1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \received{}
4: \revised{}
5: \accepted{}
6:
7: \shorttitle{Disk Galaxies in the SDSS}
8: \shortauthors{Unterborn \& Ryden}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \title{Inclination-Dependent Extinction Effects in Disk
12: Galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey}
13: \author{Cayman T. Unterborn \& Barbara S. Ryden\altaffilmark{1}}
14: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University,
15: Columbus, OH 43210}
16: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Cosmology \& Astro-Particle Physics,
17: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210}
18: \email{unterborn.1@osu.edu, ryden@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We analyze the absolute magnitude ($M_r$) and color
22: ($u-r$) of low redshift ($z < 0.06$) galaxies in the
23: Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 6. Galaxies
24: with nearly exponential profiles (Sloan parameter
25: ${\rm fracDeV} < 0.1$) all fall on the blue sequence
26: of the color -- magnitude diagram; if, in addition,
27: these exponential galaxies have $M_r < -19$, they
28: show a dependence of $u-r$ color on apparent
29: axis ratio $q$ expected for a dusty disk galaxy.
30: By fitting luminosity functions for exponential
31: galaxies with different values of $q$, we find
32: that the dimming is well described by the relation
33: $\Delta M_r = 1.27 ( \log q )^2$, rather than the
34: $\Delta M \propto \log q$ law that is frequently
35: assumed. When the absolute magnitudes of bright
36: exponential galaxies are corrected to their
37: ``face-on'' value, $M_r^f = M_r - \Delta M_r$,
38: the average $u-r$ color is linearly dependent
39: on $M_r^f$ for a given value of $q$. Nearly face-on
40: exponential galaxies ($q > 0.9$) have a shallow dependence
41: of mean $u-r$ color on $M_r^f$ (0.096 magnitudes redder
42: for every magnitude brighter); by comparison, nearly edge-on
43: exponential galaxies ($q < 0.3$) are 0.265 magnitudes redder
44: for every magnitude brighter.
45: When the dimming law $\Delta M_r \propto ( \log q )^2$
46: is used to create an inclination-corrected sample of
47: bright exponential galaxies, their apparent shapes
48: are confirmed to be consistent with a distribution
49: of mildly non-circular disks, with median short-to-long
50: axis ratio $\gamma \approx 0.22$ and median
51: disk ellipticity $\epsilon \approx 0.08$.
52:
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \keywords{galaxies: fundamental parameters ---
56: galaxies: photometry ---
57: galaxies: spiral ---
58: galaxies: statistics
59: }
60:
61:
62:
63: \section{INTRODUCTION}
64: \label{sec-intro}
65:
66: Luminous galaxies ($M_r < -18$ or so) can be coarsely divided
67: into two classes, conventionally labeled ``early-type'' and
68: ``late-type''. Early-type galaxies have redder stellar
69: populations and a scarcity of interstellar gas and dust.
70: The majority of luminous
71: early-type galaxies are elliptical galaxies,
72: characterized by smooth isophotes and concentrated
73: light profiles, well described by a
74: \citet{dV48} profile: $\log I \propto - r^{1/4}$.
75: Highly luminous elliptical galaxies tend to be mildly triaxial
76: ellipsoids (as opposed to perfectly oblate spheroids);
77: their intrinsic short-to-long axis ratio is
78: typically $c / a \sim 0.7$ \citep{ry92,vi05}.
79:
80: Late-type galaxies have blue stellar populations
81: and relatively large amounts of interstellar gas and dust.
82: The majority of luminous late-type galaxies are spiral
83: galaxies, characterized by spiral structure within
84: flattened disks. The disk light profile is generally
85: well described by an exponential profile: $\log I \propto -r$.
86: Luminous spiral galaxies are mildly elliptical (as opposed
87: to perfectly circular) when seen face-on; their intrinsic
88: short-to-long axis ratio is color-dependent, but at
89: visible wavelengths is typically $c / a \sim 0.25$
90: \citep{bi81,gr85,la92,fa93,ry04,ry06}.
91:
92: In a color-magnitude (CM) diagram, if the color index is
93: chosen correctly, the early-type and late-type galaxies
94: manifest themselves as a ``red sequence'' and a ``blue
95: sequence'', respectively. In the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS),
96: the distribution of $u-r$ colors for low-redshift
97: galaxies is bimodal; \citet{st01} find an optimal
98: color separator of $u-r = 2.22$, when color alone
99: is used as a discriminator between early-type and
100: late-type galaxies. Using a full CM diagram,
101: the color separator is found to be dependent on
102: $M_r$ \citep{ba04}, with the color separator ranging
103: from $u-r \approx 2.3$ for galaxies with $M_r < -21$
104: to $u-r \approx 1.8$ for galaxies with $M_r > -18$.
105:
106: However, a clean separation between early-type and
107: late-type galaxies using color and absolute magnitude
108: information alone is impossible; the red sequence
109: and blue sequence overlap in a CM diagram. This overlap
110: results partly from the fact that the color and apparent
111: magnitude of spiral galaxies are inclination dependent.
112: Since spiral galaxies are disk-shaped and contain dust,
113: an edge-on spiral is both redder and fainter than the
114: same spiral would be if seen face-on. Thus, as noted
115: by \citet{al02}, a sample chosen solely by the
116: color criterion $u-r \geq 2.22$ will contain dust-reddened
117: edge-on spirals as well as intrinsically red ellipticals.
118:
119: The overlap between the red sequence and blue sequence would
120: be reduced if we could perform an inclination correction
121: on the colors and apparent magnitudes of spiral galaxies;
122: that is, if we could convert observed apparent magnitudes
123: into what they would be if the spiral galaxy were face-on.
124: Since pivoting galaxies so that we can see them face-on
125: is an impracticable task, we will take a statistical
126: approach to finding the average dimming ($\Delta M_r$)
127: and reddening ($\Delta (u-r)$) of a spiral
128: galaxy as a function of its inclination $i$.
129:
130: In addition to allowing a cleaner separation between
131: early-type and late-type galaxies in the CM diagram,
132: a statistical correction for dimming and reddening
133: has other practical uses. For instance, a flux-limited
134: survey will undersample edge-on spirals with respect
135: to face-on spirals; a galaxy that is just above the
136: flux limit when it is face on would fall below the
137: limit if it were edge on. With a knowledge of $\Delta M_r$
138: as a function of inclination, it is possible to
139: create an inclination-corrected flux-limited sample,
140: by retaining only those galaxies that would still
141: be above the flux limit if they were tilted to be
142: seen edge on. Since the standard technique for
143: finding the distribution of intrinsic axis ratios
144: of galaxies assumes a random distribution of inclinations
145: (see, for instance, \citep{vi05} and references therein),
146: such an inclination-corrected sample is essential for
147: determining the true distribution of disk flattening.
148: Without the inclination correction, the scarcity of
149: edge-on galaxies would lead to an overestimate of the
150: typical disk thickness.
151:
152: In section~\ref{sec-data}, we describe how
153: we select a sample of SDSS galaxies with exponential
154: profiles; this gives us a population of disk-dominated
155: spiral galaxies. The apparent axis ratio $q$ of the
156: 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote is chosen as our surrogate
157: for the inclination of a galaxy. In section~\ref{sec-analysis},
158: we examine the luminosity function of the SDSS exponential
159: galaxies as a function of $q$. By shifting the luminosity
160: functions until their high-luminosity cutoffs align, we can
161: estimate the dimming $\Delta M_r$ of the cutoff as a function of $q$.
162: By brightening each galaxy by the $\Delta M_r$ appropriate
163: to its observed value of $q$, we can find its approximate
164: ``face-on'' absolute magnitude $M_r^f$. We then provide
165: linear fits for the mean $u-r$ color as a function of
166: $M_r^f$ for different ranges of $q$. In section~\ref{sec-shapes},
167: we create an inclination-corrected flux-limited sample,
168: which we then use to find the distribution of intrinsic
169: short-to-long axis ratios of the SDSS exponential galaxies,
170: confirming that they are, in fact, disks, as our analysis
171: assumed all along. Finally, in section~\ref{sec-disc}, we
172: provide a brief discussion of what the form of $\Delta M_r$
173: as a function of $q$ and of $\Delta (u-r)$ as a function of
174: $q$ and $M_r^f$ implies for the properties of spiral galaxies
175: and the dust they contain.
176:
177: \section{DATA}
178: \label{sec-data}
179:
180: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has imaged roughly
181: $\pi$ steradians of the sky \citep{yo00,ad08}. SDSS photometric
182: data is provided in five bands ($ugriz$) from the near ultraviolet
183: to the near infrared \citep{fu95,sm02}. The SDSS Data Release
184: 6 (DR6) includes 9583 square degrees of photometric
185: coverage and 7425 square degrees of spectroscopic coverage
186: \citep{ad08}. The SDSS photometric data processing pipeline
187: performs a morphological star/galaxy separation, with
188: extended objects being labeled ``galaxies'' and point-like
189: objects being labeled ``stars''. For each galaxy, in each
190: photometric band, a pair of models are fitted to the two-dimensional
191: galaxy image. One model has a de Vaucouleurs profile \citep{dV48}:
192: \begin{equation}
193: I ( R ) = I_e \exp \left( - 7.67 [ (R / R_e)^{-1/4} - 1 ]
194: \right) \ ,
195: \end{equation}
196: truncated beyond $7 R_e$ to go smoothly to zero at $8 R_e$.
197: The other model has an exponential profile:
198: \begin{equation}
199: I (R) = I_e \exp \left[ - 1.68 ( R / R_e - 1) \right] \ ,
200: \end{equation}
201: truncated beyond $3 R_e$ to go smoothly to zero at $4 R_e$.
202: The SDSS DR6 pipeline also takes the best-fitting de Vaucouleurs
203: model and exponential model for each galaxy, and finds the
204: linear combination of the two that best fits the galaxy image.
205: The fraction of the total flux contributed by the de Vaucouleurs
206: component is the parameter fracDeV, which is constrained to
207: lie in the interval $0 \leq {\rm fracDeV} \leq 1$. The fracDeV
208: parameter thus acts as a concentration index, varying from
209: ${\rm fracDeV} = 1$ for highly concentrated de Vaucouleurs
210: galaxies to ${\rm fracDeV} = 0$ for less concentrated exponential
211: galaxies.
212:
213: As our measure of the flux of each galaxy, we use the
214: $r$ band ``model magnitude''; for galaxies with ${\rm fracDeV}
215: \geq 0.5$, the model magnitude is the integrated magnitude
216: of the de Vaucouleurs model, and for galaxies with
217: ${\rm fracDeV} < 0.5$, it's the integrated magnitude of
218: the exponential model. As our measure of the color of
219: each galaxy, we use the $u-r$ color, defined as the
220: difference between the $u$ band model magnitude and the
221: $r$ band model magnitude. As our measure of the axis ratio
222: of each galaxy, we use the axis ratio of the $r$ band
223: 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote. The SDSS DR6 data pipeline
224: finds the best-fitting ellipse to the 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$
225: isophote in each band; the semimajor axis and semiminor
226: axis of this isophotal ellipse are $A_{25}$ and $B_{25}$,
227: respectively. The isophotal axis ratio $q_{25} \equiv
228: B_{25}/A_{25}$ then provides a measure of the apparent
229: galaxy shape at a few times the effective radius; for
230: galaxies with ${\rm fracDeV} = 0$, the average value of
231: $A_{25} / R_e$ is about 2.4 \citep{vi05}.
232:
233: Our full sample of galaxies consists of objects in
234: the SDSS DR6 spectroscopic sample that are labeled as
235: galaxies and that have spectroscopic redshifts
236: $z > 0.004$, to eliminate contaminating foreground
237: objects, and $z < 0.06$, to reduce the possibility
238: of weak lensing distortions of apparent shapes, and
239: to eliminate, in practice, the necessity of applying
240: $K$-corrections. To eliminate low-quality redshifts,
241: we require that the SDSS redshift confidence parameter
242: have a value ${\rm zConf} > 0.35$. To ensure that the
243: galaxies in our full sample are well resolved spatially,
244: we require that their photometric data fulfill the
245: criterion $\tau > 6.25 \tau_{\rm psf}$, where $\tau$
246: is the adaptive second-order moment of the galaxy image
247: and $\tau_{\rm psf}$ is the adaptive second-order moment
248: of the point spread function at the galaxy's location.
249: Our full galaxy sample, defined in this way, contains
250: $n = 78{,}230$ galaxies.
251:
252: Figure~\ref{fig:1} shows the color -- magnitude diagram
253: for the 78{,}230 galaxies in our full sample. The absolute
254: magnitude $M_r$ is computed from the model magnitude
255: $m_r$ assuming a Hubble constant $H_0 = 70 {\rm\,km}
256: {\rm\,s}^{-1}{\rm\,Mpc}^{-1}$ in a flat universe with
257: mass contributing $\Omega_{m,0} = 0.3$ to the density
258: parameter and a cosmological constant contributing
259: $\Omega_{\Lambda,0} = 0.7$. No $K$-corrections are
260: applied to the galaxies in our sample. In Figure~\ref{fig:1},
261: the division between the blue sequence, on the left,
262: and the red sequence, on the right, can be clearly seen.
263: However, the so-called ``green valley'', between the
264: blue and red sequences, is well populated with galaxies.
265:
266: Using the information about surface brightness profiles
267: provided by the fracDeV parameter, we can isolate subsamples
268: that are all late-type or all early-type galaxies. Of
269: our full sample, $n = 36{,}162$ galaxies have
270: ${\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.1$. The CM diagram for this exponential
271: subsample is shown in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:2}.
272: The exponential galaxies fall along a well-defined blue
273: sequence. Note, though, that the spread in $u-r$ color
274: increases with increasing luminosity. For comparison,
275: the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:2} shows the CM
276: diagram for the $n = 27{,}567$ galaxies in our full
277: sample that have $0.1 < {\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.5$. These
278: more concentrated galaxies fall primarily along the
279: blue sequence; however, there are a significant number
280: at the faint end of the the red sequence
281: ($M_r \sim -19.5$, $u-r \sim 2.4$). Moving to still
282: greater concentration, the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:3}
283: shows the CM diagram for the $n = 11{,}202$ galaxies
284: that have $0.5 < {\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.9$. These
285: galaxies fall primarily along the red sequence; however,
286: there are a significant number at the bright end
287: of the blue sequence ($M_r \sim -20$, $u-r \sim 1.6$).
288: Finally, the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:3} shows
289: the CM diagram for the relatively small number of
290: galaxies in the full sample ($n = 3299$) that have
291: ${\rm fracDeV} > 0.9$. These very red, very luminous
292: de Vaucouleurs galaxies represent the high-luminosity
293: end of the red sequence.
294:
295: Previous studies of the colors, absolute magnitudes, and
296: apparent shapes of late-type galaxies in the Sloan Digital
297: Sky Survey have used different definitions of ``late-type
298: galaxy''. \citet{bl03}, for instance, find that galaxies with
299: \citet{se68} index $n < 1.5$ fall on the blue sequence of a
300: CM diagram, while those with S\'ersic index $n > 3$ fall on the
301: red sequence. (A galaxy with a perfect S\'ersic profile will
302: have ${\rm fracDeV} \approx 0.3$ if $n = 1.5$ and ${\rm fracDeV}
303: \approx 0.8$ if $n = 3$.) \citet{ch06} and \citet{sh07}, in their
304: studies of late-type galaxies in the SDSS, find it useful to chose
305: a sample with ${\rm fracDeV} < 0.5$. This cut in fracDeV, however,
306: does allow some galaxies from the red sequence to enter the
307: sample. Since the fracDeV distribution is strongly peaked at
308: ${\rm fracDeV} = 0$, we choose to make the more stringent
309: cut ${\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.1$ to create our late-type galaxy
310: subsample. The $n = 36{,}162$ galaxies with ${\rm fracDeV}
311: \leq 0.1$, we expect, will provide us with a sample of late-type
312: spirals whose light is dominated by a dusty exponential disk.
313:
314: \section{ANALYSIS}
315: \label{sec-analysis}
316:
317: How do we know that our subsample of (nearly) exponential
318: galaxies are actually flattened disks? We have, after all,
319: chosen them solely on the basis of their surface brightness
320: profiles. Although the disks of spiral galaxies are known
321: to be well fitted by exponential profiles, so are other
322: subclasses of galaxies, such as dwarf ellipticals. We can
323: test the assertion that exponential galaxies are flattened,
324: dust-containing disks by looking at their colors as a function
325: of apparent axis ratio. If a galaxy is a disk, then its apparent
326: axis ratio $q$ will be smallest when it is edge-on. If the galaxy's
327: disk is dusty, then the galaxy will be most reddened when it
328: is edge-on. Figure~\ref{fig:4} is a plot of the mean $u-r$
329: color as a function of absolute magnitude $M_r$ for the
330: $n = 36{,}162$ galaxies in our exponential subsample
331: (${\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.1$). The galaxies are binned by
332: their apparent axis ratio $q$. Note that for exponential
333: galaxies brighter than $M_r \sim -19$, there is a noticeable
334: correlation between $q$ and $u-r$ at a given absolute magnitude,
335: with smaller values of $q$ corresponding to larger values of
336: $u-r$. This is just what we expect for a population of dusty
337: disk galaxies. However, at $M_r > -18$, there is no correlation
338: between $q$ and $u-r$. At these low luminosities, the galaxies
339: in the exponential subsample are blue ($u-r \sim 1.5$) dwarf
340: galaxies in which the stars and dust are not in orderly thin disks.
341: Thus, in looking for inclination-dependent colors and magnitudes,
342: we will look at those high-luminosity ($M_r < -19$) exponential
343: galaxies for which the color actually is inclination-dependent.
344:
345: In general, when a spiral galaxy is seen at an arbitrary inclination,
346: it will be fainter at visible wavelengths than it would be
347: seen face-on. We may write
348: \begin{equation}
349: M_r = M_r^f + \Delta M_r \ ,
350: \end{equation}
351: where $M_r$ is the $r$-band absolute magnitude computed from
352: the actual apparent magnitude and redshift, $M_r^f$ is what the
353: absolute magnitude would be if the galaxy were seen face-on, and
354: $\Delta M_r \geq 0$ is the inclination-related dimming. In
355: general, $\Delta M_r$ will be a function of the (unknown)
356: inclination $i$ as well as of the detailed properties of
357: the observed galaxy's dust. We will assume that the apparent
358: axis ratio $q$ of the 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$ isophote will be
359: an adequate measure of the inclination. If every spiral galaxy
360: were a perfect oblate spheroid, with intrinsic short-to-long
361: axis ratio $\gamma = c/a$, then the inclination $i$ would be
362: uniquely determined by the apparent axis ratio $q$, through the
363: usual relation
364: \begin{equation}
365: \cos^2 i = ( q^2 - \gamma^2 ) / ( 1 - \gamma^2 ) \ .
366: \label{eq:inc}
367: \end{equation}
368: One source of error in this relation is that spiral galaxies
369: don't all have the same intrinsic thickness $\gamma$. However,
370: an erroneous assumed value for $\gamma$ is irrelevant in the case
371: of low inclination and high $q$: a face-on thick disk has the same
372: apparent shape as a face-on thin disk. An erroneous assumed
373: value for $\gamma$ produces the largest error in $i$ when
374: the apparent axis ratio $q$ is small: a circular disk with
375: $q = 0.3$ is at an inclination $\cos i = 0$ if it's
376: a fat disk with $\gamma = 0.3$, but at an inclination
377: $\cos i = 0.28$ if it's an ultrathin disk with $\gamma = 0.1$.
378: Another source of error in equation~(\ref{eq:inc}) is that
379: disks are not perfectly circular. Consider an ultrathin
380: disk with $\epsilon \approx 0.1$, a typical ellipticity for a
381: spiral galaxy. When the galaxy is face-on, equation~(\ref{eq:inc})
382: will yield $\cos i \approx 0.9$, instead of the true value
383: of $\cos i = 1$. When the same disk is viewed at a high
384: inclination, the value of $\cos i$ we compute will
385: have an error $\sim \epsilon \cos 2 \phi$, where
386: $\phi$ is the azimuthal viewing angle measured
387: relative to the intrinsic long axis of the disk
388: \citep{ry06}. Thus, when we use $q$ as a surrogate for the
389: inclination $i$, we should remember that two spiral
390: galaxies with the same $q$ may have $\cos i$ differing
391: by as much as $\sim \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is their
392: average intrinsic disk ellipticity.
393:
394: To simplify our analysis, we will start by assuming that
395: $\Delta M_r$ is a function only of $q$, and not of $M_r^f$.
396: That is, we assume that all spiral galaxies with a given
397: $q$ suffer the same fractional loss of flux in the $r$ band.
398: This is not necessarily correct -- bright spirals may well
399: have systematically different dust properties from dimmer
400: spirals, for instance -- but it provides a place to start.
401: To find $\Delta M_r (q)$, we begin by creating a volume-limited
402: subsample of our exponential (${\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.1$)
403: SDSS galaxies. The redshift limit of the volume-limited
404: subsample is $z = 0.06$; the flux limit is assumed to be
405: $m_r = 17.77$, resulting in a low-luminosity cutoff of
406: $M_r = -19.4$. (The SDSS spectroscopic survey is complete
407: to a limiting Petrosian apparent magnitude $r = 17.7$; for
408: galaxies that are well fitted by the exponential model galaxy,
409: the Petrosian apparent magnitudes and the model magnitudes
410: used in our analysis have an rms scatter of $< 0.1 {\rm\,mag}$.)
411: We then take the $n = 16{,}363$ exponential galaxies in
412: the volume-limited subsample and bin them by apparent axis
413: ratio, in bins of width $\Delta q = 0.1$. The galaxies with
414: $0.9 < q \leq 1.0$ are galaxies that we expect to be nearly
415: face-on.
416:
417: The cumulative luminosity function for the exponential
418: galaxies with $0.9 < q \leq 1.0$ is shown as the solid line
419: in the upper panel of Figure~\ref{fig:5}. Since we expect
420: $\Delta M_r = 0$ for these nearly face-on galaxies, this solid
421: line is our estimator of the normalized luminosity function
422: $f (M_r^f)$ for face-on spiral galaxies brighter than
423: $M_r^f = -19.4$. For comparison, the dashed line in the upper
424: panel of Figure~\ref{fig:5} shows the cumulative luminosity
425: function for exponential galaxies with $0.2 < q \leq 0.3$;
426: we expect these galaxies to nearly edge-on. The luminosity
427: function for the $q \sim 0.25$ galaxies is different from
428: that of the $q \sim 0.95$ galaxies; a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
429: test yields a probability $P_{\rm KS} = 4 \times 10^{-11}$.
430: This difference results from the fact that the luminosity
431: function of spiral galaxies has a cutoff at high luminosity;
432: for edge-on galaxies, this cutoff is dimmed by an amount
433: $\Delta M_r$. Using our assumption that dimming (in magnitudes)
434: is independent of $M_r^f$, we take every galaxy in the
435: $0.2 < q \leq 0.3$ and brighten it by the same amount $\Delta M_r$.
436: We then compare this artificially brightened luminosity
437: function to the luminosity function for face-on ($0.9 < q \leq 1.0$)
438: galaxies brighter than $M_r = -19.4-\Delta M_r$. The
439: comparison is done between the cumulative luminosity functions
440: using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The bottom panel of
441: Figure~\ref{fig:5} shows the comparison between the $0.2 < q \leq 0.3$
442: galaxies and the $0.9 < q \leq 1.0$ galaxies, using the
443: optimal shift $\Delta M_r = 0.51$. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov
444: test yields a probability $P_{\rm KS} = 0.96$ for this shift;
445: our hypothesis of $\Delta M_r$ independent of $M_r^f$ cannot
446: be excluded, at least in the luminosity range $M_r^f < -19.91$.
447:
448: Figure~\ref{fig:6} gives a summary of the best-fitting absolute magnitude
449: shift $\Delta M_r$ as a function of $q$ for the exponential galaxies.
450: Each data point gives the value of $\Delta M_r$ which maximizes
451: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov probability when the luminosity function of
452: galaxies in a particular range of $q$ are compared to galaxies with
453: $q > 0.9$. The error bars indicate the range of $\Delta M_r$ over
454: which $P_{\rm KS} > 0.1$. Because the high-luminosity cutoff in
455: the luminosity function is not an extremely sharp feature, the
456: range of statistically acceptable values of $\Delta M_r$ is as
457: large as $\sim 0.4 {\rm\,mag}$ in the low-$q$ bins, where there
458: are relatively few galaxies. A common parameterization of the
459: $\Delta M$ -- $q$ relation, following the Third Reference
460: Catalogue \citep{dV91}, is
461: \begin{equation}
462: \Delta M = - \gamma_\lambda \log q \ ,
463: \label{eq:logq}
464: \end{equation}
465: where the value of $\gamma_\lambda$ depends on the wavelength of observation,
466: and on the population of galaxies observed. \citet{dV91} used
467: $\gamma_B = 1.5$ for spiral galaxies of type Sc observed in the
468: $B$ band. For pure disk systems (type Sc-Sd), \citet{bo95} found
469: $\gamma_B = 1.67$. \citet{tu98} found dimming that was dependent
470: on luminosity as well as on wavelength: for bright spirals in
471: the Ursa Major and Pisces clusters, they found $\gamma_B = 1.7$,
472: $\gamma_R = 1.3$, and $\gamma_I = 1.0$ in the $B$, $R$, and $I$
473: bands. \citet{sh07}, looking at ${\rm fracDeV} < 0.5$ galaxies
474: in the SDSS, found values of $\gamma$ ranging from $\gamma_u = 2.19$
475: in the $u$-band, through $\gamma_r = 1.37$ in the $r$-band, to
476: $\gamma_z = 0.80$ in the $z$-band.
477:
478: Our best fit to the logarithmic relation of equation~(\ref{eq:logq})
479: is shown as the dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:6}; the best fitting
480: value of $\gamma$ is $\gamma_r = 0.64$. Note, however, that the
481: $\Delta M_r \propto \log q$ fit is not very good. It overestimates
482: the dimming of galaxies with $q > 0.4$, and underestimates the
483: dimming of nearly edge-on galaxies with $q < 0.3$. In fact, our
484: data are consistent with no dimming at all in the $r$ band
485: for galaxies with $q > 0.5$. A superior fit is provided by the
486: solid line in Figure~\ref{fig:6}, which represents a dimming
487: proportional to the square of $\log q$:
488: \begin{equation}
489: \Delta M_r = \beta_r ( \log q )^2 \ ,
490: \label{eq:log2q}
491: \end{equation}
492: with $\beta_r = 1.27$.
493: Our results are in qualitative agreement with those of \citet{ma03},
494: who find that for galaxies in the Two Micron All-Sky Survey
495: Extended Source Catalog, the simple linear extinction law of
496: equation~(\ref{eq:logq}) gives an inadequate fit to the
497: dimming in near-infrared ($J$, $H$, and $K_s$) bands. A
498: better fit is provided by a bilinear function with a steeper
499: slope at $\log q < -0.5$ than at $\log q > 0.5$. A good fit
500: is also provided by a quadratic in $\log q$. In the $J$ band,
501: for instance, \citet{ma03} find the best quadratic fit is
502: $\Delta M_J = 0.12 \log q + 1.14 ( \log q )^2$.
503: If we attempt a fit of this form to our exponential
504: $r$-band subsample, we find
505: $\Delta M_r = 0.25 \log q + 1.66 ( \log q )^2$.
506: However, this does not provide a statistically better fit,
507: given the loss of a degree of freedom, than the simpler
508: parabolic form of equation~(\ref{eq:log2q}).
509:
510: Given the dimming correction of equation~(\ref{eq:log2q}), we
511: can compute the ``face-on'' absolute magnitude $M_r^f$ for
512: every exponential galaxy with measured $m_r$, $z$, and $q$:
513: \begin{equation}
514: M_r^f = M_r - \Delta M_r = M_r - 1.27 ( \log q )^2 \ .
515: \label{eq:mrf}
516: \end{equation}
517: Figure~\ref{fig:7} shows the average $u-r$ color for
518: exponential galaxies, as a function of the corrected
519: absolute magnitude $M_r^f$. We look only at galaxies
520: with $M_r^f < -19$, to exclude the dwarf galaxies for
521: which the correction is inappropriate. The different
522: colors and line types in Figure~\ref{fig:7} represent
523: different values of the apparent axis ratio $q$, just as
524: in Figure~\ref{fig:4}. For each range of $q$, the mean
525: color, $\langle u-r \rangle$, is linear in the corrected
526: absolute magnitude, $M_r^f$, with brighter galaxies being redder,
527: on average. The $q > 0.9$ galaxies, which are nearly face-on,
528: have a relatively small dependence of average color on
529: absolute magnitude; for the $q > 0.9$ galaxies, increasing the
530: brightness by $1 {\rm\,mag}$ in the $r$ band corresponds to
531: reddening the galaxy by $\sim 0.1 {\rm\,mag}$, on average, in $u-r$.
532: This correlation is a manifestation of the dependence of
533: stellar population on galaxy luminosity; in general, more
534: luminous spiral galaxies have populations that are older
535: and more metal-rich \citep{be00,ma04}. The nearly edge-on
536: galaxies ($q < 0.3$), have a greater dependence of average color
537: on absolute magnitude; for the $q < 0.3$ galaxies, an increase
538: in brightness by $1 {\rm\,mag}$ in the $r$ band corresponds
539: to a reddening of $\sim 0.27 {\rm\,mag}$, on average, in $u-r$.
540: The steepness of the mean color -- luminosity relation for
541: nearly edge-on spiral galaxies is a manifestation of the
542: dependence of dust opacity on absolute magnitude; in general,
543: more luminous spiral galaxies, being more metal-rich, have
544: greater disk opacity due to dust \citep{ma03}.
545:
546: By doing a least-squares fit to the function
547: \begin{equation}
548: \langle u-r \rangle = a + b ( M_r^f + 20.5 ) \ ,
549: \end{equation}
550: we find the straight lines in Figure~\ref{fig:7}; the
551: intercepts ($a$) and slopes ($b$) are given in
552: Table~\ref{tab:1}. The mean $u-r$ color for an exponential
553: galaxy with $M_r^f = -20.5$ is nearly linear in $\log q$;
554: our best fit is
555: \begin{equation}
556: a = 1.72 - 0.723 \log q \ .
557: \end{equation}
558: The best fitting function of a similar form for $b$ as a function
559: of $q$ is
560: \begin{equation}
561: b = -0.11 + 0.255 \log q \ .
562: \end{equation}
563: We can compute a corrected, ``face-on'' color, $(u-r)^f$, for
564: each galaxy using the relation
565: \begin{equation}
566: (u-r)^f = (u-r) + [ 0.723 - 0.255 (M_r^f + 20.5 ) ] \log q \ ,
567: \label{eq:urf}
568: \end{equation}
569: where $u-r$ is the color computed from observations, and
570: $M_r^f$ is the corrected absolute magnitude from
571: equation~(\ref{eq:mrf}). To illustrate the effects of
572: using the ``face-on'' colors and absolute magnitudes on
573: the CM diagram, Figure~\ref{fig:8} shows the CM diagram
574: for the exponential (${\rm fracDeV} < 0.1$) galaxies in
575: our flux-limited $z < 0.06$ sample. The left panel uses
576: the corrected absolute magnitudes and colors from
577: equations~(\ref{eq:mrf}) and (\ref{eq:urf}), while the
578: right panel uses the uncorrected values. Of the
579: 21{,}813 galaxies with $M_r < -19$ plotted in the
580: right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:8}, 5213 (23.9\%) have
581: a $u-r$ color redder than the optimal divider of
582: \citet{ba04}, intended to divide the red sequence
583: from the blue sequence with optimal effectiveness.
584: By contrast, of the 23{,}602 galaxies with $M_r^f < -19$
585: plotted in the left panel, only 2335 (9.9\%) have colors
586: redder than the optimal dividing color of \cite{ba04}.
587:
588: The color correction of equation~(\ref{eq:urf}) is
589: an average correction; the actual correction for any
590: individual galaxy will be different, due to the
591: galaxy-to-galaxy variation in dust properties. The
592: consequence of the variation is seen in Figure~\ref{fig:9},
593: which shows the standard deviation in the $u-r$ color,
594: as a function of $M_r^f$, for different values of $q$.
595: For nearly face-on ($q > 0.9$) exponential galaxies,
596: the standard deviation in color is luminosity dependent,
597: decreasing from $\sigma (u-r) \sim 0.3$ at $M_r^f \sim -19$
598: to $\sigma (u-r) \sim 0.2$ at $M_r^f \sim -21.5$. For
599: nearly edge-on galaxies ($q < 0.3$), the standard deviation
600: is greater at any given value of $M_r^f$, ranging from
601: $\sigma (u-r) \sim 0.35$ at $M_r^f \sim -19$ to
602: $\sigma (u-r) \sim 0.3$ at $M_r^f \sim -21.5$. At any
603: value of $M_r^f$, the edge-on galaxies have an excess
604: in $\sigma (u-r)$, caused by variations in dust properties,
605: of $\Delta \sigma \sim 0.23$, added in quadrature.
606:
607: \section{INTRINSIC SHAPES}
608: \label{sec-shapes}
609:
610: Our analysis has implicitly assumed that bright
611: SDSS galaxies with ${\rm fracDeV} < 0.1$ are
612: flattened, nearly circular disks. Now that we
613: have an empirical correction for dimming as a
614: function of apparent axis ratio (equation~\ref{eq:mrf}),
615: we can test whether this assumption is self-consistent.
616: If a population of galaxies consists of oblate spheroids
617: with a random distribution of inclinations, the observed
618: distribution of apparent axis ratios, $f(q)$, can be
619: inverted to find the distribution of intrinsic axis
620: ratios, $f (\gamma)$ \citep{hu26,sa70}.
621:
622: For a population of dusty disk galaxies whose apparent
623: magnitude depends on inclination, selecting a subsample
624: whose inclinations are random requires a little extra care.
625: A simple flux-limited subsample will be biased against
626: disks at high inclination, which will have a lower flux than
627: a low-inclination disk at the same redshift with the same
628: luminosity. Thus, we create a corrected flux-limited sample;
629: for each SDSS exponential (${\rm fracDeV} < 0.1$) galaxy,
630: we ask, not simply whether it is above our flux limit, but
631: whether it would be above our flux limit if it were edge-on.
632: If an SDSS exponential galaxy has $q = 0.2$, we assume that
633: it is already edge-on. If it has an observed apparent axis
634: ratio $q_{\rm obs} > 0.2$, we compute its edge-on flux to be
635: \begin{eqnarray}
636: m_r ({\rm edge-on}) &=& m_r ({\rm observed}) + \Delta M_r (q = 0.2)
637: - \Delta M_r (q_{\rm obs}) \\
638: &=& m_r ({\rm observed}) + 1.27 [
639: (\log 0.2)^2 - ( \log q_{\rm obs} )^2 ] \ .
640: \end{eqnarray}
641: We create our corrected flux-limited sample by demanding that
642: this computed edge-on flux be greater than $m_r = 17.77$, the
643: completeness limit of the SDSS spectroscopic survey for galaxies.
644: To ensure that our inclination-corrected sample contains only the
645: luminous, nearby galaxies for which our $\Delta M_r (q)$ correction
646: was computed, we add the addition restrictions $M_r^f < -19.4$
647: and $z < 0.06$.
648:
649: The distribution of the apparent axis ratio $q$ for the $n = 16{,}155$
650: exponential galaxies in our inclination-corrected sample is shown
651: in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:10}. The distribution shown
652: as the solid line is estimated using a nonparametric kernel
653: technique \citep{vi94,tr95}. To ensure that our estimate of
654: $f(q)$ is smooth, we use a Gaussian kernel. The kernel width
655: is chosen using the standard adaptive two-stage estimator of
656: \citet{ab82}. To ensure that our estimate of $f(q)$ is zero for
657: $q < 0$ and $q > 1$, we impose reflective boundary conditions
658: at $q = 0$ and $q = 1$. The dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:10}
659: indicate the 98\% error intervals on $f(q)$ found by bootstrap
660: resampling. In our bootstrap analysis, we randomly selected
661: $n = 16{,}155$ values of $q$, with substitution, from the
662: original set of $n$ data points, and then created a new estimate
663: of $f(q)$ for the bootstrapped data. After doing 500 such bootstrap
664: estimate, we then determined the 98\% error intervals show in
665: Figure~\ref{fig:10}. At every value of $q$, 1\% of the bootstrap
666: estimates lie above the upper dashed line, and 1\% lie below the
667: lower dashed line.
668:
669: Having a smooth estimate of $f(q)$, the distribution of apparent
670: axis ratios, allows us to compute $N(\gamma)$, the distribution of
671: intrinsic axis ratios, given the assumption that all galaxies are
672: oblate or prolate. If the disk galaxies are assumed to be oblate,
673: the relation between $f(q)$ and $N(\gamma)$ is
674: \begin{equation}
675: f (q) = \int_0^q P_{\rm obl} ( q | \gamma ) N ( \gamma ) d \gamma \ ,
676: \label{eq:volt}
677: \end{equation}
678: where $P_{\rm obl} ( q | \gamma ) dq$ is the conditional probability
679: that an oblate spheroid with an intrinsic short-to-long axis ratio
680: $\gamma$ has an observed apparent axis ratio in the range $q \to
681: q + dq$, averaged over all viewing angles.
682: The numerical value of $P_{\rm obl}$ is \citep{sa70}
683: \begin{equation}
684: P_{\rm obl} (q | \gamma ) = {q \over ( 1 - \gamma^2 )^{1/2} (q^2 - \gamma^2 )^{1/2} }
685: \end{equation}
686: if $\gamma \leq q \leq 1$, and $P_{\rm obl} = 0$ otherwise. Equation~(\ref{eq:volt})
687: is a Volterra equation of the first kind; in its discretized form, it can be
688: inverted by a process of forward substitution to find $N(\gamma)$ given
689: $f (q)$ (see \citet{vi05} for numerical details).
690:
691: In the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:10}, the solid line
692: indicates the estimate of $N(\gamma)$ found by inverting the best
693: estimate of $f(q)$; the dashed lines are the 98\% confidence
694: intervals found from the inversion of the bootstrap estimates of
695: $f(q)$. The most probable value of $\gamma$, given the oblate hypothesis,
696: is $\gamma = 0.22$. For comparison to these $r$-band results, an
697: inclination-corrected sample of spiral galaxies from the 2MASS Large
698: Galaxy Atlas has a most probable thickness of $\gamma_B = 0.17$
699: in the $B$ band and $\gamma_K = 0.25$ in the $K_s$ band \citep{ry06}.
700: A noteworthy property of our estimate of $N(\gamma)$ is that it
701: is negative for large values of $\gamma$. The 98\% confidence
702: interval is negative for $\gamma \geq 0.89$; that is, fewer than
703: 1\% of our bootstrap resamplings give $N (\gamma) > 0$ in this
704: interval. This unphysical results permits us to reject the hypothesis
705: of perfect oblateness at the 99\% (one-sided) confidence level.
706:
707: We can approximate a galaxy in our sample not as an oblate spheroid,
708: but as a triaxial ellipsoid, with axis lengths $a \geq b \geq c$.
709: The shape can then be expressed in terms of two parameters, which
710: we choose to be the short-to-long axis ratio, $\gamma \equiv c / a$,
711: and the disk ellipticity, $\epsilon \equiv 1 - b/a$. Once we
712: permit non-zero values of $\epsilon$, we can no longer use the
713: observed distribution $f (q)$ to uniquely determine the intrinsic
714: distribution $N(\gamma,\epsilon)$. However, we still can do
715: parametric fits to the distribution of shapes. It is found that a
716: useful parameterization is $N(\gamma,\epsilon) = N_\gamma (\gamma)
717: N_\epsilon (\epsilon)$, with $N_\gamma$ being a Gaussian,
718: \begin{equation}
719: N_\gamma (\gamma) \propto \exp \left[ - {( \gamma - \mu_\gamma )^2
720: \over 2 \sigma_\gamma^2 } \right] ,
721: \label{eq:gamma}
722: \end{equation}
723: and $N_\epsilon$ being a log-normal distribution
724: \citep{an01,ry04,ry06},
725: \begin{equation}
726: N_\epsilon (\epsilon) \propto {1 \over \epsilon}
727: \exp \left[ - { (\ln \epsilon - \mu )^2 \over 2 \sigma^2 } \right] \ .
728: \label{eq:epsilon}
729: \end{equation}
730: The best values of $\mu_\gamma$, $\sigma_\gamma$, $\mu$, and $\sigma$
731: were determined by a $\chi^2$ fit to the binned distribution of $q$
732: for the $n = 16{,}155$ exponential galaxies in our inclination-corrected
733: sample. The bin width chosen was $dq = 0.01$. After selecting values of
734: $\mu_\gamma$, $\sigma_\gamma$, $\mu$, and $\gamma$, we randomly chose
735: $n$ values of $\gamma$ and of $\epsilon$ from the distributions of
736: equation~(\ref{eq:gamma}) and (\ref{eq:epsilon}). For each $(\gamma,\epsilon)$
737: pair, a random viewing angle was chosen, and the resulting apparent
738: axis ratio was computed \citep{bi78}. The model axis ratios were
739: then binned in the same way as the actual, observed axis ratios.
740: Repeating this procedure 400 times for each $(\mu_\gamma,\sigma_\gamma,
741: \mu,\sigma)$ set, we calculated the mean and standard deviation for
742: the number of model galaxies in each $q$ bin, and computed a $\chi^2$
743: probability for that particular set of parameters. The best fit we
744: found was $\mu_\gamma = 0.216$ and $\sigma_\gamma = 0.067$ for the
745: distribution of disk thicknesses, with $\mu = -2.56$ and $\sigma = 0.91$
746: for the distribution of the natural logarithm of the ellipticity. The
747: $\chi^2$ probability yielded by this set of parameters is $P \sim 2 \times
748: 10^{-7}$. In the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:10}, the dotted red line
749: shows the distribution of $q$ expected from this set of parameters,
750: smoothed with the same kernel width as the real data (solid black line).
751:
752: The distribution of ellipticity of our best-fitting parametric model,
753: $\ln \epsilon = -2.56 \pm 0.91$, implies a modal ellipticity
754: $\epsilon_{\rm mod} = 0.033$, a median ellipticity $\epsilon_{\rm med} =
755: 0.077$ and a mean ellipticity $\epsilon_{\rm ave} = 0.11$. This
756: distribution of thicknesses is consistent with the implied ellipticity
757: of an inclination-corrected sample of spiral galaxies from the
758: 2MASS Large Galaxy Atlas \citep{ry06}, if the shape parameter for
759: the 2MASS spirals is the axis ratio of the 25 mag arcsec$^{-2}$
760: isophote. If the potential ellipticity equals the disk ellipticity,
761: then $\ln \epsilon = -2.56 \pm 0.91$ implies roughly one magnitude
762: of scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation \citep{tu77}.
763:
764: \section{DISCUSSION}
765: \label{sec-disc}
766:
767: We have selected a population of galaxies from the Sloan
768: Digital Sky Survey which are at low redshift ($z < 0.06$),
769: which are relatively luminous ($M_r \leq -19$), and which
770: are well described by an exponential surface brightness
771: profile (${\rm fracDeV} < 0.1$). As we have shown, the
772: properties of these galaxies are consistent with their
773: being a population of slightly elliptical disks containing
774: dust. The median dimensionless disk thickness for these
775: galaxies in the $r$ band is $\gamma \approx 0.22$; the median
776: disk ellipticity is $\epsilon \approx 0.08$.
777:
778: By fitting the luminosity function for galaxies with different
779: apparent axis ratio $q$, we found that the apparent dimming
780: $\Delta M_r$ is not linearly proportional to $\log q$, but instead
781: is much better fitted by $\Delta M_r \propto ( \log q )^2$.
782: The dependence of dimming on inclination is a valuable clue
783: to the dust properties within disk galaxies. If certain
784: simplifying assumptions are made, the expected attenuation
785: as a function of inclination can be computed for model
786: galaxies. For instance, \citet{fe99} assumed that dust
787: had either the extinction curve found for Milky Way dust
788: or for Small Magellanic Cloud dust \citep{go97}. They
789: assumed that disks were perfectly axisymmetric, with
790: a horizontal scale length $r = 4 {\rm\,kpc}$ that was
791: the same for both stars and dust. The scale height
792: of the stars was assumed to be $z_\star = 0.35$, but
793: the scale height of the dust was allowed to vary.
794: \citet{fe99} found that dimming in the $B$ and $I$
795: bands were proportional to $\log q$ only when the
796: dust scale height was greater than that of the stars.
797: However, observation of nearby edge-on disk galaxies
798: \citep{xi99} indicates that the dust scale height
799: is about half the star scale height.
800:
801: \citet{ro08}, using a Monte-Carlo radiative-transfer
802: code to make calculations of internal extinction in
803: dusty galaxies, found that a quadratic dependence of
804: dimming on $\log q$ provides a good fit for all
805: plausible dust scale heights, scale lengths, and
806: metallicity gradients. Since they were using hydrodynamic
807: galaxy models with spiral structure, they were
808: able to confirm that nonaxisymmetric structures such
809: as spiral arms did not significantly affect the
810: dependence of the total dimming $\Delta M$ on the
811: apparent axis ratio $q$.
812:
813: In our sample of exponential galaxies from the
814: Sloan Digital Sky Survey, once the absolute magnitude
815: of a galaxy is corrected for the inclination-dependent
816: dimming, the mean $u-r$ color observed is linearly
817: dependent on the corrected $M_r^f$. For nearly
818: face-on galaxies, with $q > 0.9$, the dependence
819: of $u-r$ on $M_r^f$ is relatively weak. We find
820: $b = -0.096$; that is, less than 0.1 magnitude of
821: reddening in $u-r$ for each magnitude brighter in
822: $M_r^f$. For the edge-on galaxies, with $q < 0.3$,
823: the dependence of $u-r$ on $M_r^f$ is much stronger,
824: with $b = -0.265$. The mean color -- absolute magnitude
825: dependence is a manifestation of the metallicity --
826: luminosity dependence. High-metallicity galaxies
827: have both redder stellar populations and higher
828: dust contents. For face-on exponential galaxies,
829: the dust effects are minimized, and we see the
830: effect of metallicity on stellar populations.
831: For edge-on exponential galaxies, we see, in
832: addition, the effect of metallicity on the
833: dust content. Exponential galaxies with
834: $M_r^f \sim -21.5$ have a typical color
835: $\langle u - r \rangle \sim 1.8$ when
836: seen face-on, placing them at the tip of
837: the blue sequence in a color -- magnitude
838: diagram. However, the same bright exponential
839: galaxies when seen edge-on will have
840: $M_r \sim -21$ and $\langle u -r \rangle
841: \sim 2.5$, a degree of reddening that smuggles
842: them into the red sequence, as usually defined.
843:
844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
845:
846:
847: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided
848: by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions,
849: the National Science Foundation,
850: the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics
851: and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho,
852: the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council
853: for England. The SDSS website is \url{http://www.sdss.org/}.
854: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for
855: the Participating Institutions.
856: The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History,
857: Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel,
858: University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University,
859: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab,
860: the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group,
861: Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics,
862: the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology,
863: the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST),
864: Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for
865: Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA),
866: New Mexico State University, The Ohio State University,
867: University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University,
868: the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
869:
870: \newpage
871:
872: \begin{thebibliography}{}
873:
874: \bibitem[Abramson(1982)]{ab82}
875: Abramson, I. S. 1982, Ann. Stat., 10, 1217
876:
877: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2008)]{ad08}
878: Adelman-McCarthy, J. K.; for the SDSS Collaboration.
879: 2008, AJ, submitted (astro-ph/0707.3413)
880:
881: \bibitem[Alam \& Ryden(2002)]{al02}
882: Alam, S. M. K., \& Ryden, B. S. 2002, ApJ, 570, 610
883:
884: \bibitem[Andersen et al.(2001)]{an01}
885: Andersen, D. R., Bershady, M. A., Sparke, L. S., Gallagher, J. S.,
886: \& Wilcots, E. M. 2001, ApJ, 551, L131
887:
888: \bibitem[Baldry et al.(2004)]{ba04}
889: Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., Ivezic, Z.,
890: Lupton, R. H., Nichol, R. C., \& Szalay, A. S. 2004, ApJ, 600
891:
892: \bibitem[Bell \& de Jong(2000)]{be00}
893: Bell, E. F., \& de Jong, R. S. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 497
894:
895: \bibitem[Binney(1978)]{bi78}
896: Binney, J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 779
897:
898: \bibitem[Binney \& de Vaucouleurs(1981)]{bi81}
899: Binney, J., \& de Vaucouleurs, G.
900: 1981, MNRAS, 194, 679
901:
902: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{bl03}
903: Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 186
904:
905: \bibitem[Bottinelli et al.(1995)]{bo95}
906: Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Paturel, G., \& Teerikorpi, P.
907: 1995, A\&A, 296, 64
908:
909: \bibitem[Chang et al.(2006)]{ch06}
910: Chang, R., Shen, S., Hou, J., Shu, C., \& Shao, Z.
911: 2006, MNRAS, 372, 199
912:
913: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1948)]{dV48}
914: de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d'Astrophys. 11, 247
915:
916: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et al.(1991)]{dV91}
917: de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., Jr.,
918: Buta, R. J., Paturel, G., \& Fouque, P.
919: 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies
920: (New York: Springer-Verlag) (RC3)
921:
922: \bibitem[Fasano et al.(1993)]{fa93}
923: Fasano, G., Amico, P., Bertola, F., Vio, R., \& Zeilinger, W. W.
924: 1993, MNRAS, 262, 109
925:
926: \bibitem[Ferrara et al.(1999)]{fe99}
927: Ferrara, A., Bianchi, S., Cimatti, A., \& Giovanardi, C.
928: 1999, ApJS, 123, 437
929:
930: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1995)]{fu95}
931: Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T.
932: 1995, PASP, 107, 945
933:
934: %\bibitem[Giovanelli et al.(1995)]{gi95}
935: %- Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., Salzer, J. J.,
936: %Wegner, G., da Costa, L. N., \& Freudling, W.
937: %1995, AJ, 110, 1059
938:
939: \bibitem[Gordon et al.(1997)]{go97}
940: Gordon, K. D., Calzetti, D., \& Witt, A. N.
941: 1997, ApJ, 487, 625
942:
943: \bibitem[Grosbol(1985)]{gr85}
944: Grosbol, P. J. 1985, A\&AS, 60, 261
945:
946: \bibitem[Hubble(1926)]{hu26}
947: Hubble, E. P. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321
948:
949: \bibitem[Lambas et al.(1992)]{la92}
950: Lambas, D. G., Maddox, S. J., \& Loveday, J.
951: 1992, MNRAS, 258, 404
952:
953: \bibitem[MacArthur et al.(2004)]{ma04}
954: MacArthur, L. A., Courteau, S., Bell, E., \& Holtzman, J. A.
955: 2004, ApJS, 152, 175
956:
957: \bibitem[Masters et al.(2003)]{ma03}
958: Masters, K. L., Giovanelli, R., \& Haynes, M. P.
959: 2003, AJ, 126, 158
960:
961: \bibitem[Rocha et al.(2008)]{ro08}
962: Rocha, M., Jonsson, P., Primack, J. R., \& Cox, T. J.
963: 2008, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0702513v2)
964:
965: \bibitem[Ryden(1992)]{ry92}
966: Ryden, B. S. 1992, ApJ, 396, 445
967:
968: \bibitem[Ryden(2004)]{ry04}
969: Ryden, B. S. 2004, ApJ, 601, 214
970:
971: \bibitem[Ryden(2006)]{ry06}
972: Ryden, B. S. 2006, ApJ, 641, 773
973:
974: \bibitem[Sandage et al.(1970)]{sa70}
975: Sandage, A., Freeman, K. C., \& Stokes, N. R.
976: 1970, ApJ, 160, 831
977:
978: \bibitem[S\'ersic(1968)]{se68}
979: S\'ersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes
980: (Cordoba: Obs. Astron.)
981:
982: \bibitem[Shao et al.(2007)]{sh07}
983: Shao, Z., Xiao, Q., Shen, S., Mo, H. J., Xia, X., \& Deng, Z.
984: 2007, ApJ, 659, 1159
985:
986: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{sm02}
987: Smith, J. A., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121
988:
989: %\bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{st02}
990: %- Stoughton, C., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485
991:
992: \bibitem[Strateva et al.(2001)]{st01}
993: Strateva, I. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861
994:
995: \bibitem[Tremblay \& Merritt(1995)]{tr95}
996: Tremblay, B., \& Merritt, D. 1995, AJ, 110, 1039
997:
998: \bibitem[Tully \& Fisher(1977)]{tu77}
999: Tully, R. B., \& Fisher, J. R. 1977, A\&A, 54, 661
1000:
1001: \bibitem[Tully et al.(1998)]{tu98}
1002: Tully, R. B., Pierce, M. J., Huang, J.-S., Saunders, W.,
1003: Verheijen, M. A. W., \& Witchalls, P. L.
1004: 2998, AJ, 115, 2264
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Vincent \& Ryden(2005)]{vi05}
1007: Vincent, R. A., \& Ryden, B. S. 2005, ApJ, 623, 137
1008:
1009: \bibitem[Vio et al.(1994)]{vi94}
1010: Vio, R., Fasano, G., Lazzarin, M., \& Lessi, O. 1994, A\&A, 289, 640
1011:
1012: \bibitem[Xilouris et al.(1999)]{xi99}
1013: Xilouris, E. M., Byun, Y. I., Kylafis, N. D., Paleolougou, E. V.,
1014: \& Papamastorakis, J. 1999, A\&A, 344, 868
1015:
1016: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{yo00}
1017: York, D. G., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
1018:
1019: \end{thebibliography}
1020:
1021: \begin{center}
1022: \begin{figure}
1023: \plotone{f1.eps}
1024: \caption{Color -- magnitude diagram (absolute $r$ band magnitude versus
1025: $u - r$) for all galaxies in our flux-limited $z < 0.06$ sample. The
1026: color bar on the right indicates the value of $\log_{10} F$ corresponding
1027: to each color, where $F$ is the fraction of the galaxies in each bin.
1028: Bin sizes are $\Delta M_r = 0.25$ and $\Delta (u-r) = 0.05$.
1029: }
1030: \label{fig:1}
1031: \end{figure}
1032: \end{center}
1033:
1034: \begin{figure}
1035: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
1036: \caption{Left: As in Figure~\ref{fig:1}, but containing only those
1037: galaxies with ${\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.1$. Right: As in Figure~\ref{fig:1},
1038: but containing only those galaxies with $0.1 < {\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.5$.
1039: }
1040: \label{fig:2}
1041: \end{figure}
1042:
1043: \begin{figure}
1044: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
1045: \caption{Left: As in Figure~\ref{fig:1}, but containing only those
1046: galaxies with $0.5 < {\rm fracDeV} \leq 0.9$. Right: As in Figure~\ref{fig:1},
1047: but containing only those galaxies with ${\rm fracDeV} > 0.9$.
1048: }
1049: \label{fig:3}
1050: \end{figure}
1051:
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \plotone{f4.eps}
1054: \caption{Average $u-r$ color as a function of $M_r$ for our flux-limited,
1055: $z < 0.06$ sample of exponential galaxies. Results are shown for different ranges
1056: of $q$, the apparent axis ratio. Error bars represent the estimated error in the
1057: mean color.
1058: }
1059: \label{fig:4}
1060: \end{figure}
1061:
1062: \begin{figure}
1063: \plotone{f5.eps}
1064: \caption{Top: Cumulative luminosity function for the galaxies in
1065: the volume-limited sample with $q > 0.9$ (solid line) and with
1066: $0.2 < q \leq 0.3$ (dotted line). Functions are normalized so
1067: that $F ( < M_r ) = 1$ at $M_r = -19.40$.
1068: Bottom: Comparison of the cumulative luminosity functions after
1069: the $0.2 < q \leq 0.3$ subsample has been shifted by $-\Delta M_r =
1070: -0.51$. Functions are normalized so that
1071: $F ( < M_r ) = 1$ at $M_r = -19.40 - 0.51$.
1072: }
1073: \label{fig:5}
1074: \end{figure}
1075:
1076: \begin{figure}
1077: \plotone{f6.eps}
1078: \caption{The points show the best-fitting shift $\Delta M_r$ of
1079: the exponential galaxy luminosity function as a function of
1080: the apparent axis ratio $q$. The error bars indicate the
1081: range of $\Delta M_r$ for which $P_{\rm KS} > 0.1$. The
1082: dashed red curve shows $\Delta M_r = -0.64 \log q$,
1083: and the solid blue curve shows $\Delta M_r = 1.27
1084: ( \log q )^2$.
1085: }
1086: \label{fig:6}
1087: \end{figure}
1088:
1089: \begin{figure}
1090: \plotone{f7.eps}
1091: \caption{Average $u-r$ color as a function of the corrected,
1092: ``face-on'' absolute magnitude $M_r^f$ for our flux-limited,
1093: $z < 0.06$ sample of exponential galaxies. Colors and line
1094: types are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:4}. Error bars represent
1095: the estimated error in the mean color.
1096: }
1097: \label{fig:7}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}
1101: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
1102: \caption{Left: Color -- magnitude diagram for ${\rm fracDeV} < 0.1$
1103: galaxies, using the corrected $(u-r)^f$ color (equation~\ref{eq:urf})
1104: and the corrected $M_r^f$ absolute magnitude (equation~\ref{eq:mrf}).
1105: Right: Same as left panel, but using uncorrected $u-r$ color and
1106: $M_r$ absolute magnitude.
1107: }
1108: \label{fig:8}
1109: \end{figure}
1110:
1111: \begin{figure}
1112: \plotone{f9.eps}
1113: \caption{Standard deviation in the $u-r$ color as a function of
1114: the corrected absolute magnitude $M_r^f$ for our flux-limited,
1115: $z < 0.06$ sample of exponential galaxies. Colors and line
1116: types are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:4}.
1117: }
1118: \label{fig:9}
1119: \end{figure}
1120:
1121: \begin{figure}
1122: \plotone{f10.eps}
1123: \caption{Top: Distribution of apparent axis ratios for the
1124: inclination-corrected sample of SDSS exponential galaxies.
1125: The solid line is the best fit: the dashed lines show the
1126: 98\% confidence interval estimated from bootstrap resampling. The
1127: red dotted line is the distribution of $q$ yielded by the best-fitting
1128: parametric distribution of elliptical disks (eqns.~\ref{eq:gamma} and
1129: \ref{eq:epsilon}).
1130: Bottom: Distribution of intrinsic axis ratios, assuming galaxies are
1131: randomly inclined oblate spheroids. The solid line is the inversion
1132: of the best fit for $f(q)$; the dashed lines are the 98\% confidence
1133: interval from bootstrap resampling.
1134: }
1135: \label{fig:10}
1136: \end{figure}
1137:
1138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1139:
1140: \include{tab1}
1141:
1142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1143:
1144: \end{document}
1145:
1146: