1: \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
2: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
3: %\newcommand{\myemail}{huyi@bao.ac.cn}
4:
5: %\slugcomment{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}
6:
7: \shorttitle{The binary fraction of NGC 1818}
8: \shortauthors{Hu et al.}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{The binary fraction of the young cluster NGC 1818 in the Large
13: Magellanic Cloud}
14:
15: \author{Y. Hu,\altaffilmark{1,2} L. Deng,\altaffilmark{1} Richard de
16: Grijs,\altaffilmark{3,4,1} Q. Liu,\altaffilmark{1,2} and Simon
17: P. Goodwin\altaffilmark{4}}
18:
19: \email{licai@bao.ac.cn}
20:
21: \altaffiltext{1}{Key Laboratory of Optical Astronomy, National Astronomical
22: Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100012, P. R. China}
23: \altaffiltext{2}{Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
24: 100012, P. R. China}
25: \altaffiltext{3}{Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics,
26: Peking University, Beijing 100871, P. R. China}
27: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, The University of
28: Sheffield, Sheffield S3 7RH, UK}
29:
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: We use high-resolution {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} imaging
33: observations of the young ($\sim 15-25$ Myr-old) star cluster NGC 1818
34: in the Large Magellanic Cloud to derive an estimate for the binary
35: fraction of F stars ($1.3 < M_\star/M_\odot < 1.6$). This study
36: provides the strongest constraints yet on the binary fraction in a
37: young star cluster in a low-metallicity environment ($\mbox{[Fe/H]}
38: \sim -0.4$ dex). Employing artificial-star tests, we develop a simple
39: method that can efficiently measure the probabilities of stellar
40: blends and superpositions from the observed stellar catalog. We create
41: synthetic color-magnitude diagrams matching the fundamental parameters
42: of NGC 1818, with different binary fractions and mass-ratio
43: distributions. We find that this method is sensitive to binaries with
44: mass ratios, $q \ga 0.4$. For binaries with F-star primaries and mass
45: ratios $q > 0.4$, the binary fraction is $\sim 0.35$. This suggests a
46: total binary fraction for F stars of 0.55 to unity, depending on
47: assumptions about the form of the mass-ratio distribution at low $q$.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \keywords{methods: statistical -- binaries: general -- galaxies: Magellanic Clouds --
51: galaxies: star clusters: individual: NGC1818}
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55: The majority of stars are thought to form in binary or
56: multiple\footnote{For brevity, by `binaries' we generally also mean
57: `multiples', since many stars are found in triple and higher-order
58: multiple systems. We will distinguish the two only when it is
59: important to do so. Note that the analysis in this paper is of {\em
60: binary} systems.} systems (Goodwin \& Kroupa 2005; Duch\^ene et
61: al. 2007; Goodwin et al. 2007), and the initial binary properties of
62: stars place important constraints on star formation and the origin of
63: the stellar initial mass function (IMF; Goodwin et al. 2007,
64: 2008). The majority of stars with masses greater than approximately
65: $0.5 M_\odot$ are also thought to form in star clusters (Lada \& Lada
66: 2003), and the binary content of a star cluster plays an important
67: role in both its observational properties and its dynamical evolution
68: (e.g., Kroupa et al. 1999). In addition, many exotic objects observed
69: in star clusters, such as blue stragglers, cataclysmic variables, and
70: X-ray sources, are believed to be related to binary systems. Almost
71: all studies of binarity have been limited to nearby, solar-metallicity
72: populations. However, it might be expected that metallicity (e.g.,
73: through its effects on cooling and, hence, on the opacity limit for
74: fragmentation) will play a role in the fragmentation of cores to
75: produce binary systems (Bate 2005; Goodwin et al. 2007).
76:
77: In general, the most direct way in which to study binary fractions is
78: by examining whether a given star is part of a binary system, on an
79: individual basis. Over the past two decades, the binary fractions of
80: field stars in the solar neighborhood have been studied carefully in
81: this conventional fashion (e.g., Abt 1983 for B stars; Duquennoy \&
82: Mayor 1991 for G dwarfs; Fischer \& Marcy 1992 for M dwarfs;
83: Kouwenhoven et al. 2006 for A and B stars; see also Goodwin et
84: al. 2007 for a review). Nearby clusters and associations have also
85: been examined in detail (see Duch\^ene 1999 and Duch\^ene et al. 2007
86: for reviews and comparisons). However, the binary fractions in more
87: distant, massive clusters have not yet been studied thoroughly,
88: because these environments are too crowded and their distances too
89: great, so that their member stars are too faint to be examined
90: individually for binarity. Fortunately, there is an alternative
91: approach, i.e., by means of an artificial-star-test technique, which
92: allows us to estimate the binary fractions in crowded environments. By
93: studying the morphology of their color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs),
94: Romani \& Weinberg (1991) determined the observed binary fractions in
95: M92 and M30 at $\la 9$ and $\la 4$\%, respectively, for the full
96: populations of cluster stars down to $m_V \sim 23$ and $\sim 22$ mag,
97: respectively, based on two-dimensional maximum-likelihood
98: analysis. Rubenstein \& Bailyn (1997, hereafter RB97) investigated the
99: binary fraction of main-sequence stars with $15.8 < V < 28.4$ mag in
100: the $\sim 13.5$ Gyr-old (e.g., Pasquini et al. 2007)
101: post-core-collapse Galactic globular cluster NGC~6752. They found a
102: binary fraction of 15--38\% inside the inner core radius, falling to
103: $\la 16$\% at larger radii, with a power-law mass-ratio
104: distribution. For other old globular clusters, Bellazzini et
105: al. (2002) estimated the binary fraction in NGC 288 for stars with $20
106: < V < 23$ mag (corresponding to masses of $0.54 \la M_\star/M_\odot
107: \la 0.77$) at 8--38\% inside the cluster's half-mass radius (and at $<
108: 0.10$ in the outer regions, most likely close to zero), regardless of
109: the actual mass-ratio distribution. Zhao \& Bailyn (2005) claimed
110: 6--22\% of main-sequence binaries ($19.2 \le m_{\rm F555W} \le 21.2$
111: mag) for M3, within the cluster's core radius, and between 1 and 3\%
112: for stars between 1 and 2 core radii. By applying similar techniques
113: to the post-core-collapse Galactic globular cluster NGC 6397, Cool \&
114: Bolton (2002) derived a binary fraction of 3\% for main-sequence stars
115: with primary masses between 0.45 and $0.80 M_\odot$, for a range of
116: mass ratios. Based on an extrapolation to all mass ratios, they
117: estimated the total main-sequence binary fraction in the cluster core
118: at 5 to 7\%. Davis et al. (2008), using the method pioneered by Romani
119: \& Weinberg (1991) in combination with numerical simulations by Hurley
120: et al. (2007), concluded that the outer regions of this cluster (at
121: 1.3--2.8 half-mass radii) exhibit a binary fraction ($1.2 \pm 0.4$\%)
122: close to the primordial fraction of $\sim$1\% predicted by the
123: simulations, while the inner region has a substantially higher
124: fraction, $5.1 \pm 1.0$\%. However, {\it all clusters thus far studied
125: in this way are old stellar systems} (cf. table 1 in Davis et
126: al. 2008) in which dynamical evolution is expected to have
127: significantly altered the initial binary population.
128:
129: In this paper, we use accurate photometric observations of the young,
130: low-metallicity star cluster NGC 1818 in the Large Magellanic Cloud,
131: taken with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera-2 (WFPC2) on board the
132: {\sl Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}, to study its binary fraction. The
133: photometric data and the cluster CMD are discussed in \S 2. Our newly
134: developed method to correct for stellar blends and superpositions,
135: based on the artificial-star-test technique, is presented in \S 3. The
136: fitting of the binary fraction is discussed in \S 4, and \S 5 contains
137: a further discussion and our conclusions.
138:
139: \section{Observations, data reduction, and background decontamination}
140:
141: Our data set was obtained from {\sl HST} program GO-7307 (PI Gilmore),
142: which included three images in both the F555W and F814W filters (with
143: exposure times of 800, 800, and 900s per filter). Specifically,
144: we used the observations with the PC1 chip centered on the cluster's
145: half-light radius (see Fig. 1). The origin of this
146: data set and the program's scientic rationale were described in detail
147: in de Grijs et al. (2002a, and references therein). The observations
148: were reduced with {\sc HSTPhot} (version 1.1, May 2003; Dolphin 2002)
149: using the point-spread-function (PSF)-fitting option. Bad and (close
150: to) saturated pixels were masked using data-quality images. Cosmic
151: rays were removed using {\sc HSThphot}'s {\sc crmask} routine. The
152: three images were combined into a single deep frame (with a total
153: exposure time of 2500s) using the {\sc coadd} routine and hot pixels
154: were removed following the procedure recommended in the {\sc HSTphot}
155: manual. Photometry was performed on both the F555W and F814W images
156: simultaneously, using a weighted PSF fit (option `2048' in {\sc
157: HSTphot}), as suggested by Holtzman et al. (2006). The instrumental
158: magnitudes were converted to the standard Johnson/Cousins $V$ and $I$
159: filters using the transformation solutions of Dolphin (2000).
160:
161: We show the CMD around the cluster's half-light radius (as
162: defined in HST program GO-7307) in Fig. 2 (left-hand
163: panel) and provide the current-best estimates of a few important
164: cluster parameters including the core and half-mass radii, in
165: Table 1, as well as the relevant bibliographic references. We use the
166: Padova isochrones (Girardi et al. 2000) to perform our fits to the
167: cluster's CMD (see Fig. 3, left-hand panel). For
168: comparison, we also show the CMD obtained by Liu et al. (2009; see
169: also de Grijs et al. 2002a) using the {\sc iraf apphot} (aperture
170: photometry) software package in Fig. 2 (right-hand
171: panel). Our newly determined CMD is cleaner and the main sequence is
172: much tighter than that of Liu et al.'s (2009) CMD, because the HSTphot
173: software package we used is much better at properly handling stellar
174: photometry in crowded fields than {\sc iraf}'s {\sc apphot} routine, while
175: our PSF-fitting approach ensures higher-precision
176: photometric measurements than Liu et al.'s (2009) aperture photometry
177: (cf. Fig. 2). We will provide a careful, quantitative comparison of
178: the results from both approaches in Hu et al. (in prep.).
179:
180: As noted by Castro et al. (2001), an old red-giant population and an
181: intermediate-age red-giant clump are clearly seen in the CMD of NGC
182: 1818. If we adopt an age for this cluster of approximately 25 Myr
183: (e.g., de Grijs et al. 2002a; and references therein), these older
184: components can only be interpreted as background field stars in the
185: LMC's disk. Therefore, the main sequence of NGC 1818 is severely
186: contaminated by field stars. Here, we adopt a statistical approach
187: similar to that adopted by Bonatto et al. (2006) to subtract
188: background stars. The background data set (to which we applied
189: exactly the same photometric procedures as for our science field) was
190: obtained as part of {\sl HST} program GO-6277 (PI Westphal); it is
191: suitably located at a distance of $\sim$8 arcmin from the cluster's
192: half-mass radius.\footnote{We initially selected a number of suitable
193: LMC fields for our background substraction, including the field
194: specifically associated with the cluster from {\sl HST} program
195: GO-7307. Eventually, we decided to use the field that best represented
196: the background isochrone shown in the left-hand panel of Fig. 2.}
197: The middle panel of Fig. 3 shows the CMD of the LMC
198: background field near NGC 1818, which was specifically observed for
199: background characterization (see, for more details, Castro et
200: al. 2001; Santiago et al. 2001; de Grijs et al. 2002a). We only remove
201: the stars in the region $19\leq V \leq25$ mag and $-0.1\leq (V-I) \leq
202: 1.5$ mag, since this region contains almost all stars for which the
203: observational completeness fraction is greater than 50\%. To perform
204: the field-star decontamination procedure, we divide both the
205: background and cluster CMDs into grids of cells, in color and
206: magnitude. We count the number of stars in each cell in the background
207: CMD, and then randomly remove the corresponding number of stars,
208: corrected for the difference in area covered, from the respective cell
209: of the cluster CMD. The choice of cell size affects the appearance of
210: the resulting background-subtracted cluster CMD significantly. After
211: extensive experimentation we chose a cell size of three times the
212: observational uncertainty in both magnitude and color of single
213: stars (i.e., $3 \sigma = 0.06$ mag) to minimize any significant
214: effects due to stochasticity. The right-hand panel of
215: Fig. 3 shows the results of the background
216: decontamination.
217:
218: We performed additional tests to validate our approach, based on the
219: simplest assumption that if we subtract the background stellar
220: population from the original background field, we should be left with
221: only statistical noise, which should, therefore, not lead to
222: systematics in our analysis. These tests indeed showed that our
223: background-subtraction procedure is robust. Nevertheless, a close
224: examination of the right-hand panel of Fig. 3 shows that
225: there is some residual contamination from the background stellar
226: population, as indicated by the presence of a faint red-giant
227: branch/clump feature. This is most likely caused by the local
228: background in the cluster region being somewhat different from that in
229: our comparison field (we applied two slightly different field regions
230: in an attempt to optimally subtract the local cluster background, but
231: a small residual effect remains). For the statistical comparison
232: carried out in the remainder of this paper, we are confident that this
233: residual background population affects our results negligibly,
234: however. We base this conclusion on (i) the fact that the dominance of
235: the background population is significantly redward with respect to the
236: expected locus of NGC 1818's main-sequence binary population (i.e.,
237: the residual background contamination dominates the region {\it
238: outside} the parallellogram shown in the right-hand panel of
239: Fig. 3; our background-subtraction procedure at and near
240: the single- and binary-star main sequence is unaffected by these
241: stellar types) and (ii) a statistical analysis of the relative
242: importance of the genuine binaries versus the residual background
243: contamination: we estimate that in the region in the CMD space of
244: interest (i.e., the parallellogram), the fractional contamination by
245: the background population (i.e., our systematic error) is $\la 3$\%
246: (based on a detailed examination of the stellar population using star
247: counts). Finally, in Fig. 4 we present the completeness
248: curves for both the NGC 1818 observations and the background field,
249: for two of the four WFPC2 chips. We emphasize that we performed
250: completeness analyses for all four chips, so that we can properly and
251: consistently correct our observational data for the effects of
252: incompleteness. We also note that for the entire magnitude range of
253: interest, $V \la 22$ mag (see the parallellogram in
254: Fig. 3), the completeness of our data is well in excess
255: of 80\%, so that corrections for incompleteness are straightforward.
256:
257: \section{Artificial-star tests}
258:
259: Ideally, if there is no binary population, nor any observational
260: errors, all stars in a cluster should lie on the same isochrone,
261: because they were all born at approximately the same time in the same
262: giant molecular cloud (i.e., they have the same metallicity). However,
263: in Fig. 3 we clearly see a broadening of the cluster's
264: main sequence. There are three factors that contribute to this
265: broadening: (i) photometric errors, (ii) superposition effects, and
266: (iii) the presence of true binary and/or multiple systems.
267: Photometric errors broaden the main sequence symmetrically if we
268: assume the magnitude errors to be Gaussian, which is not unreasonable
269: (given that the magnitude range of interest is well away from the
270: observational completeness limit). However, the other two factors skew
271: the stars to the brighter, and redder, side relative to the
272: corresponding best-fitting isochrone. However, it is difficult to
273: distinguish between superpositions and physical binaries on the basis
274: of only CMD morphological analysis. To obtain the binary fraction of
275: NGC 1818, we therefore perform Monte Carlo tests, where we produce
276: artificial-star catalogs and compare the spread of real and artificial
277: stars around the best-fitting isochrone.
278:
279: Since the photometric errors of the observed stars strongly depend on
280: their magnitudes and their positions on the {\sl HST}/WFPC2 chips used
281: for the observations, exponential functions (numerically following the
282: densest concentration of data points, closely matched to their lower
283: boundary) were adopted to fit the relation between the magnitude and
284: standard deviation of the photometric errors (these relations vary
285: between the WFPC2 chips; we have taken great care to use the
286: appropriate relations for our analysis). Each artificial star (see
287: below) is randomly assigned Gaussian photometric errors, of which the
288: standard Fig. 5 shows the photometric uncertainties
289: as a function of $V$ and $I$ magnitude for the {\sl HST}/WF3
290: observations (containing 2473 stars); the center of the
291: corresponding PC1 chip (containing 886 stars) is located at the
292: half-light radius. The solid curves in Fig. 5 show the
293: functions adopted to assign uncertainties to the individual
294: artificial stellar magnitudes; 80\% of the data points are located
295: within $\sim$1.2 times the standard deviation from the curve.
296:
297: The global stellar mass function of NGC 1818 is well approximated by a
298: Salpeter (1955) power law for masses $>0.6 M_\odot$ (de Grijs et
299: al. 2002b; Kerber et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2009).\footnote{We note that
300: these mass-function fits were obtained on the basis of a single-star
301: mass-function assumption. However, as Kerber et al. (2007; see also
302: Liu et al. 2009) illustrate in their Fig. 9, the inclusion of binaries
303: affects the derived mass-function slope only slightly: the deviation
304: between the input (single-star) and output (single+binary) mass
305: functions they derive is less than 0.15 (in units of the mass-function
306: slope, $\alpha$), as long as the input slope is sufficiently close to
307: the Salpeter (1955) index and assuming a 100\% binary fraction. A
308: smaller binary fraction, as found in this study, will change the
309: mass-function slope proportionately less (see Kerber et al. 2007).}
310: Therefore, we draw the masses of single stars and the primary stars of
311: the binary population from a Salpeter (1955) $\alpha=2.35$ power-law
312: IMF in the mass range $0.6 \leq M_{\star}/M_\odot \leq 6.0$. The
313: masses of the secondaries are drawn from a given mass-ratio
314: distribution for all primary masses (we discuss the choice of the
315: mass-ratio distribution in detail in the next section). We note that
316: this produces a {\em total} IMF (of single stars plus each component
317: of binary systems) which is {\em not} equal to a Salpeter
318: IMF. However, the deviation from a Salpeter IMF is fairly minor (see
319: Kerber et al. 2007). The alternative is to draw both primary and
320: secondary masses from a Salpeter IMF. However, random pairing is
321: excluded in all observed multiple populations (see, e.g., Duquennoy \&
322: Mayor 1991; Fischer \& Marcey 1992; Kouwenhoven et al. 2005; Duch\^ene
323: et al. 2007).
324:
325: The magnitudes and colors of all artificial stars are then obtained by
326: interpolating from the relevant isochrone. For binary stars, we simply
327: add the fluxes of the primaries and secondaries to obtain the
328: magnitudes and colors of the system. The results from this procedure
329: are shown in Fig. 6 (left-hand panel).
330:
331: The best way to simulate the superposition effect is by adding
332: artificial stars to the original images (see details in RB97; and
333: references therein). Alternatively, in each run we randomly distribute
334: $5 \times 10^6$ artificial stars on the spatial-distribution diagram
335: of the real stars (while properly accounting for the
336: position-dependent photometric uncertainties using the chip-dependent
337: magnitude--uncertainty relations discussed above), instead of on the
338: original images. If an artificial star has an angular distance from
339: any real star within 2 pixels (corresponding to the size of our
340: aperture), it is assumed to be `blended' [see below; see also Reipurth
341: et al. (2007) for a blending analysis relevant to this study]. Its new
342: magnitude and color are re-calculated in the same way as for a binary
343: system. To avoid double counting, if the output $V$-band magnitude of
344: any artificial star is 0.752 mag brighter than its input magnitude (as
345: expected for equal-mass binary systems), we assume that we are dealing
346: with a chance superposition and remove the star from the output
347: catalog. However, we do not allow the artificial stars to blend with
348: each other, even when their angular distance is less than 2
349: pixels. Therefore, we do not need to add artificial stars multiple
350: times to avoid blends between them. This is one of the main
351: differences between our novel approach and that followed by RB97 (the
352: latter authors added much smaller numbers of artificial stars to their
353: images, precisely to avoid this blending issue).\footnote{Using this
354: approach, we can generate any number of artificial stars, with which
355: we can construct an artificial-star catalog that has the same
356: luminosity function and spatial distribution as the observations, thus
357: requiring much less computing time than when using the full images for
358: our analysis.} The CMDs of the artificial stars are shown in
359: Fig. 6. Fig. 8 presents a comparison of the
360: observed, background-subtracted CMD with the artificial CMD containing
361: 50\% binaries. By adding artificial stars to the raw images, we
362: robustly verified that the 2-pixel threshold we adopted is a good
363: approximation to simulate stellar blending (see Hu et al., in prep.,
364: for the full quantitative analysis).
365:
366: For each observed star, we find all artificial stars in the input
367: catalog that are located within 20 pixels and within 0.2 mag in
368: brightness.\footnote{This choice is driven by the need to have a
369: statistically sound procedure: we generated artificial stars that may
370: or may not fall exactly on top of a real star. Therefore, we needed to
371: choose a region around any real star in which any artificial star(s)
372: correspond(s) to the real star for statistical comparison
373: purposes. RB97 used stars within 100 pixels, but since we are less
374: restricted by computational power, a smaller radial range ensures that
375: the spatial distributions of the real stars and the final catalog of
376: artificial stars are statistically the same.} We randomly extract one
377: of these artificial stars as the counterpart to the observed
378: star. Finally, we construct a synthetic catalog containing the same
379: total number of {\em systems} (be they single stars or unresolved
380: binary systems), a similar luminosity function, projected surface
381: number density, and superposition probability as the original
382: data. The only differences between the observed and synthetic catalogs
383: are the binary properties (both the binary fraction and the mass-ratio
384: distribution).
385:
386: \section{The binary fraction of NGC~1818}
387:
388: We analyze stars in the mass range from 1.3 to $1.6 M_\odot$ (roughly
389: F stars), in the region of the CMD in the parallelogram shown in the
390: right-hand panel of Fig.~3, which is where any binary
391: sequence will show optimally. For brighter stars, the isochrone is
392: almost vertical, and therefore the binary sequence is too close to the
393: main sequence to allow us to distinguish it. (In addition, we are not
394: fully convinced that all these bright stars are really main-sequence
395: stars rather than blue stragglers.) For fainter stars, the larger
396: photometric errors and lower completeness make it difficult to detect
397: the binary population. (As we noted above, we applied
398: position-dependent completeness corrections to our data, which were
399: all $>80$\% complete in the magnitude range of interest.) Since the
400: isochrone is almost linear in the region in CMD space of interest, we
401: rotate the ordinates of the artificial and observed CMDs such that the
402: isochrone becomes vertical to a new `pseudo-color,' i.e., a new
403: function of $V$ and $V-I$ produced by rotating the CMD
404: (corresponding to the color axis projected onto the long side of the
405: parallellogram in Fig. 2). Note that the exact form of the
406: pseudo-color function is unimportant.
407:
408: In Fig.~9 we show the cumulative distribution function
409: (CDF) with pseudo-color of the true CMD (solid line) and a stellar
410: population with photometric errors, but {\em no} binaries (dotted
411: line).\footnote{As the luminosity function of the final output
412: artificial stars is similar to the observed luminosity function, the
413: precise form of the stellar mass function is unimportant in this
414: context.} This is clearly a very poor fit to the data. We also show
415: the best-fitting binary fraction ($f_{\rm b}$), with a uniform $q$
416: distribution, of $f_{\rm b} = 0.55 \pm 0.05$ ($1\sigma$) (dashed
417: line), as well as the relevant model for 100\% binarity (long-dashed
418: line).
419:
420: It is expected that this method will be insensitive to low-$q$ systems
421: in which the secondary component contributes very little to the
422: pseudo-color. To test our sensitivity to the mass ratio of a system,
423: we produce artificial catalogs that do not include binaries below some
424: mass ratio $q_{\rm cut-off}$, but contain the same number of binaries
425: above $q_{\rm cut-off}$. Therefore, we need to compare these results
426: based on the artificial-star catalogs with the best-fitting $f_{\rm b}
427: = 0.55$ with $q_{\rm cut-off} = 0$ (see Fig.~9).
428:
429: We find that there is very little difference in the fits to the CDF
430: for $q_{\rm cut-off} < 0.4$, showing that we are insensitive to
431: binaries with mass ratios smaller than $q \sim 0.4$. In
432: Fig.~9 we plot the binary fraction versus $\chi^2$
433: probability (rms error) for different $q_{\rm cut-off}$'s. For $q_{\rm
434: cut-off} < 0.4$, the best fits of binary fraction are acceptable,
435: since the maximum probabilities are much larger than the commonly
436: adopted limit of $\Delta \chi^2 = 0.05$.\footnote{G. E. Dallal (2007),
437: http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/p05.htm.} However, for $q_{\rm
438: cut-off} =0.5$, the value is just a little greater than 0.02. And for
439: $q_{\rm cut-off} = 0.7$, the very low $\chi^2$ value indicates that
440: even the best fit is poor. Therefore, we adopt a conservative limit to
441: the mass ratios to which we are sensitive of $q > 0.4$.
442:
443: For this discussion, we have assumed that the $q$ distribution is flat
444: (at least above $q=0.4$). This is consistent with the mass-ratio
445: distribution of A- and B-type stars in Sco OB2 (Kouwenhoven et
446: al. 2005, their fig.~14). However, G-dwarf mass ratios in the solar
447: neighborhood are concentrated toward low $q$ (Duquennoy \& Mayor
448: 1991). Duquennoy \& Mayor (1991) show that the mean local G-dwarf $q$
449: distribution shows a roughly linear decrease with increasing $q$ for
450: $q>0.4$ (their fig.~10).
451:
452: The results indicate that the {\em total} binary fraction of F stars
453: in NGC~1818 is $\sim 0.55$, with an approximately flat mass-ratio
454: distribution. However, since we are only sensitive to binaries with $q
455: > 0.4$, we may only constrain the binary fraction in this mass range
456: to $f_{{\rm b} (q>0.4)} \sim 0.35$. It is impossible to determine the
457: total binary fraction without making some assumptions about the form
458: of the $q$ distribution below 0.4. It is unlikely that the mass-ratio
459: distribution declines below $0.4$, meaning that a total binary
460: fraction of $\sim 0.55$ is probably a safe lower limit (cf. the
461: mass-ratio distributions found by Duquennoy \& Mayor 1991; Kouwenhoven
462: et al. 2007). {\em Depending on exactly which assumptions are made for
463: the form of the mass-ratio distribution, the total binary fraction
464: ranges from 0.55 to (more probably) unity.}
465:
466: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
467:
468: The CMD of NGC 1818, obtained from {\sl HST} photometry, shows a
469: clearly asymmetric broadening of the main sequence, which implies that
470: this cluster contains a large fraction of binary systems. Using the
471: artificial-star-test method, we estimate that the binary fraction in
472: the mass range from 1.3 to $1.6 M_\odot$ is $f_{\rm b} \sim 0.35$ for
473: systems with an approximately flat mass-ratio distribution for
474: $q>0.4$. This is consistent with a {\em total} binary fraction of F
475: stars of 0.55 to unity. Elson et al. (1998) found the fraction of
476: roughly equal-mass ($q \sim 1$) systems in NGC 1818 to be 30--40\% in
477: the core and 15--25\% outside the core, which is consistent with our
478: result.
479:
480: Observationally determined binary fractions are rather scant in
481: general. Binary fractions are a clear function of stellar type, age,
482: and environment. We note that our result is quite close to the
483: fraction of binary dwarfs in the field of the same spectral type,
484: which is a little smaller than the fraction in Sco OB2 (Kouwenhoven
485: 2006) and much higher than in Galactic globular clusters (e.g., RB97;
486: Bellazzini et al. 2002). The most recently published relevant results
487: include the determination by Sana et al. (2008) of the binary fraction
488: of O-type stars in NGC 6231 (at least 63\%), while Reipurth et
489: al. (2007) reported a visual-binary fraction of late-type stars in the
490: Orion Nebula Cluster of only 8.8\%.
491:
492: At 15--25~Myr old, NGC 1818 is several crossing times old, and the
493: binary population would be expected to have been modified by dynamical
494: interactions (see Goodwin et al. 2007; and references therein). In
495: particular, soft (i.e., wide) binaries would be expected to have been
496: destroyed by this age. Therefore, the high binary fraction found for F
497: stars suggests that these binaries are relatively `hard' and able to
498: survive dynamical encounters.\footnote{We argue that the binaries
499: in NGC 1818 must be `hard,' since the cluster is dynamically old and
500: soft binaries are destroyed in roughly a crossing time (e.g., Parker
501: et al. 2009), so soft binaries cannot be a major component of the
502: binary population (some may form by capture but will be quickly
503: destroyed).} The relatively flat mass-ratio distribution in NGC~1818
504: compared to similar-mass stars in the loose association Sco OB2
505: (Kouwenhoven et al. 2007; $\sim q^{-0.4}$) may be evidence for a
506: difference in the initial populations (see also Sana et al. 2008 for
507: an alternative mass-ratio distribution biased toward unity). However,
508: it is more likely to be a product of the different dynamical evolution
509: of the two populations. The larger number of encounters suffered by
510: the binary population in NGC~1818 would be expected to disrupt
511: less-bound (i.e., wide and/or low-$q$) systems, and to form more
512: equal-mass systems, leading to a mass-ratio distribution more biased
513: to high $q$.
514:
515: We conclude that the binary fraction of F stars in the young,
516: low-metallicity LMC cluster NGC~1818 is high and consistent with the
517: field and lower-density clusters. This suggests that, at least among
518: intermediate-mass stars, metallicity down to $\mbox{[Fe/H]} \sim -0.4$
519: dex does not suppress fragmentation and binary formation, and the
520: binarity of these stars is at least as high as at solar metallicity.
521:
522: \acknowledgments
523:
524: We gratefully acknowledge joint networking funding from the Royal
525: Society in the UK and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
526: (NSFC), supporting a UK-China International Joint Project between the
527: University of Sheffield and the National Astronomical Observatories
528: (Chinese Academy of Sciences) of China. YH, LD, and QL acknowledge
529: financial support from NSFC grants 10973015 and 10778719, and the
530: Ministry of Science and Technology of China grant 2007CB815406. RdG
531: acknowledges NSFC grant 11043006. He also acknowedges financial
532: assistance from the Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics
533: prior to moving from the UK to China. This research has made use of
534: NASA's Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service. We also thank Thijs
535: Kouwenhoven for useful discussions and valuable input. Finally, RdG
536: and LD pay tribute to the 2003 Guillermo Haro workshop for initiating
537: their collaboration, having thus far resulted in 2 PhD theses and
538: numerous secondary benefits. This turned out to be a career-defining
539: moment for RdG.
540:
541:
542: \begin{thebibliography}{}
543: \bibitem[]{} Abt H. A., 1983, ARA\&A, 21, 343
544: \bibitem[]{} Bate M. R., 2005, MNRAS, 363, 363
545: \bibitem []{} Bellazzini M., Fusi
546: Pecci F., Messineo M., Monaco L., Rood R. T., 2002, AJ, 123, 1509
547: 1994, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton: Princeton University Press
548: \bibitem []{} Bonatto C., Santos J. F. C.,
549: Bica E., 2006, A\&A, 160, 83
550: \bibitem []{} Castro R., Santiago B. X., Gilmore
551: G. F., Beaulieu S., Johnson R. A., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 333
552: \bibitem[]{} Cool A. M., Bolton A. S., 2002, in:
553: A.S.P. Conf. Ser. Vol. 263, Stellar Collisions, Mergers and Their
554: Consequences, ed. M. M. Shara (San Francisco: ASP), p. 163
555: \bibitem[]{} Correia S., Zinnecker H., Ratzka Th., Sterzik M. F.,
556: 2006, A\&A, 459, 909
557: \bibitem []{} de Grijs R., Johnson
558: R. A., Gilmore G. F., Frayn C. M., 2002a, MNRAS, 331, 228
559: \bibitem []{} de Grijs R., Gilmore
560: G. F., Johson R. A., Mackey A. D., 2002b, MNRAS, 331, 245
561: \bibitem []{} Dolphin AndrewE., 2000, PASP, 112, 1383
562: \bibitem[]{}ne G., 1999, A\&A, 341, 547
563: \bibitem[]{}ne G., Delgado-Donate E., Haisch K. E. Jr.,
564: Loinard L., Rodr\'{\i}guez L. F., 2007, in: Protostars and Planets V,
565: B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, eds., (Univ. of Arizona Press:
566: Tucson), p. 379
567: \bibitem []{} Duquennoy A., Mayor
568: M., 1991, A\&A, 248, 485
569: \bibitem []{} Elson R. A. W., Hut P., Inagaki
570: S., 1987, ARA\&A, 25, 565
571: \bibitem []{} Elson R. A. W., Sigurdsson S.,
572: Davies M., Hurley J., Gilmore G., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 857
573: \bibitem []{} Fischer D. A., Marcy
574: G. W., 1992, ApJ, 396, 178
575: \bibitem []{} Girardi L., Bressan A.,
576: Bertelli G., Chiosi C., 2000, A\&AS, 141, 371
577: \bibitem []{} Goodwin S. P., Kroupa P.,
578: 2005, A\&A, 439, 565
579: \bibitem []{} Goodwin S. P., Kroupa, P.,
580: Goodman, A. \& Burkert, A. 2007, in: Protostars and Planets V,
581: B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil, eds., (Univ. of Arizona Press:
582: Tuscon), p. 133
583: \bibitem []{} Goodwin S. P., Nutter D.,
584: Kroupa, P., Ward-Thompson D., Whitworth A. P., 2007b, A\&A, 477, 823
585: \bibitem []{} Hut P., et al., 1992, PASP, 104, 981
586: \bibitem []{} Holtzman Jon A., Afonso C., \& Dolphin A., 2006, ApJS, 166, 534
587: \bibitem[]{} Hunter D. A., Light R. M., Holtzman J. A., Lynds R.,
588: O'Neil E. J. Jr., Grillmair C. J., 1997, ApJ, 478, 124
589: \bibitem[]{} Johnson R. A., Beaulieu S. F., Gilmore G. F., Hurley J.,
590: Santiago B. X., Tanvir N. R., Elson R. A. W., 2001, MNRAS, 324, 367
591: \bibitem []{} Kerber L. O., Santiago B. X.,
592: Brocato E., 2007, A\&A, 462, 139
593: \bibitem[]{} Korn A. J., Becker S. R., Gummersbach C. A., Wolf B.,
594: 2000, A\&A, 353, 655
595: \bibitem[]{} Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Brown A. G. A., Zinnecker H., Kaper
596: L., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2005, A\&A, 430, 137
597: \bibitem []{} Kouwenhoven M. B. N., 2006,
598: Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam (astro-ph/0610792)
599: \bibitem[]{} Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Brown A. G. A., Portegies Zwart
600: S. F., Kaper L., 2007, A\&A, 474, 77
601: \bibitem[]{} Kouwenhoven M. B. N., Brown A. G. A., Zinnecker H., Kaper
602: L., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2005, A\&A, 430, 137
603: \bibitem[]{} Kroupa P., Petr M. G., McCaughrean M. J., 1999, NewA, 4,
604: 495
605: \bibitem[]{} Lada C. J., Lada E. A., 2003, ARA\&A, 41, 57
606: \bibitem[]{} Parker R. J., Goodwin S. P., Kroupa P., Kouwenhoven
607: M. B. N., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1577
608: \bibitem[]{} Pasquini L., Bonifacio P., Randich S., Galli D., Gratton
609: R. G., Wolff B., 2007, A\&A, 464, 601
610: \bibitem []{} Rubenstein E. P., Bailyn
611: C. D., 1997, ApJ, 474, 701 (RB97)
612: \bibitem[]{}es M.~M., Connelley M.~S., Bally
613: J., 2007, AJ, 134, 2272
614: \bibitem[]{} Salpeter E. E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
615: \bibitem[]{} Y., Rauw G., Linder N.,
616: 2008, MNRAS, 386, 447
617: \bibitem[]{} Santiago B., Beaulieu S., Johnson R., Gilmore G. F.,
618: 2001, A\&A, 369, 74
619: \bibitem[]{} Tokovinin, A. A., Smekhov M. G., 2002, A\&A, 382, 118
620: \bibitem []{} Zhao B., Bailyn C. D. 2005,
621: AJ, 129, 1934
622: \end{thebibliography}
623:
624: \clearpage
625: \begin{table}
626: \caption{Fundamental parameters of NGC 1818}
627: \begin{center}
628: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
629: \hline
630: Parameter & Value & Ref. \\
631: \hline
632: log(age/yr) & $7.2\pm0.1$ & 2 \\
633: & $7.4-7.6$ & 5 \\
634: $\mbox{[Fe/H]}$ (dex) & $-0.4$ & 6 \\
635: $E(B-V)$ (mag) & 0.05 & 4 \\
636: $(m-M)_{0}$ (mag) & 18.58 & 1 \\
637: $\log(t_{\rm rh} / {\rm yr})$ & $9.0-9.7$ & 7 \\
638: Mass ($M_{\odot}$) & $3\times10^4$ & 3\\
639: $R_{\rm core}$ (pc) & 2.56 & 2\\
640: $R_{\rm hl}$ (pc) & 2.6 & 2\\
641: \hline
642: \end{tabular}
643: \end{center}
644: {\sc References:} 1, Castro et al. (2001); 2, de Grijs et al. (2002a);
645: 3, Elson et al. (1987); 4, Hunter et al. (1997); 5, Johnson et
646: al. (2001); 6, Korn et al. (2000); 7, Santiago et al. (2001).
647: \end{table}
648:
649: \clearpage
650: \begin{figure*}
651: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
652: \caption{Overview of the NGC 1818 field used in this paper. The
653: individual {\sl HST}/WFPC2 chips are labeled, as is the cluster's
654: half-light radius (dotted circle).}
655: \end{figure*}
656:
657: \begin{figure*}
658: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2.pdf}
659: \caption{{\it (left)} Our newly determined CMD of NGC 1818 at its
660: half-mass radius. {\it (right)} CMD from Liu et
661: al. (2009).}
662: \end{figure*}
663:
664: \begin{figure*}
665: \vspace{-9cm}
666: \begin{center}
667: \hspace{-1.5cm}
668: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig3.pdf}
669: \end{center}
670: \vspace{-1.5cm}
671: \caption{CMDs of NGC~1818 and the background field. The left-hand
672: panel is the original CMD. A 25~Myr-old isochrone is used to fit the
673: cluster, and two much older, 0.6~Gyr and 2.5~Gyr isochrones to fit the
674: background red-clump and red-giant stars. All isochrones shown are for
675: a metallicity of $Z = 0.008$ (cf. $Z_\odot = 0.019$). The contribution
676: of the background (field) stars at these evolutionary stages is
677: estimated from star counts in the two rectangular boxes shown in this
678: panel (the upper and lower boxes are used for the red-clump and
679: red-giant stars, respectively). The middle panel shows the CMD of the
680: background field (from which we only use the stars inside the box
681: shown in this panel for the field-star correction done in this paper),
682: and the right-hand panel is the decontaminated CMD of NGC~1818. Our
683: analysis of the binary fraction of NGC~1818 is confined to the stars
684: in the parallelogram indicated in the right-hand panel, which covers
685: stars with masses from 1.3 to $1.6~M_\odot$. We note that in the
686: region of CMD space of interest (the parallellogram in the right-hand
687: panel), the completeness fraction of our data is well in excess of
688: 80\% for the faintest stars, irrespective of position in the cluster.}
689: \end{figure*}
690:
691: \clearpage
692: \begin{figure}
693: \begin{center}
694: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig4.pdf}
695: \end{center}
696: \caption{Completeness curves for our NGC 1818 observations (solid
697: lines) and the background field (dashed lines). The thick curves are
698: for the PC chip and the thin curves represent the data for the WF3
699: chip.}
700: \end{figure}
701:
702: \clearpage
703: \begin{figure}
704: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig5.pdf}
705: \caption{Relations between the standard deviations of the photometric
706: uncertainties and stellar magnitudes for the WF3 chip. The solid lines
707: are the best exponential fits to the lower boundaries of the data
708: points for $V, I < 25$ mag.}\label{fig:fig3}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711: \begin{figure}
712: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig6.pdf}
713: \caption{{\it (left)} CMD of the artificial stars without the
714: inclusion of errors, and a 50\% binary fraction. An equal-mass binary
715: sequence 0.752~mag brighter than the main sequence can be seen
716: clearly. {\it (middle)} CMD of the artificial stars with Gaussian
717: photometric errors, but without any binaries. {\it (right)} CMD of the
718: artificial stars with a 50\% binary fraction {\em and} Gaussian
719: photometric errors. (Note that without any binaries, a `binary
720: sequence' is also observed in the CMD. The number of real stars above
721: the binary sequence plus the $1\sigma$ observational uncertainty is
722: 12\%. For artificial star clusters with a 55\% binary fraction this
723: number is approximately 7\%, while there are nearly no stars at these
724: loci for artificial clusters with a 0\% binary
725: fraction.}
726: \end{figure}
727:
728:
729:
730:
731: \begin{figure}
732: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig7.pdf}
733: \caption{Comparison of the observed and best-matching artificial-star
734: CMDs. {\it (top left)} Background-subtracted observed CMD (equivalent
735: to the right-hand panel of Fig. 3). {\it (top right)}
736: Artificial CMD with a 50\% binary fraction (see the right-hand panel
737: of Fig. 6). The bottom panels show the
738: pseudo-color--pseudo-magnitude diagrams (see \S 4 for details) of both
739: the real and artificial stars within the parallellogram region
740: indicated in Fig. 3.}
741: \end{figure}
742:
743: \begin{figure}
744: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig8.pdf}
745: \caption{Observed cumulative distribution function with pseudo-color
746: (solid line) compared with an artificial stellar population with zero
747: and 100\% binary fractions (dotted and long-dashed lines,
748: respectively), and the best-fitting uniform mass-ratio distribution of
749: $f_{\rm b} = 0.55 \pm 0.05$ (dashed line).}
750: \end{figure}
751:
752: \begin{figure*}
753: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig9.pdf}
754: \caption{Binary fraction and $\chi^2$ probability for different
755: $q_{\rm cut-off}$. Only probabilities greater than 0.05 are
756: shown.}
757: \end{figure*}
758:
759: \end{document}
760:
761: