Sandy Faber and the DEIMOS team for building an outstanding instrument

1458: and for extensive help and guidance throughout the observing runs.  The spec2d data reduction 

1459: pipeline for DEIMOS was developed at UC Berkeley with support from NSF grant AST-0071048. 

1460: The staff of the W.M. Keck Observatory, in particular Greg Wirth, is thanked 

1461: for assistance with observations and data recovery. Data presented herein were 

1462: obtained using the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is operated 

1463: as a scientific partnership among Caltech, the University of 

1464: California, and NASA. The Observatory was made possible 

1465: by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck 

1466: Foundation. 

1467: This research used the facilities of the

1468: Canadian Astronomy Data Centre operated by

1469: the National Research Council of Canada

1470: with the support of the Canadian Space Agency.

1471: 

1472: \begin{appendix}

1473: 

1474: \section{Background galaxies}

1475: 

1476: In the full sample of DEIMOS targets taken for the entire project, we identified a still large number of 

1477: $\sim$400 galaxies background galaxies, which corresponds to a striking 

1478: contamination fraction of $\sim$11\%. 

1479: It is possible that more galaxies were missed during the classification of the spectra and 

1480: rather flagged as bad quality data, although we verified that no ``true'' dwarf or giant star 

1481: was mistaken as a galaxy spectrum and vice versa. 

1482: These galaxies cover the full color  range from $\sim$0.5 to 3.5 in  $V-i'$, with  the 

1483: majority falling in the interval  between 1 and 2 (see the CMD in Fig.~3). 

1484: %

1485: Despite the thorough pre-selection of potential M31 giant candidates on the upper RGB 

1486: and, for some of the inner fields, using Washington photometry (e.g., Gilbert et al. 2006), the partially poor seeing conditions  during the photometric runs (obtained at the KPNO; see Ostheimer 2003; 

1487: Gilbert et al. 2006) hampered an appropriate {\em a priori} 

1488: rejection of non-stellar extragalactic point sources. 

1489: 

1490: For those galaxies identified here, redshifts were measured from the Doppler shifts of generally 

1491: 2--3 major emission features, such as the Balmer 

1492: H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, H$\gamma$ lines, the [\ion{O}{2}] 3727\AA\ doublet and/or the 

1493:  [\ion{O}{3}] 5007\AA\ line.  For rare occasions ($\sim$5 of the galaxies) we could also detect the strong 

1494:  Ca\,H,K features in absorption. 

1495: The final redshift distribution is displayed in Fig.~20. The first thing to note is that our sample 

1496: includes a fairly broad range in redshifts, reaching from $z\sim$0.04 to $z\sim$1.35.

1497: 

1498: This distribution should, however, not be taken as representative of the true galaxy distribution

1499: in the line of sight towards M31. This is due to our identification criteria based on only a small 

1500: number of spectral features, which are then redshifted into the limited spectral range of DEIMOS 

1501: (see also Kirby et al. 2007), biassing the distribution towards only selected redshift intervals.  

1502: %

1503: Hence,  a detailed derivation of their physical properties and 

1504: star formation rates has to be beyond the scope of this work and is left for a future 

1505: paper (Koch et al., in prep.). 

1506: 

1507: \end{appendix}

1508: 

1509: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1510: %

1511: \bibitem[Armandroff \& Zinn(1988)]{1988AJ.....96...92A} Armandroff, T.~E., 

1512: \& Zinn, R.\ 1988, \aj, 96, 92 

1513: %

1514: \bibitem[Armandroff \& Da Costa(1991)]{1991AJ....101.1329A} Armandroff, T.~E., 

1515: \& Da Costa, G.~S.\ 1991, \aj, 101, 1329 

1516: %

1517: \bibitem[Ashman et al.(1994)]{1994AJ....108.2348A} Ashman, K.~M., Bird, 

1518: C.~M., \& Zepf, S.~E.\ 1994, \aj, 108, 2348 

1519: %

1520: \bibitem[Battaglia et al. (2008)]{battaglia2008} Battaglia, G., Irwin, M., Tolstoy, E., 

1521: Hill, V., Helmi, A., Letarte, B., \& Jablonka, P. 2008, MNRAS, 338, 183

1522: %

1523: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...405..867B} Bellazzini, M., 

1524: Cacciari, C., Federici, L., Fusi Pecci, F., \& Rich, M.\ 2003, \aap, 405, 

1525: 867 

1526: %

1527: %\bibitem[Bertelli et al.(1994)]{1994A&AS..106..275B} Bertelli, G., Bressan, 

1528: %A., Chiosi, C., Fagotto, F., \& Nasi, E.\ 1994, \aaps, 106, 275 

1529: %

1530: \bibitem[Bosler et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.378..318B} Bosler, T.~L., 

1531: Smecker-Hane, T.~A., \& Stetson, P.~B.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 318 

1532: %

1533: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...592L..17B} Brown, T.~M., Ferguson, 

1534: H.~C., Smith, E., Kimble, R.~A., Sweigart, A.~V., Renzini, A., Rich, R.~M., 

1535: \& VandenBerg, D.~A.\ 2003, \apjl, 592, L17 

1536: %

1537: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652..323B} Brown, T.~M., Smith, E., 

1538: Ferguson, H.~C., Rich, R.~M., Guhathakurta, P., Renzini, A., Sweigart, 

1539: A.~V., \& Kimble, R.~A.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 323 

1540: %

1541: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...658L..95B} Brown, T.~M., et al.\ 

1542: 2007, \apjl, 658, L95 

1543: %

1544: \bibitem[Bullock \& Johnston(2005)]{2005ApJ...635..931B} Bullock, J.~S., \& 

1545: Johnston, K.~V.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 931 

1546: %

1547: \bibitem[Carney et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....112..668C} Carney, B.~W., Laird, 

1548: J.~B., Latham, D.~W., \& Aguilar, L.~A.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 668 

1549: %

1550: \bibitem[Carollo et al.(2007)]{2007Natur.450.1020C} Carollo, D., et al.\ 

1551: 2007, \nat, 450, 1020 

1552: %

1553: \bibitem[Carrera et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....134.1298C} Carrera, R., Gallart, 

1554: C., Pancino, E., \& Zinn, R.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 1298 

1555: %

1556: \bibitem[Carretta & Gratton 1997]{Carretta1997} Carretta, E., \& Gratton, R. 1997, A\&AS, 121, 95

1557: %

1558: \bibitem[Cenarro et al.(2001)]{2001MNRAS.326..959C} Cenarro, A.~J., 

1559: Cardiel, N., Gorgas, J., Peletier, R.~F., Vazdekis, A., \& Prada, F.\ 2001, 

1560: \mnras, 326, 959 

1561: %

1562: \bibitem[Chapman et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...653..255C} Chapman, S.~C., Ibata, 

1563: R., Lewis, G.~F., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Irwin, M., McConnachie, A., \& 

1564: Tanvir, N.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 255 

1565: %

1566: \bibitem[Chapman et al.(2008)]{2008MNRASC} Chapman, S.~C., et al.  2008, MNRAS, 

1567: submitted

1568: %

1569: \bibitem[Chiba \& Beers(2000)]{2000AJ....119.2843C} Chiba, M., \& Beers, 

1570: T.~C.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 2843 

1571: %

1572: \bibitem[Cole et al.(2004)]{Cole04} Cole, A.~A., Smecker-Hane, 

1573: T.~A., Tolstoy, E., Bosler, T.~L., \& Gallagher, J.~S.\ 2004, \mnras,

1574: 347, 367 

1575: %

1576: \bibitem[Durrell et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....121.2557D} Durrell, P.~R., Harris, 

1577: W.~E., \& Pritchet, C.~J.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2557 

1578: %

1579: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.366.1012F} Fardal, M.~A., Babul, 

1580: A., Geehan, J.~J., \& Guhathakurta, P.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 1012 

1581: %

1582: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.380...15F} Fardal, M.~A., 

1583: Guhathakurta, P., Babul, A., \& McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 15 

1584: %

1585: \bibitem[Ferguson et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124.1452F} Ferguson, A.~M.~N., 

1586: Irwin, M.~J., Ibata, R.~A., Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N.~R.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 

1587: 1452 

1588: %

1589: \bibitem[Ferguson et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...622L.109F} Ferguson, A.~M.~N., 

1590: Johnson, R.~A., Faria, D.~C., Irwin, M.~J., Ibata, R.~A., Johnston, K.~V., 

1591: Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N.~R.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L109 

1592: %

1593: \bibitem[Font et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...646..886F} Font, A.~S., Johnston, 

1594: K.~V., Bullock, J.~S., \& Robertson, B.~E.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 886 

1595: %

1596: \bibitem[Gallart et al.(2005)]{2005ARA&A..43..387G} Gallart, C., Zoccali, 

1597: M., \& Aparicio, A.\ 2005, \araa, 43, 387 

1598: %

1599: \bibitem[Galleti et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...423..925G} Galleti, S., Bellazzini, M., \& Ferraro, F.~R.\ 2004, \aap, 423, 925 

1600: %

1601: \bibitem[Garnavich et al.(1994)]{1994AJ....107.1097G} Garnavich, P.~M., Vandenberg, D.~A., Zurek, 

1602: D.~R., \& Hesser, J.~E.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 1097 

1603: %

1604: \bibitem[Gilbert et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652.1188G} Gilbert, K.~M., et al.\ 

1605: 2006, \apj, 652, 1188 

1606: %

1607: \bibitem[Gilbert et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..3029G} Gilbert, K.~M., et al.\ 

1608: 2007,  ApJ, 668, 245

1609: %

1610: %\bibitem[Girardi et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...391..195G} Girardi, L., Bertelli, 

1611: %G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Groenewegen, M.~A.~T., Marigo, P., Salasnich, 

1612: %B., \& Weiss, A.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 195 

1613: %

1614: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et al.(2006)]{2006astro.ph..5172G} Guhathakurta, P., 

1615: et al.\ 2006, AJ, submitted (astro-ph/0502366)

1616: %

1617: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....131.2497G} Guhathakurta, P., 

1618: et al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 2497 

1619: %

1620: \bibitem[Gwyn(2008)]{2008PASP..120..212G} Gwyn, S.~D.~J.\ 2008, \pasp, 120, 212 

1621: %

1622: \bibitem[Helmi et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...651L.121H} Helmi, A., et al.\ 2006, 

1623: \apjl, 651, L121 

1624: %

1625: \bibitem[Holland et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....112.1035H} Holland, S., Fahlman, 

1626: G.~G., \& Richer, H.~B.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 1035 

1627: %

1628: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2001)]{2001Natur.412...49I} Ibata, R., Irwin, M., 

1629: Lewis, G., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., \& Tanvir, N.\ 2001, \nat, 412, 49 

1630: %

1631: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.351..117I} Ibata, R., Chapman, S., 

1632: Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Irwin, M., Lewis, G., 

1633: \& McConnachie, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 117 

1634: %

1635: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...634..287I} Ibata, R., Chapman, S., 

1636: Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Lewis, G., Irwin, M., \& Tanvir, N.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 

1637: 287 

1638: %

1639: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0704.1318I} Ibata, R., Martin, N.~F., 

1640: Irwin, M., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Lewis, G.~F., \& McConnachie, 

1641: A.~W.\ 2007, ApJ, 671, 1591

1642: %

1643: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...628L.105I} Irwin, M.~J., Ferguson, 

1644: A.~M.~N., Ibata, R.~A., Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N.~R.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, 

1645: L105 

1646: %

1647: \bibitem[Jones et al.(1996)]{1996MNRAS.278..146J} Jones, J.~B., Gilmore, 

1648: G., \& Wyse, R.~F.~G.\ 1996, \mnras, 278, 146 

1649: %

1650: \bibitem[Jorgensen et al.(1992)]{1992A&A...254..258J} J{\o}rgensen, U.~G., 

1651: Carlsson, M., \& Johnson, H.~R.\ 1992, \aap, 254, 258 

1652: %

1653: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2006a)]{2006ApJ...648..389K} Kalirai, J.~S., et al.\ 

1654: 2006a, \apj, 648, 389 	% Metal poor halo -- gradient

1655: %

1656: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2006b)]{2006ApJ...641..268K} Kalirai, J.~S., 

1657: Guhathakurta, P., Gilbert, K.~M., Reitzel, D.~B., Majewski, S.~R., Rich, 

1658: R.~M., \& Cooper, M.~C.\ 2006b, \apj, 641, 268  % Stream

1659: %

1660: \bibitem[Kirby etal (2007)]{kirby07} Kirby, E.~N., Guhathakurta, P., Faber, S.~M., Koo, D.~C., 

1661: Weiner, B.~J., \& Cooper, M.~C. 2007, ApJ, 660, 62

1662: % 

1663: \bibitem[Kirby et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0804.3590K} Kirby, E.~N., 

1664: Guhathakurta, P., \& Sneden, C.\ 2008, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0804.3590) 

1665: %

1666: \bibitem[Koch \& Grebel(2006)]{2006AJ....131.1405K} Koch, A., \& Grebel, 

1667: E.~K.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1405 

1668: %

1669: \bibitem{koch06} Koch, A., Grebel, E.~K., Wyse, R.~F.~G., Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Harbeck, D.~R.,  Gilmore, G.~F., \& Evans, N.~W.  2006, AJ, 131, 895

1670: %

1671: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2007)]{2007AJ....134..566K} Koch, A., Kleyna, J.~T., 

1672: Wilkinson, M.~I., Grebel, E.~K., Gilmore, G.~F., Evans, N.~W., Wyse, 

1673: R.~F.~G., \& Harbeck, D.~R.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 566 

1674: %

1675: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2008)]{2008AJ....135.1580K} Koch, A., Grebel, E.~K., 

1676: Gilmore, G.~F., Wyse, R.~F.~G., Kleyna, J.~T., Harbeck, D.~R., Wilkinson, 

1677: M.~I., \& Wyn Evans, N.\ 2008, \aj, 135, 1580 

1678: %

1679: \bibitem[Kuijken \& Dubinski(1995)]{1995MNRAS.277.1341K} Kuijken, K., \& 

1680: Dubinski, J.\ 1995, \mnras, 277, 1341 

1681: %

1682: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....119..760M} Majewski, S.~R., 

1683: Ostheimer, J.~C., Patterson, R.~J., Kunkel, W.~E., Johnston, K.~V., \& 

1684: Geisler, D.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 760 

1685: %

1686: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....128..245M} Majewski, S.~R., et 

1687: al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 245 

1688: %

1689: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..2635M} Majewski, S.~R., et 

1690: al.\ 2007, ApJ,  670, L9

1691: %

1692: \bibitem[Marigo et al.(2008)]{2008A&A...482..883M} Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Groenewegen, 

1693: M.~A.~T., Silva, L., \& Granato, G.~L.\ 2008, \aap, 482, 883 

1694: %

1695: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.367L..69M} Martin, N.~F., Irwin, 

1696: M.~J., Ibata, R.~A., Conn, B.~C., Lewis, G.~F., Bellazzini, M., Chapman, 

1697: S., \& Tanvir, N.\ 2006a, \mnras, 367, L69 

1698: %

1699: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.371.1983M} Martin, N.~F., Ibata, 

1700: R.~A., Irwin, M.~J., Chapman, S., Lewis, G.~F., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Tanvir, 

1701: N., \& McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2006b, \mnras, 371, 1983 

1702: %

1703: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...668L.123M} Martin, N.~F., Ibata, 

1704: R.~A., \& Irwin, M.\ 2007, \apjl, 668, L123 

1705: %

1706: \bibitem[McConnachie et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.356..979M} McConnachie, A.~W., 

1707: Irwin, M.~J., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Ibata, R.~A., Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, 

1708: N.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 979 

1709: %

1710: \bibitem[McConnachie et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...647L..25M} McConnachie, A.~W., 

1711: Chapman, S.~C., Ibata, R.~A., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Irwin, M.~J., Lewis, 

1712: G.~F., Tanvir, N.~R., \& Martin, N.\ 2006, \apjl, 647, L25 

1713: %

1714: \bibitem[Merrifield \& Kuijken(1998)]{1998MNRAS.297.1292M} Merrifield, 

1715: M.~R., \& Kuijken, K.\ 1998, \mnras, 297, 1292 

1716: %

1717: \bibitem[Mori \& Rich(2008)]{2008ApJ...674L..77M} Mori, M., \& Rich, R.~M.\ 2008, \apjl, 674, L77 

1718: %

1719: \bibitem[Mouhcine et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...633..821M} Mouhcine, M., 

1720: Ferguson, H.~C., Rich, R.~M., Brown, T.~M., \& Smith, T.~E.\ 2005, \apj, 

1721: 633, 821 

1722: %

1723: \bibitem[Mould \& Kristian(1986)]{1986ApJ...305..591M} Mould, J., \& 

1724: Kristian, J.\ 1986, \apj, 305, 591 

1725: %

1726: \bibitem[O'Connell(1973)]{1973AJ.....78.1074O} O'Connell, R.~W.\ 1973, \aj, 

1727: 78, 1074 

1728: %

1729: \bibitem[Ostheimer(2003)]{2003PhDT.........4O} Ostheimer, J.~C.~J.\ 2003, 

1730: Ph.D.~Thesis,  University of Virgina

1731: %

1732: \bibitem[Palma et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.1352P} Palma, C., Majewski, 

1733: S.~R., Siegel, M.~H., Patterson, R.~J., Ostheimer, J.~C., \& Link, R.\ 

1734: 2003, \aj, 125, 1352 

1735: %

1736: \bibitem[Pasquini et al.(2002)]{2002Msngr.110....1P} Pasquini, L., et al.\ 

1737: 2002, The Messenger, 110, 1 

1738: %

1739: \bibitem[Pe{\~n}arrubia et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...650L..33P} Pe{\~n}arrubia, 

1740: J., McConnachie, A., \& Babul, A.\ 2006, \apjl, 650, L33 

1741: %

1742: \bibitem[Pritchet \& van den Bergh(1994)]{1994AJ....107.1730P} Pritchet, 

1743: C.~J., \& van den Bergh, S.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 1730 

1744: %

1745: \bibitem[Reitzel \& Guhathakurta(2002)]{2002AJ....124..234R} Reitzel, 

1746: D.~B., \& Guhathakurta, P.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 234 

1747: %

1748: \bibitem[Rich et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....111..768R} Rich, R.~M., Mighell, 

1749: K.~J., Freedman, W.~L., \& Neill, J.~D.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 768 

1750: %

1751: \bibitem[Rich et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129.2670R} Rich, R.~M., Corsi, C.~E., 

1752: Cacciari, C., Federici, L., Fusi Pecci, F., Djorgovski, S.~G., \& Freedman, 

1753: W.~L.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 2670 

1754: %

1755: \bibitem[Robin et al.(2003)]{2003A&A...409..523R} Robin, A.~C., Reyl{\'e}, 

1756: C., Derri{\`e}re, S., \& Picaud, S.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 523 

1757: %

1758: \bibitem[Rocha-Pinto et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...615..732R} Rocha-Pinto, H.~J., 

1759: Majewski, S.~R., Skrutskie, M.~F., Crane, J.~D., 

1760: \& Patterson, R.~J.\ 2004, \apj, 615, 732 

1761: %

1762: \bibitem[Rutledge1997a]{r3} Rutledge, G.~A., Hesser, J.~E., \& Stetson, P.~A., Mateo, M., 

1763: Simard, L., Bolte, M., Friel, E.~D., \& Copin, Y. 1997a, 

1764: PASP, 109, 883

1765: %

1766: \bibitem[Rutledge1997b]{r4} Rutledge, G.~A., Hesser, J.~E., \& Stetson, P.~A., 1997b

1767: PASP, 109, 907 

1768: %

1769: \bibitem[Schiavon et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...479..902S} Schiavon, R.~P., 

1770: Barbuy, B., Rossi, S.~C.~F., \& Milone, A.\ 1997, \apj, 479, 902 

1771: %

1772: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...500..525S} Schlegel, D.~J., 

1773: Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525 

1774: %

1775: \bibitem[Sherwin et al.(2008)]{2007arXiv0709.1156S} Sherwin, B.~D., Loeb, 

1776: A., \& O'Leary, R.~M.\ 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1179

1777: %

1778: \bibitem[Simon \& Geha(2007)]{2007arXiv0706.0516S} Simon, J.~D., \& Geha, 

1779: M.\ 2007, ApJ, 669, 327

1780: %

1781: \bibitem[Smith \& Drake(1990)]{1990A&A...231..125S} Smith, G., \& Drake, 

1782: J.~J.\ 1990, \aap, 231, 125 

1783: %

1784: \bibitem[Stanek \& Garnavich(1998)]{1998ApJ...503L.131S} Stanek, K.~Z., \& 

1785: Garnavich, P.~M.\ 1998, \apjl, 503, L131 

1786: %

1787: \bibitem[tonry]{t0} Tonry, J.~L., \& Davis, M. 1979, \aj, 84, 1511

1788: %

1789: \bibitem[Widrow et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...588..311W} Widrow, L.~M., Perrett, 

1790: K.~M., \& Suyu, S.~H.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 311 

1791: %

1792: \end{thebibliography}

1793: 

1794: \clearpage

1795: %

1796: %

1797: \begin{deluxetable}{rcccccr}

1798: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1799: \tablecaption{DEIMOS mask observation details}

1800: \tablewidth{0pt}

1801: \tablehead{

1802: \colhead{} &

1803: \colhead{Date of} &

1804: \colhead{} & 

1805: \colhead{Projected} & 

1806: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Mask center} &

1807: \colhead{P.A.} \\

1808: %

1809: \raisebox{1.5ex}[-1.5ex]{Mask} &

1810: \colhead{observation} &

1811: \raisebox{1.5ex}[-1.5ex]{P.I.} & 

1812: \colhead{radius\tablenotemark{a} [kpc]} & 

1813: \multicolumn{2}{c}{(J2000.0)} &

1814: \colhead{[degree]}  

1815: }

1816: 

1817: \startdata

1818: %

1819: \multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\

1820: \multicolumn{7}{c}{\raisebox{1.5ex}[-1.5ex]{Minor axis fields}}\\

1821: \hline

1822: f109\_1     & 2005 Aug 29  & Rich & 	      9 (194) & 00 45 47.06 & +40 56 52.3  &	23.9 \\

1823: H11\_1      & 2004 Sep 20  & Rich & 	     12 (190) & 00 46 21.94 & +40 41 42.7  &	21.0 \\

1824: H11\_2      & 2004 Sep 20  & Rich & 	     12 (190) & 00 46 20.57 & +40 41 41.9  & $-$21.0 \\

1825: f116\_1     & 2005 Aug 28  & Rich & 	     13 (189) & 00 46 54.63 & +40 41 33.3  &	22.6 \\

1826: f115\_1     & 2005 Aug 28  & Rich & 	     14 (188) & 00 47 32.51 & +40 42 05.3  & $-$20.0 \\

1827: f123\_1     & 2005 Aug 28  & Rich & 	     17 (185) & 00 48 05.79 & +40 29 35.5  & $-$20.0 \\

1828: f135\_1     & 2005 Aug 29  & Rich & 	     17 (186) & 00 46 25.22 & +40 11 45.1  & $-$27.0 \\

1829: f130\_3     & 2006 Nov 22  & Guhathakurta & 	     19 (182) & 00 48 35.01 & +40 16 01.2  &	90.0  \\

1830: f130\_1     & 2005 Aug 28  & Rich & 	     22 (180) & 00 49 11.59 & +40 11 51.9  & $-$20.0  \\

1831: f130\_2     & 2006 Nov 21  & Guhathakurta & 	     22 (180) & 00 49 38.44 & +40 16 04.8  &	90.0   \\

1832: a0\_3       & 2004 Jun 17  & Helou & 	     29 (175) & 00 51 50.65 & +40 07 05.9  &	 0.0  \\

1833: a0\_1       & 2002 Aug 16  & Rich & 	     31 (172) & 00 51 51.04 & +39 50 24.9  & $-$17.9  \\

1834: a0\_2       & 2002 Oct 12  & Rich & 	     31 (172) & 00 51 30.49 & +39 44 02.3  &	90.0  \\

1835: mask4       & 2006 Nov 22  & Guhathakurta &  37 (166) & 00 54 08.84 & +39 41 47.0  &   172.0 \\

1836: 123Glo & 2005 Oct 01 & Chapman & 60 (143) & 00 58 20.30 & +38 01 46.0 & 147.0 \\

1837: 124Glo & 2005 Oct 02 & Chapman & 60 (143) & 00 58 07.47 & +38 05 00.9 & 147.0  \\

1838: m6\_1       & 2003 Oct 01  & Rich &  	     87 (119) & 01 09 51.88 & +37 47 04.4  &	 0.0  \\

1839: m6\_2       & 2005 Jun 09  & Helou &  	     87 (118) & 01 08 36.22 & +37 29 04.6  &	 0.0 \\

1840: m8\_1       & 2005 Jul 07  & Davis &  	    118 (90) & 01 18 12.17 & +36 16 13.1  &	 0.0 \\

1841: m8\_2       & 2005 Jul 07  & Davis &  	    119 (89) & 01 18 35.63 & +36 14 31.4  &	 0.0 \\

1842: m11\_2      & 2003 Sep 30  & Rich &  	    159 (54) & 01 29 33.57 & +34 27 56.5  &	 0.0 \\

1843: m11\_1      & 2003 Oct 01  & Rich &  	    162 (51) & 01 29 34.48 & +34 13 49.8  &	 0.0 \\

1844: m11\_3      & 2005 Jul 08  & Davis &  	    162 (51) & 01 30 02.38 & +34 13 31.7  &	 0.0 \\

1845: m11\_4      & 2005 Jul 08  & Davis &  	    164 (50) & 01 30 37.34 & +34 13 17.1  &	 0.0 \\

1846: %

1847: \hline

1848: \multicolumn{7}{c}{}\\

1849: \multicolumn{7}{c}{\raisebox{1.5ex}[-1.5ex]{Off axis spheroid fields}}\\

1850: \hline

1851: H13s\_1     &  2004 Sept 20 & Rich &  21 (186) &   00 44 15.14   &  +39 44 23.5  &    21.0  \\

1852: H13s\_2     &  2004 Sept 20 & Rich &  21 (186) &   00 44 14.72   &  +39 44 23.4  & $-$21.0  \\

1853: a3\_2       &  2002 Oct 11  & Rich &  32 (173) &   00 47 47.30   &  +39 06 03.4  &   178.2 \\

1854: a3\_3       &  2002 Oct 26  & Rich &  32 (173) &   00 48 22.81   &  +39 12 38.4  &   270.0 \\

1855: a3\_1       &  2002 Aug 16  & Rich &  34 (171) &   00 48 21.69   &  +39 02 38.0  &    64.2 \\

1856: a13\_3      &  2005 Nov 05  & Guhathakurta &  57 (171) &   00 42 25.86   &  +37 08 28.8  &     0.0   \\

1857: a13\_4      &  2005 Nov 05  & Guhathakurta &  57 (173) &   00 41 32.55   &  +37 08 44.6  &     0.0  \\

1858: a13\_1      &  2003 Sept 30 & Rich &  59 (168) &   00 42 58.20   &  +36 59 04.7  &     0.0  \\

1859: a13\_2      &  2003 Sept 30 & Rich &  61 (171) &   00 41 30.07   &  +36 50 15.7  &     0.0  \\

1860: a19\_1       & 2005 Aug 29 & Rich &                81 (173) & 00 38 15.77 & +35 28 07.7 & 90 \\

1861: b15\_3      &  2005 Sept 07 & Guhathakurta &  94 (129) &   00 53 36.91   &  +34 50 13.6  & $-$90.0  \\

1862: b15\_1	    &  2005 Sept 07 & Guhathakurta &  96 (129) &   00 53 23.41   &  +34 37 17.1  & $-$90.0 

1863: %

1864: %

1865: \enddata

1866: \tablenotetext{a}{Numbers in parentheses are projected distances from M33.}

1867: \end{deluxetable}

1868: %

1869: %

1870: %

1871: \begin{deluxetable}{rcccccc}

1872: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1873: \tablecaption{Number of reliable measurements per mask}

1874: \tablewidth{0pt}

1875: \tablehead{

1876: \colhead{} &

1877: \colhead{\# Targets} &

1878: \colhead{\# Reliable} &

1879: \colhead{\# M31 giant} &

1880: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\# M31 giants with Metallicities} &

1881: \colhead{\# Expected} \\

1882: %

1883: \raisebox{1.5ex}[-1.5ex]{Mask} &

1884: \colhead{on  mask} &

1885: \colhead{velocities\tablenotemark{a}} &

1886: \colhead{candidates} &

1887: \colhead{($V-i')\le2$} &

1888: \colhead{($V-i')>2$} &

1889: \colhead{blue dwarfs\tablenotemark{b}} 

1890: }

1891: \startdata

1892: %

1893: f109\_1     &  204 & 186 & 158   &  105 & 4  &  1 \\	  

1894: H11\_1      &  139 & 102 &  85   &   58 & 5  &  1 \\ 

1895: H11\_2      &  140 & 115 &  93   &   53 & 5  &  1 \\ 

1896: f116\_1     &  139 & 116 &  98   &   59 & 5  &  1 \\ 

1897: f115\_1     &  187 & 162 & 121   &   87 & 4  &  1 \\ 

1898: f123\_1     &  138 & 112 &  83   &   62 & 4  &  1 \\ 

1899: f135\_1     &  146 & 123 &  92   &   73 & 2  &  1 \\ 

1900: f130\_3     &   70 &  41 &  29   &   38 & 1  &  0 \\ 

1901: f130\_1     &  112 &  88 &  44   &   24 & 2  &  1 \\ 

1902: f130\_2     &  109 &  75 &  34   &   11 & 1  &  1 \\ 

1903: a0\_3       &   93 &  65 &  36   &   24 & 1  &  1 \\ 

1904: a0\_1       &   90 &  44 &  28   &   17 & 3  &  1 \\ 

1905: a0\_2       &   93 &  47 &  31   &   15 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1906: mask4       &  101 &  60 &  18   &   15 & 0  &  2 \\ 

1907: 123Glo      &  103 &  91 &  13   &   5	& 4   &  3 \\ 

1908: 124Glo      &  105 & 102 &  16   &   8	& 6   &  3 \\ 

1909: m6\_1       &   79 &  39 &  12   &    5 & 1  &  1 \\ 

1910: m6\_2       &   75 &  27 &   7   &    5 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1911: m8\_1       &   62 &  20 &   2   &    2 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1912: m8\_2       &   65 &  25 &   5   &    3 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1913: m11\_2      &   72 &  22 &   2   &    1 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1914: m11\_1      &   74 &  35 &   8   &    5 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1915: m11\_3      &   85 &  27 &   1   &    1 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1916: m11\_4      &   82 &  31 &   5   &    3 & 0  &  1 \\ 

1917: %

1918: \hline

1919: %

1920: H13s\_1     & 134 & 106& 92   &   52	&    5 &  0 \\

1921: H13s\_2     & 100 & 75 & 52   &   30	&    4 &  1 \\

1922: a3\_2       &  80 & 30 & 18   &    9	&    1 &  1 \\

1923: a3\_3       &  87 & 47 & 32   &   13	&    4 &  1 \\

1924: a3\_1       &  86 & 30 & 24   &    7	&    1 &  0 \\

1925: a13\_3      & 113 & 37 & 16   &   11	&    1 &  1 \\

1926: a13\_4      &  90 & 34 & 12   &    7	&    0 &  1 \\

1927: a13\_1      &  84 & 31 & 16   &   11	&    0 &  0 \\

1928: a13\_2      &  74 & 27 & 14   &   11	&    0 &  0 \\

1929: a19\_1      &  76 & 37 &  6   &    3	&    0 &  1 \\

1930: b15\_3      &  76 & 32 & 10   &    6	&    0 &  1 \\

1931: b15\_1	    &  68 & 21 &  4   &    4	&    0 &  0 

1932: %  

1933: \enddata

1934: \tablecomments{The listed number of velocity and metallicity measurements excludes ``serendipitous'' extractions 

1935: and  background galaxies.}

1936: \tablenotetext{a}{Prior to the membership separation.}

1937: \tablenotetext{b}{Based on the comparison with the Besan\c con model. See text for details.}

1938: \end{deluxetable}

1939: 

1940: \clearpage

1941: \thispagestyle{empty}

1942: \setlength{\voffset}{-18mm}

1943: \begin{figure}

1944: \begin{center}

1945: \vspace{-10mm}

1946: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f1a-small.eps}\vspace{-10mm}

1947: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.75\hsize]{f1b.eps}

1948: \end{center}

1949: \vspace*{-5mm}

1950: \caption{Top panel: Location of the targeted inner  fields (red rectangles) on a star count map of M31 

1951: (courtesy of M.~Irwin).  Shown as blue squares are the HST fields of Brown et al. (2003, 2006, 2007).  

1952: The solid black lines delineate the region in which we detect a break in the abundance 

1953: profile (see Figs.~14--16) -- this transition occurs remarkably close to the edge of the perturbed  

1954: disk component in the star count maps. 

1955: Bottom panel: Representation of the full data set in standard coordinates. Numbers at the top 

1956: denote projected distances from M31 in kpc, also indicated by dashed circles. The individual 

1957: masks are color coded by their metallicity (see Sect.~7).  

1958: The black diamond represents the stream field H13s (Kalirai et al. 2006b), black circles are the HST fields, and M31 and M33 are 

1959: indicated as crosses. Dashed ellipses illustrate the approximate location of the tangential streams 

1960: found in the Ibata et al. (2007) maps.}

1961: \end{figure}

1962: \clearpage

1963: \setlength{\voffset}{0mm}

1964: %

1965: %

1966: %

1967: \begin{figure}

1968: \begin{center}

1969: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=1\hsize]{f2a.eps}

1970: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=1\hsize]{f2b.eps}

1971: \end{center}

1972: \caption{Sample spectra of foreground dwarfs (top panel)  and M31 red giants (bottom panel) 

1973: with low and higher $S/N$ ratios. The low $S/N$ data ($S/N$=6 and 8) represent the approximate limit for which velocities 

1974: and CaT metallicities could be barely determined; the $S/N$ for the higher quality spectra 

1975: are $\sim$120 (top) and  $\sim$20 (bottom). 

1976: Indicated are the wavelength regions of the surface gravity sensitive 

1977: sodium doublet and the CaT.}

1978: \end{figure}

1979: %

1980: %

1981: %

1982: \begin{figure}

1983: \begin{center}

1984: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=1\hsize]{f3.eps}

1985: \end{center}

1986: \caption{Color magnitude diagrams of target objects, separated into M31 giants, foreground 

1987: dwarfs  and background galaxy contamination. Giant candidates for which we could determine 

1988: spectroscopic metallicities are color coded by their [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}$ in the leftmost panel.  

1989: The small numbers of metal poor giants that

1990: are plotted to lie to the blue of the bluest

1991: isochrone were carefully vetted and pass 

1992: as likely M31 giants. If these stars are excluded from the sample, our

1993: conclusions are not affected. 

1994: The solid lines are isochrone sets of Girardi et al. (2002) for an age of 

1995: 12.7\,Gyr and metallicities [$M$/H] of (left to right) $-$2.3, $-$1.7, $-$1.4, $-$1.0, $-$0.5, and 0.0}

1996: \end{figure}

1997: %

1998: %

1999: %

2000: \begin{figure}

2001: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f4a.eps}

2002: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f4b.eps}\\

2003: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f4c.eps}

2004: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.49\hsize]{f4d.eps}

2005: \caption{Probability distributions (PDFs) for those parameters that we used as criteria for dwarf/giant separation, i.e., 

2006: Na doublet EW,  $V-i'$ color and radial velocity. The dashed lines each indicate the empirical PDFs defined by 

2007: the full training samples, while the solid histograms were separated by applying the respective criteria to our full data. 

2008: Thin and thick lines discriminate between dwarf and giant samples, respectively.  

2009: Despite a considerable overlap in each individual indicator, the statistical combination of all three 

2010: pieces of information allows for an efficient dwarf removal. The bottom right panel shows the ratio of thus 

2011: separated giant to dwarf stars, separately for each field. 

2012: See text for details.}

2013: \end{figure}

2014: %

2015: %

2016: %

2017: \clearpage

2018: %

2019: \begin{figure}

2020: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f5a.eps}

2021: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f5b.eps}

2022: \caption{Left panel: Color-velocity distribution of foreground dwarfs 

2023: from the Galactic Besan\c con model (Robin et al. 2003),  at a projected distance of 160 kpc to M31. 

2024: The solid lines illustrate the cuts we used to assess the number of undetectable blue dwarfs 

2025: in our M31 giant sample. Also indicated are the observed photometric errors. The right panel 

2026: shows velocity distributions of our observed stars 

2027: (shaded and dashed histograms) with $V-i'\le1$ and the expected blue dwarfs from the 

2028: Besan\c con model (solid histogram). The fraction of unresolvable blue dwarfs in our giant 

2029: sample is well below 3\% and negligible.}

2030: \end{figure}

2031: %

2032: %

2033: %

2034: \begin{figure}

2035: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f6a.eps}

2036: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f6b.eps}

2037: \caption{Illustration of the CaT coaddition in a high $S/N$ spectrum of a red giant in a calibration 

2038: globular cluster 

2039: (star N3201-S11; $S/N$$\sim$110; V=14.5\,mag; v$_{\rm HC}=485$ km\,s$^{-1}$; 

2040: $<$$\Sigma W$$>$$=3.8$\AA) 

2041: and a low $S/N$ DEIMOS spectrum of a M31 red giant 

2042: (star 5004266; $S/N$$\sim$4; V=21.7\,mag; v$_{\rm HC}=-338$ km\,s$^{-1}$;

2043: $<$$\Sigma W$$>$$=2.4$\AA). 

2044: The top panels display each individual Ca line, shifted to a common line center,  

2045: and the bottom panels show the weighted coadded line (solid line), from which we measure 

2046: the CaT line strengths using a Penny (i.e., Gaussian plus Lorentz profile) fit (dashed line).}

2047: \end{figure}

2048: %

2049: %

2050: %

2051: \begin{figure}

2052: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\hsize]{f7a.eps}

2053: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f7b.eps}

2054: \caption{Left Panel: Linestrengths of red giants in the calibration clusters from FLAMES data (Koch et al. 2006) vs. magnitude above the horizontal branch. The right panel shows the metallicities of these 

2055: globular clusters on the scale of Carretta \& Gratton (1997), with the residuals of the best-fit relation 

2056: (eq. 6) at the bottom. Solid and dashed lines indicate these best-fit calibrations (eqs. 5,6). 

2057: All these measurements are based on the coadded CaT. }

2058: \end{figure}

2059: %

2060: %

2061: %

2062: \begin{figure}

2063: \begin{center}

2064: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f8.eps}

2065: \end{center}

2066: \caption{Distribution of the relative error on the measured coadded line strength $<$$\Sigma W$$>$, determined from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of spectral quality. For our observed spectra, 

2067: these values are propagated through Eqs. 5,6 to obtain the spectroscopic metallicity uncertainty.}

2068: \end{figure}

2069: %

2070: %

2071: %

2072: \begin{figure}

2073: \begin{center}

2074: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f9.eps}

2075: \end{center}

2076: \caption{Spectroscopic versus photometric metallicities for dwarf (crosses) and giant (points) 

2077: candidates. Shown each are mean and 1$\sigma$ scatter. The dwarf stars clearly deviate from unity (solid line). Data were binned by 0.25 dex except for the most metal poor and metal rich bin, where 

2078: we chose to include 20 stars for better sampling.}

2079: \end{figure}

2080: %

2081: %

2082: %

2083: \begin{figure}

2084: \begin{center}

2085: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=1\hsize]{f10-small.eps}

2086: \end{center}

2087: \caption{Snapshot of the simulation data at 1\,Gyr in standard coordinates and  

2088: colorcoded by the particle density (Mori \& Rich 2008). 

2089: Each subpanel separately displays a different component: 

2090: the accreted satellite only (top left), disk and bulge (top right), spherical halo (bottom left), 

2091: and disk, bulge plus satellite (bottom right). }

2092: \end{figure}

2093: %

2094: %

2095: %

2096: \begin{figure}

2097: \begin{center}

2098: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f11.eps}

2099: \end{center}

2100: \caption{Density distribution (with arbitrary scaling) of radial velocities along the minor axis. 

2101: The top panel displays our observed minor axis 

2102: data within 35 kpc, whereas the bottom panel shows the distribution of 

2103: the satellite particles from our simulation. Numbers at the top indicate distances in kpc to guide the eye.}

2104: \end{figure}

2105: %

2106: %

2107: %

2108: \begin{figure}

2109: \begin{center}

2110: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.95\hsize]{f12a.eps}

2111: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\hsize]{f12b.eps}

2112: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\hsize]{f12c.eps}

2113: \end{center}

2114: \caption{Top panel: Radial velocities as a  function of radial distance along the minor axis. Shown left is the the complete spectroscopic sample, without the removal of foreground dwarfs,  

2115: within the inner 40 kpc, while the data shown in the right panel have been cleared of the foreground contamination 

2116: using the methods described in Sect.~4. Indicated as grey shaded bars are the HST fields of Brown 

2117: et al. (2003; 2006; 2007). The black contours delineate the distribution from our simulations (see Fig.~11, bottom panel).  Numbers at the top indicate distances in kpc to guide the eye. 

2118:  The bottom left panel shows the radial variation of  {\em mean} radial velocity 

2119: for minor-axis (filled circles) and off-axis (open squares) fields. Small symbols at v$_{\rm HC}\sim-50$ 

2120: km\,s$^{-1}$ 

2121: are for the dwarf stars, while the larger symbols below $-$180 km\,s$^{-1}$ show the giant distributions.   

2122: Comparison with the dotted lines at the systemic velocities of M31 ($-$300 km\,s$^{-1}$) and M33 

2123:  ($-$180 km\,s$^{-1}$) suggests  that 

2124: the giant samples in the outermost two fields appear to be suffering

2125: from contamination by M33 members  (see also Fig.~19). The bottom right panel then shows the 

2126: distribution of velocites for the full, dwarf-cleaned sample.  The stream fields (a3, H13s) reflect in the peaks below 

2127:  $-$400 km\,s$^{-1}$ and the  peak at $-$520 km\,s$^{-1}$, both of which are 

2128:  reproduced by the simple orbit model of Ibata et al. (2004).}

2129: \end{figure}

2130: %

2131: %

2132: %

2133: \begin{figure}

2134: \begin{center}

2135: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.95\hsize]{f13.eps}

2136: \end{center}

2137: \caption{Velocity histograms along different radial bins (with the numbers representing their mean locations). 

2138: The solid line represents our observed, 

2139: dwarf-cleaned velocity sample. Shown as a shaded histogram is the velocity distribution of 

2140: the stream particles drawn from  our simulations at the same radial location as the observed fields, 

2141: while the dashed thin line indicates the simulated contribution of  M31 halo particles to the velocity 

2142: structures at these distances. Each distribution has been normalized to unity.}

2143: \end{figure}

2144: %

2145: %

2146: %

2147: \begin{figure}

2148: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.49\hsize]{f14a.eps}

2149: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f14b.eps}

2150: \caption{Left panels: Spectroscopic metallicity  (on the scale of Carretta \& Gratton 1997) 

2151: versus radial velocity. Right panels: 

2152: the same metallicities within 40 kpc as a function of radial distance. 

2153: The dwarf contamination clearly stands out as a clump around $-$2 dex above $\ga -150$ km\,s$^{-1}$. 

2154: The top (bottom) panels each display the data set before (after) removal of this contamination. 

2155: Shaded regions indicate the HST fields of Brown et al. (2003, 2006, 2007). For distributions of all metallicities out to 160 kpc see Fig.~15 (bottom panel). A solid line 

2156: in the right panel has been added at [Fe/H]$_{\rm CaT}=-1$ for reference.}

2157: \end{figure}

2158: %

2159: %

2160: %

2161: \begin{figure}

2162: \begin{center}

2163: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\hsize]{f15a.eps}

2164: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.4\hsize]{f15b.eps}

2165: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.9\hsize]{f15c.eps}

2166: \end{center}

2167: \caption{A strong abundance gradient is 

2168: qualitatively already visible  in the top left panel, which shows the strength of the TiO band at 7100\AA\ 

2169: in our entire giant sample (black points) versus radial distance. Note that dwarfs (red crosses) cover the full range 

2170: in TiO strengths at all radii. 

2171: The radial metallicity gradient is then clearly present in the 

2172: spectroscopic  MDFs  

2173: in 3 different radial bins (Top right panel; solid lines) and  for our dwarf-cleaned CaT sample (bottom panel). 

2174: However, none of the distributions fully resembles the stream component (shown as shaded histogram). 

2175: Notice that there are no metal rich stars beyond $\sim$50 kpc. }

2176: \end{figure}

2177: %

2178: %

2179: %

2180: \begin{figure}

2181: \begin{center}

2182: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f16a.eps}

2183: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f16b.eps}

2184: \end{center}

2185: \caption{Run of mean metallicity 

2186: and metallicity dispersion as a function of radius. While both our data and those of Kalirai et al. (2006a) show the presence 

2187: of a gradient, our measurements are more metal poor on average. 

2188: The top panel only includes our {\em minor axis} fields with a radial binning to obtain the same number of stars per bin.  

2189: The  points  encircled and labelled by their identifier are not located on the minor axis. 

2190: Horizontal errorbars indicate the 

2191: extent of our radial binning. The open star indicates the spectroscopic mean [Fe/H]  

2192: measurement of Reitzel \& Guhathakurta (2002).

2193: In the bottom panel, we also include the off-axis fields and compute the mean metallicities separately for 

2194: each field. } 

2195: \end{figure}

2196: %

2197: %

2198: %

2199: \begin{figure}

2200: \begin{center}

2201: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.37\hsize]{f17a.eps}

2202: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.57\hsize]{f17b.eps}

2203: \end{center}

2204: \caption{Coadded spectra, grouped according to our derived CaT 

2205: metallicity. Apart from the prominent CaT lines at 8498, 8542, 8662\AA (right panel), there 

2206: are a number of weaker lines (mostly \ion{Fe}{1}), which  become progressively stronger in the more metal rich spectra (the CaT line strength $<\Sigma W>$ increases from 2.4\AA\ to 7.8\AA\ 

2207: for the metallicity range covered in this figure). 

2208: The coaddition also emphasizes a few $\alpha$-element lines that become weaker 

2209: for the more metal poor stars: note for instance the strong \ion{Ti}{1} features at 8378,8426,8435\AA.}

2210: \end{figure}

2211: %

2212: %

2213: %

2214: \begin{figure}

2215: \begin{center}

2216: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f18a.eps}

2217: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f18b.eps}

2218: \end{center}

2219: \caption{Synthetic spectra for a typical red giant, using  Kurucz model atmospheres of different metallicities. The spectral resolution was reduced to  match that of DEIMOS. Additionaly, a noise component was added to the bottom panel to illustrate a 

2220: S/N ratio of 10. Even at these low $S/N$, visual ranking by the strength of a number iron lines (indicated by arrows) is possible and observable in our spectra (see Fig.~17).}

2221: \end{figure}

2222: %

2223: %

2224: %

2225: \begin{figure}

2226: \begin{center}

2227: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\hsize]{f19a.eps}

2228: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\hsize]{f19b.eps}

2229: \end{center}

2230: \caption{Left panel: Metallicity and velocities for giant candidates in the outermost regions $>$40 kpc (small black dots). 

2231: Different symbols highlight the distributions in the three outer fields. Also 

2232: indicated  are the velocity number distributions of  the M31 halo (at a mean of $-300$ km\,s$^{-1}$) and 

2233: that of M33 (around $-180$ km\,s$^{-1}$) with arbitrary scaling. The right panel shows the respective 

2234: velocity histograms of these outer stars.}

2235: \end{figure}

2236: %

2237: %

2238: %

2239: \begin{figure}

2240: \begin{center}

2241: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.7\hsize]{f20.eps}

2242: \end{center}

2243: \caption{Redshift distribution of background galaxies. Their respective color distribution is shown in 

2244: Fig.~3.}

2245: \end{figure}

2246: %

2247: %

2248: %

2249: \end{document}

2250: