1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2:
3: \newcommand\x {\hbox{$\times$}}
4: \newcommand\othername {\hbox{$\dots$}}
5: \def\eq#1{\begin{equation} #1 \end{equation}}
6: \def\eqarray#1{\begin{eqnarray} #1 \end{eqnarray}}
7: \def\eqarraylet#1{\begin{mathletters}\begin{eqnarray} #1
8: \end{eqnarray}\end{mathletters}}
9: \def\mic {\hbox{$\mu{\rm m}$}}
10: \def\about {\hbox{$\sim$}}
11: \def\Mo {\hbox{$M_{\odot}$}}
12: \def\Lo {\hbox{$L_{\odot}$}}
13: \def\comm#1 {{\tt (COMMENT: #1)}}
14: \def\kms {\hbox{km s$^{-1}$}}
15:
16:
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20:
21: \title{ The Milky Way Tomography with SDSS: II. Stellar Metallicity}
22:
23: \author{
24: \v{Z}eljko Ivezi\'{c}\altaffilmark{1},
25: Branimir Sesar\altaffilmark{1},
26: Mario Juri\'{c}\altaffilmark{2},
27: Nicholas Bond\altaffilmark{3},
28: Julianne Dalcanton\altaffilmark{1},
29: Constance M. Rockosi\altaffilmark{4},
30: Brian Yanny\altaffilmark{5},
31: Heidi J. Newberg\altaffilmark{6},
32: Timothy C. Beers\altaffilmark{7},
33: Carlos Allende Prieto\altaffilmark{8},
34: Ron Wilhelm\altaffilmark{9},
35: Young Sun Lee\altaffilmark{7},
36: Thirupathi Sivarani\altaffilmark{7},
37: John E. Norris\altaffilmark{10},
38: Coryn A.L. Bailer-Jones\altaffilmark{11},
39: Paola Re Fiorentin\altaffilmark{11,12},
40: David Schlegel\altaffilmark{13},
41: Alan Uomoto\altaffilmark{14},
42: Robert H. Lupton\altaffilmark{3},
43: Gillian R. Knapp\altaffilmark{3},
44: James E. Gunn\altaffilmark{3},
45: Kevin R. Covey\altaffilmark{15},
46: J. Allyn Smith\altaffilmark{16},
47: Gajus Miknaitis\altaffilmark{5},
48: Mamoru Doi,\altaffilmark{17},
49: Masayuki Tanaka\altaffilmark{18},
50: Masataka Fukugita\altaffilmark{19},
51: Steve Kent\altaffilmark{5},
52: Douglas Finkbeiner\altaffilmark{15},
53: Jeffrey A. Munn\altaffilmark{20},
54: Jeffrey R. Pier\altaffilmark{20},
55: Tom Quinn\altaffilmark{1},
56: Suzanne Hawley\altaffilmark{1},
57: Scott Anderson\altaffilmark{1},
58: Furea Kiuchi\altaffilmark{1},
59: Alex Chen\altaffilmark{1},
60: James Bushong\altaffilmark{1},
61: Harkirat Sohi\altaffilmark{1},
62: Daryl Haggard\altaffilmark{1},
63: Amy Kimball\altaffilmark{1},
64: John Barentine\altaffilmark{21},
65: Howard Brewington\altaffilmark{21},
66: Mike Harvanek\altaffilmark{21},
67: Scott Kleinman\altaffilmark{21},
68: Jurek Krzesinski\altaffilmark{21},
69: Dan Long\altaffilmark{21},
70: Atsuko Nitta\altaffilmark{21},
71: Stephanie Snedden\altaffilmark{21},
72: Brian Lee\altaffilmark{13},
73: Hugh Harris\altaffilmark{20},
74: Jonathan Brinkmann\altaffilmark{21},
75: Donald P. Schneider\altaffilmark{22},
76: Donald G. York\altaffilmark{23}
77: }
78:
79:
80: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195
81: \label{Washington}}
82: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Advanced Study, 1 Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540
83: \label{IAS}}
84: \altaffiltext{3}{Princeton University Observatory, Princeton, NJ 08544
85: \label{Princeton}}
86: \altaffiltext{4}{University of California--Santa Cruz, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060
87: \label{UCSC}}
88: \altaffiltext{5}{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510
89: \label{FNAL}}
90: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, Applied Physics, and Astronomy,
91: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th St., Troy, NY 12180
92: \label{Rensselaer}}
93: \altaffiltext{7}{Dept. of Physics \& Astronomy, CSCE: Center for the Study of Cosmic
94: Evolution, and JINA: Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, Michigan State University,
95: East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
96: \label{JINA}}
97: \altaffiltext{8}{McDonald Observatory and Department of Astronomy,
98: University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712
99: \label{Texas}}
100: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Physics, Texas Tech University, Box 41051, Lubbock, TX 79409
101: \label{TexasTech}}
102: \altaffiltext{10}{Research School of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, The Australian National
103: University, Cotter Road, Weston, ACT 2611, Australia
104: \label{RSAA}}
105: \altaffiltext{11}{Max Planck Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie, K\"{o}nigstuhl 17,
106: 69117 Heidelberg, Germany
107: \label{MPAstro}}
108: \altaffiltext{12}{Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19,
109: 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
110: \label{Ljubljana}}
111: \altaffiltext{13}{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road,
112: MS 50R5032, Berkeley, CA, 94720
113: \label{LBNL}}
114: \altaffiltext{14}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
115: The John Hopkins University, 3701 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218
116: \label{JHU}}
117: \altaffiltext{15}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street,
118: Cambridge, MA 02138
119: \label{Harvard}}
120: \altaffiltext{16}{Dept. of Physics \& Astronomy, Austin Peay State University,
121: Clarksville, TN 37044
122: \label{AustinPeay}}
123: \altaffiltext{17}{Institute of Astronomy, University of Tokyo, 2-21-1 Osawa,
124: Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0015, Japan
125: \label{UT}}
126: \altaffiltext{18}{Dept. of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo,
127: Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan
128: \label{UT2}}
129: \altaffiltext{19}{
130: Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
131: \label{UT3}}
132: \altaffiltext{20}{U.S. Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station, P.O. Box 1149, Flagstaff, AZ 86002
133: \label{USNOFlagstaff}}
134: \altaffiltext{21}{Apache Point Observatory, 2001 Apache Point Road, P.O. Box 59,
135: Sunspot, NM 88349-0059
136: \label{APO}}
137: \altaffiltext{22}{Department of Astronomy
138: and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
139: \label{PennState}}
140: \altaffiltext{23}{University of Chicago, Astronomy \& Astrophysics Center
141: and The Enrico Fermi Institute, 5640 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
142: \label{Chicago}}
143:
144:
145:
146:
147:
148: \begin{abstract}
149: In addition to optical photometry of unprecedented quality, the Sloan
150: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) is producing a massive spectroscopic
151: database which already contains over 280,000 stellar spectra. Using
152: effective temperature and metallicity derived from SDSS
153: spectra for $\sim$60,000 F and G type main sequence stars
154: ($0.2<g-r<0.6$), we develop polynomial models, reminiscent of traditional
155: methods based on the $UBV$ photometry, for estimating these parameters from
156: the SDSS $u-g$ and $g-r$ colors. These estimators reproduce SDSS spectroscopic
157: parameters with a root-mean-square scatter of 100 K for effective
158: temperature, and 0.2 dex for metallicity (limited by photometric errors),
159: which are similar to random and systematic uncertainties in spectroscopic
160: determinations. We apply this method to a photometric catalog of coadded SDSS observations
161: and study the photometric metallicity distribution of $\sim$200,000 F
162: and G type stars observed in 300 deg$^2$ of high Galactic latitude sky.
163: These deeper ($g<20.5$) and photometrically precise ($\sim$0.01 mag) coadded
164: data enable an accurate measurement of the unbiased metallicity distribution for a
165: complete volume-limited sample of stars at distances between 500 pc and 8 kpc.
166: The metallicity distribution can be
167: exquisitely modeled using two components with a spatially varying number
168: ratio, that correspond to disk and halo. The best-fit number ratio of the
169: two components is consistent with that implied by the decomposition of
170: stellar counts profiles into exponential disk and power-law halo components
171: by Juri\'{c} et al. (2008).
172: The two components also possess the kinematics expected for disk and halo stars.
173: The metallicity of the halo component can be modeled as a spatially
174: invariant Gaussian distribution with a mean of $[Fe/H]=-1.46$ and a standard
175: deviation of $\sim$0.3 dex. The disk metallicity distribution is non-Gaussian,
176: with a remarkably small scatter (rms$\sim$0.16 dex) and the median smoothly
177: decreasing with distance from the plane from $-0.6$ at
178: 500 pc to $-0.8$ beyond several kpc. Similarly, we find using proper motion
179: measurements that a non-Gaussian rotational velocity distribution of disk
180: stars shifts by $\sim$50 km/s as the distance from the plane increases from
181: 500 pc to several kpc. Despite this similarity, the metallicity and rotational
182: velocity distributions of disk stars are not correlated (Kendall's
183: $\tau=0.017\pm0.018$). This absence of a correlation between metallicity
184: and kinematics for disk stars is in a
185: conflict with the traditional decomposition in terms of thin and thick disks,
186: which predicts a strong correlation ($\tau=-0.30\pm0.04$) at $\sim$1 kpc
187: from the mid-plane. Instead, the variation of the metallicity and rotational
188: velocity distributions can be modeled using non-Gaussian functions that
189: retain their shapes and only shift as the distance from the mid-plane
190: increases. We also study the metallicity distribution using a shallower ($g<19.5$)
191: but much larger sample of close to three million stars in 8500 sq. deg. of sky
192: included in SDSS Data Release 6. The large sky coverage enables the detection
193: of coherent substructures in the kinematics--metallicity
194: space, such as the Monoceros stream, which rotates faster than the LSR, and
195: has a median metallicity of $[Fe/H]=-0.95$, with an rms scatter of only
196: $\sim$0.15 dex. We extrapolate our results to the performance expected from the
197: Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and estimate that the LSST will obtain
198: metallicity measurements accurate to 0.2 dex or better, with proper motion
199: measurements accurate to $\sim$0.2-0.5 mas/yr, for about 200 million F/G dwarf
200: stars within a distance limit of $\sim$100 kpc ($g<23.5$).
201: \end{abstract}
202: \keywords{
203: methods: data analysis ---
204: stars: statistics ---
205: Galaxy: halo, kinematics and dynamics, stellar content, structure
206: }
207:
208: \section{ Introduction }
209:
210: A major objective of modern astrophysics is to understand when and how
211: galaxies formed, and how they have evolved since then. Our own galaxy,
212: the Milky Way, provides a unique opportunity to study a galaxy in great
213: detail by measuring and analyzing the properties of a large number of
214: individual stars.
215:
216: The formation of galaxies like the Milky Way was long thought to be a
217: steady process leading to a smooth distribution of stars, with this
218: standard view exemplified by the Bahcall \& Soneira (1980) and
219: Gilmore, Wyse \& Kuijken (1989) models, and described in detail by
220: e.g. Majewski (1993). In these smooth models, the spatial distribution
221: of stars in the Milky Way is usually\footnote{Infrared data towards the
222: Galactic center require addition of a bulge and a stellar bar
223: (e.g. Weinberg 1992; Jackson, Ivezi\'{c} \& Knapp 2002; and references
224: therein).}
225: modeled by three discrete components described using relatively simple
226: analytic expressions: the thin disk, the thick disk, and the halo.
227: However, recent discoveries of complex substructure in the distribution
228: and kinematics of the Milky Way's stars (e.g. Ivezi\'{c} et al. 2000; Yanny
229: et al. 2000; Vivas et al. 2001; Newberg et al. 2002; Gilmore, Wyse \& Norris
230: 2002; Majewski et al. 2003; Duffau, Zinn \& Vivas 2006; Vivas \& Zinn 2006;
231: Grillmair 2006ab; Belokurov et al. 2006, 2007; Bell et al. 2007; Juri\'{c} et al. 2008)
232: have deeply shaken this standard view. Unlike those smooth models that
233: involve simple components, the new data indicate many irregular
234: structures, such as the Sgr dwarf tidal stream in the halo and the
235: Monoceros stream closer to the Galactic plane. These recent developments,
236: based on accurate large-area surveys, have made it abundantly clear that
237: the Milky Way is a complex and dynamical structure that is still being shaped
238: by the infall (merging) of neighboring smaller galaxies.
239:
240: Numerical simulations suggest that
241: this merger process plays a crucial role in setting the structure and
242: motions of stars within galaxies, and is a generic feature of current
243: cosmological models (e.g., Helmi et al. 1999; Springel \& Hernquist 2003;
244: Bullock \& Johnston 2005). Since the individual stars that make up the stellar
245: populations in the Milky Way can be studied in great detail, their
246: characterization will provide clues about the galaxy merging process that
247: cannot be extracted from observations of distant galaxies (e.g., Abadi et al.
248: 2003; Brook et al. 2004; and references therein).
249:
250: The three presumably discrete Milky
251: Way components differ not only in their spatial profiles, but also in
252: the detailed distributions of their kinematics and metallicity (e.g., Majewski
253: 1993; Ojha et al. 1996; Freeman \& Bland-Hawthorn 2002; Robin et al. 2003;
254: Wyse 2006; and references therein). The thin disk,
255: with a scale height of $\sim$$300$~pc, has a vertical velocity dispersion
256: of $\sigma_z\sim 20$ \kms, while the thick disk, with a scale height of
257: $\sim$$1000$~pc, is somewhat warmer ($\sigma_z\sim 40$ \kms) and older, has a
258: lower average metallicity ($[Z/Z_\odot]\sim -0.7$, e.g., Gilmore \& Wyse 1985),
259: and has enhanced $\alpha$-element abundances (e.g., Fuhrmann 2004; Bensby
260: et al. 2004; Feltzing 2006; Reddy et al. 2006; Ram\'{i}rez et al. 2007).
261: In contrast, the halo
262: is composed mainly of low-metallicity stars ($[Z/Z_\odot]<-1.0$,
263: e.g., Ryan \& Norris 1991), and has little or no net rotation. Hence, in
264: addition to their spatial profiles, the main differences between these
265: components are in their rotational velocity distributions, velocity
266: dispersions, and metallicity distributions.
267:
268: We note that a recent study by Carollo et al. (2007), based on
269: a sample of over 20,000 calibration stars with available spectra from SDSS Data Release 5,
270: has demonstrated that ``the halo" of the Galaxy is likely to comprise two
271: distinct components. According to these authors, the inner-halo component
272: dominates the population of halo stars found at distances up to 10-15 kpc from
273: the Galactic center (including the Solar neighborhood), and an outer-halo
274: component dominates in the regions beyond 15-20 kpc.
275: The inner halo stars are non-spherically distributed about the center
276: of the Galaxy, with an inferred axes ratio of $\sim$0.6, while
277: the outer halo comprises stars that exhibit a much more spherical spatial
278: distribution. Our present study only reaches to 8 kpc from the Sun, and hence
279: is likely to be dominated by inner-halo stars. Therefore, for the purpose of
280: the present paper, we assume a single-component halo.
281:
282: Despite the significant progress that has been made over the years, we still
283: cannot answer some simple questions such as: Are the exponential profiles used
284: to describe the spatial profiles of thin and thick disks an
285: oversimplification? Why do estimates for thick disk scale height differ
286: by a factor of several between different studies (for a discussion see
287: Siegel et al. 2002 and Juri\'{c} et al. 2008)? Is the transition between thin and thick disks in
288: metallicity and kinematics abrupt or continuous? Is there a large-scale
289: metallicity gradient in the thick disk and halo? Does the disk scale length
290: depend on metallicity? Can large spatial substructures be traced in kinematic and
291: metallicity spaces?
292:
293: To reliably answer these and similar questions, a data set needs to be
294: both voluminous (to enable sufficient spatial, kinematic and metallicity
295: resolution), diverse (accurate distance and metallicity estimates,
296: as well as radial velocity and proper motion measurements are required),
297: and faint (to probe a significant fraction of the Galaxy). Modern sky
298: surveys, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (hereafter SDSS, York et al.
299: 2000), with its imaging and spectroscopic components, and the Two Micron All
300: Sky Survey (Skrutskie et al. 2006) with its all-sky coverage, have
301: recently provided such data sets.
302:
303:
304: Most studies of the Milky Way structure can be
305: described as investigations of the stellar distribution in the
306: nine-dimensional space spanned by the three spatial coordinates,
307: three velocity components, and three main stellar parameters
308: (luminosity, effective temperature, and metallicity). Depending on the quality,
309: diversity and quantity of data, such studies typically concentrate
310: on only a limited region of this space (e.g., the nearby solar neighborhood,
311: pencil beam surveys, kinematically biased surveys), or consider only
312: marginal distributions of selected quantities (e.g., number density of
313: stars irrespective of their metallicity or kinematics, luminosity function
314: determinations, proper motion surveys without metallicity or radial velocity
315: information).
316: We use the SDSS data to study in detail the stellar distribution in this
317: multi-dimensional space. We focus on
318: the metallicity distribution of disk and halo stars in this contribution.
319: In companion papers we discuss the spatial distribution of stars
320: (Juri\'{c} et al. 2008, hereafter J08) and their kinematics
321: (Bond et al. 2008, in prep., hereafter B08).
322:
323: In \S 2, we use the data for $\sim$60,000 probable F and G type main
324: sequence stars provided by the SDSS spectroscopic survey to calibrate a method
325: for estimating metallicity from the $u-g$ and $g-r$ colors measured by the
326: SDSS photometric survey. Readers who are not interested in technical aspects
327: of this method may want to skip directly to \S 3, where we apply this
328: method to two photometric catalogs constructed using SDSS data. One catalog
329: contains averaged repeated observations, and provides sufficiently improved photometric
330: accuracy and depth to study the metallicity distribution all the way to the
331: disk-halo interface at several kpc from the Galactic plane. The second catalog,
332: based on all SDSS photometric observations to date, covers a wide area and probes a
333: significant fraction of the Galaxy. We summarize and discuss our results
334: in \S 4.
335:
336:
337:
338:
339: \section{ Determination of Stellar Metallicity from
340: SDSS Photometric Data }
341:
342: The most accurate measurements of stellar metallicity are based on spectroscopic
343: observations. Despite the recent progress in the availability of stellar spectra
344: (e.g., SDSS has recently made publicly available\footnote{See http:
345: //www.sdss.org/dr6} over 280,000 stellar spectra as a part of its Data Release
346: 6; the proposed extension of SDSS, known as SDSS-III, is capable of providing
347: another several hundred thousand stars with available spectra in the next few
348: years; RAVE\footnote{See http://www.rave-survey.aip.de/rave} may provide up to a
349: million spectra, primarily thin- and thick-disk stars, over the next few years),
350: the number of stars detected in imaging surveys is vastly larger. In addition to
351: generally providing better sky and depth coverage than spectroscopic surveys,
352: imaging surveys obtain essentially complete flux-limited samples of stars. The
353: simple selection criteria used for the photometric surveys are advantageous when
354: studying Galactic structure, compared to the complex targeting criteria that are
355: used for SDSS stellar spectra (see
356: \S~\ref{SDSSspec} below). Hence, we use the extant SDSS spectroscopic data to calibrate a
357: method for estimating metallicity from the SDSS imaging data, and
358: use this calibration to study the metallicity distribution of several
359: million disk and halo stars of the Milky Way.
360:
361: Stellar metallicity has long been estimated using photometric methods such
362: as the traditional UV excess based $\delta (U-B)_{0.6}$ method (Wallerstein 1962;
363: Sandage 1969). A blue main sequence (F and G type) star's metallicity
364: is correlated with the difference between the star's $U-B$ color and
365: that which would be measured for a metal-rich star with the {\it same}
366: $B-V$ color. This correlation is seen in both data (e.g. Carney 1979 and
367: references therein) and detailed stellar models (Kurucz 1979). The Johnson
368: $UBV$ bands are similar to SDSS's $ugr$ bands and thus it should be possible
369: to derive an analogous method applicable to SDSS photometric system, as recently
370: attempted by Karaali, Bilir \& Tuncel (2005). However, as they pointed
371: out, their study did not utilize SDSS data, but a somewhat different
372: photometric system. Unfortunately, even small photometric offsets and color
373: terms between different photometric systems may have significant systematic
374: effects on derived metallicities. For example, the SDSS $u$-band
375: measurements are offset from the AB system by $\sim$0.04 mag (Eisenstein
376: et al. 2006; Holberg \& Bergeron 2006), leading to a metallicity bias of up
377: to 0.2 dex. Here we derive photometric metallicity estimators for the SDSS
378: filter set using SDSS Data Release 6 data. This calibration relies on the
379: large number of stars ($\sim$287,000) with a homogeneous set of stellar
380: parameters (effective temperature, metallicity and gravity) derived from
381: moderate-resolution SDSS spectra (Beers et al. 2006; Allende Prieto et al.
382: 2006; Lee et al. 2007ab; Allende Prieto et al. 2007).
383:
384:
385:
386: \subsection{ An Overview of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey }
387: \label{overview}
388:
389: The SDSS is a digital photometric and spectroscopic survey which
390: covers about one quarter of the Celestial Sphere in the North Galactic
391: cap, as well as a smaller area ($\sim$300 deg$^{2}$) but much deeper
392: survey in the Southern Galactic hemisphere (Stoughton et al. 2002;
393: Abazajian et al. 2003, 2004, 2005; Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2006).
394: SDSS is using a dedicated 2.5m telescope (Gunn et al. 2006) to provide
395: homogeneous and deep ($r < 22.5$) photometry in five bandpasses
396: (Fukugita et al.~1996; Gunn et al.~1998; Smith et al.~2002; Hogg et al.~2002;
397: Tucker et al.~2006) repeatable to 0.02 mag (root-mean-square scatter,
398: hereafter rms, for sources not limited by photon statistics, Ivezi\'{c} et al.~2003)
399: and with a zeropoint uncertainty of $\sim$0.02-0.03 mag (Ivezi\'{c} et
400: al.~2004). The flux densities of detected objects are measured almost
401: simultaneously in five bands ($u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$)
402: with effective wavelengths of 3540 \AA, 4760 \AA, 6280 \AA, 7690 \AA,
403: and 9250 \AA.
404: The large survey sky coverage will result in photometric measurements for well
405: over 100 million stars and a similar number of galaxies\footnote{The recent
406: Data Release 6 lists photometric data for 287 million unique objects observed
407: in 9583 deg$^2$ of sky; Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2008; see http://www.sdss.org/dr6/.}.
408: The completeness of SDSS catalogs for point sources is $\sim$99.3\%
409: at the bright end and drops to 95\% at magnitudes of 22.1, 22.4, 22.1,
410: 21.2, and 20.3 in $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$ and $z$, respectively.
411: Astrometric positions are accurate to better than
412: 0.1 arcsec per coordinate (rms) for sources with $r<20.5$ (Pier et al.~2003), and
413: the morphological information from the images allows reliable star-galaxy separation
414: to $r \sim$ 21.5 (Lupton et al.~2002; Scranton et al. 2002).
415: A compendium of other technical details about SDSS can be found
416: on the SDSS web site (http://www.sdss.org), which also provides
417: interface for the public data access.
418:
419:
420:
421: \subsection{ SDSS spectroscopic survey of stars }
422: \label{SDSSspec}
423: SDSS spectra are obtained with a pair of dual multi-object fiber-fed
424: spectrographs on the same telescope used for the imaging survey (Uomoto
425: et al., in prep).
426: Spectroscopic plates have a radius of 1.49 degrees and take 640
427: simultaneous spectra, each with wavelength coverage 3800--9200~\AA~and
428: spectral resolution of $R \sim 2000$. The signal-to-noise ratio is
429: typically $>$4 per pixel at $g$=20, but is substantially higher for brighter
430: point sources, such as considered herein.
431:
432: Targets for the spectroscopic survey are chosen from the SDSS imaging data,
433: described above, based on their colors and morphological
434: properties\footnote{The recent extension of SDSS survey, known as SDSS-II,
435: has different targeting priorities. In particular, the sub-survey known
436: as SEGUE (Sloan Extension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration), is optimized for Galactic structure studies.}. The targets include
437: \begin{itemize}
438: \item {\bf Galaxies:} a simple flux limit for ``main'' galaxies, flux-color cut
439: for luminous red galaxies (Strauss et al. 2002; Eisenstein et al. 2001)
440: \item {\bf Quasars:} flux-color cut, matches to FIRST survey (Richards et al. 2002)
441: \item {\bf Non-tiled objects (color-selected):} calibration stars (16 per
442: plate), ``interesting'' stars (hot white dwarfs, brown dwarfs,
443: red dwarfs, red giants, blue horizontal branch stars, carbon stars,
444: cataclysmic variables, central stars of planetary nebulae), sky
445: \end{itemize}
446: Here, {\it (non)-tiled objects} refers to objects that are not guaranteed a
447: fiber assignment. As an illustration of the fiber assignments, SDSS Data
448: Release 6 contains spectra of 791,000 galaxies, 104,000 quasars, and 287,000
449: stars.
450:
451: The spectra are targeted and automatically processed by three pipelines:
452: \begin{itemize}
453: \item {\bf target:} Target selection and tiling
454: \item {\bf spectro2d:} Extraction of spectra, sky subtraction, wavelength
455: and flux calibration, combination of multiple exposures
456: \item {\bf spectro1d:} Object classification, redshifts determination,
457: measurement of line strengths and line indices
458: \end{itemize}
459:
460: For each object in the spectroscopic survey, a spectral type,
461: redshift (or radial velocity), and redshift error is determined by matching the
462: measured spectrum to a set of templates. The stellar templates are
463: calibrated using the ELODIE stellar library. Random errors for the radial
464: velocity measurements are a strong function of spectral type and
465: signal-to-noise ratio, but are usually
466: $< 5$~{\kms} for stars brighter than $g\sim18$, rising sharply to
467: $\sim$$25$~{\kms} for stars with $g=20$. Using a sample of multiply-observed stars,
468: Pourbaix et al. (2005) estimate that these errors may be underestimated by a
469: factor of $\sim$$1.5$. Further technical details about SDSS spectroscopic
470: survey are available from www.sdss.org.
471:
472:
473:
474: \subsection{ Stellar Atmospheric Parameter Estimation }
475:
476: SDSS stellar spectra are of sufficient quality to provide robust and
477: accurate stellar parameters, such as effective temperature, surface gravity, and
478: metallicity (parameterized as [Fe/H]). These parameters
479: are estimated using a variety of methods implemented in an
480: automated pipeline (the SEGUE Stellar Parameters Pipeline, SSPP; Beers et al. 2006).
481: A detailed discussion of these methods and their performance can be found
482: in Allende Prieto et al. (2006, 2007) and Lee et al. (2007a,b).
483: Based on a comparison with high-resolution abundance
484: determinations, they demonstrate that the combination of spectroscopy and
485: photometry from SDSS is capable of delivering estimates of $T_{\rm eff}$,
486: $log(g)$, and $[Fe/H]$ with {\it external accuracies} of 190~K (3.2 \%), 0.28 dex,
487: and 0.17 dex, respectively. These tests indicate that {\it mean systematic errors}
488: for $[Fe/H]$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ should not be larger than about 0.2 dex and 100 K,
489: and may be below 0.1 dex and 75 K (Lee et al. 2007b). Note that these estimates
490: apply to stars with a wider range of temperatures than we consider in this
491: study.
492:
493: We use the final adopted values, called $teffa$ and $feha$ in the SDSS
494: {\it sppParams} table, which are based on averaging several different methods.
495: A detailed analysis by Lee et al. (2007a,b) demonstrates that systematic metallicity
496: differences between the methods used in averaging do not exceed $\sim$0.1 dex.
497: A comparison with Galactic open and globular clusters indicates that the adopted
498: metallicity scale systematically overestimates metallicity by $\sim$0.15 dex for
499: $[Fe/H] < -2$ and underestimates metallicity by up to $\sim$0.3 dex for stars
500: near Solar metallicity (the metallicity offsets have been improved recently, and
501: are now essentially nil, but for the purpose of this paper, we have made use of
502: a previous version of the SSPP, hence the sytematics remain present).
503:
504: Only a few percent of stars in SDSS spectroscopic sample are giants.
505: For this reason, we consider only the main sequence stars, using the selection
506: criteria described below. Although we address photometric estimates of
507: effective temperature, the main goal of this section is to derive
508: a robust and accurate photometric metallicity estimator.
509:
510:
511:
512: \subsubsection{ Sample Selection }
513: \label{sample}
514:
515: \begin{figure}
516: \plotone{f1.ps}
517: \caption{
518: The linearly-spaced contours show the distribution of $\sim$110,000 stars with
519: $g<19.5$ and $-0.1 < g-r < 0.9$ (corresponding to effective temperatures in the
520: range 4500~K to 8200~K) from the SDSS DR6 spectroscopic sample in the log(g) vs.
521: $g-r$ plane. The multi-modal distribution is a result of SDSS target selection
522: algorithm. The color scheme shows the median metallicity in all 0.02 mag by 0.06
523: dex large pixels that contain at least 10 stars. The fraction of stars with
524: log(g)$<$3 (giants) is 4\%, and they are mostly found in two color regions:
525: $-0.1 < g-r < 0.2$ (BHB stars) and $0.4 < g-r < 0.65$ (red giants). They are
526: dominated by low-metallicity stars ($[Fe/H]<-1$). The dashed lines outline the
527: main-sequence (MS) region selected for deriving photometric estimates for effective
528: temperature and metallicity.
529: \vspace{1em}}
530: \label{logggr}
531: \end{figure}
532:
533: We begin by selecting bright stars from the main stellar locus (Lenz et al. 1998;
534: Fan 1999;, Finlator et al. 2000; Smol\v{c}i\'{c} et al. 2004), with colors
535: located in the proper range for the application of photometric metallicity
536: method (roughly\footnote{At the $\sim$0.05 mag accuracy level,
537: $B-V$=0.949$(g-r)$+0.20; for more accurate ($<$0.01 mag) transformations
538: see Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2006a).} $0.4 < B-V < 0.8$, Carney 1979), and
539: from sky regions with modest interstellar dust extinction (SDSS utilizes the
540: Schlegel, Finkbeiner \& Davis 1998 maps). The specific criteria applied
541: to 130,620 entries from the so-called {\it sppParams} table\footnote{Available
542: from http://www.sdss.org/dr6/products/spectra/spectroparameters.html}
543: that have $log(g)>0$ are
544: \begin{enumerate}
545: \item The interstellar extinction in the $r$ band below 0.3: [106,816]
546: \item $14 < g <19.5$: [104,844]
547: \item $0.2 < (g-r) < 0.6$: [75,928]
548: \item $0.7 < (u-g) < 2.0$ and $-0.25 < (g-r) - 0.5(u-g) < 0.05$: [68,306]
549: \item $-0.2 < 0.35(g-r) - (r-i) < 0.10$: [66,496]
550: \end{enumerate}
551: The numbers in brackets indicates the number of stars left after each selection
552: step.
553:
554: Using a photometric parallax relation based on observations of globular
555: clusters (see Appendix A for a detailed discussion),
556: \begin{equation}
557: \label{mainPP}
558: M_r(g-i,[Fe/H]) = M_r^0(g-i) + \Delta M_r([Fe/H]),
559: \end{equation}
560: where $\Delta M_r([Fe/H])$ and $M_r^0(g-i)$ are given by eqs.~\ref{GCppFeH}
561: and \ref{GCppFinal}, respectively, we further limit the sample to 61,861 stars
562: in the 1--10 kpc distance range. Due to
563: the small $r-i$ color range spanned by F/G stars, when comparing results to
564: J08 it is better to estimate the $r-i$ color from the better measured $g-i$
565: color using a stellar locus relation\footnote{J08 uses a maximum likelihood
566: projection on the mean stellar locus, which avoids this problem. At the bright
567: end that is relevant here, the two methods produce essentially the same results;
568: we opted for the simpler one.}
569: \begin{eqnarray}
570: \label{locus}
571: g-r = 1.39 (1-\exp[-4.9(r-i)^3 \\ \nonumber
572: - 2.45(r-i)^2 - 1.68(r-i) - 0.050] ).
573: \end{eqnarray}
574:
575: The selected stars span the 5000--7000 K temperature range (with a
576: median of 5,900 K) and 99.4\% have metallicity in the range $-3$ to 0 (with
577: a median of $-1.0$). While the sample is dominated by main sequence stars
578: (the median log(g) is 4.1, with an rms scatter of 0.44 dex), a small fraction
579: of stars have gravity estimates consistent with giants (see
580: Figure~\ref{logggr}). We exclude $\sim$3\% of stars with log(g)$<$3 (which typically
581: have lower metallicity than dwarfs, with a median $[Fe/H] = -1.5$;
582: see Figure~\ref{logggr}), resulting in a final calibration sample of 59,789 stars.
583: This fraction of giants is
584: relatively high because the $g-r\sim0.5$ color range, where the fraction of
585: giants is the highest, was deliberately targeted for SDSS spectroscopy; about
586: 7\% of stars in the subsample with $0.4 < g-r < 0.6$ have log(g)$<$3.
587:
588:
589:
590: \subsubsection{ Effective Temperature}
591:
592: \begin{figure*}
593: \epsscale{0.8}
594: \plotone{f2.ps}
595: \caption{
596: The correlation of spectroscopic effective temperature (top left) and
597: metallicity (top right) with the position of a star in the $g-r$ vs. $u-g$
598: color-color diagram. The color scheme shows the median values in all 0.02 mag by
599: 0.02 mag large pixels that contain at least 10 stars. The distribution of stars
600: in an {\it imaging} sample with $g<19.5$ is shown by linearly-spaced contours.
601: The dots show the synthetic colors for the Pickles (1998) solar metallicity
602: standards (F0, F2, F5, F6, F8, and G0, from bottom to top), taken from Covey et
603: al. (2007). The triangular region marked ``TOO FAINT'' in the top right panel
604: contains no stars, due to the $g<19.5$ flux limit and the fact that low-metallicity
605: stars are generally more distant and fainter than high-metallicity stars. The
606: bottom left panel shows the median residuals between the spectroscopic metallicity
607: and photometric estimates based on eq.~\ref{Zphotom}. Their root-mean-square
608: scatter (over all pixels) is 0.06 dex. The bottom right panel shows a map of the
609: root-mean scatter of metallicity for individual stars in each pixel. Its median
610: value is 0.21 dex. The scatter is larger for weak-lined low-metallicity stars
611: ($\sim$0.3 dex) than for high-metallicity stars ($\sim$0.15 dex), as expected.}
612: \label{panels1}
613: \end{figure*}
614:
615:
616: The dependence of the median effective temperature and metallicity on the position
617: in the $g-r$ vs. $u-g$ color-color diagram for the final sample of 59,789
618: stars is shown in Figure~\ref{panels1}. The top left panel demonstrates that
619: the effective temperature, $T_{\rm eff}$,
620: can be determined from the $g-r$ color alone, with a negligible dependence on the
621: $u-g$ color (the gradient of $\log(T_{\rm eff})$ with respect to the $g-r$ color
622: is at least $\sim60$ times as large as the gradient with respect to the
623: $u-g$ color). This difference in gradients is due to a general insensitivity
624: to metallicity of relationships between effective temperature and colors at
625: wavelengths longer than 0.4 $\mu m$ (Sandage \& Smith 1963; Mannery
626: \& Wallerstein 1971). The best-fit expression,
627: \begin{equation}
628: \label{logT}
629: \log(T_{\rm eff} / {\rm K}) = 3.872 - 0.264\,(g-r)
630: \end{equation}
631: reproduces SDSS spectroscopic temperature for 59,789 main sequence stars
632: selected from the $0.2 < g-r < 0.6$ color range with an rms scatter of 0.007
633: dex (corresponding
634: to $\sim$100 K). When residuals are binned in 0.01 mag wide $g-r$ bins,
635: the largest median residual is 0.003 dex ($\sim$40 K at the median temperature
636: of 5900 K), demonstrating that a linear fit is sufficient. When residuals are
637: binned in 0.1 dex wide metallicity bins, the largest median residual is
638: also 0.003 dex. There is no discernible dependence of residuals on metallicity
639: for stars with $[Fe/H] < -1$, while for stars with $-1 < [Fe/H] < -0.5$ a
640: gradient of $log(T)$ is 0.008 per decade of metallicity (dex per dex) is present.
641:
642: This behavior is consistent with
643: results based on temperatures derived with the infrared flux method
644: (Ram\'{i}rez \& Mel\'{e}ndez 2005; Casagrande, Portinari \& Flynn 2006,
645: hereafter CPF). For example, the expression for effective temperature as a
646: function of $B-V$ color and metallicity from CPF predicts an effective temperature
647: of 5700 K for $B-V=0.6$ ($g-r$=0.425) and metallicity of $-1.0$, with the latter
648: corresponding to the median metallicity of stars in the SDSS spectroscopic sample.
649: The effective temperature predicted by eq.~\ref{logT} is 5750 K (a discrepancy
650: of 0.004 dex), and the median spectroscopic temperature for stars with
651: $0.42<g-r<0.43$ is 5730 K. We note that both the CPF relation and
652: Ram\'{i}rez \& Mel\'{e}ndez (see Figs. 1 and 10) predict a steeper dependence
653: of effective temperature on metallicity: at $B-V=0.6$ the predicted
654: effective temperature increases by 180 K as metallicity increases from
655: $-1.5$ to $-0.5$, while in the SDSS spectroscopic sample the corresponding
656: temperature increase is 50 K. Discrepancies with the expression proposed
657: by Sekiguchi \& Fukugita (2000) are somewhat larger. Their effective
658: temperature scale is cooler by $\sim$130 K than the SDSS scale, and
659: $\log(T_{\rm eff})$ residuals are correlated with metallicity and log(g)
660: with gradients of about 0.01 dex per dex. Further details about the behavior of
661: photometric temperature estimator are discussed in Appendix B.
662:
663:
664: \subsubsection{ Metallicity }
665: \label{metalSec}
666: As first suggested by Schwarzschild, Searle, \& Howard (1955), the depletion of
667: metals in a stellar atmosphere has a detectable effect on the
668: emergent flux, in particular in the blue region where the density of metallicity
669: absorption lines is highest (Beers \& Christlieb 2005, and references therein).
670: The median metallicity of stars selected from the SDSS spectroscopic sample as a
671: function of the $u-g$ and $g-r$ colors shows a complex behavior that is consistent
672: with expectations: the detailed dependence of the UV excess (i.e., the $u-g$ color)
673: on metallicity varies with effective temperature (i.e., the $g-r$ color). Even
674: when the $g-r$ vs. $u-g$ plane is separated by $g-r=0.4$ into two regions suggested
675: by the metallicity map, at least second-order polynomials, or several piecewise
676: linear fits, are required to avoid systematic errors larger than 0.1 dex.
677: In order to do so for the entire map with a single function, we find
678: that third-order terms are required, and model the map as:
679: \begin{eqnarray}
680: \label{Zphotom}
681: [Fe/H]_{ph} & = & A + Bx + Cy + Dxy + Ex^2 + Fy^2 \\ \nonumber
682: & & + Gx^2 y + Hxy^2 + Ix^3 + Jy^3,
683: \end{eqnarray}
684: where
685: \begin{itemize}
686: \item $x=(u-g)$ for $(g-r)\le0.4$, and $x=(u-g)-2(g-r)+0.8$ for $(g-r)>0.4$
687: (this dual definition is required to describe the map with a single set
688: of coefficients, $A$--$J$)
689: \item $y=(g-r)$, and
690: \item
691: ($A$--$J$) = ($-$4.37, $-$8.56, 15.5, $-$39.0, 23.5, 20.5, 12.1, 7.33, $-$10.1, $-$21.4).
692: \end{itemize}
693: The above expression describes the median metallicity map shown in the
694: top right panel in Figure~\ref{panels1} with a root-mean-square (rms)
695: scatter of 0.09 dex. This level of systematic calibration errors is negligible
696: compared to random errors per star ($\sim0.2$ dex, due to photometric errors),
697: discussed below, and is comparable to systematic errors in the SDSS spectroscopic
698: metallicity estimates\footnote{The systematic errors are much larger for
699: stars with log(g)$<$3: for example, for stars with $0.4<g-r<0.6$ and
700: log(g)=2.5, the photometric metallicity estimate is 0.5 dex larger than the spectroscopic
701: metallicity (when the systematic error vs. log(g) trend of about 0.35 dex per dex
702: is corrected for, the rms scatter of the metallicity residuals for
703: log(g)$<$3.5 is $\sim0.3$ dex).}.
704: A map of the median residuals, when fitting the median metallicity map
705: using eq.~\ref{Zphotom}, in the $g-r$ vs. $u-g$ plane is shown in the bottom
706: left panel in Figure~\ref{panels1}. It illustrates that there is no strong
707: correlation between systematic errors in photometric metallicity
708: computed with eq.~\ref{Zphotom} ($\la$0.1 dex) and the $u-g$ and $g-r$ colors.
709:
710: We compute photometric metallicity estimates for all 59,789 stars in the sample
711: using eq.~\ref{Zphotom}, and compare these to the spectroscopic metallicity
712: determinations.
713: The rms scatter of metallicity residuals is 0.24 dex (determined from
714: the interquartile range), and the distribution of residuals is only slightly
715: non-Gaussian (97\% of the sample is contained within a $\pm3\sigma$ range).
716:
717: The rms scatter of the metallicity residuals depends on both the apparent magnitude
718: and color of the star under consideration. The bottom right panel in Figure~\ref{panels1} illustrates
719: the color dependence: for low-metallicity stars the rms increases
720: to $\la$0.3 dex, while it is about 0.15 dex or less for high-metallicity
721: stars. This is expected, due to the weaker spectral lines in low-metallicity
722: stars (e.g., Du et al. 2004; Keller et al. 2007).
723:
724: The rms scatter of metallicity residuals increases with the $g$-band
725: magnitude from 0.18 dex for $g<$17, to 0.25 dex at $g=18$, and 0.45 dex
726: at $g=19.5$. The random metallicity errors are dominated by the errors in the
727: $u$-band magnitudes.
728: The ratio of this scatter to the scatter expected due to
729: photometric errors (which is readily computed from eq.~\ref{Zphotom})
730: is 1.7, and is nearly independent of magnitude. The implied {\it random} errors
731: in spectroscopic and photometric metallicity estimates are thus comparable, and have
732: similar signal-to-noise properties. In particular, we estimate that
733: random errors in spectroscopic metallicity estimates increase from 0.15 dex
734: for $g<17$ to 0.36 dex at $g=19.5$ (for comparison, the corresponding
735: values for photometric metallicity estimates are 0.10 dex and 0.30 dex,
736: respecitvely).
737: This seemingly surprising result, that the estimated errors for photometric
738: metallicity are {\it smaller} than those obtained for spectroscopic metallicity
739: estimates, despite
740: the former being calibrated off the latter, is due to the averaging of
741: {\it many} spectroscopic estimates in a given small color-color bin
742: when calibrating photometric metallicity, and the fact that the signal for
743: photometric metallicity estimates predominantly comes from wavelengths shorter
744: than 0.4 $\mu$m, while for spectroscopic metallicity estimates are obtained from longer
745: wavelengths.
746:
747: {\it This error behavior limits the application of photometric metallicity
748: estimates, based on SDSS data, to about $g<19.5$}. This limit is essentially
749: set by the precision of the $u$-band photometry ($u<20.5$). Somewhat
750: coincidentally\footnote{The similar depths are not entirely independent,
751: as they both reflect the atmospheric and sky properties, and various
752: scientific tradeoffs, but this discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.
753: }, this is about the same limiting depth as for the SDSS
754: spectroscopic sample (the spectroscopic targeting limit for the SEGUE
755: survey is $g<20$). Despite this limitation, the photometric metallicity
756: estimator given by eq.~\ref{Zphotom}
757: is a valuable tool, because it allows metallicity to be determined
758: for {\it all} main sequence SDSS stars in the $0.2 < g-r < 0.6$ color range. For example,
759: in SDSS DR6, out of $\sim$5.7 million point sources from this color
760: range that are brighter than $g=19.5$, SDSS spectra classified as stars
761: are available only for $\sim$94,000 objects. This implies a sample size increase
762: by about factor of 60 when using photometric metallicity estimates. Furthermore, when
763: deeper data are available, the photometric metallicity estimator can be
764: used to study the metallicity distribution in the Galaxy to distances beyond the reach of
765: main sequence stars in the spectroscopic sample (a small number of giants in
766: the spectroscopic sample, which reach to distances $\sim$100 kpc, cannot be easily recognized
767: using photometry alone; however, see Helmi et al. 2003). Further details
768: about the behavior of the photometric metallicity estimator are discussed in
769: Appendix C.
770:
771:
772:
773: \section{ Analysis of the Stellar Photometric Metallicity Estimates }
774:
775: \begin{deluxetable}{cccrcc}
776: \tablenum{1} \tablecolumns{6}
777: \tablecaption{Sample Distance Limits}
778: \tablehead{$(g-r)$ & $(r-i)^a$ & $M_g^b$ & $D^c$ & $(B-V)^d$ & $M_V^e$}
779: \startdata
780: 0.2 & 0.03 & 3.25 & 17.8 & 0.35 & 3.11 \\
781: 0.3 & 0.08 & 4.55 & 9.8 & 0.46 & 4.36 \\
782: 0.4 & 0.12 & 5.48 & 6.4 & 0.57 & 5.25 \\
783: 0.5 & 0.16 & 6.20 & 4.6 & 0.68 & 5.92 \\
784: 0.6 & 0.20 & 6.77 & 3.5 & 0.77 & 6.43 \\
785: 0.7 & 0.24 & 7.24 & 2.8 & 0.86 & 6.84 \\
786: 0.8 & 0.28 & 7.64 & 2.4 & 0.95 & 7.19 \\
787: 0.9 & 0.32 & 8.02 & 2.0 & 1.04 & 7.50 \\
788: 1.0 & 0.37 & 8.40 & 1.7 & 1.12 & 7.83 \\
789: 1.1 & 0.42 & 8.81 & 1.4 & 1.21 & 8.18 \\
790: 1.2 & 0.48 & 9.27 & 1.1 & 1.29 & 8.58 \\
791: \enddata
792: \tablenotetext{a}{The mean $r-i$ color on the main stellar locus for
793: the $g-r$ color listed in first column, evaluated using eq.~\ref{locus}.}
794: \tablenotetext{b}{The absolute magnitude in the $g$ band, evaluated for a fiducial
795: $[Fe/H]=-1.0$ using eq.~\ref{mainPP}.}
796: \tablenotetext{c}{The distance for a star with $g=19.5$ (kpc).}
797: \tablenotetext{d}{The Johnson $B-V$ color, computed for convenience from SDSS
798: photometry using transformations from Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2006a).}
799: \tablenotetext{e}{The absolute magnitude in the Johnson $V$ band, computed from $M_g$.}
800: \end{deluxetable}
801:
802: We now use the photometric metallicity estimator developed above to study the
803: stellar metallicity distribution as a function of position in the Galaxy and
804: stellar kinematics. We consider stars in a restricted color range, $0.2 < g-r <
805: 0.4$, because the redder stars ($0.4 < g-r < 0.6$) do not extend as far into the
806: halo (due to their smaller luminosities; Table 1). The small color range also
807: minimizes various selection effects that could be larger for a wider
808: color/luminosity range (such as uncertainties in the photometric parallax
809: relation and contamination by giants). As an additional motivation, in this
810: color range metallicity is nearly a function of the $u-g$ color alone
811: (eq.~\ref{ZphotomHighT} in Appendix C), which allows a simple assessment of the
812: impact of photometric errors in the $u$ band on derived metallicity. The adopted
813: $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$ color range spans about 10 MK spectral subtypes (from $\sim$F5
814: to $\sim$G5; Bailer-Jones et al. 1997, 1998). The median absolute magnitude in
815: this color range is $M_g=4.6$, with an rms scatter of 0.3 mag and a difference
816: of $\sim$2.2 mag in $M_g$ between the blue and red ends (for a fiducial
817: $[Fe/H]=-1$, see Table 1).
818:
819: We consider two photometric catalogs constructed using SDSS data. A catalog of
820: coadded repeated observations (10 on average; Ivezi\'{c} et al. 2007), known as
821: the SDSS Stripe 82 catalog, provides improved photometric accuracy to a fainter
822: flux limit in $\sim$300 deg$^2$ of sky. For example, while single-epoch SDSS
823: data deliver a median $u-g$ error of 0.06 mag at $g=19.5$ (for point sources
824: with $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$), the same level of accuracy is extended to beyond
825: $g=20.5$ in the coadded catalog. This allows us to study the metallicity
826: distribution all the way to the disk-halo interface, at several kpc from the
827: Galactic plane, with small metallicity errors. At the bright end, the random
828: errors in the $u-g$ error are 0.01 mag in the coadded catalog, and 0.025 mag in
829: single-epoch data (an error in the $u-g$ color of 0.02 mag induces a metallicity
830: error in $[Fe/H]$ that varies from 0.02 dex at $[Fe/H]=-0.5$ to 0.11 dex at
831: $[Fe/H]=-1.5$). This improvement in photometric metallicity accuracy by more
832: than a factor of two enables robust estimates of the metallicity distribution
833: width for disk stars. However, an important disadvantage of using the coadded
834: catalog is its very small sky coverage. Hence, we extend our study to a
835: significant fraction of the Galaxy by using a wide-area catalog based on
836: SDSS Data Release 6 (DR6 catalog, hereafter). This catalog covers an area $\sim$30
837: times larger than the deep coadded catalog, at the expense of a $\sim$1 mag
838: shallower sample.
839:
840: We begin our analysis with a discussion of the stellar distribution in the $g$
841: vs. $u-g$ color-magnitude diagram, which reveals several features that are
842: central to the conclusions of this paper. While this diagram maps well to a
843: distance vs. metallicity plane, as discussed in \S~\ref{metalDistrib} further
844: below, we choose to first describe these features using directly observed
845: quantities. When discussing positions of stars in the Milky Way, we use the
846: usual cylindrical coordinate system ($R, \phi, Z$) aligned with the Galactic
847: center (assumed to be at a distance of 8.0 kpc) and with the $Z$ axis towards the
848: north Galactic pole. For projections parallel to the Galactic plane, we follow
849: J08 and use right-handed $X$ and $Y$ coordinates, with the Sun at $X=8.0$ kpc
850: and the positive $Y$ axis pointing towards $l=270^\circ$.
851:
852:
853: \subsection{ The Bimodal $u-g$ Distribution of F/G Stars }
854:
855: \begin{figure*}
856: \plotone{f3.ps}
857: \caption{
858: The top left panel shows the distribution of stars (logarithm of counts in each
859: bin; low to high is blue to green to red) from the SDSS Stripe 82 catalog with
860: $0.2 < g-r <0.4$ in the $g$ vs. $u-g$
861: color-magnitude diagram. In this $g-r$ range, the $u-g$ color is a proxy for
862: metallicity (see eq.~\ref{ZphotomHighT} in Appendix C). The two concentrations
863: of stars correspond to disk ($u-g\sim1.1$) and halo ($u-g\sim0.9$) stars, with
864: the dashed lines indicating the change of the median $u-g$ color with magnitude
865: for each concentration. The $u-g$ color distributions in three magnitude slices,
866: marked by vertical bars in the top left panel, are shown in the bottom left
867: panel. All three histograms can be approximately described by a sum of two
868: $\sim$0.07 mag wide Gaussians centered on $u-g$=0.90 and 1.08, with the number
869: ratio of blue to red component increasing with magnitude from 1:7 to 20:1. For
870: detailed fits to the $u-g$ color distribution as a function of magnitude, see
871: Figure~\ref{panels3x}. The top right panel is analogous to the top left panel,
872: except that a complete imaging sample of stars is replaced by stars from the
873: SDSS spectroscopic survey. The spectroscopic sample is highly incomplete, as
874: evident from the patchy distribution. The bottom right panel shows the same
875: sample of stars from the spectroscopic survey, with the $u-g$ color replaced by
876: spectroscopic metallicity.}
877: \label{panels2}
878: \end{figure*}
879:
880: \begin{figure}
881: \plotone{f4.ps}
882: \caption{
883: The symbols with error bars show the $u-g$ color distributions in 0.5 mag wide
884: magnitude slices (see the top left panel in Figure~\ref{panels2}), in the range
885: $g=18-20.5$ (left) and $g=14.5-17.0$ (right). The bottom histograms correspond
886: to the brightest bin, and each histogram is successively offset by 2 for
887: clarity. The solid lines show the best-fit Gaussians, fit to data with
888: $u-g<0.95$ (left) and $u-g>1.0$ (right), to minimize contamination by disk and
889: halo stars, respectively. The best-fit parameters are listed in Table 2. The
890: dashed black lines are the same as the solid black lines, and are added to
891: illustrate the shift of histograms towards bluer colors for the faint bins. The
892: gradients of the $u-g$ color with respect to the $g$ magnitude are
893: $-0.006\pm0.002$ mag/mag (left) and $-0.012\pm0.002$ mag/mag (right). }
894: \label{panels3x}
895: \end{figure}
896:
897:
898: We selected 110,363 sources from $\sim$1.01 million entries in the Stripe 82
899: coadded catalog\footnote{This catalog is publicly available from http:
900: //www.sdss.org/dr6/products/value\_added/index.html.} by requiring at least 4
901: detections in the $u$ band, $0.20 < g-r < 0.40$ and $g<20.5$. These sources have
902: $|\delta_{J2000}|<$ 1.266$^\circ$ and right ascension in the range 20h 34m to 4h
903: 00m. For reference, Galactic coordinates, ($l$,$b$), are (46,$-$24), (96,$-$60)
904: and (190,$-$37) for $\alpha_{J2000}$=$-$50$^\circ$, 0$^\circ$ and 60$^\circ$ (at
905: $\delta_{J2000}$=0$^\circ$).
906:
907: The distribution of these stars in the $g$ vs. $u-g$ color-magnitude diagram is
908: shown in the top left panel of Figure~\ref{panels2}. Bright red ($g<18$,
909: $u-g\sim1.1$) and faint blue ($g>18$, $u-g\sim0.9$) features are clearly
910: discernible, and are roughly separated by the $u-g=1$ line (corresponding to
911: $[Fe/H] \sim -1.0$). The marginal $u-g$ distributions for three $g$ slices are
912: shown in the bottom left panel. They can be approximately described by a sum of
913: two $\sim$0.07 mag wide Gaussians centered on $u-g$=0.90 and 1.07, with the
914: number ratio of the blue to red component increasing with magnitude from 1:7 in
915: the blue bin to 20:1 in the red bin. The blue and red components correspond to
916: distant metal-poor halo stars, and more metal-rich and closer disk stars,
917: respectively, as discussed further below. The width of 0.07 mag is sufficiently
918: larger than the median error in the $u-g$ color (0.05 mag at $g$=20.5, 0.04 at
919: $g$=20, 0.02 at $g$=19 and 0.01 at $g$=17.5) to provide a robust measure of the
920: intrinsic width of the $u-g$ distribution.
921:
922: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
923: \tablenum{2} \tablecolumns{5}
924: \tablecaption{Best-fit Parameters for the Gaussians Shown in Fig.~\ref{panels3x}}
925: \tablehead{$g$ range$^a$ & N$^b$ & $\mu^c$ & $\sigma^d$ & $\mu$ error$^e$}
926: \startdata
927: 15.0--15.5 & 1,087 & 1.095 & 0.078 & 2.4 \\
928: 15.5--16.0 & 1,605 & 1.085 & 0.076 & 1.9 \\
929: 16.0--16.5 & 1,911 & 1.082 & 0.070 & 1.6 \\
930: 16.5--17.0 & 2,328 & 1.078 & 0.070 & 1.5 \\
931: 17.0--17.5 & 2,590 & 1.075 & 0.064 & 1.3 \\
932: 18.0--18.5 & 3,348 & 0.899 & 0.050 & 0.9 \\
933: 18.5--19.0 & 3,745 & 0.901 & 0.055 & 0.9 \\
934: 19.0--19.5 & 4,504 & 0.895 & 0.055 & 0.8 \\
935: 19.5--20.0 & 5,893 & 0.891 & 0.060 & 0.8 \\
936: 20.0--20.5 & 8,712 & 0.886 & 0.075 & 0.8 \\
937: \enddata
938: \tablenotetext{a}{The $g$ magnitude range.}
939: \tablenotetext{b}{The number of stars in the bin.}
940: \tablenotetext{c}{The best-fit mean $u-g$ color (only
941: data with $u-g>1.0$ are fit in the five brightest bins,
942: and data with $u-g<0.95$ in the five faintest bins (see
943: Figure~\ref{panels3x}).}
944: \tablenotetext{d}{The best-fit distribution width.}
945: \tablenotetext{e}{The statistical error in the mean (millimag).}
946: \end{deluxetable}
947:
948: In addition to an overall blueing of the median $u-g$ color towards the faint
949: end induced by the varying number ratio of the two components, {\it the median
950: $u-g$ color for each component also becomes bluer}, as illustrated in
951: Figure~\ref{panels3x} and summarized in Table 2. We measure gradients of
952: $-$0.012 mag/mag for the disk component\footnote{This gradient was accounted for
953: in the definition of the $s$ color by Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2004), but its meaning
954: was not understood at that time.} ($14.5 < g < 17$) and $-$0.006 mag/mag for the
955: halo component ($18 < g < 20.5$), with statistical errors of $\sim$0.002
956: mag/mag. Using an approximate mapping from magnitude to distance, these color
957: differences could be produced by a gradient of roughly 0.02 mag/kpc between $|Z|$
958: = 1 kpc and 2.5 kpc for disk stars, and 0.003 mag/kpc between $|Z|$ = 4 kpc and 10
959: kpc for halo stars. Hence, the color gradient {\it per kpc} is about 7 times
960: larger for disk stars.
961:
962: The detected color gradient cannot be caused by potential errors in the applied
963: corrections for interstellar extinction (Schlegel, Finkbeiner
964: \& Davis, 1998). The median value of the $u-g$ reddening correction
965: is only 0.05 mag, and even the closest stars (at 500 pc) are well beyond the
966: $\sim$100 pc thick dust layer (J08). Such a gradient ($\sim$0.05 mag between
967: $u=14$ and $u=19$) could be caused by a non-linearity in the $u$-band
968: measurements (based on a comparison with independently measured Stetson
969: standard stars, this effect is ruled out for the $g$-band measurements; Ivezi\'c
970: et al. 2007). However, a $u$-band non-linearity at the 0.05 mag level is
971: excluded by {\it in situ} measurements of the hardware response curve, and a
972: comparison of reductions of SDSS data using several different pipelines
973: (SExtractor, DAOPhot, and DoPhot; Becker et al. 2007) excludes such a large
974: software error in the SDSS photometric pipeline. We proceed with an assumption that
975: this gradient is not a problem in the SDSS data.
976:
977: For selected stars with $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$, the $u-g$ color measures metallicity
978: (see Appendix C), and the observed color scatter and color gradients correspond to
979: the metallicity distribution width and metallicity gradients. Because the
980: imaging sample is defined by a simple flux limit, these measurements
981: are relatively easy to interpret. On the contrary, the SDSS spectroscopic
982: sample has an extremely biased distribution (by design) in the $g$ vs. $u-g$
983: color-magnitude diagram, as illustrated in the two right panels of
984: Figure~\ref{panels2}; it would not be easy to derive a robust
985: selection function. Using eqs.~\ref{mainPP} and \ref{Zphotom}, we
986: find that the color gradients measured for the imaging sample roughly correspond
987: to a $\sim$0.06 dex/kpc metallicity gradient for disk stars at $|Z| \sim$1.5 kpc,
988: and a $\sim$0.01 dex/kpc for halo stars in the |Z|=4-10 kpc range (given the
989: distance and sky coordinates, the three-dimensional position in the Galaxy can
990: be trivially computed). In the remainder of this section we remap the $g$ vs.
991: $u-g$ color-magnitude diagram to a distance-metallicity diagram, discuss the
992: metallicity distribution as a function of the position in the Galaxy, develop a
993: model that captures the data behavior, and correlate the metallicity with the
994: observed stelar kinematics.
995:
996:
997: \subsection{ The Bimodal Metallicity Distribution of Thick Disk and Halo Stars }
998: \label{metalDistrib}
999:
1000: \begin{figure*}
1001: \plotone{f5.ps}
1002: \caption{
1003: The top left panel illustrates the dependence of the median photometric
1004: metallicity for $\sim$76,000 stars from the SDSS stripe 82 coadded photometric
1005: catalog with $14 < g < 20.5$, $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$ and photometric distance in the
1006: 0.5--10 kpc range, on cylindrical Galactic coordinates $R$ and $Z$. Note that
1007: the $Z$ gradient is much larger than the $R$ gradient ($\sim$0.1 dex/kpc vs.
1008: $<$0.01 dex/kpc). The top right panel shows the conditional metallicity
1009: probability distribution at a given distance from the Galactic plane for
1010: $\sim$34,000 stars with $0.5 < Z/{\rm kpc} < 7$ and $7 < R/{\rm kpc} < 9$ (the
1011: probability density is shown on a logarithmic scale, with its integral
1012: normalized to 1). The two concentrations of stars correspond to disk ($[Fe/H]
1013: \sim -0.7$) and halo ($[Fe/H] \sim -1.5$) stars. The difference between this map
1014: and a two-component Gaussian model described in
1015: \S~\ref{metalDistribModel} is shown in the bottom left panel with the
1016: same dynamic range for color coding as used in the top right panel.
1017: The residual feature visible around $[Fe/H] \sim -1.1$ and $Z\sim1$ kpc
1018: can be modeled either as a third Gaussian component, or by adopting
1019: a non-Gaussian metallicity distribution for the disk component.
1020: The residuals map for the former is shown in the bottom right panel.
1021: }
1022: \label{panels3}
1023: \end{figure*}
1024:
1025: Despite its small area, the Stripe 82 catalog covers a substantial range of $R$
1026: and $|Z|$, as shown in the top left panel in Figure~\ref{panels3}. As evident from
1027: the dependence of the median metallicity on $R$ and $|Z|$, the $|Z|$ gradient is
1028: much larger than the radial gradient (by about a factor of 10). Given this large
1029: difference in metallicity gradients, we proceed by making the assumption that
1030: the metallicity distribution is a function of the $Z$ coordinate only (in
1031: \S~\ref{subStruct} below, we critically examine and justify this assumption
1032: using the DR6 catalog). To further minimize the effect of any radial gradient,
1033: we constrain the sample to $\sim$34,000 stars with $7 < R/{\rm kpc} < 9$.
1034:
1035: The top right panel of Figure~\ref{panels3} shows the resulting conditional
1036: metallicity probability distribution for a given $Z$, $p([Fe/H]|Z)$. This
1037: distribution is computed as metallicity histograms in narrow $Z$ slices, and
1038: normalized by the total number of stars in a given slice. Apart from
1039: renormalization and the applied $7 < R/{\rm kpc} < 9$ selection, this is
1040: essentially an upside-down warped version of the $g$ vs. $u-g$ color-magnitude
1041: diagram shown in the top left panel of Figure~\ref{panels2}. The bright red and
1042: faint blue components from Figure~\ref{panels2} are now readily identifiable as
1043: the relatively close metal-rich disk component, and the more distant metal-poor halo
1044: component, respectively.
1045:
1046:
1047: \subsection{ A Simple Model for the Conditional Metallicity Probability Distribution}
1048: \label{metalDistribModel}
1049:
1050: \begin{figure}
1051: \plotone{f6.ps}
1052: \caption{
1053: The symbols show the number ratio of stars with $[Fe/H]<-1$ relative to those with
1054: $[Fe/H]>-1$, for stars with 7 kpc $<R<$ 9 kpc (with the ratio labeled on the
1055: right y axis). Beyond $Z\sim2.5$ kpc, metal-poor stars dominate the counts. The
1056: solid line passing through the symbols is a three-parameter best fit used in
1057: modeling the conditional metallicity probability distribution (equal to
1058: $1/(1+70\eta)$, with $\eta=\exp(-|Z/240 {\rm pc}|^{0.62})$). The short-dashed
1059: line is a prediction for the halo-to-disk counts ratio based on a best-fit
1060: Galaxy model to stellar counts from Juri\'{c} et al. (2008). The model includes
1061: an oblate power-law halo, and exponential thin and thick disks (see
1062: \S~\ref{J08}). The disk contribution to the counts is shown by the dotted line (with
1063: the ln(counts) labeled on the left y axis), and the long-dashed line shows the
1064: halo contribution. The sum of disk and halo contributions is shown by the solid
1065: line.}
1066: \label{Zcounts}
1067: \end{figure}
1068:
1069: As is evident from the $p([Fe/H]|Z)$ map shown in the top right panel of Figure~\ref{panels3},
1070: the $Z$ gradient of the median metallicity map shown in the top left panel of
1071: Figure~\ref{panels3} is due to the varying contributions of a metal-rich disk
1072: component and a metal-poor halo component. We first attempt to model
1073: the $p([Fe/H]|Z)$ map using two Gaussian components with a $Z$-dependent
1074: ratio of their area (components' number ratio)
1075: \begin{eqnarray}
1076: \label{metModel}
1077: p(x=[Fe/H]|Z) = (1-f_H) & & G(x|\mu_D, \sigma_D) \\ \nonumber
1078: + f_H & & G(x|\mu_H, \sigma_H),
1079: \end{eqnarray}
1080: where
1081: \begin{equation}
1082: G(x|\mu,\sigma) = {1 \over \sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma} {\rm e}^{- (x-\mu)^2 \over 2 \sigma^2}.
1083: \end{equation}
1084: The distribution width for both components can be modeled as spatially
1085: invariant, $\sigma_D=0.16$ dex, and $\sigma_H=0.30$ dex, as is the case for
1086: the median halo metallicity, $\mu_H=-1.46$. The median and dispersion for
1087: metallicity distribution of halo stars is in good agreement with previous
1088: work (e.g., Ryan \& Norris 1991). Due to the small errors in the $u-g$ color
1089: for the coadded data, the contribution of measurement errors to $\sigma_D$ and
1090: $\sigma_H$ is very small: the implied intrinsic widths are 0.16 dex and
1091: 0.29 dex, respectively.
1092:
1093: Inspection of the $p([Fe/H]|Z)$ map suggests that the variation of the median
1094: metallicity for the disk component\footnote{An obvious question is whether the
1095: observed variation of the median metallicity for the disk component simply reflects the varying
1096: contributions of thin- and thick-disk stars. This question in addressed in
1097: detail in \S~\ref{TvsT}.} in the $0.5 < |Z|/{\rm kpc} < 5$ range can be
1098: described as
1099: \begin{equation}
1100: \label{muD}
1101: \mu_D(Z) = \mu_\infty + \Delta_\mu \,\exp(-|Z|/H_\mu) \,\, {\rm dex},
1102: \end{equation}
1103: with the best-fit values $H_\mu=1.0$ kpc, $\mu_\infty=-0.78$ and
1104: $\Delta_\mu=0.35$. The best fit is shown by the curved dashed line in the top
1105: right panel in Figure~\ref{panels3}. The exponential ``height'', $H_\mu$,
1106: is constrained to only about 50\% due to covariances with $\mu_\infty$ and
1107: $\Delta_\mu$ (which are constrained to about 0.05 dex). The implied median
1108: metallicity values agree well with a value of $-0.7$ obtained by Gilmore
1109: \& Wyse (1985) (they did not detect a metallicity gradient).
1110:
1111: The best-fit $\mu_D(Z)$ given by eq.~\ref{muD} is valid only for $|Z|>500$ pc
1112: because of the sample bright limit. Close to the plane, the mean and
1113: rms scatter of the metallicity distribution are $-0.14$ and 0.19 for F/G-
1114: type dwarfs (Nordstr\"{o}m et al. 2004; Allende Prieto et al. 2004), and
1115: $-0.12$ and 0.18 for
1116: K-type giants (Girardi \& Salaris 2001), respectively. Hence, the vertical metallicity
1117: gradient close to the plane must be larger than $\sim0.35$ dex/kpc implied
1118: by the {\it extrapolation} of eq.~\ref{muD} (because stars on average become
1119: more metal poor by about 0.5 dex between $Z=0$ and $|Z|=1$ kpc).
1120:
1121: To set the relative normalization of the two Gaussians, $f_H(Z)$, we
1122: approximately separate halo and disk components by isolating stars
1123: with $[Fe/H] < -1.1$ and $[Fe/H] > -0.9$, respectively. A good description of
1124: the data, shown by symbols in Figure~\ref{Zcounts}, is provided by a best-fit
1125: function with three free parameters
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: \label{fH}
1128: f_H(Z) = {1 \over 1 + a \exp[-(|Z|/b)^c]},
1129: \end{equation}
1130: with $a=70$, $b=240$ pc, and $c=0.62$. We discuss this function further
1131: in \S~\ref{J08}.
1132:
1133:
1134: \subsubsection{The ``metal-weak thick disk'': a third Gaussian component or
1135: a non-Gaussian Distribution? }
1136: \label{thirdGauss}
1137:
1138: \begin{figure*}
1139: \plotone{f7.ps}
1140: \caption{
1141: The symbols with error bars show the measured photometric metallicity distribution
1142: for stars with $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$, 7 kpc $<R<$ 9 kpc, and distance from
1143: the Galactic plane in the range 0.8--1.2 kpc (top left, $\sim$6,200 stars),
1144: 1.5--2.0 kpc (top right, $\sim$3,800 stars), 3.0--4.0 kpc (bottom left,
1145: $\sim$2,800 stars) and 5.0--7.0 kpc (bottom right, $\sim$6,000 stars).
1146: The histograms are essentially horizontal (parallel to $x$ axis) slices
1147: at corresponding $|Z|$ intervals through the map shown in the top right panel
1148: of Figure~\ref{panels3}. The dashed magenta lines show a best-fit
1149: two-component, halo plus disk, model. The blue lines show the halo
1150: contribution, modeled as a single Gaussian, and the red lines show the
1151: contribution of a non-Gaussian disk model, modeled as a sum of two
1152: Gaussians shown by the green lines. See \S~\ref{thirdGauss} and Table 3
1153: for the best-fit parameters.}
1154: \label{Zhist}
1155: \end{figure*}
1156:
1157:
1158: The difference between the data and a two-Gaussian model described above is
1159: shown in the bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{panels3}. As is evident, the
1160: overall behavior of the two dominant components is captured, but the residual
1161: map reveals a feature that contains intermediate-metallicity stars
1162: ($[Fe/H]\sim-1.0$) within $\sim$2-3 kpc from the plane. This feature includes
1163: about 5\% of stars in the sample and is reminiscent of the so-called
1164: ``metal-weak thick disk'' (Morrison, Flynn \& Freeman 1990; Chiba \& Beers 2000;
1165: Beers et al. 2002). Indeed, it can be satisfactory modeled as a third Gaussian
1166: component with $\mu=-1.0$, $\sigma=0.10$ dex and a strength of 20\% relative to
1167: the metal-rich component, as illustrated by the smooth residual map shown in the
1168: bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{panels3}.
1169:
1170: An alternative to postulating a third Gaussian component for eq.~\ref{metModel}
1171: is to adopt a skewed metallicity distribution for the disk component whose shape
1172: need not vary with the distance from the plane (i.e., replacing $G(x|\mu_D,
1173: \sigma_D)$ with a non-Gaussian distribution). A skewed shape for the metallicity
1174: distribution of local F/G dwarfs was also measured by Gilmore, Wyse \& Jones
1175: (1995), but with an overall offset of $\sim$0.5 dex towards higher metallicity,
1176: as would be expected compared to our data at $|Z|=1$ kpc.
1177:
1178: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}
1179: \tablenum{3} \tablecolumns{8} \tablewidth{5in}
1180: \tablecaption{Best-fit Parameters for $p([Fe/H]|Z)$, Shown in Fig.~\ref{Zhist}}
1181: \tablehead{$|Z|$ range$^a$ & $\langle |Z| \rangle^b$ & N$^c$ & $f_H^d$ & $f_H^e$ & $f_H^f$ & $\mu_H^g$ & $\sigma_H^h$}
1182: \startdata
1183: 0.8--1.2 & 0.98 & 6,187 & 0.08 & 0.14 & 0.09 & -1.46 & 0.30 \\
1184: 1.5--2.0 & 1.72 & 3,842 & 0.24 & 0.30 & 0.26 & -1.46 & 0.30 \\
1185: 3.0--4.0 & 3.47 & 2,792 & 0.71 & 0.73 & 0.73 & -1.40 & 0.30 \\
1186: 5.0--7.0 & 5.79 & 6,025 & 0.97 & 0.95 & 0.95 & -1.52 & 0.32 \\
1187: \enddata
1188: \tablenotetext{a}{The $|Z|$ range for each bin (kpc).}
1189: \tablenotetext{b}{The median $|Z|$ in each bin (kpc).}
1190: \tablenotetext{c}{The number of stars in the corresponding bin.}
1191: \tablenotetext{d}{The halo-to-disk number ratio predicted by the J08 best-fit model (see \S~\ref{J08}).}
1192: \tablenotetext{e}{The halo-to-disk number ratio predicted by eq.~\ref{fH}.}
1193: \tablenotetext{f}{The best-fit halo-to-disk number ratio. The halo parameters
1194: are only weakly constrained in the first bin.}
1195: \tablenotetext{g}{The best-fit mean metallicity for the halo component.}
1196: \tablenotetext{h}{The best-fit distribution width for the halo component.}
1197: \end{deluxetable*}
1198:
1199: A quantitative validation of such a universal shape for the disk metallicity
1200: distribution is shown in Figure~\ref{Zhist}. In each $Z$ slice that shows
1201: evidence for the disk component, the shape of its skewed metallicity distribution
1202: can be modeled\footnote{We attempted to fit this skewed distribution using a
1203: log-normal distribution, but the detailed shape could not be reproduced.} as a
1204: sum of two Gaussians with fixed positions relative to each other (offset of 0.14
1205: dex), fixed widths (0.21 dex for the more metal-poor component, and 0.11 dex for
1206: the other), and fixed relative normalization (1.7-to-1 number ratio in favor of
1207: the more metal-poor component). The values of these four parameters were
1208: obtained by {\it simultaneously} fitting the four histograms shown in
1209: Figure~\ref{Zhist}, with the position of the disk distribution fixed at values
1210: computed from eq.~\ref{muD} (the difference between the median given by
1211: eq.~\ref{muD} and the mean for the more metal-poor disk Gaussian is 0.067 dex).
1212: The halo parameter $f_H$ was initially estimated using eq.~\ref{fH}, while
1213: $\mu_H=-1.46$ and $\sigma_H=0.30$ were kept constant. A few minor adjustments to
1214: these three parameters, listed in Table 3, improved the fits. The most notable
1215: change is a shift of the halo metallicity distribution by $\pm$0.06 dex for
1216: $Z>3$ kpc.
1217:
1218: The best-fit values of $f_H$ from Table 3 are consistent with eq.~\ref{fH}. By
1219: retaining that function, and adopting the above $Z$-independent two-Gaussian
1220: shape description for the disk component, we obtain a residual map that is
1221: indistinguishable from that obtained using a third Gaussian component. Hence, we
1222: conclude that either hypothesis can explain the data. While both are formally
1223: based on three Gaussian components, the ``universal shape'' hypothesis
1224: demonstrates that the data do not require the second disk Gaussian to be
1225: independent of the first.
1226:
1227: It is tempting to identify the two Gaussians that describe the disk component
1228: with the thin- and thick-disk contributions. However, the fits presented above
1229: are inconsistent with this interpretation. The double-exponential best-fit to
1230: observed spatial profile (with scale heights of 245 pc and 743 pc, and a
1231: relative normalization of 0.13, see \S~\ref{J08} and Figure~\ref{Zcounts}) imply
1232: that the ratio of thick-to-thin disk stars should strongly vary from 1.9 in the
1233: $Z=0.8-1.2$ kpc bin to 14 in the $Z=1.5-2.0$ kpc bin, and $>1000$ in the
1234: $Z=3.0-4.0$ kpc bin. Yet, the metallicity distributions admit a fit based on a
1235: {\it constant normalization ratio} for the two Gaussian components. Of course,
1236: this fitting success alone does not necessarily prove that traditional
1237: decomposition into two fixed distributions with a varying normalization ratio is
1238: inconsistent with the data. We return to the problem of distinguishing these two
1239: hypotheses, which have very different implications for galaxy formation and
1240: evolution theories, when discussing correlations with kinematics further below
1241: (\S~\ref{TvsT}).
1242:
1243:
1244:
1245: \subsubsection{The Effects of Systematic Errors on the Photometric Parallax Relation}
1246: \label{sysErr}
1247:
1248: Various systematic errors in the metallicity and distance estimates affect the
1249: best-fit models for the metallicity distribution described above. The main
1250: sources of systematic errors in the adopted photometric parallax relation are
1251: binarity effects (age effects can contribute at most 0.2 mag systematic
1252: uncertainty in absolute magnitude at the median color of the sample, $g-r=0.3$,
1253: and $\sim$0.1 mag at $g-r=0.4$; see Appendix A). As discussed in detail by J08,
1254: binarity effects are expected to decrease the inferred distances and disk
1255: exponential scale height by about 15\%. The impact of binarity on the metallicity
1256: determination is hard to estimate without detailed knowledge of both the incidence
1257: of binaries and their mass ratio distributions. By performing simulations
1258: similar to those described by J08, we find that the worst-case scenario is a
1259: system consisting of a luminous low-metallicity primary with $u-g=0.8$ and
1260: $g-r=0.2$, and a secondary with $u-g \sim 1.0$ and $g-r=0.5$ (the redder
1261: secondaries are too faint to have a larger impact). When such a system is (mis)
1262: interpreted as a single star, the distance is underestimated by 15\%, the
1263: effective temperature is underestimated by $\sim$240 K, and the metallicity is
1264: overestimated by $\sim$0.2 dex. For components that have mass ratios closer
1265: to unity (as suggested by, e.g., Reid et al. 2002), the bias in metallicity will
1266: be much smaller, while the bias in distance estimates can increase up to
1267: $\sim$40\%.
1268:
1269:
1270:
1271:
1272: \subsubsection{The Edge of the Thick Disk at $|Z|\sim5$ kpc? }
1273:
1274: Using photographic data for 250 stars, Majewski (1992) advocated an ``edge'' of
1275: the Galactic thick disk at about 5.5 kpc above the Galactic plane. Indeed, the
1276: map of conditional metallicity distribution shown in the top right panel of
1277: Figure~\ref{panels3} suggests a tantalizing possibility that the metal-rich
1278: component does not extend beyond 4--5 kpc from the plane. This visual impression
1279: is addressed quantitatively by the histogram shown in the bottom right panel of
1280: Figure~\ref{Zhist}. The extrapolation of the disk component to the 5--7 kpc bin
1281: predicts that the disk should be detectable as a factor of $\sim$2 excess around
1282: $[Fe/H]\sim-0.8$, on top of the underlying halo distribution. Such an excess
1283: seems consistent with the data, and argues against a cutoff in the distribution
1284: of disk stars. Due to the small sample size ($\sim$4,800 stars), the noise is
1285: large and the significance of this excess is not overwhelming. Even when the $7
1286: < R/{\rm kpc} < 9$ constraint is removed, the $5 < |Z|/{\rm kpc} < 7$ subsample
1287: is still too small ($\sim$8,600 stars) to significantly overcome counting noise.
1288:
1289: We conclude that Stripe 82 catalog is not sufficiently large to convincingly
1290: demonstrate the lack of an edge in the distribution of disk stars. We improve
1291: the statistical power of this analysis by using a $\sim$30 times larger sky
1292: coverage provided by the DR6 catalog, as discussed below.
1293:
1294:
1295: \subsubsection{ A comparison with results from Juri\'{c} et al. (2008) }
1296: \label{J08}
1297:
1298: The expression given by eq.~\ref{fH} is only a convenient fit that involves a
1299: small number of free parameters. The halo-to-disk number ratio, $f_H$, depends
1300: on the disk and halo spatial profiles, both of which are usually modeled using
1301: numerous free parameters. As discussed by J08, a unique solution is not possible
1302: without a large sky coverage, and even in such a case it is difficult to obtain.
1303: Nevertheless, we can test whether the data for $f_H$ discussed here are {\it
1304: consistent} with the best-fit spatial profiles obtained by J08, {\it which do not
1305: incorporate metallicity information}.
1306:
1307: J08 show that the stellar number density distribution, $\rho(R,Z,\phi)$
1308: can be well described (apart from local overdensities) as a sum of two
1309: cylindrically symmetric components
1310: \begin{equation}
1311: \rho(R,Z,\phi) = \rho_D(R,Z) + \rho_H(R,Z).
1312: \end{equation}
1313: The disk component can be modeled as a sum of two exponential disks
1314: \begin{eqnarray}
1315: \rho_D(R,Z)&=&\rho_D(R_\odot,0) [{\rm e}^{-|Z+Z_\odot|/H_1-(R-R_\odot)/L_1} \\ \nonumber
1316: & & + \epsilon_D {\rm e}^{-|Z+Z_\odot|/H_2-(R-R_\odot)/L_2} ],
1317: \end{eqnarray}
1318: while the halo component requires an oblate power-law model
1319: \begin{equation}
1320: \rho_H(R,Z)= \rho_D(R_\odot,0)\,\epsilon_H\, \left({R_\odot^2 \over R^2 + (Z/q_H)^2}\right)^{n_H/2}.
1321: \end{equation}
1322: The best-fit parameters are discussed in detail by J08. We have adopted
1323: the following values for parameters relevant in this work (second column in
1324: Table 10 from J08): $Z_\odot$=25 pc, $H_1=245$ pc, $H_2=743$ pc,
1325: $\epsilon_D=0.13$, $\epsilon_H=0.0051$, $q_H=0.64$, and $n_H=2.77$.
1326:
1327: The fraction of halo stars implied by this model,
1328: \begin{equation}
1329: f_H(R,Z) = {\rho_H(R,Z) \over \rho_D(R,Z) + \rho_H(R,Z)},
1330: \end{equation}
1331: agrees reasonably well with $f_H$ determined here (see Figure~\ref{Zcounts})
1332: {\it without any modification}. Given that J08 determined their
1333: best-fit parameters using counts at $Z\ga10$ kpc and that the adopted photometric parallax
1334: relations are somewhat different, this agreement is remarkable. The
1335: short-dashed line representing the J08 model in
1336: Figure~\ref{Zcounts} can be brought into essentially perfect agreement
1337: with the data points by decreasing $H_1$ and $H_2$ by 4\% of
1338: their values (i.e., by much less than their uncertainty, 20\%, quoted by J08).
1339: Alternatively, data points can be moved closer to the J08 model by increasing
1340: halo normalization by 24\%, to $\epsilon_H=0.0063$ ($\sim 1\sigma$ change).
1341: Hence, the results presented here validate the best-fit model from J08.
1342:
1343: The best-fit model for stellar counts provides the useful guidance that the counts
1344: of thin- and thick-disk stars become equal around $|Z|\sim1$ kpc, and that the
1345: counts of disk and halo stars become equal around $|Z|\sim2.5$ kpc. At the
1346: bright end of the sample (500 pc), thin-disk stars contribute $\sim$70\% of
1347: stars to the disk component (with a halo contribution of $\sim$1\%); at the
1348: faint end (5 kpc), halo stars contribute $\sim$90\% of the sample. Hence, the
1349: SDSS imaging data are well suited for studying the metallicity distribution all the
1350: way from thin disk to halo, through the thick-disk transition, using an essentially
1351: complete flux-limited sample of numerous main-sequence stars.
1352:
1353:
1354: \subsection{ Analysis of the Large Area SDSS Data Release 6 Sample }
1355:
1356: \begin{figure*}
1357: \plotone{f8.ps}
1358: \caption{The dependence of the median photometric metallicity for $\sim$2.5
1359: million stars from SDSS Data Release 6 with $14.5 < r < 20$, $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$,
1360: and photometric distance in the 0.8--9 kpc range, in cylindrical
1361: Galactic coordinates $R$ and $|Z|$ (compare to the top left panel of
1362: Figure~\ref{panels3}). There are $\sim$40,000 pixels (50 pc $\times$ 50 pc)
1363: contained in this map, with a minimum of 5 stars per pixel and a median of 33
1364: stars. Note that the gradient of the median metallicity is essentially parallel
1365: to the $|Z|$ axis, except in the Monoceros stream region, as marked. }
1366: \label{pretty}
1367: \end{figure*}
1368:
1369:
1370: \begin{figure*}
1371: \plotone{f9.ps}
1372: \caption{
1373: The top left panel is analogous to Figure~\ref{pretty}, except that only 1.1
1374: million stars with $[Fe/H]>-0.9$ are used to compute the median $[Fe/H]$ (and
1375: the display stretch is harder, as indicated in the panel). Note a coherent feature
1376: at $R\sim10$ kpc and $Z\sim3$ kpc. Its extent parallel to the Galactic plane is
1377: shown in the top right panel, which shows the median metallicity for stars with
1378: $2.5 < Z/{\rm kpc} < 3.5$ (note the shifted color map). The bottom left panel
1379: shows the conditional metallicity probability distribution for $\sim$300,000
1380: stars from a cylinder perpendicular to the Galactic plane, centered on the Sun,
1381: and with a radius of 1 kpc. The dashed lines are the same fiducials as shown in
1382: the top right panel of Figure~\ref{panels3}. The bottom right panel shows the
1383: median $v_Y$ velocity component (heliocentric; the value of $\sim$220 km/s
1384: corresponds to no rotation) as a function of metallicity and distance from the
1385: Galactic plane for $\sim$41,000 stars with $Z<7$ kpc and $b>80^\circ$ (see the
1386: dashed lines in the top left panel). Note the coherent feature with slightly
1387: larger $\langle v_Y \rangle$ (by $\sim$ 20-30 km/s) at $[Fe/H]\sim -0.6$ and
1388: $Z\sim 6.5$ kpc.}
1389: \label{panels6}
1390: \end{figure*}
1391:
1392: SDSS Data Release 6 provides photometry for $\sim$300 million objects detected
1393: over $\sim$10,000 sq.deg. of sky. Using selection criteria listed in
1394: \S~\ref{sample}, and additionally requiring $0.2<g-r<0.4$ and distances in the
1395: 0.5-12 kpc range, we selected 2.53 million stars (the extended $0.2<g-r<0.6$
1396: color range includes 5.7 million stars). The significantly increased sky
1397: coverage comes at the expense of photometric metallicity precision: for
1398: metal-rich disk stars random errors increase from 0.05 dex at a distance of 1
1399: kpc to 0.12 dex at 4 kpc, and for metal-poor halo stars they increase from 0.20
1400: dex at 4 kpc to 0.36 dex at 7 kpc (about 3 times as large as for the coadded data
1401: discussed above).
1402:
1403: The median metallicity map shown in Figure~\ref{pretty} is analogous to that
1404: shown in Figure~\ref{panels3} except for the significantly larger sky coverage.
1405: The conclusion about the vertical metallicity gradient being much stronger than
1406: the radial gradient remains valid. The strong $Z$ gradient is a result of the
1407: low-metallicity halo component becoming dominant at $Z$ beyond $\sim$3 kpc. The
1408: only deviation from this overall trend is seen in the region associated with the
1409: Monoceros Stream (see \S~\ref{metalMon} for a detailed discussion).
1410:
1411: An analogous map constructed using only stars with $[Fe/H]>-0.9$ is shown in
1412: the top left panel of Figure~\ref{panels6}. While it also displays a much
1413: stronger gradient in $Z$ direction, a local maximum with an amplitude of
1414: $\sim$0.1 dex is discernible at $R\sim10$ kpc and at $\sim$2.5-3.5 kpc above the
1415: plane. The $X-Y$ median metallicity map for this $Z$ slice, shown in the top
1416: right panel of Figure~\ref{panels6}, places this maximum at $X\sim10$ kpc and
1417: $Y\sim-2$ kpc. We address such localized metallicity inhomogeneities further
1418: below (\S~\ref{subStruct}).
1419:
1420: The conditional metallicity distribution for DR6 stars within from a solar cylinder
1421: having a radius of 1 kpc is shown in the bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{panels6}.
1422: As evident, there is a close resemblance between the conditional
1423: metallicity distribution map constructed using the Stripe 82 catalog
1424: (Figure~\ref{panels3}) and the map based on the DR6 catalog. The best-fit
1425: parameters listed in Table 3 that describe the histograms shown in
1426: Figure~\ref{Zhist} are consistent with the DR6 map, when the increased
1427: measurement errors are taken into account (disk and halo components are
1428: convolved with 0.10 dex and 0.20 dex wide Gaussians, respectively).
1429:
1430:
1431:
1432: \subsubsection{The Edge of the Thick Disk Revisited}
1433: \label{diskEdge}
1434:
1435: \begin{figure}
1436: \plotone{f10.ps}
1437: \caption{The black histogram shows the photometric metallicity
1438: distribution for $\sim$295,000 stars with $3 < R/{\rm kpc} < 12$ and $5 < |Z|/{\rm
1439: kpc} < 7$ (compare to the bottom right panel in Figure~\ref{Zhist}). The dashed
1440: red line is a Gaussian with a width of 0.41 dex (implying an intrinsic width of
1441: 0.32 dex), centered on $[Fe/H]=-1.45$, and an area of 0.92. The difference
1442: between the observed distribution and this Gaussian is shown by the blue line,
1443: and presumably corresponds to disk stars. The small peak around $[Fe/H]=-0.5$ is
1444: likely an artifact of the photometric metallicity estimation method. }
1445: \label{diskCutoff}
1446: \end{figure}
1447:
1448:
1449: The large number of stars in the DR6 sample enables a statistically robust analysis
1450: of the suspected cutoff in the distribution of thick-disk stars around
1451: $|Z|\sim5$ kpc. Figure~\ref{diskCutoff} shows the metallicity distribution of
1452: $\sim$295,000 stars with $3 < R/{\rm kpc} < 12$ and $5 < Z/{\rm kpc} < 7$. When
1453: a best-fit Gaussian is subtracted from the observed distribution, a highly
1454: significant residual at $[Fe/H]>-1$ remains. This residual feature contains
1455: about 8\% of the stars ($\sim$24,000, so counting noise is not an issue) and
1456: suggests that, even so far away from the plane, stars with $[Fe/H]>-0.7$ are
1457: dominated by disk stars (the disk-to-halo number ratio is about 2:1). The value
1458: of 8\% is in excellent agreement with the model discussed in \S~\ref{J08} (8.8\%
1459: at $Z=6$ kpc). An alternative interpretation is that halo metallicity
1460: distribution is not Gaussian, but skewed towards high $[Fe/H]>-1$ values, with a
1461: disk cutoff at $|Z|\la5$ kpc. Given the remarkable agreement with a Gaussian for
1462: $[Fe/H] < -1.1$, it seems more likely that disk is indeed traceable to beyond 5
1463: kpc from the plane.
1464:
1465: The small peak in the observed metallicity distribution visible around
1466: $[Fe/H]=-0.5$ is probably an artifact of the photometric metallicity estimator.
1467: As discussed in \S~\ref{sample} and \S~\ref{metalSec}, stars with $[Fe/H] >
1468: -0.5$ may be biased towards somewhat lower metallicity values, which may explain the
1469: observed (minor) effect.
1470:
1471:
1472:
1473: \subsubsection{The Metallicity--Kinematics Maps for Stars around the North Galactic Pole}
1474:
1475: \begin{figure*}
1476: \plotone{f11.ps}
1477: \caption{
1478: The dependence of $v_Y$ (heliocentric rotational velocity component) on distance from
1479: the plane, $|Z|$, for $\sim18,000$ high-metallicity ($[Fe/H]>-0.9$, top left) and
1480: $\sim40,000$ low-metallicity ($[Fe/H]<-1.1$, top right) stars with $b>80^\circ$.
1481: In the top two panels individual stars are shown by small dots, and the medians
1482: in bins of $Z$ are shown by large symbols. The 2$\sigma$ envelope around the
1483: medians is shown by dashed lines. The bottom two panels compare the medians
1484: (left) and dispersion (right) for the two subsamples shown in the top panels
1485: (dots for low-metallicity and triangles for high-metallicity subsamples).
1486: The horizontal dashed line at $v_Y$=220 km/s in the bottom left panel is
1487: added to guide the eye. The other two dashed lines in the bottom left panel
1488: are best fits to the observed $v_Y(|Z|)$ for high-metallicity stars (see text).
1489: The open symbols in the bottom right panel show the median random velocity
1490: measurement errors (circles for low-metallicity and triangles for
1491: high-metallicity subsamples),
1492: and the two dashed lines are best fits to the observed increase of velocity
1493: dispersion with $|Z|$. They assume that the intrinsic halo velocity dispersion is
1494: constant, $\sigma_Y$=90 km/s, and that the intrinsic disk velocity dispersion
1495: increases as $\sigma_Y=26+10\,|Z|/{\rm kpc}$ (km/s).}
1496: \label{FigVvsZ}
1497: \end{figure*}
1498:
1499:
1500: Kinematic measurements can offer additional insight into Galactic components
1501: revealed by the metallicity distribution. The sky coverage of the DR6 catalog
1502: includes the anticenter ($l\sim180^\circ$, AC hereafter) and north Galactic pole
1503: (NGP hereafter) regions, where proper motion measurements provide a robust
1504: constraint on the rotational velocity component even without knowledge of
1505: radial velocity. We take proper motion measurements from the Munn et al. (2004)
1506: catalog based on astrometric measurements from SDSS and a collection of Schmidt
1507: photographic surveys. {\it The proper motion measurements publicly available as
1508: a part of SDSS DR6 are known to have significant systematic errors (Munn et al.,
1509: in prep.). Here we use a revised set of proper motion measurements which will
1510: become publicly available as a part of SDSS DR7.}
1511:
1512: Despite the sizable random and systematic astrometric errors in the Schmidt
1513: surveys, the combination of a long baseline ($\sim$$50$~years for POSS-I
1514: survey), and a recalibration of the photographic data using positions of SDSS
1515: galaxies, results in median random errors for proper motions of only
1516: $\sim3$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ (per component) for $g<19.5$. Systematic errors are
1517: typically an order of magnitude smaller, as robustly determined by B08 using
1518: $\sim$80,000 spectroscopically confirmed SDSS quasars from Schneider et al.
1519: (2007). At a distance of 1 kpc, a random error of 3~mas~yr$^{-1}$ corresponds to
1520: a velocity error of $\sim$15 km/s, which is comparable to the radial velocity
1521: accuracy delivered by the SDSS stellar spectroscopic survey. At a distance of 7
1522: kpc, a random error of 3~mas~yr$^{-1}$ corresponds to a velocity error of 100
1523: km/s, which still represents a usable measurement for large samples, given that
1524: the systematic errors are much smaller ($\sim$10 km/s at a distance of 7 kpc). The
1525: faint limit of this catalog ($g\sim20$) is well matched to the depth of the SDSS
1526: photometric metallicity sample, and thus proper motion measurements are
1527: available for more than 90\% of the $0.2 < g-r< 0.4$ sample. The kinematics of
1528: the SDSS stellar sample, including the mutual consistency of kinematics based on
1529: radial velocity and proper motion measurements, are discussed in detail by B08.
1530: Here we briefly present a few results that are directly related to the
1531: conclusions of this paper.
1532:
1533: For stars towards the Galactic poles, the proper motion measures the radial and
1534: rotational velocity components. We select 55,429 unresolved sources closer than
1535: 10 kpc with $0.2 < g-r< 0.4$ and $b>80^\circ$ from SDSS DR6. We use the $v_X$ and
1536: $v_Y$ velocity notation to emphasize the spatially constrained nature of this
1537: sample, and to make a distinction from velocity components computed using a
1538: measured radial velocity; in these directions, $v_X \sim v_R$ and $v_Y \sim
1539: v_\Phi$. We do not correct velocities for the solar motion relative to the Local
1540: Standard of Rest (LSR; $v_X^\odot = -10.0\pm0.4$ km/s, $v_Y^\odot = -5.3\pm0.6$ km/s;
1541: and $v_Z^\odot = 7.2\pm0.4$ km/s; Dehnen \& Binney 1998). Therefore, the mean
1542: value of $v_Y$ for a non-rotating population is $v_Y = -v_Y^\odot + v_Y^{LSR}
1543: \sim 225$ km/s, where $v_Y^{LSR} \sim 220$ km/s is the rotational velocity of
1544: the local standard of rest (Gunn, Knapp \& Tremaine 1979).
1545:
1546: The median heliocentric rotational velocity component as a function of
1547: metallicity and distance from the Galactic plane in shown in the bottom right
1548: panel of Figure~\ref{panels6}. The detailed kinematic behavior shows the same
1549: two halo and disk components as implied by the metallicity distribution. The
1550: high-metallicity disk component at $[Fe/H]>-1$ and $Z<3$ kpc lags the local
1551: rotation by up to $\la$100 km/s, while the low-metallicity halo component at
1552: $[Fe/H]<-1$ and $Z>3$ kpc has $\langle v_Y \rangle \sim 200$ km/s. This strong
1553: metallicity-kinematic correlation is qualitatively the same as discussed in the
1554: seminal paper by Eggen, Lynden-Bell \& Sandage (1962), except that here it is
1555: reproduced {\it in situ} with a $\sim$100 times larger, nearly-complete sample,
1556: extending it beyond the solar neighborhood.
1557:
1558: The variation of the median $v_Y$ as a function of distance from the Galactic
1559: plane is shown separately for high-metallicity ($[Fe/H]>-0.9$) and
1560: low-metallicity ($[Fe/H]<-1.1$) subsamples in Figure~\ref{FigVvsZ}. The median
1561: $v_Y$ for $\sim$40,000 low-metallicity stars is 205 km/s. The systematic
1562: velocity uncertainty, set by the systematic distance and proper motion errors,
1563: is about 10-20 km/s. Therefore, this measurement implies that the halo does not
1564: rotate at that level of accuracy, in contradiction with a result based on
1565: similar type of analysis (proper motions and photometric parallax) by Majewski
1566: (1992), that the halo counter-rotates with a speed of $-55 \pm 16$ km/s relative
1567: to the LSR (based on a sample of a few hundred stars towards the north Galactic
1568: pole). In order to make our $v_Y$ for halo stars agree with Majewski's result,
1569: the distance scale given by photometric parallax relation needs to be increased
1570: by 25\% ($\sim$0.5 mag offset in absolute magnitude scale), which is unlikely
1571: (see Appendix A). An alternative explanation that proper motion measurements
1572: used here are systematically overestimated by $\sim$2 mas/yr is ruled out by
1573: independent data (B08). In addition, the radial velocity measurements from SDSS
1574: spectroscopic survey also indicate no significant halo rotation at the level of
1575: $\sim$10 km/s (Allende Prieto et al. 2006; Ivezi\'c et al. 2006; B08). Recall,
1576: as mentioned previously, that our data do not extend very far into the region
1577: that Carollo et al. (2007) have argued is dominated by a proposed outer,
1578: counter-rotating, halo component.
1579:
1580: The median $v_Y$ for $\sim$18,000 high-metallicity stars increases with $Z$.
1581: We obtained a best fit
1582: \begin{equation}
1583: \label{vMedianZ}
1584: \langle v_Y \rangle = 20.1 + 19.2 \,|Z/{\rm kpc}|^{1.25} \,\,\, {\rm km/s}.
1585: \end{equation}
1586: An alternative linear fit
1587: \begin{equation}
1588: \label{vMedianZ2}
1589: \langle v_Y \rangle = 32.2 \,|Z/{\rm kpc}| \,\,\, {\rm km/s},
1590: \end{equation}
1591: also provides a good description for $\langle v_Y \rangle$ as a function of $Z$
1592: for stars with $0.2<g-r<0.4$ and $1 < Z / {\rm kpc} < 4$. However, B08 show that
1593: the detailed kinematics of red stars ($g-r>0.6$), which sample the smaller $Z$ range
1594: ($<$1 kpc) where the two fits differ by $\sim$20 km/s, prefer the non-linear
1595: form given by eq.~\ref{vMedianZ}.
1596:
1597: The observed velocity dispersion for both halo and disk subsamples increases
1598: with $Z$ (see the bottom right panel of Figure~\ref{FigVvsZ}). This
1599: increase is dominated by increasing measurement errors (mostly due to
1600: the fact that even for constant proper motion errors, the velocity error
1601: increases proportionally to distance). We find that the observed velocity
1602: dispersion for halo stars can be modeled with a constant intrinsic dispersion of
1603: $\sigma_Y^H$ = 90 km/s. For disk stars, the intrinsic dispersion increases
1604: with $Z$ as
1605: \begin{equation}
1606: \label{sigYD}
1607: \sigma_Y^D = 25.8 + 10.1 \,|Z/{\rm kpc}| \,\,\, {\rm km/s},
1608: \end{equation}
1609: from $\sim$36 km/s at $Z=1$ kpc to $\sim$66 km/s at $Z=4$ kpc.
1610:
1611: The decrease of rotational velocity with $Z$ (sometimes called velocity lag)
1612: was first convincingly detected by Majewski
1613: (1992), using photographic data for 250 stars. At $Z\sim1.5-2.0$ kpc, he
1614: found a lag of 50$\pm$10 km/s, in good agreement with the value of
1615: 59 km/s given by eq.~\ref{vMedianZ}. Chiba \& Beers (2000) measured
1616: a somewhat steeper gradient, of 30$\pm$3 km/s/kpc. Using proper motion data for
1617: about a million M dwarfs, Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2005) reported essentially the same
1618: behavior of rotational velocity at $Z<1$ kpc, with a median value of 34 km/s at
1619: $Z=1$ kpc, which agrees well with the lag of 39 km/s obtained
1620: here using F dwarfs. Using SDSS radial velocity data,
1621: Allende Prieto et al. (2006) measured a vertical rotational velocity gradient
1622: of 16 km/s, which is similar to the results based on proper motion measurements.
1623: Most recently, Girard et al. (2006)
1624: used data for 1200 red giants and detected ``velocity shear'' towards the south
1625: Galactic pole. The velocity gradient of 29 km/s/kpc given by
1626: eq.~\ref{vMedianZ} at $Z=2$ kpc is consistent with their value of 30$\pm$3 km/s/kpc.
1627: They also detected a vertical gradient in the rotational velocity
1628: dispersion of (10$\pm$3) km/s/kpc, in excellent agreement with the value obtained
1629: here. Given the different tracers, analysis methods, and the possibility for north-south
1630: asymmetry, the results presented here and those from Girard et al. (2006) are
1631: remarkably consistent.
1632:
1633:
1634:
1635: \subsubsection{A Model for the Rotational Velocity Distribution}
1636: \label{vPhiDist}
1637:
1638:
1639: \begin{figure*}
1640: \plotone{f12.ps}
1641: \caption{
1642: The distribution of stars with $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$ observed towards the north
1643: Galactic pole ($|b|>80^\circ$) in the velocity-metallicity diagrams, and as
1644: a function of distance from the plane in the range 0.8--1.2 kpc (top left,
1645: $\sim$1,500 stars), 1.5--2.0 kpc (top right, $\sim$4,100 stars), 3.0--4.0 kpc
1646: (bottom left, $\sim$6,400 stars) and 5.0--7.0 kpc (bottom right, $\sim$12,500
1647: stars). The maps show the logarithm of counts in each pixel, according to the
1648: legend shown in the top right panel. Towards the north Galactic pole, the
1649: plotted heliocentric velocity component ($v_Y$) corresponds to the rotational
1650: component. Its median value for subsamples selected by $[Fe/H]>-1$ in the top
1651: right panel is 59 km/s and 117 km/s in the bottom left panel. The median value
1652: for subsamples selected by $[Fe/H]<-1$ is 192 km/s and 203 km/s in the
1653: bottom two panels, respectively. For marginal $v_Y$ distributions, see
1654: Figure~\ref{Vphihist}. The horizontal lines at $v_Y=0$ and $v_Y=220$ km/s
1655: are added to guide the eye. The symbols in the bottom right panel show
1656: the median values of metallicity (squares) and $v_Y$ (triangles) in narrow
1657: bins of the other coordinate.}
1658: \label{panels9}
1659: \end{figure*}
1660:
1661:
1662:
1663: \begin{figure*}
1664: \plotone{f13.ps}
1665: \caption{
1666: The symbols with error bars show the measured rotational velocity distribution
1667: for stars with $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$, $b>80^\circ$, and the distance from
1668: the Galactic plane in the range in the range 0.8--1.2 kpc (top left, $\sim$1,500
1669: stars), 1.5--2.0 kpc (top right, $\sim$4,100 stars), 3.0--4.0 kpc (bottom left,
1670: $\sim$6,400 stars) and 5.0--7.0 kpc (bottom right, $\sim$12,500 stars).
1671: These histograms are the marginal $v_Y$ distributions for the maps shown in
1672: Figure~\ref{panels9}. The red and green curves show the contribution of a
1673: non-Gaussian disk model (a sum of two Gaussians with fixed, 1:3, relative
1674: normalization), the blue curves show halo contribution (a Gaussian), and the
1675: magenta curves are their sum (see \S~\ref{vPhiDist} for details and Table 4
1676: for best-fit parameters). }
1677: \label{Vphihist}
1678: \end{figure*}
1679:
1680: \begin{figure*}
1681: \plotone{f14.ps}
1682: \caption{
1683: The top left panel shows distribution of stars (logarithm of counts in each bin)
1684: observed towards the north Galactic pole ($|b|>80^\circ$), and with $3.0 <
1685: |Z|/{\rm kpc} < 4$ kpc, in the velocity-metallicity diagram (same map as in the
1686: bottom left panel in Figure~\ref{panels9}). The top right panel shows a best-fit
1687: model assuming that velocity and metallicity distributions are uncorrelated,
1688: when disk and halo components are treated separately, and are given by the best
1689: fits shown in the bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{Zhist} for the metallicity
1690: distribution, and in the bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{Vphihist} for the velocity
1691: distribution. The bottom left panel shows the logarithm of the data/model ratio,
1692: displayed with the same dynamic range as the top two panels. The observed counts
1693: are predicted with an rms scatter of 33\%. This scatter is consistent with
1694: the expected statistical noise. The bottom right panel shows the data-model
1695: difference map normalized by the expected noise. The rms width of the
1696: distribution is 1.09. }
1697: \label{panels14}
1698: \end{figure*}
1699:
1700: The full metallicity/velocity distribution in four $Z$ slices is shown in
1701: Figure~\ref{panels9}. In agreement with the median behavior shown in
1702: Figure~\ref{FigVvsZ}, close to the Galactic plane the sample is dominated by
1703: high-metallicity stars with a small velocity lag, and gradually becomes
1704: dominated by low-metallicity stars with no net rotation at large $Z$.
1705: We find no correlation between velocity and metallicity for distant
1706: low-metallicity stars (see the bottom right panel in Figure~\ref{panels9}).
1707:
1708: The marginal rotational velocity distributions for maps from Figure~\ref{panels9}
1709: are shown in Figure~\ref{Vphihist}. Analogously to modeling the metallicity
1710: distributions in \S~\ref{thirdGauss}, we first attempt to fit the
1711: dependence of rotational velocity distribution on distance from the Galactic
1712: plane, $Z$, using a Gaussian for the halo component and a universal shape, modeled
1713: as two coupled Gaussians, for the disk component (an alternative approach
1714: based on thin/thick disk decomposition is described below).
1715:
1716: We heuristically model the {\it shape} of the disk velocity distribution as a
1717: sum of two Gaussians with fixed positions relative to each other (an offset of
1718: 34 km/s), fixed widths (12 km/s and 34 km/s), and fixed relative normalization
1719: (3-to-1 number ratio in favor of the more metal-poor component). Motivated
1720: by the behavior of $\langle v_Y \rangle$ for the $[Fe/H] > -0.9$ subsample
1721: (eq.~\ref{vMedianZ}), we describe the central velocity of the narrower
1722: Gaussian as
1723: \begin{equation}
1724: \label{vMeanZ}
1725: v_n(Z) = -3.0 + 19.2 \,|Z/{\rm kpc}|^{1.25} \,\,\, {\rm km/s},
1726: \end{equation}
1727: where the offset of 23 km/s is due to the difference between the median
1728: of the adopted skewed velocity distribution and the mean for the
1729: narrower Gaussian component. The values of these four free parameters were
1730: obtained by {\it simultaneously} fitting the four histograms shown in
1731: Figure~\ref{Vphihist}. The halo velocity distribution was kept fixed as a
1732: Gaussian centered on 200 km/s and with a width of 90 km/s.
1733:
1734: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccrrrrccccrr}
1735: \tablenum{4} \tablecolumns{12}
1736: \tablecaption{Best-fit Parameters for $p(v_Y)$, Shown in Fig.~\ref{Vphihist}}
1737: \tablehead{$|Z|$ range$^a$ & $\langle |Z| \rangle^b$ & N$^c$ & $\langle g \rangle^d$ & $v_{d1}^e$
1738: & $v_{d2}^f$ & $\sigma_{d1}^g$ & $\sigma_{d2}^h$ & $f_H^i$ & $\sigma_{H}^j$ & $\sigma_v^k$ & $\sigma_v^l$ }
1739: \startdata
1740: 0.8--1.2 & 1.08 & 1,526 & 15.2 & 18 & 57 & 23 & 39 & 0.12 & 92 & 14 & 17 \\
1741: 1.5--2.0 & 1.75 & 4,076 & 16.2 & 36 & 70 & 34 & 46 & 0.22 & 94 & 23 & 26 \\
1742: 3.0--4.0 & 3.49 & 6,445 & 17.8 & 88 & 122 & 65 & 72 & 0.68 & 104 & 48 & 52 \\
1743: 5.0--7.0 & 5.99 & 12,452 & 18.9 & 176 & 211 & 118 & 122 & 0.95 & 123 & 93 & 84 \\
1744: \enddata
1745: \tablenotetext{a}{The $|Z|$ range for the bin (kpc).}
1746: \tablenotetext{b}{The median $|Z|$ in the bin (kpc).}
1747: \tablenotetext{c}{The number of stars in the bin.}
1748: \tablenotetext{d}{The median $g$-band magnitude in the bin.}
1749: \tablenotetext{e}{The mean velocity for the first Gaussian disk component, in km/s,
1750: computed using eq.~\ref{vMeanZ}.}
1751: \tablenotetext{f}{The mean velocity for the second Gaussian disk component, $v_{d2}=v_{d1}+34$, (km/s).}
1752: \tablenotetext{g}{The velocity dispersion for the first Gaussian disk component (12 km/s)
1753: convolved with measurement errors (km/s).}
1754: \tablenotetext{h}{The velocity dispersion for the second Gaussian disk component (34 km/s)
1755: convolved with measurement errors (km/s).}
1756: \tablenotetext{i}{The best-fit halo-to-disk number ratio.}
1757: \tablenotetext{j}{The velocity dispersion for the halo component (90 km/s)
1758: convolved with measurement errors (km/s).}
1759: \tablenotetext{k}{The median velocity measurement error for stars with $[Fe/H]>-0.9$ (km/s).}
1760: \tablenotetext{l}{The median velocity measurement error for stars with $[Fe/H]<-1.1$ (km/s).}
1761: \end{deluxetable*}
1762:
1763:
1764: In each $Z$ bin, the expected velocity measurement error (determined from
1765: expected random errors in distance and proper motion) was added in quadrature
1766: to the widths of all three Gaussians. For the disk component, we also
1767: add in quadrature $10.1 \,|Z/{\rm kpc}|$ km/s based on eq.~\ref{sigYD}.
1768: The best-fit parameters are listed in Table 4 and the best fits are shown in
1769: Figure~\ref{Vphihist}. As is evident, this simple model of a skewed distribution
1770: that slides linearly with $Z$ provides a satisfactory description of the data.
1771:
1772: We use the best fits for the marginal metallicity distribution described in
1773: \S~\ref{thirdGauss} (see Figure~\ref{Zhist}), and the best fits for marginal
1774: rotational velocity distribution discussed above to model the observed joint
1775: distributions in the rotational velocity vs. metallicity plane, shown in
1776: Figure~\ref{panels9}. In each $Z$ bin, we simply multiply the best-fit marginal
1777: distributions and subtract their product from the observed map. There are two
1778: important assumptions underlying this approach: (1) The disk and halo components
1779: used to model the two marginal distributions map well onto each other, and (2)
1780: the velocity and metallicity distributions of each individual component
1781: are uncorrelated.
1782:
1783: The above assumptions are borne out by the data. As an illustration of the residual
1784: and $\chi^2$ maps, we show the $Z=3-4$ kpc bin, which contains similar
1785: fractions of disk and halo stars (Figure~\ref{panels14}). The observed distribution is
1786: successfully modeled to within expected statistical noise ($\sim$30\%
1787: for counts per pixel, on average). The observed lack of a correlation between
1788: velocity and metallicity distributions for disk component is at odds with the
1789: traditional thin/thick disk decomposition, which we address next.
1790:
1791:
1792:
1793: \subsubsection{ Difficulties with the Thin--Thick Disk Separation? }
1794: \label{TvsT}
1795:
1796: \begin{figure*}
1797: \plotone{f15.ps}
1798: \caption{The top left panel illustrates a test of the hypothesis that
1799: the observed variation of metallicity distribution with $|Z|$ is due to a
1800: varying mixing ratio of the independent thin and thick disk metallicity
1801: distributions. The latter are determined using metallicity distributions in the
1802: $|Z|=1.0-1.2$ kpc and $|Z|=2.0-2.5$ kpc bins, and are shown as red (thin disk)
1803: and green (thick disk) lines. They are scaled using the 4.6:1 thick-to-thin disk
1804: number ratio expected for the displayed $|Z|=1.2-1.4$ kpc bin from the counts
1805: profile. The data for this $|Z|$ bin are shown by symbols with error bars. The
1806: blue line shows halo contribution (15\%), and the magenta line is the sum of all
1807: three components. The remaining three panels show measured rotational velocity
1808: distributions in three $Z$ slices (symbols with error bars; 1.0-1.2 kpc: top
1809: left; 1.2-1.4 kpc: bottom right; 1.4-1.6 kpc: bottom right). The blue curves are
1810: Gaussians corresponding to halo stars, with the parameters listed in Table 5.
1811: The red lines are Gaussians centered on 9 km/s, and the green lines are
1812: Gaussians centered on 57 km/s, with widths listed in Table 5. The increase of
1813: their widths with $|Z|$ is consistent with estimated measurement errors; the
1814: implied intrinsic widths are 18 km/s for narrow Gaussians, and 28 km/s for wide
1815: Gaussians. These curves are normalized according to thick-to-thin number ratio
1816: and halo contribution listed in Table 5. }
1817: \label{singleGauss}
1818: \end{figure*}
1819:
1820: \begin{figure*}
1821: \plotone{f16.ps}
1822: \caption{A comparison of data for 1,142 stars with $b>80$ and
1823: $1.0 < |Z|/{\rm kpc} < 1.2$ kpc, and a model based on a traditional disk
1824: decomposition into thin and thick components. The model assumes three Gaussians
1825: with contributions of thin disk, thick disk and halo stars equal to 28\%, 52\%,
1826: and 20\%, respectively. The Gaussians describing the metallicity distribution
1827: (top left panel, symbols represent data and histogram represents model) are
1828: centered on $[Fe/H] = -0.50, -0.72$ and $-1.37$, and have widths of 0.04, 0.15,
1829: and 0.32, dex, respectively. The Gaussians describing the velocity distribution
1830: (top right panel) are centered on 9, 57 and 205 km/s, and have widths of 25, 33,
1831: and 80 km/s, respectively. The two bottom panels show the two-dimensional
1832: distributions in the velocity/metallicity diagram for the model (left) and the
1833: data (right), with individual stars shown as small dots. The large dots show the
1834: median velocity in 0.1 dex wide metallicity bins, for stars with velocity in the
1835: $-60$ km/s to 120 km/s range. The 2-$\sigma$ envelope around these medians is
1836: shown by the two outer dashed lines. The dashed lines in the middle show the
1837: best linear fit to the median velocity, with slopes of $-91$ km/s/dex (model)
1838: and $-4.1$ km/s/dex (data).}
1839: \label{corrComp}
1840: \end{figure*}
1841:
1842: \begin{figure*}
1843: \plotone{f17.ps}
1844: \caption{
1845: Analogous to the bottom right panel of Fig.\ref{corrComp}, except that SDSS
1846: spectroscopic sample of stars is used ($v_Y$ from Fig.\ref{corrComp} corresponds
1847: to $v_\Phi$+225 km/s). Its all-sky distribution and radial velocity measurement
1848: enable the sampling of regions closer to the Galactic plane than with the
1849: $b>80^\circ$ sample (left: 285 stars with $|Z|$=600-800 pc; right: 583 stars with
1850: $|Z|$=800-1000 pc; both with $0.2<g-r<0.4$). Although the metallicity distribution
1851: of spectroscopic sample is highly biased (see the top right panel in
1852: Fig.~\ref{panels2}), the dependence of the median rotational velocity for narrow
1853: metallicity bins, as a function of metallicity, is not strongly affected. Note
1854: the absence of a strong $v_\Phi$ vs. $|Z|$ gradient ($\la$20 km/s/dex). }
1855: \label{f17}
1856: \end{figure*}
1857:
1858: Our model fits above show that the data for both the metallicity and rotational
1859: velocity distributions of disk stars can be fit with shapes that do not vary
1860: with $Z$. While formally these skewed distributions are modeled as sums of two
1861: Gaussians, these Gaussians cannot be readily identified with the classical thin
1862: and thick disks. First, their normalization ratio is constant, while
1863: double-exponential best-fits to the observed spatial profile predict that the
1864: fraction of stars in each component should strongly vary with $Z$. Secondly, the
1865: normalization ratios are {\it different}, 1.7 for the metallicity distributions and
1866: 3.0 for the rotational velocity distributions, respectively, which implies that the two components
1867: do not perfectly map onto each other.
1868:
1869: Despite these difficulties, it is instructive to attempt a traditional thin- plus
1870: thick-disk decomposition using the data presented here. We seek metallicity and
1871: velocity distributions whose linear combination, with weights given by the
1872: observed spatial profiles, reproduces the variation of the observed distributions
1873: with $Z$. This can be done with only a minimal reliance on models, because the
1874: data span a wide range of $Z$, {\it and because there are clearly detected $Z$
1875: gradients in both the metallicity and velocity distributions, which cannot be
1876: attributed to halo stars}. The disk spatial profile (with the J08 best-fit
1877: parameters) implies that the $|Z|=2.0-2.5$ kpc bin is dominated by thick-disk stars
1878: (only 2\% of disk stars from this bin are expected to belong to the thin-disk
1879: component, with a 38\% contribution from halo stars), while they contribute, for
1880: example, $\sim$67\% of all disk stars in $|Z|=0.8-1.2$ kpc bin. Therefore, one
1881: can subtract the $\sim$38\% halo contribution from the metallicity distribution
1882: in $|Z|=2.0-2.5$ kpc bin, then re-normalize the difference, and treat it as the
1883: thick-disk metallicity distribution. It can then be subtracted, after renormalization, from
1884: the disk-dominated metallicity distribution in the $|Z|=0.8-1.2$ kpc bin. The
1885: renormalized difference can be treated as a pure thin-disk distribution. The two
1886: distributions can then be linearly combined and compared to distributions
1887: observed in the intermediate bins.
1888:
1889: The top left panel of Figure~\ref{singleGauss} shows the result of this
1890: comparison for the $|Z|=1.2-1.4$ kpc bin. The metallicity distributions for both
1891: components appear non-Gaussian, with a difference of their means of about 0.2
1892: dex. Their expected linear combination reveals discrepancies with the data, but
1893: they are not overwhelming, and could be due to uncertainties in the decomposition
1894: procedure itself.
1895:
1896: A similar linear decomposition method cannot be applied to the kinematic data
1897: analyzed here because the velocity measurement errors increase too much over the
1898: relevant range of $Z$. Instead, we choose to model the observed velocity
1899: distributions using two Gaussians, with fixed mean velocities and dispersions.
1900: The widths are convolved with known, $Z$-dependent, velocity measurement errors
1901: when fitting the four free parameters. We normalize the two Gaussians assuming
1902: their relative contributions (and halo normalization) predicted by the density
1903: (counts) profiles shown in Figure~\ref{Zcounts}.
1904:
1905: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccrrrrrrr}
1906: \tablenum{5} \tablecolumns{10} \tablewidth{5in}
1907: \tablecaption{Best-fit Parameters for $p(v_Y)$, Shown in Fig.~\ref{singleGauss}}
1908: \tablehead{$|Z|$ range$^a$ & $\langle |Z| \rangle^b$ & N$^c$ & $\langle g \rangle^d$
1909: & $\sigma_{d1}^e$ & $\sigma_{d2}^f$ & $\sigma_{H}^g$ & $f_H^h$ & $r_{DD}^i$ }
1910: \startdata
1911: 1.0--1.2 & 1.11 & 1,142 & 15.3 & 23 & 32 & 80 & 11 & 2.7 \\
1912: 1.2--1.4 & 1.39 & 1,480 & 15.6 & 25 & 33 & 81 & 15 & 4.6 \\
1913: 1.4--1.6 & 1.50 & 1,603 & 15.9 & 27 & 34 & 81 & 19 & 7.9 \\
1914: \enddata
1915: \tablenotetext{a}{The $|Z|$ range for the bin (kpc).}
1916: \tablenotetext{b}{The median $|Z|$ in the bin (kpc).}
1917: \tablenotetext{c}{The number of stars in the bin.}
1918: \tablenotetext{d}{The median $g$-band magnitude in the bin.}
1919: \tablenotetext{e}{The velocity dispersion for the first Gaussian disk component
1920: convolved with measurement errors (km/s).}
1921: \tablenotetext{f}{The velocity dispersion for the second Gaussian disk component
1922: convolved with measurement errors (km/s).}
1923: \tablenotetext{g}{The velocity dispersion for the halo component
1924: convolved with measurement errors(km/s).}
1925: \tablenotetext{h}{The fraction of halo stars from J08 model (\%).}
1926: \tablenotetext{i}{The thick-to-thin disk star number ratio from J08 model (see \S~\ref{J08}).}
1927: \end{deluxetable*}
1928:
1929: The best fits are shown in Figure~\ref{singleGauss} for three representative $Z$
1930: bins, with the best-fit parameters listed in Table 5. The presumed thick-disk
1931: Gaussian has a velocity lag of 48 km/s, relative to the first Gaussian (centered
1932: at 57 km/s and 9 km/s, respectively). The implied intrinsic velocity dispersions
1933: are 18 km/s and 28 km/s. The fits are not as good as those shown in
1934: Figure~\ref{Vphihist}, but the discrepancies are not too large. They are,
1935: however, formally highly statistically significant, due to the large number of
1936: stars, but there is always a possibility for hidden systematic errors. If the
1937: thick-disk Gaussian were replaced by a non-Gaussian velocity distribution, it is
1938: likely that the most egregious discrepancies around $v_Y \sim 150$ km/s could be
1939: resolved.
1940:
1941: Therefore, the marginal metallicity and velocity distributions do {\it not}
1942: strongly rule out the thin/thick disk linear combination hypothesis, but {\it
1943: only if} both disks have non-Gaussian metallicity and velocity distributions.
1944: The choice for both metallicity and rotational velocity distributions is then
1945: between a linear combination of two fixed non-Gaussian distributions, or a
1946: single non-Gaussian distribution that slides with $Z$. A difficulty with the
1947: former hypothesis is that the implied thin-disk metallicity distribution has a
1948: mean of about $-0.55$, which is too metal poor by about 0.4 dex, compared to
1949: local measurements (Girardi \& Salaris 2001; Nordstr\"{o}m et al. 2004). On the
1950: other hand, there is a worrisome possibility of a metallicity ``compression''
1951: discussed in Appendix C, which could bias thin disk measurements to lower
1952: values.
1953:
1954: While fitting the marginal metallicity and kinematic distributions separately
1955: does not strongly discriminate among models, the thin/thick disk linear
1956: combination hypothesis makes a very strong prediction about the joint
1957: two-dimensional distribution. Because the individual components are offset by
1958: $\sim$0.2 dex in metallicity, and by $\sim$50 km/s in rotational velocity, this
1959: hypothesis predicts a correlation between metallicity and rotational velocity
1960: for samples selected from narrow $Z$ slices in the $Z$ range where neither
1961: component dominates. To compute the strength of this correlation, we generated a
1962: Monte Carlo sample for $Z=1.0-1.2$ kpc bin, where the correlation should be
1963: strong, with the same size as the observed sample (the expected thick-to-thin
1964: disk star number ratio is 2.7). The distributions of the data and model stars in
1965: the velocity vs. metallicity plane are shown in Figure~\ref{corrComp}.
1966:
1967: Even without any computation, it is evident from the lower left panel of
1968: Figure~\ref{corrComp} that the model distributions are strongly correlated: the
1969: 28\% contribution of thin-disk stars, which have smaller mean velocity and higher metallicity
1970: than thick-disk stars, induce a net metallicity-velocity correlation ($\sim-90$
1971: km/s/dex). The value of Kendall's rank correlation coefficient (e.g., see Lupton
1972: 1993) for the model distribution is $-0.30\pm0.04$, which is significantly
1973: inconsistent with the observed value of $0.017\pm0.018$ (we limit velocities to
1974: 120 km/s, and metallicity to $[Fe/H] > -1$, to exclude halo stars).
1975:
1976: In order to test whether this observed lack of correlation is localized to the
1977: north Galactic pole, we have also evaluated the Kendall's rank correlation
1978: coefficient for stars with $Z=1.0-1.2$ kpc in three 10 degree wide patches along
1979: the $l=180^\circ$ line and with $b$=50$^\circ$, 30$^\circ$, and $-$50$^\circ$.
1980: None of these patches exhibits a statistically significant correlation between
1981: velocity and metallicity, with the value of the correlation coefficient towards the
1982: north Galactic pole remaining the most negative. In order to test whether the
1983: measured correlation coefficient depends on the selection of the $Z$ bin, we
1984: evaluated it for seven 200 pc thick bins in the range $Z$=0.5--2.1 kpc, and
1985: found values statistically consistent with the value for the $Z=1.0-1.25$ kpc bin.
1986:
1987: For another test, one that is less sensitive to errors in the adopted
1988: metallicity scale, we compared velocity histograms for stars with $-1 < [Fe/H] <
1989: -0.8$ and $-0.6 < [Fe/H] < -0.4$. The observed median rotation velocities differ
1990: by 1 km/s, while the model values differ by 25 km/s, or eight times more than
1991: the expected statistical noise. To explain the observed flat median rotation
1992: velocity vs. metallicity behavior as due to errors in adopted absolute
1993: magnitudes, adopted $M_r$ for stars with $-1 < [Fe/H] < -0.8$ would have to be
1994: too faint by $\sim1$ mag, and $\sim1.5$ mag too bright for stars with $-0.6 <
1995: [Fe/H] < -0.4$. Such large errors are not consistent with the constraints on
1996: photometric parallax relation discussed in Appendix A, nor with plausible age
1997: effects.
1998:
1999: These tests would be statistically even stronger if the samples extended to at
2000: least $Z=0.75$ kpc, where the expected fractions of thin and thick disk stars
2001: are equal. This is not possible with the $b>80^\circ$ sample due to image
2002: saturation (at $r\sim14$), while for stars observed at lower Galactic latitudes,
2003: the radial velocity measurement is required to compute the rotational velocity
2004: component. Hence, we use the SDSS spectroscopic survey to extend the sample to
2005: $Z<1$ kpc. In addition, this sample also critically tests a possibility that
2006: these thin/thick disk separation difficulties are caused by photometric
2007: metallicity problems.
2008:
2009: Figure~\ref{f17} shows the $v_\Phi$ vs. $[Fe/H]$ velocity diagrams for two
2010: samples of stars with SDSS spectra that have $Z$=600-800 pc and $Z$=800-1000 pc.
2011: Here, $v_\Phi$ is the rotational velocity component corrected for the LSR and
2012: peculiar solar motion (towards the NGP, $v_\Phi \sim v_Y$-225 km/s). Although the
2013: metallicity distribution of the SDSS spectroscopic sample is highly biased (see the
2014: top right panel in Figure~\ref{panels2}), the dependence of the median
2015: rotational velocity for narrow metallicity bins, as a function of metallicity,
2016: is not strongly affected. These two subsamples are also inconsistent with the
2017: strong velocity--metallicity correlation expected from traditional thin-thick
2018: decomposition.
2019:
2020: We conclude that {\it the absence of a correlation between the observed velocity
2021: and metallicity distributions for disk stars represents a major problem for the
2022: interpretation of vertical velocity and metallicity gradients as being due to a
2023: varying linear combination of two fixed distributions}.
2024:
2025: Our conclusion does not contradict previous work on this subject, because the
2026: older samples did not include {\it simultaneous} distance, velocity, and
2027: metallicity measurements for a sufficient number of stars with the appropriate
2028: distance distribution. A test based on a randomly selected ten-times-smaller
2029: subsample, with photometric errors and proper motion errors increased by a
2030: factor of two, resulted in an inconclusive difference in Kendall's correlation
2031: coefficients between the ``data'' and a thin/thick disk model.
2032:
2033: It is noteworthy that Norris (1987) proposed a Galaxy model which does not
2034: assume that thin and thick disks are discrete components, but instead form a
2035: kinematical and chemical continuum. Stars traditionally associated with the
2036: thick disk belong to an ``extended'' disk (in terms of spatial distribution) in
2037: Norris' terminology, and represent an extreme tail of metallicity and kinematic
2038: distributions. Our results appear roughly consistent with Norris' proposal, and
2039: provide a quantitative support for such ``continuous'' view of the disk over the
2040: entire relevant range of distances from the Galactic plane.
2041:
2042:
2043:
2044: \subsubsection{The ``Metal-weak Thick Disk'' Revisited}
2045:
2046: In order to test whether the third Gaussian component discussed in
2047: \S~\ref{thirdGauss} has the same kinematics as the rest of disk stars, we
2048: compare the $v_Y$ histograms for $-1.1 < [Fe/H] < -0.8$ and $-0.6 < [Fe/H] <
2049: -0.5$ subsamples in two $Z$ bins: 0.5--1 kpc and 1.5--2.0 kpc. We find no
2050: statistically significant differences, with an upper limit on the relative
2051: velocity offset of $\sim$15 km/s. This kinematic similarity supports the view
2052: that stars with $-1.1 < [Fe/H] < -0.8$ reflect a non-Gaussian metallicity
2053: distribution of disk stars, rather than a separate entity (Beers et al. 2002).
2054: Further insight will be obtained from the Rockosi et al. (in prep.) discussion
2055: of the properties of the metal-weak thick disk as revealed by the spectroscopic
2056: SEGUE sample.
2057:
2058:
2059: \subsection{Spatially Localized Deviations from the Mean Metallicity Distribution }
2060: \label{subStruct}
2061:
2062: \begin{figure*}
2063: \plotone{f18.ps}
2064: \caption{
2065: The top left panel illustrates the dependence of the median photometric
2066: metallicity for $\sim$1.04 million stars from SDSS Data Release 6 with $14.5 < r
2067: < 20$, $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$ and $|Y|<1$ kpc, in cylindrical Galactic coordinates
2068: $R$ and $|Z|$. This $Y$ range is selected to include the Monoceros stream, which
2069: represents an overdensity by a factor of $\sim$1.5-2 in a region around
2070: $R\sim15$ kpc and $|Z|\sim$3--4 kpc. As discernible from the map, this region has
2071: a larger median metallicity than expected for this $|Z|$ range from smaller $R$.
2072: The top right panel shows the conditional metallicity probability distribution
2073: for a subsample of $\sim$111,000 stars with $3 < |Z|/{\rm kpc} < 4$. The strong
2074: overdensity at $R>12$ kpc is the Monoceros stream. The bottom panels show the
2075: metallicity distribution (symbols with error bars) for a subsample of
2076: $\sim$40,000 stars with $6 < R/{\rm kpc} < 9$ (left) and for $\sim$12,000 stars
2077: with $13 < R/{\rm kpc} < 16$. The curves have the same meaning as in
2078: Figure~\ref{Zhist}, with the addition of the cyan curve in the right panel. This
2079: curve is a 0.22 dex wide Gaussian centered on $[Fe/H]=-0.95$, and accounts for
2080: 33\% stars in the sample that presumably belong to the Monoceros stream (see
2081: \S~\ref{metalMon} for details). }
2082: \label{panels7}
2083: \end{figure*}
2084:
2085:
2086: The rich metallicity and kinematic data presented here enable more powerful
2087: searching for Milky Way substructure than possible using the stellar number
2088: density maps alone (e.g., see J08). We utilize the large sky coverage of the DR6
2089: catalog to quantify spatial deviations from the conditional metallicity
2090: distribution discussed in \S~\ref{metalDistrib} and \ref{metalDistribModel}. We
2091: first constructed 51 maps, such as that shown in the top right panel of
2092: Figure~\ref{panels3}, for regions defined by a 1 kpc by 1 kpc square footprint
2093: in the $X-Y$ plane. In each map, we compute the median metallicity in two $Z$
2094: slices that are dominated by disk (1--2 kpc) and halo (5--7 kpc) stars. The
2095: range of cylindrical radius, $R$, is 6--14 kpc for the disk slice, and 5--15 kpc
2096: for the halo slice.
2097:
2098: In the range $6 < R/{\rm kpc} < 10$, the median disk metallicity is
2099: $[Fe/H]=-0.72$, with an rms scatter of 0.05 dex, and a median distribution
2100: width of 0.27 dex. There is no discernible radial metallicity gradient, with an
2101: upper limit of 0.01 dex/kpc. For $R>10$ kpc, the median metallicity is
2102: $[Fe/H]=-0.80$, with the shift of 0.08 dex probably due to stars from the
2103: Monoceros stream, as discussed below. The median halo metallicity is
2104: $[Fe/H]=-1.40$, with an rms scatter of 0.03 dex, and the median distribution
2105: width of 0.41 dex. There is no discernible radial metallicity gradient, with an
2106: upper limit of 0.005 dex/kpc.
2107:
2108: The mean expected statistical scatter in the medians is 0.005 dex for the disk and
2109: 0.011 for the halo (with a wider distribution and fewer stars for the latter), suggesting
2110: that the variation of the median halo metallicity is probably insignificant,
2111: while the rms variation of the median disk metallicity of 0.05 dex appears real.
2112: The photometric calibration errors in individual SDSS runs, which could produce
2113: a metallicity scatter of a similar magnitude, are averaged out because many runs
2114: contribute to each map. Furthermore, such an instrumental effect is ruled out by
2115: the fact that the $u$-band calibration errors would have to have an rms of 0.02
2116: mag to produce the disk median metallicity rms of 0.05 dex, and only 0.006 mag
2117: to produce the halo rms of 0.03 dex. Hence, were the disk rms due to calibration
2118: errors, the halo rms would have been 0.1 dex, and not 0.03 dex.
2119:
2120: As an additional method to search for localized substructure, we subtracted a
2121: best-fit model from each map (such as those described in
2122: \S~\ref{metalDistribModel}), and visually inspected residual maps. The only
2123: strong feature found in residual maps was localized at $Y\sim$0, $Z\sim3-4$ kpc
2124: and $R\sim15$ kpc, and represents an excess of $[Fe/H]\sim-1$ stars. It is
2125: clearly visible in the median metallicity $RZ$ map and, as an especially
2126: striking feature, in a conditional metallicity distribution map shown in
2127: Figure~\ref{panels7}. Using its spatial position, we identify this feature as
2128: the Monoceros stream\footnote{Immediately following its discovery, it was not
2129: clear whether the Monoceros stellar overdensity was a ring, stream or due to
2130: disk flaring. Subsequent work has demonstrated its stream-like profile, see,
2131: e.g., maps in J08.}, discovered in SDSS data using stellar counts by Newberg et
2132: al. (2002).
2133:
2134:
2135: \subsubsection{The Metallicity Distribution for the Monoceros Stream }
2136: \label{metalMon}
2137: The conditional metallicity map from Figure~\ref{panels7} demonstrates
2138: that regions with $R<12$ are not strongly affected by the Monoceros
2139: stream. We compare the metallicity distributions for stars with
2140: $6 < R/{\rm kpc} < 9$ (control sample), and for stars with
2141: $13 < R/{\rm kpc} < 16$, in the two bottom panels in Figure~\ref{panels7}.
2142: The metallicity distribution of the control sample is consistent with the
2143: halo and disk metallicity distributions described in \S~\ref{thirdGauss},
2144: with a few minor adjustments: the disk distribution is shifted by 0.07 dex,
2145: and the halo distribution by 0.02 dex, towards higher metallicity,
2146: the fraction of halo stars is changed from 61\% to 55\%, and 0.16 dex
2147: is added in quadrature to the widths of the three Gaussians to account
2148: for the increased metallicity errors in single-epoch DR6 data.
2149:
2150: The subsample containing the Monoceros stream can be described using
2151: the same function as for the control sample, and an additional 0.22 dex
2152: wide Gaussian component centered on $[Fe/H]=-0.95$, and with a relative
2153: normalization of 33\%. When corrected for measurement errors, the implied
2154: width of the metallicity distribution for the Monoceros stream is 0.15 dex.
2155: The best-fit normalization is in good agreement with spatial profiles
2156: from J08, which suggests that the Monoceros stream is about a factor
2157: of two overdensity over the local background counts (i.e., a relative
2158: normalization of 50\%).
2159:
2160:
2161:
2162: \subsubsection{The Kinematics of the Monoceros Stream }
2163:
2164: \begin{figure*}
2165: \plotone{f19.ps}
2166: \caption{
2167: The top left panel shows the distribution of $\sim$7,200 stars (logarithm of
2168: counts in each bin) with $|Y|<1$ kpc, $3 < |Z|/{\rm kpc} < 4$, $9 < R/{\rm kpc} <
2169: 12$ and $170^\circ < l < 190^\circ$, in the longitudinal velocity vs.
2170: photometric metallicity plane (a slice through the map shown in the top right
2171: panel of Figure~\ref{panels7}). The longitudinal velocity, $v_l$, is based on
2172: proper motion measurements, and at selected $l\sim180^\circ$ corresponds to
2173: the rotational component (heliocentric). The top right panel is analogous, except
2174: that $\sim$12,000 stars with $170^\circ < l < 190^\circ$ are selected from the
2175: $13 < R/{\rm kpc} < 16$ radial range, which maximizes the fraction of stars from
2176: the Monoceros stream (clustered around $[Fe/H]\sim -1$ and $v_l \sim 25$ km/s.
2177: The difference of these two maps is shown in the bottom left panel. The bottom
2178: right panel shows the median latitudinal velocity ($v_b$) for stars in the
2179: latter (Monoceros) subsample ($\pm$100 km/s stretch, green corresponds to 0
2180: km/s). The analogous map for the $9 < R/{\rm kpc} < 12$ subsample appears
2181: similar.}
2182: \label{panels8}
2183: \end{figure*}
2184:
2185:
2186: We select a subsample of $\sim$11,000 stars that maximizes the fraction of stars
2187: from the Monoceros stream, and allows an estimate of rotational velocity using
2188: only longitudinal proper motion, by requiring $|Y|<1$ kpc, $3 < Z/{\rm kpc} <
2189: 4$, $13 < R/{\rm kpc} < 16$ and $170^\circ < l < 190^\circ$. The distribution of
2190: these stars in the rotational velocity vs. metallicity diagram is shown in the
2191: top right panel of Figure~\ref{panels8}. It is discernible that the Monoceros
2192: stream has kinematics more similar to disk stars than to halo stars. We obtain a
2193: more accurate assessment with the aid of an analogous map for a control sample
2194: selected using similar criteria, except that $9 < R/{\rm kpc} < 12$ (top left
2195: panel). The difference of these two maps is shown in the bottom left panel.
2196:
2197: The excess stars are centered on $[Fe/H]\sim -1$, as expected from the best-fit
2198: described above. Their velocity distribution shows a strong peak at $v_l \sim
2199: v_Y \sim -50$ km/s, with a long tail towards more positive velocities. This
2200: residual map indicates that most of the Monoceros stream stars move in the
2201: direction of LSR rotation with velocities of up to $\sim$270 km/s. This result
2202: is qualitatively in agreement with Penarrubia et al. (2005), who ruled out
2203: retrograde motions using models and proper motion measurements.
2204:
2205: The latitudinal velocity, $v_b$, based on the latitudinal proper motion component,
2206: is a linear combination of the radial and vertical velocity components. The median
2207: latitudinal velocity of stars from the Monoceros stream region in the rotational
2208: velocity vs. metallicity plane is shown in the bottom right panel of
2209: Figure~\ref{panels8}. There is no significant offset from 0 ($<20$ km/s) in
2210: parts of the diagram where the excess of the Monoceros stream stars is the
2211: highest. This presumably indicates that contributions from the radial and
2212: vertical motion for the Monoceros stream stars cancel (for disk stars, the
2213: medians for both components should be 0). Together with the radial velocity
2214: measurements obtained by Conn et al. (2005) and Martin et al. (2006), this
2215: information can be used to further refine models, such as those described by
2216: Penarrubia et al. (2005).
2217:
2218:
2219:
2220: \section{ Discussion and Conclusions }
2221:
2222: The spectroscopic stellar parameters for over 60,000 F and G dwarfs,
2223: computed by the SEGUE Stellar Parameters Pipeline (Beers et al. 2006;
2224: Allende Prieto et al. 2006, 2007; Lee et al. 2007ab) using the SDSS spectroscopic
2225: database, allowed us to derive photometric estimators for effective temperature
2226: and metallicity in the SDSS photometric system. The availability of the SDSS
2227: imaging survey, with its accurate $ugr$ photometry, then enabled an unbiased
2228: volume-limited study of the stellar metallicity distribution to a distance
2229: limit of $\sim$10 kpc.
2230:
2231:
2232: \subsection{Photometric Estimates for Effective Temperature and Metallicity}
2233:
2234: The photometric metallicity estimator based on the SDSS $u-g$ and $g-r$
2235: colors is reminiscent of the traditional $\delta(U-B)_{0.6}$ method based on the
2236: $UBV$ photometry. It reflects the same physics, and can be applied to F
2237: and G type main sequence stars ($0.2<g-r<0.6$). For the SDSS single-epoch
2238: main survey data, it provides metallicity accurate to 0.2 dex or better
2239: for stars brighter than about $g=19.5$. In this magnitude and color
2240: range, the photometric effective temperature estimator reproduces
2241: spectroscopic temperature with a root-mean-square scatter of only $\sim$100 K.
2242: The accuracy\footnote{Here, precision may be a more appropriate terminology
2243: than accuracy because the photometric estimates are tied to SDSS spectroscopic
2244: values rather than to an absolute metallicity scale. That is, all systematic
2245: errors in SDSS spectroscopic parameters are inherited by photometric estimators.}
2246: of 100 K for effective temperature, and 0.2 dex or better for
2247: metallicity, are comparable to parameter accuracy achieved using artificial neural
2248: networks with spectroscopic observations (Snider et al. 2001), and the
2249: estimated accuracy of parameters determined from SDSS spectra (Beers
2250: et al. 2007). It is plausible that increased photometric accuracy
2251: would further improve these values. For example, photometry accurate to
2252: 1\% may enable MK spectral type determination with errors smaller than
2253: one subtype. Derived mapping from color space to metallicity implies that,
2254: at least formally, an error in the $u-g$ color of 0.01 mag induces a
2255: metallicity error that varies from 0.01 dex at $[Fe/H]=-0.5$ to 0.06 dex
2256: at $[Fe/H]=-1.5$. This is as good a performance as obtained by the
2257: Str\"{o}mgren $uvby\beta$ narrow-band photometric system which was
2258: optimized for this purpose (e.g., Str\"{o}mgren 1966; Nordstr\"{o}m et
2259: al. 2004). In other words, the increase of metallicity errors due to
2260: increased bandpass width can be compensated for by an improved photometric
2261: accuracy.
2262:
2263: We apply these methods to a photometric catalog of coadded SDSS observations
2264: from the so-called Stripe 82 (Ivezi\'{c} et al. 2007). These deeper and
2265: photometrically exceedingly precise coadded data allowed us to measure an unbiased
2266: metallicity distribution for a {\it volume limited sample} of $\sim$200,000 F
2267: and G type stars in the 0.5--8 kpc distance range. We also study the
2268: metallicity distribution using a shallower, but much larger, sample of several
2269: million stars in 8500 sq. deg. of sky provided by SDSS Data Release 6.
2270: The large sky coverage tests the conclusions derived using the relatively
2271: small Stripe 82 sample and enables detection of coherent substructures in the
2272: kinematics--metallicity space, such as the Monoceros stream.
2273:
2274:
2275:
2276:
2277: \subsection{The Milky Way Structure and Multi-dimensional Stellar Counts}
2278:
2279: From an observer's point of view, the ultimate goal of Milky Way
2280: studies is to measure and describe the distribution (counts) of stars in the space
2281: spanned by apparent brightness, colors in multiple bandpasses\footnote{We
2282: limit this analysis to two colors, $u-g$ and $g-r$, which provide good
2283: estimates of effective temperature and metallicity for F and G main-sequence
2284: stars. However, an alternative is to consider a full spectral shape,
2285: instead of colors, which carries all the relevant information about
2286: the three main stellar parameters ($T_{eff}$, $log(g)$), $[FE/H]$.},
2287: two proper motion components ($\mu_l$, $\mu_b$), radial velocity ($v_{rad}$),
2288: and position on the sky. Specialized to SDSS data,
2289: we seek to understand the 8-dimensional probability density function,
2290: $p(g,u-g,g-r, \mu_l, \mu_b, v_{rad}, l, b)$. This function could be
2291: described empirically, without any reference to stellar and Galactic
2292: structure, but in practice measurements are used to place constraints
2293: on the latter. From a theorist's point of view, the problem of interpreting
2294: data can be rephrased as: given a small control volume centered on ($R,Z,\phi$),
2295: \begin{itemize}
2296: \item What is the distribution of stars as a function of luminosity\footnote{At
2297: least in principle, it would be desirable to measure the stellar luminosity
2298: function, and other quantities, as a function of stellar age, but estimating
2299: age for individual stars is very difficult (e.g., Nordstr\"{o}m et al. 2004;
2300: Jorgensen \& Lindegren 2005), and beyond the scope of this paper.}, $L$,
2301: \item
2302: What is the metallicity distribution for a given $L$, and
2303: \item
2304: What are the distributions of three velocity components, $v_\phi$, $v_R$ and $v_Z$,
2305: for a given $L$ and metallicity?
2306: \end{itemize}
2307: Guided by these questions, we can write
2308: \begin{eqnarray}
2309: \label{pFunc}
2310: p(g,u-g,g-r, \mu_l, \mu_b, v_{rad}, l, b) = \\ \nonumber
2311: \,\, p_1(g,g-r|l,b) \\ \nonumber
2312: \,\, \times \, p_2(u-g|g,g-r,l,b) \\ \nonumber
2313: \,\, \times \, p_3(\mu_l, \mu_b, v_{rad}|u-g,g,g-r,l,b),
2314: \end{eqnarray}
2315: where the three functions on the right side of eq.~\ref{pFunc} are discussed
2316: in this and two companion papers:
2317: \begin{enumerate}
2318: \item
2319: The function $p_1(g,g-r|l,b)$ describes the behavior of the $g$ vs. $g-r$ color-magnitude
2320: (Hess) diagram as a function of position on the sky. This behavior is a
2321: reflection of stellar luminosity function, $\Phi(L)$, and the dependence
2322: of stellar number density on spatial coordinates, $\rho(R,Z,\phi)$. A best-fit
2323: model for $\rho(R,Z,\phi)$ developed by J08 is discussed in \S~\ref{J08}.
2324: \item
2325: The function $p_2(u-g|g,g-r,l,b)$ describes the $u-g$ color distribution for
2326: a given bin in the $g$ vs. $g-r$ color-magnitude diagram, and as a function of
2327: position on the sky. The $u-g$ color distribution reflects the metallicity
2328: distribution, $p([Fe/H]|R,Z,\phi)$, and $\rho(R,Z,\phi)$. In this contribution,
2329: we show that, similarly to $\rho(R,Z,\phi)$, $p([Fe/H]|R,Z,\phi)$ can be
2330: well described (apart from local overdensities) as a sum of two components
2331: \begin{eqnarray}
2332: p(x&=&[Fe/H]|R,Z,\phi) = \\ \nonumber
2333: & & [1-f_H(R,Z)]\,p_D(x|Z) + f_H(R,Z)\,p_H(x),
2334: \end{eqnarray}
2335: where the halo-to-disk counts ratio is simply $f_H(R,Z)=\rho_H(R,Z)/[\rho_D(R,Z)+\rho_H(R,Z)]$.
2336:
2337: The halo metallicity distribution, $p_H([Fe/H])$, can be modeled as a spatially
2338: invariant Gaussian centered on
2339: $[Fe/H]=-1.46$ (for the Stripe 82 catalog; for the full DR6 sample, the median
2340: [Fe/H]=$-1.40$) and with the intrinsic (not including measurement errors) width
2341: $\sigma_H=0.30$ dex. For $|Z|\la10$ kpc, an upper limit on the halo radial metallicity
2342: gradient is 0.005 dex/kpc.
2343:
2344: The metallicity distribution of the disk component has an rms scatter of 0.16
2345: dex, with
2346: the median varying as
2347: \begin{equation}
2348: \label{medMetalD}
2349: \mu_D(Z) = -0.78 + 0.35\,\exp(-|Z|/1.0 \, {\rm kpc}) \,\, {\rm dex},
2350: \end{equation}
2351: at $|Z|>0.5$ kpc. In the $|Z|=1.0-1.5$ kpc range, the median metallicity is
2352: consistent with the measurements by Gilmore \& Wyse (1995). For $|Z|\la5$ kpc,
2353: an upper limit on the disk radial metallicity gradient is 0.010 dex/kpc.
2354: The {\it shape} of the metallicity distribution of the disk component is non-Gaussian
2355: and can be modeled as
2356: \begin{eqnarray}
2357: \label{pDmetal}
2358: p_D(x&=&[Fe/H]|Z)= \\ \nonumber
2359: & & 0.37\,G[x|\mu=a(Z)+0.14, \sigma=0.11] \\ \nonumber
2360: &+& 0.63\,G[x|\mu=a(Z), \sigma=0.21],
2361: \end{eqnarray}
2362: where the position $a(Z)$ and the median $\mu_D(Z)$ are related via $a(Z)=\mu_D(Z)-0.067$
2363: (unless measurement errors are very large). These results represent
2364: powerful new constraints for the Galaxy formation and chemical evolution models
2365: (e.g., Tinsley 1975; Pagel \& Patchett 1975; Wyse \& Gilmore 1995; and references
2366: therein).
2367: \item
2368: The function $p_3(\mu_l, \mu_b, v_{rad}|u-g,g,g-r,l,b)$ describes proper motion
2369: and radial velocity measurements for a given bin in the $g$ vs. $g-r$
2370: color-magnitude, as a function of position on the sky, and as a function
2371: of the $u-g$ color. This function locally reflects the behavior of the velocity
2372: ellipsoid, but SDSS data probe sufficiently large distances to detect its spatial
2373: variation, as discussed in detail by B08. They find that
2374: the detailed behavior of kinematics can also be well described (apart from
2375: local overdensities) as a sum of two components, disk and halo, that map well
2376: to components detected in spatial profiles and metallicity distribution.
2377: The non-rotating halo component has by and large spatially uniform
2378: kinematics (in an overall sense, e.g., B08 discuss several
2379: kinematically coherent structures), while the disk kinematics are dominated
2380: by a vertical ($Z$) gradient. The mean rotational velocity and the three
2381: velocity dispersions for disk stars can be modeled as relatively simple
2382: functions of the form $a+b|Z|^c$, as discussed in detail by B08 (see also
2383: Girard et al. 2006). The shape of the rotational velocity distribution for
2384: disk component is non-Gaussian and can be modeled, in the $|Z|=0.8-5.0$ kpc
2385: range (and $R\sim8$ kpc), as
2386: \begin{eqnarray}
2387: \label{pDvPhi}
2388: p_D(x&=&v_\Phi|Z)= \\ \nonumber
2389: & & 0.25\,G[x|\mu=v_n(Z), \sigma=12] \\ \nonumber
2390: &+& 0.75\,G[x|\mu=v_n(Z)+34, \sigma=34],
2391: \end{eqnarray}
2392: where
2393: \begin{equation}
2394: \label{wZ}
2395: v_n(Z) = -3+19.2\,|Z/{\rm kpc}|^{1.25} \,\,\, {\rm km/s.}
2396: \end{equation}
2397: We reiterate that the widths listed for $p_D([Fe/H]|Z)$ and $p_D(v_\Phi|Z)$ are
2398: {\it intrinsic} widths and {\it have to be convolved with measurement errors
2399: when comparing to observations.} The listed widths are measured with a relative
2400: accuracy of $\sim$10\%.
2401: \end{enumerate}
2402:
2403: These functions provide a good description of the overall features in the
2404: distribution of stars in the spatial-kinematic-metallicity space, as
2405: observed by SDSS. Qualitatively, these results are in fair agreement with
2406: previous work (e.g., Gilmore \& Wyse 1985; Gilmore, Wyse \& Kuijken 1989;
2407: Majewski 1993; Nordstr\"{o}m et al. 2004; Girard et al. 2006). Quantitatively,
2408: the availability of SDSS data is enabling unprecedentedly powerful and robust
2409: studies, not only due to its large volume, but also thanks to its accurate and diverse
2410: measurements. In particular, with the SDSS data, the reach of massive statistical
2411: studies can now be extended from $<100$ pc (the HIPPARCOS distance limit,
2412: e.g., Dehnen \& Binney 1998; Nordstr\"{o}m et al. 2004) to $\sim$10 kpc.
2413:
2414: The results presented here are only a brief illustration of the great scientific
2415: potential of the SDSS stellar spectroscopic database. This dataset will remain
2416: a cutting edge resource for a long time, because other major ongoing and upcoming
2417: stellar spectroscopic surveys are either shallower (e.g., RAVE, $9 < I < 12$),
2418: or have a significantly narrower wavelength coverage and depth (Gaia, $r\la17$).
2419:
2420:
2421: \subsubsection{ Is there a thick disk? }
2422:
2423: Perhaps the most significant result of our study, in addition to detection of
2424: the abundant substructure in metallicity space, is that transition from the thin to
2425: the thick disk, seen (and originally defined by Gilmore and Reid 1983) as an
2426: abrupt change of slope in the log(counts) vs. $Z$ plot around $|Z|\sim1$ kpc,
2427: can be modeled as smooth shifts of metallicity and velocity distributions that
2428: do not change their shape. More
2429: quantitatively, using the above notation, the disk metallicity and
2430: velocity distribution can be described as
2431: \begin{eqnarray}
2432: p_D(x&=&v_\Phi \, {\rm or} \, [Fe/H] |Z)= \\ \nonumber
2433: & & n_1(Z)\,G[x|\mu_1(Z), \sigma_1] + n_2(Z)\,G[x|\mu_2(Z), \sigma_2].
2434: \end{eqnarray}
2435: Traditionally, the two components are interpreted as thin and thick disks,
2436: and $n_1(Z)$ and $n_2(Z)$ are constrained by stellar number counts. They are
2437: modeled as exponential functions with scale heights of $\sim$300 pc and
2438: $\sim$1000 pc, with $\mu_1(Z)$ and $\mu_2(Z)$, typically assumed independent
2439: of $Z$. This description is only mildly inconsistent with the observed
2440: {\it marginal} metallicity and velocity distributions. However, when the
2441: two distributions are analyzed {\it simultaneously}, this decomposition
2442: faces a serious difficulty. Because it combines {\it different} metallicity
2443: and velocity distributions for thin- and thick-disk components (the data require
2444: offsets of 0.2 dex and 48 km/s), it predicts a strong and detectable
2445: correlation between them. The data presented here do not display any significant
2446: correlation, and rule out this prediction at a highly significant level
2447: ($\sim8\sigma$).
2448:
2449: We find an alternative interpretation that does not imply a strong
2450: correlation between metallicity and velocity distributions. Formally,
2451: we find that the data can be fit with $n_1$ and $n_2$ that do not
2452: vary with $Z$ (eqs.~\ref{pDmetal} and \ref{pDvPhi}), while $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$
2453: are {\it coupled} and vary with $Z$ according to eqs.~\ref{medMetalD} and \ref{wZ}.
2454: This ability to describe the disk metallicity and velocity distributions
2455: using functions with universal $Z$-independent shapes has fundamental
2456: implications for its origin: instead of two distinct components, our data
2457: can be interpreted with a single disk, albeit with metallicity and velocity
2458: distributions more complex than a Gaussian (note that the data require
2459: non-Gaussian distributions even in the traditional interpretation).
2460: While the disk separation into thin and thick components may still be a
2461: useful concept to describe the fairly abrupt change of number density around
2462: $|Z|\sim1$ kpc (which is detected beyond doubt, see J08 for SDSS
2463: results), the disk spatial profile may simply indicate a complex structure
2464: (i.e. not a single exponential function), rather than two distinct entities
2465: with different formation and evolution history. If this is correct,
2466: then our results imply that {\it different processes led to the observed
2467: metallicity and velocity distributions of disk stars,} rather than a single
2468: process, such as mergers or an increase of velocity dispersion due to scattering,
2469: that simultaneously shaped both distributions.
2470:
2471: On the other hand, it appears that stars from the solar neighborhood,
2472: believed to be thick-disk stars because of their {\it kinematic} behavior,
2473: have larger $\alpha$-element abundances, at the same $[Fe/H]$, than
2474: do thin-disk stars (e.g., Fuhrmann 2004; Bensby et al. 2004;
2475: Feltzing 2006; Reddy et al. 2006; Ram\'{i}rez et al. 2007). The thick-disk
2476: stars, again selected kinematically,
2477: appear older than the thin-disk stars (e.g., Fuhrmann 2004; Bensby et
2478: al. 2004). Thus, it is possible that the data presented here are
2479: insufficient to distinguish detailed elemental and age differences,
2480: and that high-resolution spectroscopy is required to do so.
2481: If such supplemental data were available, for example, for the $\sim$20,000
2482: stars analyzed in Figures~\ref{Zhist} and \ref{Vphihist}, one could
2483: determine whether the distributions of individual $\alpha$-elements
2484: admit a universal shape, and whether they are {\it correlated with kinematics}.
2485: These stars are confined to several hundred sq.deg. of sky, with a sky density
2486: of $\sim$100 deg$^{-2}$, and those at $|Z|<4$ kpc have $g\la18$. Such an
2487: undertaking is within the easy reach of modern spectrographs installed on
2488: 10m-class telescopes. High-resolution studies of slightly brighter subsets of stars
2489: are planned to be undertaken with the APOGEE subsurvey, part of the proposed
2490: next extension of the SDSS, SDSS-III.
2491:
2492:
2493: \subsubsection{ Multidimensional Substructure }
2494:
2495: The samples discussed here are sufficiently large to constrain the
2496: global behavior of metallicity distribution and to search for anomalies.
2497: The halo metallicity distribution is remarkably uniform. The rms
2498: scatter in the median value for 2 kpc$^3$ large bins of only 0.03 dex
2499: is consistent with expected statistical noise. The median disk metallicity
2500: in 1 kpc$^3$ bins in the $Z=1-2$ kpc range exhibits a statistically
2501: significant, but still fairly small rms scatter of 0.05 dex. We detect
2502: a vertical metallicity gradient for disk stars (0.1--0.2 dex/kpc), but
2503: radial gradients are limited to $\la$0.01 dex/kpc for both disk and
2504: halo components, outside of regions with strong substructure.
2505:
2506: The strongest overdensity identified in the metallicity
2507: space is the Monoceros stream. Its metallicity distribution is
2508: distinct from those for both halo and disk, and has a similar width
2509: as the metallicity distribution of disk stars ($\sim$0.15 dex).
2510: Hence, recent discoveries of abundant substructure in stellar spatial
2511: distribution and kinematics are now extended to metallicity space.
2512: We concur with Nordstr\"{o}m et al. (2004) that ``the Galaxy is
2513: a far more complicated and interesting subject than ever before''.
2514:
2515:
2516: \subsubsection{Implications for Future Imaging Surveys }
2517:
2518: The analysis and conclusions presented here are relevant for upcoming
2519: large-scale deep optical surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey (Flaugher
2520: et al. 2007), Pan-STARRS (Kaiser 2002) and the Large Synoptic Survey
2521: Telescope (Tyson 2002, LSST hereafter). Of these, only LSST plans to
2522: obtain data in the $u$ band\footnote{The LSST science requirements document
2523: is available from http://www.lsst.org/Science/lsst\_baseline.shtml}.
2524: Over its 10-year long lifetime, the LSST survey will obtain about
2525: 60 observations in the $u$ band of a 20,000 deg$^2$ area.
2526: Thanks to its large aperture, the median 5$\sigma$ depth of
2527: $\sim24$ (for point sources) will be significantly fainter than for
2528: SDSS data (22.5), and the coadded data will reach a 5$\sigma$
2529: depth of $u=26$. The potential of photometric metallicity estimator
2530: for studying the evolution and structure of the Milky Way demonstrated
2531: here bodes well for LSST science mission.
2532:
2533: Using SDSS data, we estimate the number of stars for which LSST will provide
2534: metallicity measurements. Based on the discussion presented in \S 2, we adopt an
2535: error in the $u-g$ color of 0.05 mag as a practical limit for robust metallicity
2536: studies. This color error corresponds to a metallicity error of 0.1 dex for
2537: metal-rich stars, and 0.2 dex for metal-poor stars. The LSST data will achieve
2538: this color accuracy for stars with $0.2 < g-r < 0.6$ if $g<23.5$. This is about
2539: 4 magnitudes deeper than the analogous limit for SDSS survey. Based on the
2540: counts of SDSS stars, we estimate that LSST will measure metallicity accurate to
2541: 0.2 dex or better\footnote{At the bright end, LSST color errors will be $<$0.01
2542: mag. An error of 0.01 mag in the $g-r$ color corresponds to a 50 K random error
2543: in effective temperature, and an error of 0.01 mag in the $u-g$ color
2544: corresponds to a random metallicity error of 0.01 dex at $[Fe/H]=-0.5$ and 0.05
2545: dex at $[Fe/H]=-1.5$.} for at least 200 million F/G main sequence stars brighter
2546: than $g=23.5$ (without accounting for the fact that stellar counts greatly
2547: increase close to the Galactic plane). For these stars\footnote{The 200 million
2548: stars from the ``metallicity'' sample will be observed over 250 times in the $g$
2549: and $r$ bands with signal-to-noise ratios of about 20 or larger per observation
2550: even at the faint end (and the final error in the $g-r$ color below 1\%). The
2551: total number of stars that will be detected by LSST is of the order 10
2552: billion.}, LSST will also provide proper motion measurements accurate to about
2553: 0.2 mas/yr at $g=21$ and 0.5 mas/yr at $g=23$ (about 10 times more accurate and
2554: $\sim$3 magnitudes deeper than the SDSS-POSS catalog by Munn et al. used in this
2555: work). This data set will represent a deep complement to the Gaia mission
2556: ($g\la20$; Perryman et al. 2001; Wilkinson et al. 2005), and will enable
2557: detailed exploration of the Milky Way halo in a six-dimensional space spanned by
2558: three spatial coordinates, two velocity components and metallicity, within a
2559: distance limit of $\sim$100 kpc. This study can be regarded as one of first
2560: steps in this mapping endeavor, which is bound to provide unprecedented clues
2561: about the formation and evolution of our Galaxy. Indeed, ``these are exciting
2562: times to study local galaxies'' (Wyse 2006).
2563:
2564:
2565:
2566:
2567: \acknowledgements
2568:
2569: \v{Z}. Ivezi\'{c} and B. Sesar acknowledge support by NSF grants AST-615991
2570: and AST-0707901, and by NSF grant AST-0551161 to LSST for design and development
2571: activity. M. Juri\'{c} gratefully acknowledges support from the Taplin Fellowship
2572: and NSF grant PHY-0503584.
2573: J. Dalcanton acknowledges NSF CAREER grant AST-02-38683. C. Allende
2574: Prieto acknowledges support by NASA grants NAG5-13057 and NAG5-13147. T.C.
2575: Beers, Y.S. Lee, and T. Sivarani acknowledge support from the US National
2576: Science Foundation under grants AST 04-06784 and AST 07-07776, as well as from
2577: grant PHY 02-16783; Physics Frontier Center/Joint Institute for Nuclear
2578: Astrophysics (JINA). P. Re Fiorentin acknowledges partial support through the
2579: Marie Curie Research Training Network ELSA (European Leadership in Space
2580: Astrometry) under contract MRTN-CT-2006-033481.
2581:
2582: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
2583: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the
2584: U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
2585: the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education
2586: Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
2587:
2588: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
2589: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American
2590: Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel,
2591: University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago,
2592: Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan
2593: Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear
2594: Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the
2595: Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
2596: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the
2597: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio
2598: State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton
2599: University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of
2600: Washington.
2601:
2602:
2603: \appendix
2604:
2605:
2606: \section{Photometric Parallax Relation Derived using Globular Clusters}
2607:
2608: In Paper I, we proposed a photometric parallax relation that did not explicitly
2609: use metallicity information, for two main reasons. First, the analysis
2610: included stars close to the faint limit of SDSS imaging for which the accuracy
2611: of photometric metallicity is significantly deteriorated due to increased
2612: $u$-band noise, and, secondly, the sample also included red stars for which
2613: metallicity is difficult to estimate. The photometric parallax relation adopted in
2614: Paper I implicitly takes metallicity effects into account by being somewhat
2615: shallower than a photometric parallax relation appropriate for a
2616: single-metallicity population: nearby stars ($\la$1 kpc, or so), which are
2617: predominantly red (due to the use of a flux-limited sample), have on average high disk-like
2618: metallicites, while distant stars ($\sim$1-10 kpc) are predominantly blue stars
2619: with low metallicities (at a given $g-r$ or $g-i$ color, luminosity increases
2620: with metallicity for main-sequence stars). However, here we discuss only stars
2621: for which photometric metallicity estimates are available and, furthermore, they
2622: do not include very faint stars due to the flux limit ($u\la21$) imposed by
2623: requiring proper motion information. Hence, we can explicitly account for shifts
2624: of photometric parallax relation as a function of metallicity.
2625:
2626: The color-magnitude diagrams for globular clusters can be used to constrain the
2627: photometric parallax relation and its dependence on metallicity, and to estimate
2628: systematic errors using the residuals between the adopted relation and
2629: individual clusters. For example, using three fiducial cluster sequences,
2630: $M_V(B-V)$, corresponding to metallicities, $[Fe/H]$, of $-2.20$, $-0.71$ and
2631: $+0.12$, Beers et al. (2000) spline interpolate between them to obtain $M_V$ for an
2632: arbitrary combination of $B-V$ and $[Fe/H]$. This is the method used to compute
2633: main-sequence distance estimates available from SDSS Data Release catalogs.
2634:
2635: There are several reasons to revisit the method developed by Beers et al. First,
2636: a transformation from Johnson system to SDSS system is required to apply their
2637: method to SDSS data. While this transformation is known to about 0.01 mag
2638: (Ivezi\'{c} et al. 2006a), even such a small systematic error results in an
2639: uncertainty of absolute magnitude of $\sim$0.12 mag for blue stars. Secondly, only
2640: three fiducial color-magnitude sequences are used, and it is not clear
2641: whether spline interpolation captures in detail the shift of the main sequence as a
2642: function of metallicity. Thirdly, the impact of age variations on the assumed
2643: absolute magnitudes is not quantitatively known. Furthermore, it is not known
2644: how similar color-magnitude sequences are for different clusters with similar
2645: metallicity. It is, therefore, desirable to determine photometric parallax
2646: relation using a larger number of clusters, with at least some of them observed
2647: by SDSS.
2648:
2649: We use five globular clusters observed by SDSS, selected to have distance in the
2650: range 7--12 kpc (using distances from Harris 1996), to constrain the {\it shape}
2651: of the photometric parallax relation. This distance range ensures sufficient
2652: photometric quality for stars in the color range $g-i<0.8$ ($g-r\la0.6$), where
2653: photometric metallicity estimates are reliable. We augment this sample by data
2654: for six additional clusters compiled by VandenBerg \& Clem (2003), which
2655: significantly increase the sampled metallicity range and allow us to determine
2656: the shift of photometric parallax relation as a function of metallicity. We use
2657: additional clusters observed by SDSS and by Clem, VandenBerg \& Stetson (2008),
2658: as well as constraints based on Hipparcos and ground-based trigonometric
2659: parallax measurements, to test our adopted photometric parallax relation.
2660:
2661:
2662: \subsection{ Methodology and Results }
2663:
2664: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrccrrrr}
2665: \tablenum{6} \tablecolumns{9} \tablewidth{400pt}
2666: \tablecaption{The Globular Clusters Observed by SDSS and Used in the Photometric Parallax Analysis}
2667: \tablehead{Name & D$^a$ & R$^b$ & $[Fe/H]_H^c$ & $[Fe/H]_{ph}^d$ & N$^e$ & $gi_{\rm min}^f$ & $gi_{\rm max}^g$ & $\Delta r^h$}
2668: \startdata
2669: M 2 & 11.5 & 10.0 & -1.62 & -1.66 & 472 & 0.40 & 0.70 & 0.00 \\
2670: M 3 & 10.4 & 17.5 & -1.57 & -1.41 & 1279 & 0.35 & 0.80 & 0.03 \\
2671: M 5 & 7.5 & 17.5 & -1.27 & -1.27 & 1776 & 0.40 & 1.10 & -0.07 \\
2672: M 13 & 7.7 & 15.0 & -1.54 & -1.65 & 829 & 0.40 & 1.00 & 0.06 \\
2673: M 15 & 10.3 & 12.5 & -2.26 & -2.09 & 676 & 0.30 & 0.70 & 0.01 \\
2674: \enddata
2675: \tablenotetext{a}{Distance, in kpc, taken from Harris (1996).}
2676: \tablenotetext{b}{Angular radius (arcmin) used for selecting cluster stars, taken from
2677: Simones, Newberg \& Cole (2008)}
2678: \tablenotetext{c}{Metallicity, taken from Harris (1996)}
2679: \tablenotetext{d}{Median photometric metallicity for stars with $0.3<g-i<0.5$ and $u<21.5$}
2680: \tablenotetext{e}{The number of stars used for estimating $[Fe/H]_{ph}$
2681: (errors are dominated by systematics)}
2682: \tablenotetext{f}{The minimum $g-i$ color used in the analysis (determined by turn-off stars)}
2683: \tablenotetext{g}{The maximum $g-i$ color used in the analysis (determined from $r<21.5$)}
2684: \tablenotetext{h}{The median $r$-band offset (mag) for stars with $0.5<g-i<0.7$,
2685: relative to a prediction based on
2686: eqs.~\ref{GCppZ}--\ref{GCppZ2} (using distances listed in
2687: the second column).}
2688: \end{deluxetable}
2689:
2690: \begin{figure}
2691: \plotone{f20.ps}
2692: \caption{
2693: The top left panel shows the color-magnitude diagram for the globular cluster M5
2694: measured by SDSS. Individual stars are displayed as small dots, while the large
2695: dots show binned medians. The two dashed lines show the 2$\sigma$ envelope
2696: around these medians, and the solid line is the prediction based on the adopted
2697: photometric parallax relation (see text). The top right panel shows analogous
2698: binned medians for five globular clusters, with each sequence rescaled by the
2699: median magnitude for stars with $0.5 < g-i <0.7$. The short-dashed line shows a
2700: best-fit fiducial sequence (eq.~\ref{GCppZ}). For a comparison, the long-dashed
2701: line shows the $[Fe/H]=-2.20$ fiducial sequence from Beers et al. (2000). The
2702: dots in the bottom left panel show the absolute magnitude offsets relative to
2703: the fiducial relation for the five globular clusters listed in Table 6. The squares
2704: show analogous offsets for the six globular cluster listed in Table 7. The
2705: short-dashed line is the best unweighted linear fit to both data sets
2706: (eq.~\ref{GCppFeH}). The thin long-dashed line is the $\Delta M_V$ vs. $[Fe/H]$
2707: relationship from Laird, Carney \& Latham (1988), shifted to produce the same
2708: $\Delta M_r$ at $[Fe/H]=-1.0$, as the best fit derived here. The symbols with
2709: error bars (representing counting noise) in the bottom right panel show the
2710: distribution of differences between $r$-band magnitudes predicted using the
2711: adopted photometric parallax relation and the observed values. The histogram
2712: shows the expected scatter due to photometric errors.}
2713: \label{panels17}
2714: \end{figure}
2715:
2716: For clusters observed by SDSS, we select candidate cluster stars by limiting their
2717: angular distances from the cluster center to be less than the cluster radius
2718: determined by Simones, Newberg \& Cole (2008). These radii, and distance and
2719: metallicity data from Harris (1996), are listed in Table 6. While the faint
2720: flux limits of SDSS imaging data limit this analysis only to relatively blue stars
2721: ($g-i<1.0$), the color range where photometric metallicity can be determined
2722: is fully covered.
2723:
2724: For each cluster, we determine the median $r$-band magnitude in 0.05 mag
2725: wide bins of the $g-i$ color. The red limit for the considered $g-i$ range is
2726: set by requiring $r<21.5$, and the blue end is selected to be at least
2727: 0.05 mag redder than the vertical part of the observed sequences (turn-off
2728: stars). The red limit ensures sufficient signal-to-noise ratios, and the
2729: blue limit is designed to minimize the evolutionary (age) effects on the
2730: shape of adopted relation. That is, we deliberately construct a relation
2731: that corresponds to small ages first, and then study its variation with
2732: age using observed and model color-magnitude sequences. The adopted $g-i$
2733: limits are listed in Table 6, and an example of this procedure (for M5) is
2734: shown in the top left panel of Figure~\ref{panels17}.
2735:
2736: We determine the {\it shape} of the photometric parallax relation by
2737: {\it simultaneously} fitting data for all five clusters. To do so, we
2738: first shift their $r$ vs. $(g-i)$ sequences to a uniform (arbitrary)
2739: magnitude scale by requiring that the median $r$ magnitude for stars with
2740: $0.5<g-i<0.7$ is 0. These offsets depend on the cluster metallicity, as
2741: discussed below. We then fit a parabola to all the data
2742: points, as a function of the $g-i$ color, using and unweighted least squares
2743: method (a third-order polynomial is unnecessary to within $\sim$0.05 mag).
2744: We used the $g-i$ color because it has better signal-to-noise properties
2745: than $g-r$ and $r-i$ colors. We did not use the so-called ``projection
2746: on stellar locus'' technique developed in Paper I because it produces
2747: essentially identical results for relatively bright stars considered here.
2748: The stellar locus parametrization from Paper I can be used to express
2749: the fiducial sequence in terms of the $g-r$ and $r-i$ colors, if needed.
2750:
2751: The best-fit fiducial sequence is
2752: \begin{equation}
2753: \label{GCppZ}
2754: M_r^0(g-i) = -2.85 + 6.29 \, (g-i) -2.30 \, (g-i)^2,
2755: \end{equation}
2756: with $M_r^0=r-<r>=M_r-<M_r>$, valid for $0.3 < (g-i) \la 1.0$, and the
2757: medians evaluated in the $0.5<g-i<0.7$ color range. As discernible from the
2758: cluster data shown in the top right panel of Figure~\ref{panels17}, individual
2759: clusters follow the mean relation to within 0.1 mag or better (the rms scatter
2760: for all data points around the best-fit relation is 0.08 mag). We compare the
2761: slopes of the predicted and observed sequences using the difference in
2762: absolute magnitudes at $g-i=0.4$ and at $g-i=0.7$ (the predicted value is
2763: 1.25 mag). The largest discrepancies of $\sim$0.1 mag are observed for M13
2764: (the observed sequence is steeper) and M15 (the observed sequence is
2765: shallower). These discrepancies may be caused by a combination of metallicity
2766: and age effects.
2767:
2768: We proceed by {\it assuming} that the {\it shape} of color-magnitude sequence
2769: given by eq.~\ref{GCppZ} is a universal function independent of metallicity,
2770: and that its {\it normalization} depends only on metallicity. While this is
2771: not strictly true, as we discuss below, the available data are not sufficient
2772: to robustly constrain the shape variation as a function of metallicity (and
2773: possibly other parameters, e.g. helium content; see Demarque \& McClure 1980).
2774:
2775: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrr}
2776: \tablenum{7} \tablecolumns{4} \tablewidth{5in}
2777: \tablecaption{Additional Cluster Data from VandenBerg \& Clem (2003)}
2778: \tablehead{Name & $[Fe/H]^a$ & $M_V^b$ & $M_V^c$}
2779: \startdata
2780: M 92 & $-$2.50 & 6.30 & 6.32 \\
2781: M 68 & $-$2.01 & 6.25 & 6.18 \\
2782: 47 Tuc & $-$0.71 & 5.35 & 5.37 \\
2783: Pleiades & $-$0.11 & 4.80 & 4.79 \\
2784: M 67 & $-$0.04 & 4.75 & 4.72 \\
2785: Hyades & $+$0.12 & 4.50 & 4.53 \\
2786: \enddata
2787: \tablenotetext{a}{Metallicity, taken from VandenBerg \& Clem (2003), except
2788: for 47 Tuc, which is taken from Beers et al. (2000)
2789: (VandenBerg \& Clem adopted $[Fe/H] = -0.83$, which produces
2790: a 0.1 mag fainter $M_V$ prediction).}
2791: \tablenotetext{b}{The absolute $V$-band magnitude for $B-V=0.60$, determined
2792: with an accuracy of 0.05-0.10 mag, from figures presented in
2793: VandenBerg \& Clem (2003).}
2794: \tablenotetext{c}{The absolute $V$-band magnitude for $B-V=0.60$, determined
2795: using eqs.~\ref{GCppZ}--\ref{GCppZ2}, and the SDSS to Johnson
2796: transformations from Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2006a).}
2797:
2798: \end{deluxetable}
2799:
2800: We place the color-magnitude sequences for each cluster on an absolute
2801: scale using distances from Harris (1996). The offset of the measured globular
2802: cluster sequences relative to the best-fit fiducial sequence is a strong
2803: function of metallicity. We improve observational constraints on this relation
2804: by considering six additional clusters discussed by VandenBerg \& Clem (2003).
2805: We used their figures to estimate for each cluster its $M_V$ at $B-V=0.60$
2806: (corresponding to $g-i=0.57$), listed in Table 7. The corresponding $M_r$
2807: (i.e. the $V-r$ color) are computed using the SDSS to Johnson system
2808: transformations from Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2007).
2809:
2810: The data shown in the bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{panels17}
2811: strongly suggest a non-linear relationship (without the extended metallicity
2812: baseline thanks to the VandenBerg \& Clem data, the five SDSS clusters would
2813: imply a linear relationship). The best-fit parabola is
2814: \begin{equation}
2815: \label{GCppFeH}
2816: \Delta M_r([Fe/H]) = 4.50 -1.11\,[Fe/H] -0.18\,[Fe/H]^2,
2817: \end{equation}
2818: where $\Delta M_r$ is defined by
2819: \begin{equation}
2820: \label{GCppZ2}
2821: M_r(g-i,[Fe/H]) = M_r^0(g-i) + \Delta M_r([Fe/H]).
2822: \end{equation}
2823: The rms scatter around the best-fit relation is 0.05 mag
2824: for the eleven clusters used in the fit, with the maximum deviation
2825: of 0.08 mag. This remarkably small scatter around a smooth best-fit
2826: function suggests that the determination of $\Delta M_r([Fe/H])$ offsets
2827: for individual clusters has a similar precision. Note, however,
2828: that the overall scale of $M_r(g-i,[Fe/H])$ includes all
2829: systematic errors inherent in cluster distances that are adopted
2830: from Harris (1996) compilation (including a possible covariance
2831: with cluster metallicity). The adopted relation produces gradients
2832: of $dM_r/d[Fe/H]=-0.57$ mag/dex at the median halo metallicity
2833: ($[Fe/H]=-1.50$), and $-1.0$ mag/dex at the median thin-disk
2834: metallicity ($[Fe/H]=-0.2$), with an offset of 1.05 mag between
2835: these two $[Fe/H]$ values. As illustrated in the bottom left panel
2836: in Figure~\ref{panels17}, the best-fit relation derived here is in
2837: excellent agreement at $[Fe/H]<0$ with an analogous relation proposed
2838: by Laird, Carney \& Latham (1988).
2839:
2840: The distributions of differences between the $r$-band magnitudes
2841: predicted using the above expressions and the observed values
2842: for individual stars are consistent with expected noise due to
2843: photometric errors for all five clusters (see the bottom right panel
2844: of Figure~\ref{panels17} for an example based on M5). At the faint
2845: end ($r\sim21$), the expected uncertainty in $M_r$ is about
2846: 0.3 mag (random error per star), and is dominated by random photometric
2847: errors in the $g-i$ color. At the bright end, the $g-i$ errors ($\sim$0.03 mag)
2848: contribute an $M_r$ uncertainty of $\sim$0.15 mag, and an error in
2849: $[Fe/H]$ of 0.1 dex results in $M_r$ error of $\la$0.1 mag. The random
2850: errors in the $g-i$ color and photometric metallicity are by and large
2851: uncorrelated because the $u$-band errors dominate the latter.
2852:
2853: The SDSS cluster data discussed here are not sufficient to extend
2854: the fiducial sequence beyond $g-i\sim1$. While not required for the
2855: analysis presented here, we extend for completeness the adopted relation
2856: using the {\it shape} of the ``bright'' relation from Paper I. Expressed
2857: as a function of the $g-i$ color,
2858: \begin{equation}
2859: \label{GCppJ08}
2860: M_r^0(g-i) = -1.93 + 4.39 \, (g-i) -1.73 \, (g-i)^2 + 0.452 \, (g-i)^3,
2861: \end{equation}
2862: valid for $(g-i) > 0.8$. We test this extension further below.
2863:
2864:
2865: \subsection{ Testing }
2866:
2867: \begin{figure}
2868: \plotone{f21.ps}
2869: \caption{
2870: The top left panel shows the difference between the color-magnitude sequences
2871: from Beers et al. (2000) for three metallicity values (solid: $[Fe/H] = -2.20$;
2872: long-dashed: $[Fe/H] = -0.71$; dot-dashed: $[Fe/H] = +0.12$), and eqs.~\ref{GCppZ}-\ref{GCppZ2}
2873: derived here. The three short-dashed lines shows analogous differences for the M3,
2874: M13 and M92 sequences from Clem, VandenBerg \& Stetson (2008), as marked. The
2875: systematic differences for blue stars are due to age effects. The solid lines in
2876: the top right panel show $M_r$ for a Girardi et al. (2004) model with
2877: $[Fe/H]=-0.68$, evaluated for three ages, as marked. The models are offset by
2878: 0.2 mag to brighter magnitudes, to match $M_r$ computed using eqs.~\ref{GCppZ}
2879: and \ref{GCppFinal} (shown as the dashed line). The vertical long-dashed line
2880: marks the turn-off color for disk stars. The dashed line is $M_r$ computed using
2881: eqs.~\ref{GCppZ} and \ref{GCppFinal}. The bottom left panel shows the median
2882: differences between the SDSS distance modulus for main-sequence stars
2883: (determined using the Beers et al. sequences) and the values estimated using
2884: eqs.~\ref{GCppZ} and \ref{GCppFinal}, color-coded as shown in the inset. The two
2885: methods agree at the $\sim$0.1 mag level (the mean for the median difference per
2886: pixel; the distribution rms width is $\sim$0.2 mag). The bottom right panel
2887: shows implied metallicity, estimated using eqs.~\ref{GCppZ} and \ref{GCppFinal},
2888: for the two photometric parallax relations proposed by Juri\'{c} et al. (2008;
2889: solid line: ``bright'' relation; dashed line: ``faint'' relation). At the blue
2890: end, they bracket the median halo metallicity ($[Fe/H]=-1.50$); at the red
2891: end they sample the thin/thick disk metallicity range. }
2892: \label{panels18}
2893: \end{figure}
2894:
2895: Using SDSS observations for five clusters listed in Table 6, we first
2896: determined the median photometric metallicity for each cluster, using
2897: the best-fit expressions derived in this work. To avoid contamination by disk
2898: stars and noisy metallicity estimates, we only use stars with $0.3<g-i<0.5$
2899: and $u<21.5$. Remarkably, the photometric metallicity estimates are
2900: consistent with the values taken from Harris (1996) to within $\sim$0.1 dex.
2901: This test ensures that eq.~\ref{GCppFeH} can also be used with photometric
2902: metallicity estimates.
2903:
2904: We have tested eqs.~\ref{GCppZ}-\ref{GCppZ2} using an independent sample
2905: of clusters observed by SDSS at distances beyond our cutoff of 12 kpc
2906: (NGC 4147, NGC 5053, NGC 5466, NGC 5024 and Pal 5). The first four
2907: clusters have low metallicities ($[Fe/H] \sim -2.0$), and for Pal 5
2908: $[Fe/H] = -1.41$. The $r$ vs $g-i$ ridge lines predicted by eq.~\ref{GCppZ}
2909: agree well with the observed sequences (the data are much noisier
2910: than for the first five nearer clusters due to their fainter
2911: apparent magnitudes). The only signficant discrepancy is observed
2912: for Pal 5, for which the predicted magnitudes are too faint by
2913: $\sim$0.5 mag (using a distance of 23.2 kpc).
2914:
2915: To test the extension of photometric parallax relation to red colors,
2916: we use the $M_V(B-V)$ sequence for M dwarfs with the Hipparcos data, as
2917: compiled in Fig. 17 from VandenBerg \& Clem (2003): for $B-V$=(1.2, 1.3, 1.4),
2918: corresponding to $g-i$=(1.51, 1.70, 1.93), we adopt $M_V$=(7.5, 8.0, 8.5).
2919: Assuming that metallicity of those stars is equal to the median thin disk
2920: metallicity, $[Fe/H]=-0.13$ (Nordstr\"{o}m et al. 2004; Allende Prieto
2921: et al. 2004), we obtain $M_V$=(7.42, 7.91, 8.54). For the reddest data
2922: point with $V-I$=2.0, $M_V$=9.5, and we obtain $M_V$=9.47. This excellent
2923: agreement suggests that the extension given by eq.~\ref{GCppJ08} is good to
2924: within $\sim$0.1 mag for $g-i<2.2$.
2925:
2926: For redder colors ($g-i>2.0$), we compared our results with the relation
2927: derived by Bochanski et al. (2008, in prep.), which is based on ground-based
2928: trigonometric parallaxes for nearby stars (Golimowski et al. 2008, in prep.).
2929: Assuming a median metallicity of $[Fe/H]=-0.13$ for these stars, we found that
2930: the performance of eq.~\ref{GCppJ08} starts deteriorating around $g-i=3.0$.
2931: In the range ($2.0<g-i<2.8$), our relation agrees with the Bochanski et al.
2932: relation within 0.07 mag (rms) and $\sim$0.03 mag (median), and maximum
2933: deviation $<$0.1 mag, evaluated on a grid with 0.01 mag steps. A linear
2934: relation in the range $2.8<g-i<4.0$
2935: \begin{equation}
2936: \label{GCred}
2937: M_r^0(g-i) = -4.40 + 3.97 \, (g-i)
2938: \end{equation}
2939: is a much better approximation to the observed sequence than eq.~\ref{GCppJ08}
2940: (but for a detailed fit please consult Bochanski et al.). Note that
2941: for $[Fe/H]=-0.13$, this relation must be shifted by 4.64 mag to obtain
2942: $M_r$ (see eq.~\ref{GCppFeH}).
2943:
2944: As an additional test of the relation derived here, we compare it to
2945: color-magnitude sequences measured by Clem, VandenBerg \& Stetson (2008)
2946: for three clusters that have turn-off colors bluer than $g-i=0.6$ (M3, M13
2947: and M92). Their data were obtained in the SDSS ``prime'' system, and we used
2948: expressions from Tucker et al. (2006) to transform those sequences onto
2949: the SDSS native system. For $g-i>0.5$, their sequences for M3 and M13
2950: are in good agreement ($<0.2$ mag) with our predictions, while for
2951: blue colors close to the turn-off color, they become progressively
2952: brighter, as expected (see the top left panel of Figure~\ref{panels18}).
2953: For M92, discrepancies are larger than $\sim$0.2 mag even for red colors
2954: ($g-i\sim1$). However, based on photometric transformations from Tucker et
2955: al. (2006) and Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2007), we find that the M92 sequence in
2956: the SDSS ``prime'' system from Clem, VandenBerg \& Stetson (2008) and the
2957: M92 sequence in rhw Johnson system from VandenBerg \& Clem (2003) are not
2958: consistent. For example, $V=20.9$ at $B-V=0.6$ taken from VandenBerg \& Clem
2959: implies $r=20.7$, while data listed in Table 3 from Clem, VandenBerg \&
2960: Stetson imply $r=20.45$ at the corresponding color. We emphasize that
2961: the same photometric transformations result in good agreement for the
2962: other two clusters, and that the color-magnitude sequence for M92 from
2963: VandenBerg \& Clem agrees with our relation to within 0.1 mag.
2964:
2965: The top left panel of Figure~\ref{panels18} shows a comparison of the
2966: relation derived here with the three sequences from Beers et al. (2000).
2967: Similarly to the comparison with the Clem, VandenBerg \& Stetson sequences,
2968: our relation predicts fainter magnitudes for blue turn-off stars, as expected.
2969: We emphasize that these differences are not due to errors in the color-magnitude
2970: sequences adopted by Beers et al., because they agree with other sources,
2971: e.g., with the VandenBerg \& Clem (2003) data. Rather, the differences are due
2972: to our design choice to exclude from fitting the parts of the clusters'
2973: color-magnitude sequences that are too close to their turn-off color.
2974:
2975: Our results show that the Beers et al. spline interpolation of metallicity
2976: effects based on only three clusters performs remarkably well. The largest overall
2977: discrepancy between our photometric parallax relation and the three Beers
2978: et al. sequences for red colors ($g-i>0.6$) is observed for 47 Tuc: for
2979: $1.0 < g-i < 1.8$, the predicted $M_r$ are too bright by 0.4 mag.
2980: Since agreement at our fiducial $g-i\sim0.6$ is satisfactory, this
2981: difference implies that the color-magnitude sequence is for 47 Tuc is
2982: steeper than for other clusters discussed here. This peculiarity of
2983: 47 Tuc has been known for some time, and may be related to its anomalous
2984: helium content (Demarque \& McClure 1980; Hesser, Harris \& Vandenberg
2985: 1987). We note that our relation predicts absolute magnitudes for red
2986: stars ($B-V>1$) that are brighter by $\sim$0.3 mag than the data
2987: for extremely metal-rich ($[Fe/H]=+0.37$) open cluster NGC 6791 from
2988: VandenBerg \& Clem (2003).
2989:
2990:
2991: \subsection{Age effects and Comparison with Models}
2992:
2993: By design, the photometric parallax relation derived here avoids the
2994: increased curvature of the color-magnitude sequence close to the
2995: turn-off color. Its blue edge is constrained by the parts of the M3 and M15
2996: sequences that are {\it redwards} from their turn-off colors (see Table
2997: 6 and the top right panel of Figure~\ref{panels17}). For stars with
2998: turn-off colors, the predicted absolute magnitudes can be up to $\sim$1 mag
2999: too faint. For example, for M5 turn-off stars selected by $0.25 < g-i < 0.35$
3000: ($\langle r \rangle=18.6$), the difference between predicted and observed
3001: $r$-band magnitudes is well described by a Gaussian distribution with a
3002: mean of 0.22 mag and $\sigma=0.49$ mag, implying underestimated distances
3003: by 11\%, on average.
3004:
3005: The effect of age on turn-off color and absolute magnitude, as a function
3006: of metallicity, can be gauged with the aid of model isochrones, e.g., such
3007: as those developed for SDSS photometric system by Girardi et al. (2004).
3008: While modeling difficulties prevent absolute normalization of such models
3009: to better than $\sim$0.1-0.2 mag even for hot stars (and much worse for
3010: stars with $g-i>1$), their {\it relative} behavior, as a function of age,
3011: provides valuable guidance. The Girardi et al. models show that the turn-off
3012: color is bluer than $g-i=0.6$ even for 13 Gyr old populations and a
3013: metallicity at the upper end of the range relevant here ($[Fe/H]=-0.4$).
3014: Hence, the adopted relation is insensitive to age effects for $g-i>0.6$.
3015: For $g-i<0.6$, it needs to be corrected as a function of metallicity and age.
3016:
3017: The mean ages of halo and disk stars considered in this work can be
3018: estimated from the blue edge of their color distributions. The number
3019: of stars drops precipitously bluer than $g-i\sim0.25$ for the low-metallicity
3020: subsample ($Fe/H\la -1$, halo stars), and at $g-i\sim0.4$ for
3021: high-metallicity subsample (disk stars). Interestingly, the Girardi
3022: et al. models suggest similar age for both subsamples: $\sim$10 Gyr,
3023: with an estimated uncertainty of $\sim$2 Gyr (due to metallicity and
3024: color zeropoint uncertainties; we adopted 0.2 dex and 0.05 mag,
3025: respectively). Motivated by this result, we derive an age correction
3026: appropriate for stars with median halo metallicity and age of $\sim$10 Gyr
3027: using the color-magnitude sequence for cluster M13 ($[Fe/H]=-1.54$).
3028: For $0.22 < g-i<0.58$
3029: \begin{equation}
3030: \label{GCppM13}
3031: \Delta M_r^{M13}(g-i) = -2.17 + 6.64 \, (g-i) -5.00 \, (g-i)^2,
3032: \end{equation}
3033: which increases from 0 at the red edge to -0.95 mag at $g-i=0.22$,
3034: and has to be added to right-hand side of eq.~\ref{GCppZ2}.
3035:
3036: This correction for age is not strictly applicable to stars with higher
3037: disk-like metallicity. However, the Girardi et al. models suggest
3038: that the error is small, $<0.2$ mag for $g-i>0.45$ (i.e. 0.05 redder
3039: than the turn-off color for disk stars), as illustrated in the top
3040: right panel of Figure~\ref{panels18}. For this reason, we adopt
3041: eq.~\ref{GCppM13} as a universal age correction for stars bluer
3042: than $g-i<0.58$.
3043:
3044: Given different expressions for three color ranges (eqs.~\ref{GCppZ},
3045: \ref{GCppJ08}, and \ref{GCred}) and the above age correction, for
3046: convenience we fit a fifth-order polynomial to a vector of $M_r$
3047: values generated using the appropriate expressions for $0.2<g-i<4.0$,
3048: with a step size of 0.01 mag. Our {\it final} expression
3049: \begin{equation}
3050: \label{GCppFinal}
3051: M_r^0(g-i) = -5.06 + 14.32 \,x -12.97 \, x^2 + 6.127 \, x^3 \\
3052: -1.267 \, x^4 + 0.0967 \, x^5,
3053: \end{equation}
3054: where $x=(g-i)$,
3055: reproduces individual $M_r$ values with an rms of 0.05 mag and maximum
3056: deviation below 0.1 mag. Together with eqs.~\ref{GCppFeH} and \ref{GCppZ2},
3057: this is the final photometric parallax relation used in this work.
3058:
3059: We have compared a large number of Girardi et al. models that span the
3060: relevant range of metallicities ($-2.3 < [Fe/H] < 0$) and ages (1--13 Gyr)
3061: with the resulting photometric parallax relation. Model predictions are
3062: in good agreement (an rms of $\sim$0.1 mag) with the $M_r$ vs. $[Fe/H]$
3063: dependence described by eq.~\ref{GCppZ}, but the model $M_r$ predictions are systematically
3064: too faint by $\sim$0.2 mag (evaluated at $g-i=0.7$). Possible explanations
3065: for this difference are
3066: 1) the model stars are too small by $\sim$10\%,
3067: 2) the model $g-i$ color is too red by 0.06 mag, and
3068: 3) the model $[Fe/H]$ scale is offset relative to SDSS scale by $\sim$0.3 dex
3069: to larger values. A plausible combination of these effects, e.g.,
3070: an error of 3\% in sizes, 0.02 mag in color, and 0.1 dex in metallicity,
3071: brings data and models into agreement (the probability that all three
3072: effects would have the same sign is 12\%).
3073:
3074:
3075: \subsection{Comparison with SDSS Distances and J08}
3076:
3077: With the adopted age correction (eq.~\ref{GCppM13}), our final
3078: expression is expected to produce very similar distances to those
3079: published in SDSS Data Release catalogs for blue stars ($g-i<2$).
3080: We have confirmed that this is the case: the median offset of
3081: implied $M_r$ evaluated in small bins of $u-g$ and $g-r$ color
3082: (see the bottom left panel of Figure~\ref{panels18}) is -0.07 mag,
3083: with an rms of 0.06 mag. These differences are smaller than the
3084: intrinsic errors of the photometric parallax method ($\sim$0.1-0.2
3085: mag).
3086:
3087: Using eqs.~\ref{GCppFeH}, \ref{GCppZ2}, and \ref{GCppFinal}, we can now
3088: determine ``effective'' metallicity that the two photometric parallax
3089: relations proposed in Paper I correspond to, as a function of the $g-i$
3090: color (see the bottom right panel in Figure~\ref{panels18}). As designed,
3091: those two relations bracket the median halo metallicity ($[Fe/H]=-1.50$)
3092: at the blue end, and sample the thin/thick disk metallicity range at the
3093: red end.
3094:
3095: In summary, the relations proposed here are in good agreement ($<0.1$ mag)
3096: with the clusters M3 and M13 at the low-metallicity end for $g-i<1.5$, and
3097: with local stars with trigonometric parallaxes for $g-i>1.5$. At a fiducial
3098: color $g-i=0.6$, in the middle of the color range where photometric
3099: metallicity can be estimated, the rms scatter around the best-fit
3100: $\Delta M_r$ vs. $[Fe/H]$ curve is 0.08 mag. Even in cases of known
3101: peculiar behavior (e.g., 47 Tuc) and at the high-metallicity end
3102: (e.g., NGC 6791), discrepancies do not exceed 0.4 mag. Compared to the
3103: Beers et al. relations used by the SDSS, here we provide an estimate of
3104: the scatter around mean relations, a closed-form expression for the
3105: metallicity dependence, and extend the method's applicability farther
3106: into the red, to $g-i\sim4$. Given the larger
3107: number of globular clusters observed in SDSS system used here, as well
3108: as tests based on external data sets, it is likely that distance estimates
3109: for main-sequence stars based on the photometric parallax method (both
3110: using relations derived here and the Beers et al. relations) do not
3111: suffer from systematic errors larger than $\sim$10\%. While these systematic
3112: distance errors are not overwhelming, they could, in principle, have an impact
3113: on the analysis of the Milky Way kinematics. We discuss such issues further in Paper
3114: III (B08).
3115:
3116:
3117:
3118: \section{Additional Discussion of the Photometric Temperature Estimator}
3119:
3120: Often, the inverse of the effective temperature is fit as a linear function
3121: of color (e.g. CPF). The best-fit
3122: \begin{equation}
3123: \label{altT}
3124: { 5040 \, {\rm K} \over T_{\rm eff}} = 0.532(g-r) + 0.654
3125: \end{equation}
3126: results in the same systematic errors and rms scatter as eq.~\ref{logT},
3127: with the largest difference between the two relations below 50 K.
3128:
3129: A lower limit for the errors in estimation of the photometric effective
3130: temperature can be readily computed using eq.~\ref{logT} and the photometric errors
3131: in the $g-r$ color (the median value is 0.025 mag, and 0.03 mag at $g=19.5$;
3132: these values, computed by the photometric pipeline, are reliable, as discussed in
3133: detail by Sesar et al. 2007). This is a lower limit, because the contribution of
3134: errors in the spectroscopic effective temperature is not included. The standard
3135: deviation for the distribution of metallicity residuals normalized by these
3136: errors is 1.2. Hence, one is tempted to conclude that the accuracy of the
3137: effective temperature estimator is limited by the SDSS photometric errors. However,
3138: this conclusion is not consistent with the behavior of the $\log(T_{\rm eff})$
3139: vs. $g-r$ relation for a subset of 13,719 stars for which more accurate
3140: photometry, based on $\sim$10 repeated SDSS observations, is available
3141: (Ivezi\'{c} et al. 2007). Although for these stars the median error in the $g-r$
3142: color is only 0.008 mag, the standard deviation for $\log(T_{\rm eff})$
3143: residuals is not appreciably smaller (the expectation is a decrease by a factor
3144: of three). Therefore, it is quite likely that the contribution of errors in
3145: the spectroscopic effective temperature to the scatter of $\log(T_{\rm eff})$
3146: residuals is not negligible. Indeed, the implied value of $\sim$100 K agrees
3147: well with an independent estimate based on a comparison to high-resolution
3148: spectral data, as discussed by Beers at al. 2006. The analyzed color range spans
3149: about 15 MK spectral subtypes (from $\sim$F5 to $\sim$G9/K0, Bailer-Jones et al.
3150: 1997, 1998). Hence, the uncertainty in the photometric effective temperature
3151: estimate of 100 K corresponds to about one spectral subtype, or equivalently,
3152: {\it an error of one spectral subtype corresponds to a $g-r$ error of 0.02 mag}.
3153:
3154: A good correlation between the spectroscopic effective temperature
3155: and $g-r$ color extends beyond the restricted color range where
3156: the photometric metallicity method is applicable ($0.2 < g-r < 0.4$).
3157: We find that everywhere in the $-0.3 < g-r < 1.3$ color range
3158: (roughly $-0.1 < B-V < 1.3$), the relation
3159: \begin{equation}
3160: \log(T_{\rm eff} / {\rm K}) =
3161: 3.882 - 0.316(g-r) + 0.0488(g-r)^2 + 0.0283(g-r)^3
3162: \end{equation}
3163: achieves systematic errors below 0.004 dex and overall rms of 0.008 dex.
3164: The corresponding temperature range is
3165: 4,000 -- 10,000 K. When the residuals are binned in 0.1 dex wide bins of
3166: metallicity and log(g), the largest median residual is 0.006 dex.
3167: Eq.~\ref{altT} remains valid in the $-0.3 < g-r < 0.8$ range, but
3168: also requires non-linear terms if extended to redder colors
3169: (or a different linear fit for the $0.8 < g-r < 1.3$ range).
3170:
3171: Due to the expanded $g-r$ range, the impact of metallicity and log(g)
3172: on $\log(T_{\rm eff})$ residuals is expected to be larger for this relation
3173: than for eq.~\ref{logT}. Using Kurucz (1979) models, we find that
3174: the strongest dependence on metallicity is expected in the $0.4 < g-r < 1.2$
3175: color range, with a gradient of $\sim$0.015 dex/dex (see also Lenz et al.
3176: 1998 for a related discussion). The measured value for SDSS sample is
3177: 0.012 dex/dex, and implies up to $\sim$200 K offsets as metallicity varies
3178: from $-2.0$ to $-0.5$. The strongest dependence on log(g) is expected in the
3179: $-0.2 < g-r < 0.1$ color range, with a gradient of 0.02 dex/dex. The measured
3180: value for the SDSS sample is $\sim$0.004 dex/dex, or about five times smaller
3181: (150 K vs. 720 K variation, as log(g) varies by 2 dex at $g-r=0$). We do not
3182: understand the cause of this discrepancy.
3183:
3184:
3185: \section{Additional Discussion of the Photometric Metallicity Estimator }
3186:
3187: In two {\it restricted} color regions, simpler expressions than eq.~\ref{Zphotom}
3188: can suffice. In a low-metallicity region defined by $0.8 < u-g < 1.0$
3189: (and $0.2 < g-r < 0.6$, of course), the relation
3190: \begin{equation}
3191: \label{ZphotomLowZ}
3192: [Fe/H]_{ph}= 5.14(u-g) - 6.10
3193: \end{equation}
3194: reproduces the spectroscopic metallicity of about 27,000 stars with an rms scatter
3195: of 0.29 dex. We note that this is essentially the same expression as obtained
3196: by Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2006b), using a preliminary version of spectroscopic
3197: parameter pipeline, {\it except for an overall shift in metallicity by 0.2 dex.}
3198: This shift is due to the fact that SDSS stellar parameters pipeline was still
3199: under development when the analysis of Ivezi\'{c} et al. (2006b) was performed.
3200:
3201: In the high effective temperature region (5800 K $< T_{\rm eff} <$ 6600 K) defined
3202: by $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$, the relation
3203: \begin{equation}
3204: \label{ZphotomHighT}
3205: [Fe/H]_{ph}= -21.88 + 47.39(u-g) -35.50(u-g)^2 + 9.018(u-g)^3
3206: \end{equation}
3207: reproduces spectroscopic metallicity of about 34,000 stars with an rms scatter
3208: of 0.30 dex. In the range $0.8 < u-g < 1.4$ (corresponding to $-2.0 < [Fe/H] <
3209: -0.4$) systematic errors do not exceed 0.1 dex. The systematic errors are larger
3210: than for eq.~\ref{Zphotom} because the lines of constant metallicity in the
3211: $g-r$ vs. $u-g$ diagram are not exactly vertical. Despite having somewhat poorer
3212: performance, eqs.~\ref{ZphotomLowZ} and ~\ref{ZphotomHighT} are convenient when
3213: estimating the impact of $u-g$ color error on photometric metallicity error. An
3214: error in the $u-g$ color of 0.02 mag (typical of both systematic calibration
3215: errors and random errors at the bright end for SDSS data) induces an error in
3216: $[Fe/H]$ that varies from 0.02 dex at $[Fe/H]=-0.5$ ($u-g$=1.28) to 0.11 dex at
3217: $[Fe/H]=-1.5$ ($u-g$=0.89). At $g=19.5$, the median $u-g$ error for single-epoch
3218: SDSS data is 0.06 mag for point sources with $0.2 < g-r < 0.4$, corresponding to
3219: median random metallicity errors of 0.10 dex for disk stars and 0.30 dex for
3220: halo stars (for a detailed dependence of SDSS random photometric errors on
3221: magnitude, see Sesar et al. 2007).
3222:
3223: The metallicity vs. $u-g$ relation has a smaller slope at the red end (both
3224: eq.~\ref{Zphotom} and eq.~\ref{ZphotomHighT}), and effectively introduces an
3225: upper limit on estimated metallicity. For example, for $u-g$=1.3 and $g-r=0.4$,
3226: $[Fe/H]_{ph}= -0.44$ (from eq.~\ref{Zphotom}, and $-0.46$ using
3227: eq.~\ref{ZphotomHighT}). Such an upper limit is in agreement with the data
3228: analyzed here, but we emphasize that the data set under consideration does {\it
3229: not} include significant numbers of stars with higher metallicity. Such stars
3230: are presumably nearby thin-disk stars, which in the $0.2 < g-r < 0.6$ range are
3231: typically saturated in SDSS data (most SDSS data to date are obtained at high
3232: Galactic latitudes). It is thus possible that metallicity estimates given by
3233: both eq.~\ref{Zphotom} and eq.~\ref{ZphotomHighT} would be biased towards lower
3234: values for stars with $[Fe/H] > -0.5$, resulting in a ``metallicity
3235: compression''. Some evidence that this is a detectable, but not a major effect
3236: is discussed in \S~\ref{diskEdge}, and in more detail by Lee et al. (2007b). It
3237: will be possible to quantify this effect in detail using the data for metal-rich
3238: stars from the ongoing SDSS spectroscopic survey of low Galactic latitudes
3239: (SEGUE).
3240:
3241: Given that the $u$-band photometric errors limit the precision of photometric
3242: metallicity estimates at the faint end, it is prudent to test whether the
3243: position of a star in the $r-i$ vs. $g-r$ color-color diagram could be used
3244: as an alternative method. We selected subsamples of stars in 0.02 mag wide
3245: $g-r$ bins, and inspected the dependence of spectroscopic metallicity on the
3246: $r-i$ color in the range $-2.5 < [Fe/H] < -0.5$. The strongest correlation
3247: between $[Fe/H]$ and $r-i$ color is observed around $g-r\sim0.4$, with a
3248: gradient of $\Delta(r-i)/\Delta[Fe/H] \sim 0.017$ mag/dex. Hence, the
3249: effect of metallicity on the $r-i$ color is about 10 times smaller than
3250: for the $u-g$ color. With the $r-i$ color kept fixed, we find
3251: $\Delta(g-r)/\Delta[Fe/H] \sim 0.04$ mag/dex. When using only the $gri$
3252: bands, the photometric metallicity errors are about 0.3 dex at the bright
3253: end and 0.5 dex at $g=19.5$ ($<$0.1 dex and $<$0.3 dex for $ugr$ based
3254: estimates). Therefore, the best approach for estimating photometric
3255: metallicity using SDSS data is to use the $ugr$ bands.
3256:
3257:
3258: \begin{thebibliography}{}
3259: \bibitem[]{2336} Abadi, M.G., Navarro, J.F., Steinmetz, M. \& Eke, V.R. 2003, ApJ, 597, 21
3260: \bibitem[]{2337} Abazajian, K., Adelman, J.K., Ag\"ueros, M., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2081
3261: \bibitem[]{2338} Abazajian, K., Adelman, J.K., Ag\"ueros, M., et al. 2004, AJ, 129, 1755
3262: \bibitem[]{2339} Abazajian, K., Adelman, J.K., Ag\"ueros, M., et al. 2005, AJ, 128, 502
3263: \bibitem[]{2340} Adelman-McCarthy, J.K., Ag\"{u}eros, M.A., Allam, S.S., et al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 38
3264: \bibitem[]{} Adelman-MCarthy, J.K., et al. 2008, ApJS, 175, 297
3265: \bibitem[]{2341} Allende Prieto, C., Barklem, P.S., Lambert, D.L. \& Cunha, K. 2004, A\&A, 420, 183
3266: \bibitem[]{2342} Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T.C., Wilhelm, R. et al. 2006, ApJ. 636, 804
3267: \bibitem[]{2343} Allende Prieto, C., Sivarani, T., Beers, T.C., et al. 2007,
3268: submitted to AJ (astro-ph/0710.5780)
3269: \bibitem[]{2344} Bahcall, J.N. \& Soneira, R.M. 1980, ApJSS, 44, 73
3270: \bibitem[]{2345} Bailer-Jones, C.A.L., Irwin, M., Gilmore, G. \& von Hippel, T. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 157
3271: \bibitem[]{2346} Bailer-Jones, C.A.L., Irwin, M. \& von Hippel, T. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 361
3272: \bibitem[]{2347} Becker, A.C., Silvestri, N.M., Owen, R.E., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., \& Lupton, R.H. 2007,
3273: PASP, 119, 1462
3274: \bibitem[]{2349} Beers, T.C., Drilling, J.S., Rossi, S., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 931
3275: \bibitem[]{2350} Beers, T.C. \& Christlieb, N. 2005, ARA\&A, 43, 531
3276: \bibitem[]{2351} Beers, T.C., Lee, Y., Sivarani, T., et al. 2006, Mem.S.A.It., 77, 1171
3277: \bibitem[]{2352} Belokurov, V., Zucker, D.B., Evans, N.W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L137
3278: \bibitem[]{2353} Belokurov, V., Evans, N.W., Irwin, M.J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 337
3279: \bibitem[]{2354} Bensby, T., Feltzing, S. \& Lundstr\"{o}m, I. 2003, A\&A, 410, 527
3280: \bibitem[]{2355} Bell, E.F., Zucker, D.B., Belokurov, V. et al. 2007, accepted to ApJ
3281: (also astro-ph/0706.0004)
3282: \bibitem[]{2357} Brook, C.B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B.K. \& Freeman, K.C. 2004, ApJ, 612, 894
3283: \bibitem[]{2358} Bullock, J.S. \& Johnston, K.V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931
3284: \bibitem[]{2359} Carney, B.W. 1979, ApJ, 233, 211
3285: \bibitem[]{2360} Carollo, D., Beers, T.C., Lee, Y.S., et al. 2007, Nature, 450, 1020
3286: \bibitem[]{2361} Casagrande, L., Portinari, L. \& Flynn, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 13
3287: \bibitem[]{2362} Chiba, M. \& Beers, T.C. 2000, AJ, 119, 2843
3288: \bibitem[]{} Clem, J.L., VandenBerg, D.A. \& Stetson, P. 2008,
3289: \bibitem[]{2363} Conn, B.C., Martin, N.F., Lewis, G.F., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 364, L13
3290: \bibitem[]{2364} Covey, K., Ivezi\'c, \v Z., Schlegel, D., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 2398
3291: \bibitem[]{2365} Dehnen, W. \& Binney, J.J. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 387
3292: \bibitem[]{} Demarque, P. \& McClure, R.D. 1980, ApJ, 242, 5
3293: \bibitem[]{2366} Du, C., Zhou, X., Ma, J., Shi, J., Chen, A.B., Jiang, Z.\& Chen, J. 2004, AJ, 128, 2265
3294: \bibitem[]{2367} Duffau, S., Zinn, R. \& Vivas, A.K. 2006, ApJ, 636, L97
3295: \bibitem[]{2368} Eggen, O.J., Lynden-Bell, D. \& Sandage, A.R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748
3296: \bibitem[]{2369} Eisenstein, D.J., Annis, J., Gunn, J.E., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2267
3297: \bibitem[]{2370} Eisenstein, D.J., Liebert, J., Harris, H.C., et al. 2006, ApJS, 167, 40
3298: \bibitem[]{2371} Fan, X. 1999, \aj, 117, 2528
3299: \bibitem[]{2372} Feltzing, S. 2006, Mem.S.A.It., 77, 1103 (also astro-ph/0611118)
3300: \bibitem[]{2373} Finlator, K., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Fan, X., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 2615
3301: \bibitem[]{2374} Flaugher, B. \& Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, 2007, BAAS, 209, 22.01
3302: \bibitem[]{2375} Freeman, K. \& Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 487
3303: \bibitem[]{2376} Fuhrmann, K. 2004, AN, 325, 3
3304: \bibitem[]{2377} Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \&
3305: Schneider, D.P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
3306: \bibitem[]{2379} Gilmore, G. \& Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025
3307: \bibitem[]{2380} Gilmore, G. \& Wyse, R.F.G. 1985, AJ, 90, 2015
3308: \bibitem[]{2381} Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G., Jones, J.B. 1995, AJ, 109, 1095
3309: \bibitem[]{2382} Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G. \& Kuijken, K. 1989, Annual review of astronomy
3310: and astrophysics. Volume 27, pp. 555-627.
3311: \bibitem[]{2384} Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G., Norris, J.E. 2002, ApJ, 574, L39
3312: \bibitem[]{2385} Girard, T.M., Korchagin, V.I., Caseti-Dinescu, D.I., van Altena,
3313: W.F., L\'{o}pez, C.E. \& Monet, D.G. 2006, AJ, 132, 1768
3314: \bibitem[]{2387} Girardi, L. \& Salaris, M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 109
3315: \bibitem[]{} Girardi, L., Grebel, E.K., Odenkirchen, M. \& Chiosi, C. 2004, A\&A, 422, 205
3316: \bibitem[]{2388} Grillmair, C.J. 2006a, ApJ, 645, L37
3317: \bibitem[]{2389} Grillmair, C.J. 2006b, ApJ, 651, L29
3318: \bibitem[]{2390} Gunn, J.E., Knapp, G.R. \& Tremaine, S.D. 1979, AJ, 84, 1181
3319: \bibitem[]{2391} Gunn, J.E., Carr, M., Rockosi, C., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 3040
3320: \bibitem[]{2392} Gunn, J.E., Siegmund, W.A., Mannery, E.J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332
3321: \bibitem[]{} Harris, W.E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487
3322: \bibitem[]{2393} Helmi, A., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Prada, F., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 195
3323: \bibitem[]{2394} Helmi, A., White, S.D.M., de Zeeuw, P.T. \& Zhao, H. 1999, Nature, 402, 53
3324: \bibitem[]{} Hesser, J.E., Harris, W.E., Vandenberg, D.A., et al. 1987, PASP, 99, 739
3325: \bibitem[]{2395} Hogg, D.W., Finkbeiner, D.P., Schlegel, D.J. \& Gunn, J.E. 2002, AJ, 122, 2129
3326: \bibitem[]{2396} Holberg, J.B. \& Bergeron, P. 2006, AJ, 132, 1221
3327: \bibitem[]{2397} Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Goldston, J., Finlator, K., et al. 2000, \aj, 120, 963
3328: \bibitem[]{2398} Ivezi\'c, \v Z., Lupton, R.H., Anderson, S., et al. 2003, Proceedings of the
3329: Workshop {\it Variability with Wide Field Imagers}, Mem. Soc. Ast. It., 74,
3330: 978 (also astro-ph/0301400)
3331: \bibitem[]{2401} Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z.}, Lupton, R.H., Schlegel, D., et al. 2004, AN, 325, 583
3332: \bibitem[]{2402} Ivezi\'c, \v Z., Bond, N., Juri\'{c}, M., et al. 2005, ASP Conference Series,
3333: Vol. 338, Proceedings of a meeting held 18-20 October 2004 at Lowell
3334: Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Edited by P. Kenneth
3335: Seidelmann and Alice K. B. Monet.
3336: San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2005., p.201
3337: (also astro-ph/0701502)
3338: \bibitem[]{2408} Ivezi\'c, \v Z., Smith, J. A., Miknaitis, G., et al. 2006a,
3339: astro-ph/0701508
3340: \bibitem[]{2410} Ivezi\'c, \v Z., Schlegel, D., Uomoto, A., et al. 2006b, Mem. Soc. Ast. It., 77, 1057
3341: \bibitem[]{2411} Ivezi\'c, \v Z., Smith, J. A., Miknaitis, G., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 973
3342: \bibitem[]{2412} Jackson, T., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}. \& Knapp, G.R. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 749
3343: \bibitem[Juri{\'c} et al.(2008)]{2413} Juri{\'c}, M.,
3344: Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}., Brooks, A., et al.\ 2008, ApJ, 673, 864 (J08)
3345: \bibitem[]{2416} Jorgensen, B.R. \& Lindegren, L. 2005, A\&A, 436, 127
3346: \bibitem[]{} Juri\'{c}, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864 (Paper I; J08)
3347: \bibitem[]{2417} Kaiser, N., Aussel, It., Burke, B.E., et al. 2002, in ``Survey and Other Telescope
3348: Technologies and Discoveries'', Tyson, J.A. \& Wolff, S.,
3349: eds. Proceedings of the SPIE, 4836, 154
3350: \bibitem[]{2420} Karaali, S., Bilir, S. \& Tuncel, S. 2005, PASA, 22, 24
3351: \bibitem[]{2421} Keller, S.C., Schmidt, B.P., Bessell, M.S., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0702511
3352: \bibitem[]{2422} Kurucz, R.L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1
3353: \bibitem[]{2423} Laird, J.B., Carney, B.W. \& Latham, D.W. 1988, AJ, 95, 1843
3354: \bibitem[]{2424} Lee, Y.S., Beers, T.C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2007a, submitted
3355: to AJ (astro-ph/0710.5645)
3356: \bibitem[]{2425} Lee, Y.S., Beers, T.C., Sivarani, T., et al. 2007b, submitted
3357: to AJ (astro-ph/0710.5778)
3358: \bibitem[Lenz {\em et al.} 1998]{Lenz98} Lenz, D.D., Newberg, J., Rosner, R.,
3359: Richards, G.T., Stoughton, C. 1998, ApJS, 119, 121
3360: \bibitem[Lupton 1993]{L93}Lupton, R.H. 1993, {\it Statistics in Theory and Practice}, Princeton
3361: University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
3362: \bibitem[Lupton et al. 2002]{Lupton02}Lupton, R.H., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Gunn, J.E., Knapp, G.R.,
3363: Strauss, M.A. \& Yasuda, N. 2002, in ``Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and
3364: Discoveries'', Tyson, J.A. \& Wolff, S., eds. Proceedings of the
3365: SPIE, 4836, 350
3366: \bibitem[]{2434} Majewski, S.R. 1992, ApJS, 78, 87
3367: \bibitem[]{2435} Majewski, S.R. 1993, ARA\&A, 31, 575
3368: \bibitem[]{2436} Majewski, S.R., Skrutskie, M.F., Weinberg, M.D. \& Ostheimer, J.C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082
3369: \bibitem[]{2437} Mannery, E.J. \& Wallerstein, G. 1971, AJ, 76, 9
3370: \bibitem[]{2438} Martin, N.F., Irwin, M.J., Ibata, R.A., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 367, L69
3371: \bibitem[]{2439} Morrison, H.L., Flynn, C. \& Freeman, K.C. 1990, 100, 1191
3372: \bibitem[]{2440} Munn, J.A., Monet, D.G., Levine, S.E., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3034
3373: \bibitem[]{2441} Newberg H.J., Yanny, B., Rockosi, C., et al. 2002, ApJ, 569, 245
3374: \bibitem[]{2442} Nordstr\"{o}m, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A\&A, 418, 989
3375: \bibitem[]{2443} Norris, J. 1987, ApJ, 314, L39
3376: \bibitem[]{2444} Ojha, D.K., Bienayme, O., Robin, A.C., Creze, M. \& Mohan, V. 1996, A\&A, 311, 456
3377: \bibitem[]{2445} Pagel, B.E.J. \& Patchett, B.E. 1975, MNRAS, 172, 13
3378: \bibitem[]{2446} Penarrubia, J., Martinez-Delgado, D., Rix, H.W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 128
3379: \bibitem[]{2447} Perryman, M.A.C., de Boer, K.S., Gilmore, G., et al. 2001; A\&A, 369, 339
3380: \bibitem[]{2448} Pickles, A.J. 1998, PASP, 110, 863
3381: \bibitem[]{2449} Pier, J.R., Munn, J.A., Hindsley, R.B., Hennesy, G.S., Kent, S.M., Lupton,
3382: R.H. \& Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}. 2003, AJ, 125, 1559
3383: \bibitem[]{2451} Pourbaix, D., Knapp, G.R., Szkody, P., et al. 2005, A\&A, 444, 643
3384: \bibitem[]{2452} Ram\'{i}rez, I. \& Mel\'{e}ndez, J. 2005, ApJ, 626, 465
3385: \bibitem[]{2453} Ram\'{i}rez, I., Allende Prieto, C. \& Lambert, D.L. 2007, A\&A, 465, 271
3386: \bibitem[]{2454} Reddy, B.E., Lambert, D.L. \& Allende Prieto, C. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1329
3387: \bibitem[]{2455} Reid, I.N., van Wyk, F., Marang, F., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 931
3388: \bibitem[]{2456} Reid, I.N., Gizis, J.E. \& Hawley, S.L. 2002, AJ, 124, 2721
3389: \bibitem[]{2457} Richards, G., Fan, X., Newberg, H., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2945
3390: \bibitem[]{2458} Robin, A.C., Reyl\'{e}, C., Derri\'{e}re, S. \& Picaud, S. 2003, A\&A, 409, 523
3391: \bibitem[]{2459} Ryan, S.G. \& Norris, J.E. 1991, AJ, 101, 1835
3392: \bibitem[]{2460} Sandage, A. 1969, ApJ, 158, 1115
3393: \bibitem[]{2461} Sandage, A. \& Smith, L.L. 1963, ApJ, 137, 1057
3394: \bibitem[]{2462} Schlegel, D., Finkbeiner,D.P. \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj 500, 525
3395: \bibitem[]{2463} Schneider, D. P., Hall, P. B., Richards, G. T. et al. 2007, accepted to \aj
3396: \bibitem[]{2464} Schwarzschild, M., Searle, L. \& Howard, R. 1955, ApJ, 122, 353
3397: \bibitem[]{2465} Scranton, R., Johnston, D., et al. 2002, ApJ, 579, 48
3398: \bibitem[]{2466} Sesar, B., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Lupton, R.H., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 2236
3399: \bibitem[]{2468} Sekiguchi, M. \& Fukugita, M. 2000, AJ, 120, 1072
3400: \bibitem[]{2469} Siegel, M.H., Majewski, S.R., Reid, I.N., \& Thompson, I.B. 2002, ApJ, 578, 151
3401: \bibitem[]{} Simones, J., Newberg, H.J. \& Cole, N. 2008, BAAS (AAS Meeting \#211)
3402: \bibitem[]{2470} Skrutskie, M.F., Cutri, R.M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
3403: \bibitem[]{2471} Smith, J.A., Tucker, D.L., Kent, S.M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2121
3404: \bibitem[]{2472} Smol{\v c}i{\'c}, V., Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z.}, Knapp, G.R., et al. 2004, \apjl, 615, L141
3405: \bibitem[]{2473} Snider, S., Allende Prieto, C., von Hippel, T. Beers, T.C., Sneden, C.,
3406: Qu, Y. \& Rossi, S. 2001, ApJ, 562, 528
3407: \bibitem[]{2475} Springel, V. \& Hernquist, L. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 312
3408: \bibitem[]{2476} Stoughton, C., Lupton, R.H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485
3409: \bibitem[]{2477} Strauss, M.A., Weinberg, D.H., Lupton, R.H., et al. 2002, AJ 124, 1810
3410: \bibitem[]{2478} Str\"{o}mgren, B. 1966, ARA\&A, 4, 433
3411: \bibitem[]{2479} Tinsley, B.M. 1975, ApJ, 197, 159
3412: \bibitem[]{2480} Tucker, D., Kent, S., Richmond, M.W., et al. 2006, AN, 327, 821
3413: \bibitem[]{2481} Tyson, J.A. 2002, in {\it Survey and Other Telescope Technologies
3414: and Discoveries}, Tyson, J.A. \& Wolff, S., eds. Proceedings
3415: of the SPIE, 4836, 10
3416: \bibitem[]{} VandenBerg, D.A. \& Clem, J.L. 2003, AJ, 126, 778
3417: \bibitem[]{2483} Vivas, A.K., Zinn, R., Andrews, P., {\it et al.} 2001, ApJ, 554, L33
3418: \bibitem[]{2484} Vivas, A.K. \& Zinn, R. 2006, AJ, 132, 714
3419: \bibitem[]{2485} Wallerstein, G. 1962, ApJS, 6, 407
3420: \bibitem[]{2486} Weinberg, M.D. 1992, ApJ, 384, 81
3421: \bibitem[]{2487} Wilkinson, M.I., Vallenari, A., Turon, C., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1306
3422: \bibitem[]{2488} Wyse, R.F.G. \& Gilmore, G. 1995, AJ, 110, 2771
3423: \bibitem[]{2489} Wyse, R.F.G. 2006, Mem.S.A.It., 77, 1036
3424: \bibitem[]{2490} Yanny, B., Newberg, H.~J., Kent, S., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 540, 825
3425: \bibitem[]{2491} York, D.G., Adelman, J., Anderson, S., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
3426: \end{thebibliography}
3427:
3428:
3429: \clearpage
3430:
3431:
3432:
3433:
3434:
3435: \clearpage
3436: \end{document}
3437: