1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{lscape}

4: \bibliographystyle{apj}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\lapprox }{{\lower0.8ex\hbox{$\buildrel <\over\sim$}}}

7: \newcommand{\gapprox }{{\lower0.8ex\hbox{$\buildrel >\over\sim$}}}

8: 

9: % Authors may supply running head information, if they wish to do so

10: \slugcomment{DRAFT \today}

11: \shorttitle{ChESS}

12: \shortauthors{Covey \& Ag{\" u}eros et al.}

13: 

14: \begin{document}

15: 

16: \title{The ChaMP Extended Stellar Survey (ChESS): Photometric and Spectroscopic Properties of Serendipitously Detected Stellar X-ray Sources\altaffilmark{1}}

17: 

18: \author{K.~R.~Covey\altaffilmark{2,3,4}, M.~A.~Ag{\"u}eros\altaffilmark{2,5}, P.~J.~Green\altaffilmark{3}, D.~Haggard\altaffilmark{6}, W.~A.~Barkhouse\altaffilmark{7}, J.~Drake\altaffilmark{3}, N.~Evans\altaffilmark{3}, V.~Kashyap\altaffilmark{3}, D.-W.~Kim\altaffilmark{3}, A.~Mossman\altaffilmark{3}, D.~O.~Pease\altaffilmark{8}, J.~D.~Silverman\altaffilmark{9}}

19: 

20: \altaffiltext{1}{Observations reported here were obtained at the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Arizona.}

21: \altaffiltext{2}{The first two authors contributed equally to this study.} 

22: \altaffiltext{3}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138} 

23: \altaffiltext{4}{Spitzer Fellow}

24: \altaffiltext{5}{NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow; Columbia University, Department of Astronomy, 550 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027} 

25: \altaffiltext{6}{NASA Harriett G.\ Jenkins Predoctoral Fellow, University of Washington, Department of Astronomy, Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195} 

26: \altaffiltext{7}{Physics Department, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202} 

27: \altaffiltext{8}{Space Sciences Lab, 7 Gauss Way, Berkeley, CA 94720-7450}

28: \altaffiltext{9}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik, D-84571 Garching, Germany}

29: 

30: \begin{abstract}

31: We present $348$ X-ray emitting stars identified from

32: correlating the Extended {\it Chandra} Multiwavelength Project

33: (ChaMP), a wide-area serendipitous survey based on archival X-ray

34: images, with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). We use morphological 

35: star/galaxy separation, matching to an SDSS quasar catalog, an

36: optical color-magnitude cut, and X-ray data quality tests to create our catalog,

37: the ChaMP Extended Stellar Survey (ChESS), from a sample of $2121$ 

38: matched ChaMP/SDSS sources.  Our cuts retain $92\%$ of the spectroscopically 

39: confirmed stars in the original sample while excluding $99.6\%$ of the $684$

40: spectroscopically confirmed extragalactic sources. Fewer than $3\%$ of

41: the sources in our final catalog are previously identified stellar

42: X-ray emitters. For $42$ catalog members, spectroscopic

43: classifications are available in the literature. We present new

44: spectral classifications and H$\alpha$ measurements for an additional

45: $79$ stars. The catalog is dominated by main sequence stars; we estimate the 

46: fraction of giants in ChESS is $\sim 10\%$. We  

47: identify seven giant stars (including a possible Cepheid and an RR Lyrae star)

48: as ChAMP sources, as well as three cataclysmic variables.  

49: We derive distances from $\sim 10-2000$ pc for the 

50: stars in our catalog using photometric parallax relations appropriate for dwarfs 

51: on the main sequence and calculate their X-ray and bolometric luminosities.

52: These stars lie in a unique space in the L$_{\rm X}$--distance plane,

53: filling the gap between the nearby stars identified as counterparts to

54: sources in the {\it ROSAT} All-Sky Survey and the more distant stars

55: detected in deep {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton} surveys. 

56: For $36$ newly identified X-ray emitting M stars 

57: we calculate L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$. L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ 

58: and L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ are linearly related below 

59: L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} \sim 3 \times 10^{-4}$, while 

60: L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ appears to turn over at larger

61: L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ values. 

62: Stars with reliable SDSS photometry have an $\sim0.1$ mag blue excess 

63: in $u-g$, likely due to increased chromospheric continuum emission. 

64: Photometric metallicity estimates suggest that the sample is evenly split 

65: between the young and old disk populations of the Galaxy; the lowest 

66: activity sources belong to the old disk population, a clear signature of the

67: decay of magnetic activity with age. Future papers will present

68: analyses of source variability and comparisons of this catalog to

69: models of stellar activity in the Galactic disk.

70: \end{abstract}

71: 

72: \keywords{surveys --- X-rays:stars --- photometry:stars ---

73: spectroscopy:stars}

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}

76: 

77: While X-ray source counterparts are now known to range from distant

78: quasars to nearby active M dwarfs \citep[e.g.,][]{stocke83, stocke91,

79: schmitt95, zickgraf03, green04, anderson06}, X-ray data alone are

80: frequently insufficient to determine unambiguously whether a given

81: source is Galactic or extragalactic, or to make finer distinctions

82: about its nature. Campaigns to find optical counterparts to X-ray

83: sources have therefore been natural companions to the creation of

84: X-ray source lists since the days of the {\it Einstein Observatory}.

85: 

86: The Medium Sensitivity Survey \citep[MSS;][]{gioia84} and Extended

87: Medium-Sensitivity Survey \citep[][]{gioia90} both required

88: painstaking programs to identify counterparts to sources

89: serendipitously detected in {\it Einstein} observations. To find 

90: counterparts to $63$ of the $112$ MSS sources, \citet{stocke83}

91: obtained spectra for all of the optical objects inside or just outside

92: the X-ray $90\%$ confidence positional error circles--areas of radius

93: $\sim 30$\arcsec\ to $70$\arcsec. Once they found a plausible

94: counterpart by comparing its $f_X / f_V$ to that of similar objects

95: detected in pointed {\it Einstein} observations, \citet{stocke83}

96: continued to collect spectra until they reached objects at least four

97: times fainter than the proposed counterpart or the $\sim20.5$ mag

98: limit of the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS). They found that

99: $\sim 25\%$ of MSS sources were coronally emitting stars, primarily

100: late-type dwarfs; they also found one cataclysmic variable (CV).

101: 

102: Similar efforts have been undertaken to identify some of the

103: $\sim125,000$ sources included in the {\it ROSAT} All-Sky Survey

104: (RASS) Bright and Faint Source Catalogs \citep[BSC and

105: FSC;][]{voges99,fsc}. Only a relatively small fraction of RASS sources

106: can be identified from correlations to existing

107: databases. \citet{bade98} found that $35\%$ of the $80,000$ RASS

108: sources they considered had counterparts in SIMBAD and the NASA/IPAC

109: Extragalactic Database. To identify other BSC sources, \citet{bade98}

110: used objective prism spectra obtained as part of the Hamburg Quasar

111: Survey \citep[HQS;][]{hagen95} and found candidate counterparts for

112: $81.2\%$ of the $3847$ sources within the HQS footprint\footnote{The

113: unidentified sources are likely to be faint active galactic nuclei and

114: clusters \citep{bade98}.}. $155$ ($4\%$) are M stars, $136$ ($3.5\%$)

115: K stars, and $4$ ($0.1\%$) F or G stars. Another $956$ ($24.9\%$) are

116: saturated stars ($B \leq 14$ mag) for which no spectral class is

117: available. There are also $31$ white dwarfs (WDs; $0.8\%$) and $16$

118: CVs ($0.4\%$). There are uncertainties associated with these

119: identifications, e.g., because of the resolution of the spectra (R

120: $\approx 100$ at H$\gamma$). But the RASS/HQS program suggests that

121: $\sim33\%$ of the X-ray sources detected by {\it ROSAT} are Galactic

122: stars, a result confirmed by later efforts

123: \citep[e.g.,][]{zickgraf03}.

124: 

125: The {\it Chandra X-ray Observatory} and the {\it XMM-Newton X-ray

126: Observatory} are both equipped with more sensitive X-ray detectors

127: than {\it ROSAT} (albeit in different energy bands), but were designed

128: primarily to conduct pointed observations. However, growing data

129: archives have enabled a number of fairly deep, relatively small-area

130: surveys, with X-ray source lists assembled and optical counterparts

131: identified in much the same way as for the {\it Einstein} surveys. In

132: addition, a few deep pencil-beam surveys have been completed with

133: {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton}. \citet{Brandt2005} compare the

134: flux limits and solid angles for a number of these surveys; see their

135: Figure 1.

136: 

137: The selection of optical counterparts for follow-up spectroscopy is

138: generally simpler in these more recent surveys: the X-ray positional

139: uncertainties are very small (typically less than

140: $1$\arcsec\ for {\it Chandra}). However, the focus of these surveys is

141: often to characterize faint extragalactic X-ray emitters, and the

142: stellar samples they provide are quite small.

143: 

144: For example, the {\it XMM} Bright Serendipitous Survey

145: \citep[BSS;][]{dellac04} includes just under $400$ sources. The BSS

146: reaches a flux limit of $\sim7 \times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$

147: in the $0.5-4.5$ keV energy band for an area of

148: $28.10$~deg$^2$. $90\%$ of the optical counterparts have magnitudes

149: brighter than the POSS II limit of $R\sim21$ mag \citep{dellac04}, and

150: close to $90\%$ of these counterparts now have spectra

151: \citep{lopez07}. Of these, \citet{lopez07} identified $58$ as stars,

152: which therefore constitute $\sim15\%$ of the X-ray counterparts--a

153: smaller fraction than in the {\it Einstein} or {\it ROSAT} samples,

154: but one which is consistent with the positions on the sky of the BSS

155: fields, which are $>20$~deg from the Galactic Plane. These authors

156: compare the colors of their $58$ stars to those predicted by the X-ray

157: Galactic model XCOUNT \citep{favata92}. They find that model and data

158: agree fairly well for the M stars in the sample but disagree

159: rather dramatically for F, G, and K stars. They infer that the

160: discrepancy is due to a stellar population currently absent from their

161: model, possibly known X-ray emitting binaries such as RS CVn or BY

162: Dra systems.

163: 

164: \citet{feigelson04} collected a smaller stellar sample from the {\it

165: Chandra} Deep Field-North (CDF-N) survey. The CDF-N has an area of

166: $\sim448$~arcmin$^2$; individual exposures were as long as

167: $\sim2\times10^6$ s, resulting in a flux limit of $3 \times 10^{-17}$

168: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the $0.5-2.0$ keV band

169: \citep{alexander2003}. Of the $\sim500$ sources in the CDF-N, only

170: $\sim3\%$ are stars, and \citet{feigelson04} use $11$ of these to

171: construct a statistically complete sample and study the evolution of

172: X-ray properties. These stars belong primarily to an old-disk

173: population (ages between $3$ and $11$ Gyr), and their X-ray properties

174: are consistent with a faster-than-expected decline in magnetic

175: activity \citep[log L$_{\rm X} \propto t^{-2}$ rather than $t^{-1}$,

176: where $t$ is age;][]{feigelson04}.

177: 

178: Studies such as these would clearly benefit from a larger sample of

179: X-ray emitting stars to analyze. The {\it XMM} Slew Survey

180: \citep{freyberg06}, constructed from $\leq 15$~s exposures as the

181: satellite slewed, is one such survey. The recently released XMMSL1

182: catalog covers $\sim5800$ deg$^2$ to a relatively shallow flux limit

183: of $6\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ and includes $2692$

184: sources in its ``clean'' version \citep{saxton2008}. A search of the

185: currently available XMMSL1 database finds that $410$ {\it XMM} sources

186: have a star cataloged in SIMBAD within $6$\arcsec, and it is clear

187: that this program will eventually yield a large number of stellar

188: X-ray sources. However, this stellar sample is still largely

189: undefined. For example, re-matching the $410$ sources to SIMBAD

190: reveals that $35\%$ have previously been identified as RASS

191: sources. More work is necessary before we know exactly how many {\it

192: new} stellar X-ray sources will come from this survey, or the similarly

193: serendipitous 2XMM survey \citep{Watson2006}.

194: 

195: We have collected the largest sample of stellar X-ray emitters in the 

196: field of the Galaxy identified and characterized to date from {\it Chandra} 

197: or {\it XMM} data. The X-ray data are from the Extended {\it Chandra}

198: Multiwavelength Project (ChaMP), considerably easing the challenge of

199: identifying the X-ray sources. {\em Chandra} provides

200: sub-arcsecond astrometry over most of its field of view

201: \citep{aldcroft2000}, greatly facilitating unambiguous matching to

202: optical counterparts, as does the lack of crowding at the high

203: Galactic latitudes of the survey ($|b|>20$ deg). In addition, the Extended

204: ChaMP survey is designed to have significant overlap with the Sloan

205: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which affords well-calibrated multi-color

206: imaging and spectroscopy crucial both for elimination of extragalactic

207: objects and for classification of stars.

208: 

209: We describe the ChaMP and SDSS in \S\ref{surveys}, and the process by

210: which we identify candidate stellar counterparts in \S\ref{id}. In

211: \S\ref{pure} we discuss the various tests we use to confirm that these

212: candidates are in fact stellar X-ray emitters. In \S\ref{science} we

213: analyze the properties of our resulting sample of $348$ X-ray emitting

214: stars; we conclude in \S\ref{concl}. Future work will analyze the

215: X-ray variability of these stars and compare the properties of this

216: catalog to stellar population models of the Galaxy incorporating

217: evolution of time-dependent coronal X-ray emission.

218: 

219: \section{The Surveys}\label{surveys}

220: 

221: \subsection{The Extended Chandra Multiwavelength Project}\label{champx}

222: 

223: The {\it Chandra} Multiwavelength Project (ChaMP) is a wide-area

224: serendipitous survey based on archival X-ray images of the $|b|>20$

225: deg sky observed with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) on

226: board {\it Chandra} \citep[described in][]{weisskopf02}. The full

227: 130-field Cycle\,1--2 X-ray catalogs are public

228: \citep{DKim04a,MKim07a}, and the most comprehensive X-ray number

229: counts (log $N$-log $S$) to date have been produced, thanks to $6600$ 

230: sources and massive X-ray source-retrieval simulations

231: \citep{DKim04b,MKim07b}. The simulations added one thousand 

232: artificial X-ray point sources across a wide range of fluxes to each

233: actual {\it Chandra} ACIS image. The resulting images were subjected

234: to the identical source detection and characterization as used for the

235: actual survey, and a comparison of input and output properties allowed

236: a full calculation of the ChaMP's X-ray sky coverage and completeness

237: as a function of e.g., source flux and off-axis angle \citep{MKim07b}.

238: 

239: \citet{green04} used deep imaging ($r\sim25$ mag) with the NOAO $4$-m

240: telescopes at KPNO and CTIO and follow-up spectroscopy with telescopes

241: ranging from $1.5$ to $10$ m in diameter to obtain X-ray source

242: identifications over $14$ deg$^2$ of the Cycle 1--2 survey. $66$ ChaMP

243: fields were imaged in the $g,\,r,$ and $i$ bands; these data and

244: photometric catalogs are available on the ChaMP webpage\footnote{\tt

245: http://hea-www.harvard.edu/CHAMP/} (see also Barkhouse et al.\ 2008,

246: in preparation). Optical spectra to $r\sim 22$ were obtained for as

247: many objects as feasible in 27 prime fields, using primarily the WIYN

248: $3.5$~m on Kitt Peak, the MMT with the Blue Channel spectrograph on Mt

249: Hopkins, Arizona, and the Magellan/Baade 6$.5$-m telescope with both

250: the LRIS and IMACS spectrographs. A significant number of

251: spectroscopic identifications were also obtained for $r\sim 18$

252: objects using the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory 1.5-m telescope

253: with the FAST spectrograph. \citet{green04} classified $125$ X-ray

254: counterparts with optical spectroscopy. Of these, $90\%$ are

255: extragalactic in nature, as expected ($63$ are broad-line

256: AGN). Silverman et al.\ (2008, in press) describe the

257: spectroscopic effort in more detail in their paper on the AGN X-ray

258: luminosity function, and a full ChaMP spectroscopic catalog is in

259: preparation.

260: 

261: \begin{figure}

262: \plotone{f1.small.eps}

263: \caption {\normalsize{The Extended ChaMP footprint in Galactic

264: coordinates. Open circles indicate fields observed with the ACIS-I

265: detector, while filled circles indicate fields observed with the

266: ACIS-S detector. The symbol size is proportional to the log of the

267: exposure time; the symbol in the upper left corner corresponds to a

268: $100$~ksec exposure. The SDSS footprint is the shaded

269: region.}}\label{fields}

270: \end{figure}

271: 

272: Given the need for even wider survey area to accumulate significant

273: samples of rare objects, and the time-consuming nature of deep

274: imaging and spectroscopy, the ChaMP area has been extended to cover

275: archival images from Cycles 1--6, but only to include {\it Chandra}

276: images within the SDSS footprint (see \S\ref{sdss}). The Extended

277: ChaMP now includes $392$ ACIS fields covering a total area of roughly

278: $33$~deg$^2$ (see Figure~\ref{fields}) and catalogs $\sim17,000$ 

279: X-ray sources\footnote{Some of the weakest sources may be associated with, or contaminated by, cosmic-ray afterglows. Afterglows rarely affect brighter sources, or those with bright optical counterparts as in the current sample. See also \S\ref{x_cuts}.}. The median exposure time is $21$ ksec, but individual

280: exposures range from $1$ to $119$ ksec. Due to the low {\it Chandra}

281: background rates, the formal statistical errors in net counts for each

282: band are consistent within 2\% of Poisson.  Here we adopt the more

283: conservative \citet{gehrels86} prescription: $\sigma_{cts} = 1 + (N +

284: 0.75)^{0.5}$.

285: 

286: SDSS photometry within about $20$\arcmin\ of the aimpoint for

287: each cataloged {\it Chandra} observation were obtained to cover 

288: the combined ACIS-I and ACIS-S fields of view\footnote{For some observations, 

289: this was extended to a radius of $28$\arcmin\ to achieve full coverage of the

290: {\it Chandra} footprint.}. Because the {\it Chandra} point spread

291: function (PSF) increases with off-axis angle, comparatively few X-ray

292: sources are detected beyond this radius and source centroids also tend

293: to be highly uncertain. We note that some SDSS imaging strips do not

294: completely cover the {\it Chandra} field of view. 

295: Detailed X-ray sky coverage vs. sensitivity maps represent a major

296: ongoing effort of the ChaMP, described in Green et al. 2008 (in 

297: preparation), which will facilitate accurate volume-limit estimates

298: and allow for e.g., luminosity function calculations and stellar

299: population modeling.

300: 

301: While most ChaMP research to date has emphasized extragalactic objects

302: \citep[e.g.,][and Green et al.\ 2008, in

303: preparation]{Silverman05,Barkhouse06,DKim06}, the ChaMP lends itself

304: well to stellar research. Compared to Galactic Plane studies,

305: counterpart identification is very secure at the ChaMP survey's high

306: Galactic latitudes, crowded-field photometry is not an issue, and

307: reddening is quite moderate. In addition, a more balanced ratio of

308: thin/thick disk populations is sampled. However, the expected fraction of

309: stellar X-ray sources detected in the ChaMP fields is relatively low:

310: ChaMP fields, like those in the BSS, are away from the Plane

311: and stars are on average weak X-ray emitters.

312: 

313: \subsection{The Sloan Digital Sky Survey}\label{sdss}

314: 

315: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep{fukugita, gunn, hogg01, smith02, gunn06} is the deepest large-scale optical survey to date, and provides uniform photometric \citep[to a depth of $r\sim22.5$ and an accuracy of $\sim 0.02$ mag;][]{zeljko04} and spectroscopic (R $\sim 1800$) datasets with which to identify ChaMP sources. The latest data release \citep[DR6;][]{DR6paper} includes imaging for $\sim9600$~deg$^2$ and photometry for close to $3\times10^8$ unique objects. The SDSS spectroscopic footprint is smaller ($\sim7400$~deg$^2$); spectra over the $3800-9200$ \AA\ range are available for $>10^6$ objects. The main spectroscopic samples are for galaxies with Petrosian $r<17.77$ ($>790,000$ objects) and quasars with PSF $i<19.1$ ($>100,000$ objects). The DR6 database also includes spectra for close to $300,000$ stars, of which nearly $70,000$ are of spectral type M or later.

316: 

317: SDSS photometry and spectroscopy has been used to systematically

318: identify RASS sources \citep[e.g.,][Ag\"ueros et al.\ 2008,

319: submitted]{popesso04, anderson06, Parejko2008}. While the ChaMP is a

320: very different survey from the RASS, the SDSS data are equally useful

321: in identifying ChaMP sources, and particularly stellar

322: sources. Typical classes of X-ray emitters, including coronally

323: emitting stars, normal galaxies, quasars, and BL Lacs, have maximum

324: X-ray-to-optical flux ratios corresponding to log $(f_X/f_{opt})$

325: values of about $-1$, $0$, $+1$, and $+1.5$

326: \citep[e.g.,][]{stocke91,zickgraf03}. Given the typical ChaMP $0.5-2$~keV flux\footnote{This flux is the peak of an $f_X$ histogram of ChaMP sources and corresponds approximately to a $50\%$ completeness limit across the survey.}, $f_X = 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$

327: s$^{-1}$, this implies that an optical counterpart for each of these

328: categories of typical X-ray sources will be brighter than $19, 21,

329: 24$, and $25$ mag, respectively. As a result, all but the very

330: faintest stellar optical counterparts to ChaMP sources are bright enough to

331: have confident SDSS photometric detections. Furthermore, such targets

332: may be targeted for SDSS spectroscopy, allowing for secure identifications. 

333:  

334: \section{Identifying Candidate Stellar Sources}\label{id}

335: 

336: \subsection{Matching To SDSS}\label{match}

337: 

338: We begin by searching the ChaMP catalog for sources with SDSS counterparts within $20$\arcsec\ of each X-ray source centroid. We identify all potential SDSS matches to a ChaMP source and we record their distance from the X-ray centroid, along with a ratio of that distance to a radius characterizing the $95\%$ X-ray position error. The latter depends on both the number of X-ray source counts and the {\it Chandra} off-axis angle \citep{DKim04a}. We then inspect each X-ray source on the smoothed {\it Chandra} X-ray image and flag potentially contaminated sources, e.g. those that lie in the outskirts of bright X-ray sources. Detections that appear to be X-ray artifacts are also flagged, but not removed at this stage (see \S\ref{x_cuts}). Using the SDSS Image Tool \citep{sdss_images}, we simultaneously create SDSS finders for each possible optical match to the X-ray source. Here again, contaminants and potential artifacts (saturation spikes, chip edges, high background regions, etc.) are noted.

339: 

340: During this visual inspection, a confidence rating is attached to each match from 0 to 3, with 3 being the highest confidence match. While we flag optically saturated objects during visual inspection, these are not rejected. A match confidence of 3 typically represents a single optical counterpart with a positional offset (X-ray to optical) no greater than $2$\arcsec\ and/or less than the $95\%$ X-ray position error.

341: 

342: We restrict our analysis here to ChaMP sources with a match confidence of 3 and SDSS counterparts with $r<20.5$, a conservative estimate of the faintest magnitude for which SDSS performs robust morphological star/galaxy separation (see \S\ref{star_gal_sep}) even under poor observing conditions \citep{Scranton2002}. The resulting catalog contains $2121$ ChaMP sources, of which $1320$ are classified by SDSS as point sources.

343: 

344: \subsubsection{Estimating The Fraction Of Spurious SDSS Matches}\label{test_spurious}

345: 

346: \begin{figure}

347: \plotone{f2.eps}

348: \caption {\normalsize{{\it Solid line:} Cumulative distribution of

349: separations between X-ray and optical counterparts for real ChaMP/SDSS

350: sources with $r<20.5$ mag. {\it Dashed line:} Distribution of

351: separations returned by matching shifted X-ray sources to catalog of

352: SDSS objects with $r< 20.5$.}}\label{matching}

353: \end{figure}

354: 

355: We calculated the separation between the X-ray and optical

356: positions of the $2121$ matched objects selected in \S\ref{match}, 

357: finding a median X-ray/optical separation of $0.37$\arcsec\, with $\sigma =

358: 1.34$\arcsec. In Figure~\ref{matching} we show the normalized

359: cumulative histogram of these separations; $90\%$ of the matched

360: sources have positions in the X-ray and optical catalogs within

361: $3$\arcsec\ of each other.

362: 

363: We then shifted the X-ray source declinations by $+30$\arcsec\

364: and searched for SDSS matches with $r < 20.5$ within $8$\arcsec\ of

365: these new positions, since only one of our original $2121$ matched

366: objects have separations larger than this. This procedure yields a

367: control sample of $833$ matches to these offset X-ray positions.

368: 

369: Figure~\ref{matching} shows the (dashed) cumulative normalized

370: histogram for this control sample; as expected, the cumulative

371: fraction rises with separation. Note that the normalization used here

372: is also $2121$, so that the dashed histogram shows an upper limit to

373: the fractional contamination of our sample by chance superpositions of

374: independent X-ray and optical sources. At $3$\arcsec, the

375: contamination is about $7\%$. At $4$\arcsec, an X-ray/optical

376: separation larger than or equal to that for $99\%$ of our sources, the

377: contamination is about $12\%$. This represents a conservative upper limit, since

378: no SDSS cuts other than $r<20.5$ have been made.

379: 

380: \subsection{Matching To 2MASS}

381: 

382: The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) obtained near-infrared images of $99.998\%$ of the sky between 1997 and 2001 \citep{Skrutskie1997,Cutri2003,Skrutskie2006}. The limiting (Vega-based) magnitudes for $10\sigma$ detections of point sources correspond roughly to $J=15.8$, $H=15.1$,  and $K_s=14.3$ mag. Positional uncertainties are $<0.2$\arcsec.

383: 

384: We used the Gator interface\footnote{\tt

385: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/} to identify 2MASS

386: counterparts for objects in our catalog, using a $3$\arcsec\ matching

387: radius centered on the X-ray/optical source's SDSS position. For

388: objects with multiple 2MASS sources within $3$\arcsec, only the

389: closest match was retained. This identified 2MASS counterparts for

390: $889$ of the $2121$ objects in our initial catalog. We also performed

391: a test similar to that described in \S\ref{test_spurious} to estimate

392: the likelihood of spurious SDSS/2MASS matches by applying a $30$\arcsec\ offset to 

393: each source's SDSS position and then identifying 2MASS counterparts 

394: within $10$\arcsec. These false matches tend to 

395: have SDSS/2MASS separations of $7-9$\arcsec, with $90\%$ lying outside 

396: of $3$\arcsec. The real matches, on the other hand, are all within 

397: $3$\arcsec; $97\%$ are within $1$\arcsec.

398: 

399: \section{Confirming The Stellar Sources}\label{pure}

400: 

401: \subsection{ChaMP Spectroscopy}

402: 

403: We queried the ChaMP spectroscopic database for existing observations

404: and/or classifications of objects in our catalog. All of the spectra

405: in the ChaMP database have been inspected and visually classified by

406: members of the ChaMP collaboration as either AGN/QSOs, galaxies, or

407: stars. $773$ sources in our sample have high confidence

408: classifications in the ChaMP spectroscopic database: of these, $92$

409: have been classified as stellar sources,

410: % (see Figure~\ref{example_specs} for example spectra), 

411: with the remaining $681$ classified as extragalactic and possessing redshifts measured using

412: the IRAF task {\it xcsao}. These spectral classifications

413: informed the criteria we develop to remove non-stellar contamination

414: from our sample.

415: 

416: \subsection{SDSS Star/Galaxy Separation}\label{star_gal_sep}

417: 

418: While SDSS provides automated morphological information for all

419: objects it detects, many of the X-ray sources in our sample have

420: optical counterparts significantly brighter than the SDSS saturation

421: limit ($\sim15$ mag). The image flux distribution of saturated stars

422: deviates strongly from a standard PSF and saturated stars are often

423: classified as extended objects. To ensure accurate morphological

424: classifications, we visually classified the $503$ objects with

425: $r<18$. We identified $53$ saturated stars misclassified as extended

426: sources by the SDSS pipeline, and we adjusted their entries in our

427: catalog.

428: 

429: We also checked the accuracy of the automated SDSS morphological

430: classification by comparing the spectroscopic and photometric

431: classifications of the $298$ morphologically extended objects in our

432: catalog with ChaMP spectra. All but five are classified

433: spectroscopically as extragalactic: $115$ are classified as galaxies

434: and $176$ as AGN/QSOs. Visual inspection of the SDSS images of these

435: five objects reveals that three (CXOMP J143819.2$+$033349,

436: J112740.4$+$565309, and J113311.9$+$010017) are extended galaxies,

437: suggesting their spectroscopic classification as stars is

438: erroneous. By contrast, CXOMP J142429.9$+$225641 and

439: J235645.8$-$010138 are likely stars: they are only

440: marginally resolved and may be either visual binaries or objects with

441: photometric flaws resulting in morphological misclassification.

442: 

443: Of the $298$ optically extended objects for which we have spectra, therefore,

444: only two appear to be misclassified stars based on their

445: photometry. This implies that $\lesssim0.7\%$ of the objects

446: classified as extended by the SDSS photometric pipeline are actually

447: point sources. Given this, we exclude from further analysis the $748$

448: sources whose optical counterpart has been identified as extended by

449: the pipeline. This increase in sample purity comes at the cost of

450: excluding $\sim$ five real point sources from our sample,

451: which does not significantly affect our completeness.

452: 

453: Figure~\ref{fullcatalog} presents the $1373$ point sources in our

454: initial catalog in various optical and infrared color-color and

455: color-magnitude spaces. $475$ of these point sources have

456: spectroscopic classifications; $87$ are identified as stars and $388$

457: as extragalactic in nature. We highlight these two spectroscopic

458: samples in Figure~\ref{fullcatalog}.

459: 

460: \begin{figure*}

461: \epsscale{0.95}

462: \plotone{f3.small.eps}

463: \caption {\normalsize{The location of our initial catalog in

464: color-color and color-magnitude spaces. All $1373$ ChaMP/SDSS point

465: sources are shown as filled symbols, with stars and circles indicating

466: saturated and unsaturated counterparts respectively. The $87$

467: spectroscopically identified stars are red, while the $388$

468: extragalactic sources are blue. Objects in the DR5 QSO

469: catalog are shown with half-sized symbols; the green box in the upper

470: left panel is the area of color space typically inhabited by $z < 2.5$

471: QSOs. Grayscale contours and black dots show the high quality sample

472: of SDSS/2MASS point sources presented by \citet{Covey2007}; the yellow

473: line is the median color-color relation of this sample. The color-magnitude cut described 

474: in \S\ref{useCMDcut} to eliminate QSOs is shown as a dotted line in the $i$ vs.\ $g-i$

475: CMD. Extinction vectors corresponding to A$_V=1$ are shown with a blue arrow in the 

476: upper left corner of each color-color diagram, and in the upper right 

477: of the color-magnitude diagram.  The red bars along each axis represent 

478: the typical photometric errors. }}\label{fullcatalog}

479: \end{figure*}

480: 

481: 

482: \subsection{The SDSS Photometric QSO Catalog}

483: 

484: The SDSS provides the largest, most uniform sample of photometrically

485: selected quasars to $i < 21$, assembled using a nonparametric Bayesian

486: classification based on kernel density estimation \citep{richards04,

487: richards06, richards07}. Each object in the catalog is assigned a

488: photometric redshift according to the empirical algorithm described by

489: \citet{weinstein04}; the difference between the measured color and the

490: median colors of quasars as a function of redshift is minimized. The

491: quasar catalog utilized in this work includes $\sim10,000$ SDSS Data

492: Release 5 \citep{Adelman-McCarthy2007} photometrically selected QSOs

493: that fall within $20$\arcmin\ of a ChaMP field center

494: (G.\ Richards, private communication, 2006; Green et al.\ 2008, in

495: preparation). To minimize QSO contamination, we eliminate from consideration

496: the $827$ candidate stellar X-ray sources that are listed in the DR5 QSO catalog.

497: 

498: \subsection{A Color-Magnitude Cut}\label{useCMDcut}

499: 

500: While matching to the photometrically selected DR5 QSO catalog excludes the vast majority of QSOs in our sample, $47$ of the remaining $546$ stellar candidates are identified as QSOs in the ChaMP spectroscopic database. As the $g-i$ vs. $i$

501: color-magnitude diagram (CMD) in Figure~\ref{fullcatalog} shows, these

502: QSOs are significantly fainter ($\geq 2$ mag) than spectroscopically

503: confirmed stars with similar $g-i$ colors. This suggests that a

504: color-magnitude cut can be used to separate stars from QSOs. However,

505: $175$ objects still under consideration at this stage are bright

506: enough to saturate pixels in one or more of the five SDSS images, and

507: their SDSS-based colors are untrustworthy.

508: 

509: We therefore restrict our final sample to the $363$ sources whose

510: optical counterparts are either flagged as SATURATED in the SDSS

511: database \citep[for a detailed discussion of the SDSS flags,

512: see][]{stoughton02} or are unsaturated and satisfy the $i < 16.2+0.7 \times (g-i)$ color-magnitude cut shown in

513: Figure~\ref{fullcatalog}.  Visual inspection confirms that the $27$

514: objects that are saturated and do not meet our color-magnitude cut are

515: in fact stars.

516: 

517: \subsection{X-ray Quality Cuts}\label{x_cuts}

518: 

519: We now examine the X-ray properties of the $363$ remaining ChaMP sources to identify potential contaminants.

520: 

521: \begin{itemize}

522: \item $27$ sources are more than $12\arcmin$ from the {\it Chandra} optical axis and are subject to larger photometric and astrometric errors. Since almost all have a large number of counts, we preserve them in our sample.  We do flag these sources in our final catalog, however, and we conservatively increase their X-ray flux errors by $50\%$. 

523: 

524: \item $16$ sources are detected on ACIS S4, which suffers from increased noise and streaking relative to the other {\it Chandra} CCDs. These sources are flagged in our final catalog; we conservatively increase their X-ray flux errors by $20\%$.

525: 

526: \item We find that $14$ sources overlap according to the criteria of \citet{MKim07a}.  For eight, the overlap is small \citep[as defined by][]{MKim07a} and the X-ray photometry is reliable. For the other six, the overlap is large: we flag these sources in our catalog and conservatively double their X-ray flux errors.

527: 

528: \item The exposure times for nine sources are typically less than half the maximum exposure time for their respective CCDs, indicating that the source extraction region encompasses an edge or gap. These sources have unreliable fluxes and we remove them from our sample. 

529: 

530: \item We checked a time-ordered list of photons inside the extraction region for each source in our catalog. We searched for two consecutive photons for which the chip coordinates are the same or differ by one pixel, the exposure frames (typically $3.2$~s) increase by $1$ or $2$, and the energies decrease monotonically; these are features associated with cosmic ray afterglows\footnote{For a description of this problem, see {\tt http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao/caveats/acis\_caveats\_071213.html}.}. We remove the three false sources (all with $<10$ counts) we found in this manner from our catalog.

531: \end{itemize}

532: 

533: In summary, we remove $12$ sources from our catalog based on their X-ray properties.

534: 

535: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccc}

536: \tablewidth{0pt}

537: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

538: \tablecaption{Stages in catalog construction. \label{cull}}

539: \tablehead{

540: \colhead{} & \colhead{Total}   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Spectroscopic}   \\

541: \cline{3-4}

542: \colhead{} & \colhead{Objects} & \colhead{Stars} & \colhead{Galaxies}

543: }

544: \startdata

545: Matched ChaMP/SDSS catalog & $2121$ & $89$ $(100\%)$ & $684$ $(100\%)$ \\

546: Matched ChaMP/SDSS point sources & $1373$ & $87$ $(98\%)$ & $388$ $(57\%)$ \\

547: ... not in DR5 QSO catalog & $546$ & $86$ $(97\%)$ & $47$ $(7\%)$ \\

548: ... with $i < 16.2+ 0.7\times(g-i)$ & $363$\tablenotemark{a} & $82$ $(92\%)$ & $3$ $(<0.1\%)$ \\

549: ... with clean X-ray properties & $351$ & $ 81$ $(91\%)$ & $3$ $(<0.1\%)$ \\

550: Final catalog & $348$\tablenotemark{b} & $81$ $(91\%)$ & $0$ $(0\%)$ \\

551: \enddata

552: \tablenotetext{1}{Includes $27$ saturated stars that do not meet this color-magnitude cut.}

553: \tablenotetext{2}{Three spectroscopically confirmed QSOs, and 11 sources with sub-standard X-ray detections are removed manually.}

554: \tablecomments{Columns 3 and 4 give the number of spectroscopically confirmed stars and galaxies present in the catalog at each stage. The numbers in parentheses correspond to the fraction of the original number of these objects that is retained.} 

555: \end{deluxetable*}

556: 

557: 

558: \section{The ChaMP/SDSS Stellar Catalog: ChESS}\label{science}

559: 

560: Imposing the criteria described above on our initial catalog of $2121$

561: ChaMP detections results in a high confidence sample of $351$ stellar

562: X-ray emitters. This sample excludes $99.6\%$ ($681/684$) of the

563: spectroscopically identified extragalactic objects and includes $91\%$

564: ($81/89$) of the spectroscopically identified stars. Of the eight

565: spectroscopic stars eliminated from our sample, two lack SDSS

566: counterparts with point source morphology, 

567: one is erroneously listed as having a photometric $z$ in

568: the SDSS QSO catalog, four fail to meet our color-magnitude

569: cut, and one has an X-ray detection on the edge of a {\it Chandra} CCD. We discuss the six eliminated stars with point source 

570: SDSS counterparts in \S\ref{stellar-sample}.

571: 

572: We remove the three remaining spectroscopically identified QSOs from

573: our sample to produce a final catalog of $348$ stellar X-ray emitters, which 

574: we define as the ChaMP Extended Stellar Survey

575: (see Table~\ref{cull} for a summary of the stages in the catalog

576: construction). The $348$ ChESS stars represent $17\%$ of the ChaMP sources

577: with SDSS counterparts, a fraction consistent with that found by 

578: \citet{lopez07}, as expected. X-ray and optical/near-infrared properties of 

579: objects in this catalog are presented in Tables~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-xrays} and

580: \ref{tab:ChaMPstars-oir}.

581: 

582: 

583: \subsection{Previously Cataloged Stars} \label{simbad}

584: 

585: A number of ChESS stars are optically bright enough to have been

586: previously cataloged. We search for entries in the SIMBAD catalog

587: within $10$\arcsec\ of the ChESS position for the $348$ stars 

588: and find that $89$ have matches. These stars are discussed in 

589: more detail in Appendix~\ref{ap_1}.

590: 

591: The $89$ stars can be divided into three groups. The largest group, $66$ stars, 

592: is made up of optically bright stars that have yet to be identified as X-ray

593: emitters. The first group's natural complement is the small number of

594: stars that have already been identified as X-ray sources; there are

595: only $10$ stars for which this is the case. The third group is of

596: ChESS sources included in previous X-ray catalogs but not yet

597: identified; there are $13$ such sources. The vast majority of the

598: objects in our catalog, therefore, represent new stellar

599: identifications: previously known stellar X-ray sources make up

600: $< 3\%$ of our sample. 

601: 

602: \subsection{Spectroscopic Stellar Sample} \label{stellar-sample}

603: 

604: We used the Hammer \citep{Covey2007}, an Interactive Data Language

605: code\footnote{Available from {\tt

606: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/$\sim$kcovey/}.} to obtain spectral types

607: for the $81$ stars in our sample for which we have spectra. The Hammer

608: predicts the Morgan-Keenan (for stars earlier than M) or Kirkpatrick

609: (for later stars) spectral type for a given star on the basis of a fit

610: to a set of $30$ spectral indices. In addition, the user can

611: interactively modify the assigned spectral type. Employing this tool

612: every spectrum was checked by eye and stars were assigned types

613: independently by two authors (MAA, KRC). Cases where the types

614: disagreed by more than two subclasses were reexamined. The spectral

615: types ultimately assigned are in Table~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-specs}.

616: 

617: \begin{figure}

618: \plotone{f4.small.eps}

619: \caption {\normalsize{{\it Top panel:} Assigned spectral types as a

620: function of $g-K_s$; saturated and unsaturated sources are shown as

621: stars and circles respectively. {\it Bottom panel:} Initial spectral

622: type uncertainty as a function of assigned type.}}\label{sptfig}

623: \end{figure}

624: 

625: The top panel of Figure \ref{sptfig} shows the relationship between

626: the assigned spectral types and each star's $g-K_s$ color; the close

627: relation between the two quantities (especially for unsaturated stars)

628: suggests that the assigned types are accurate. As an additional test

629: of this accuracy, we plot in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{sptfig}

630: the difference between the two types initially assigned to each

631: star. The mean difference is slightly more than one subclass, although

632: the quality of the agreement is dependent on the spectral type of the

633: star. The initial independent classifications for K and M class stars

634: typically disagree by one subclass or less, while initial

635: classifications for earlier F and G class stars typically disagree by

636: $2-4$ subclasses. We note that while eight of these stars have SIMBAD

637: entries, only three have previously cataloged spectral types and only

638: one is a previously known X-ray emitter. We identify CXOMP

639: J025951.7$+$004619 as [BHR2005] 832$-$7, which we classify as an M5

640: star and which SIMBAD lists as an M5.5V star. CXOMP J122837.1$+$015720

641: is the known X-ray emitter GSC 00282$-$00187, classified as an M2

642: star; we have it as an M1 star. Finally, we identify CXOMP

643: J231820.3$+$003129 as the F2 star TYC 577$-$673$-$1; SIMBAD lists this

644: star as an F5.

645: 

646: We list H$\alpha$ equivalent widths (EqWs) for each star

647: in Table~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-specs}, which we measure by dividing 

648: the line flux within a $20$ \AA\ window centered at $6563$

649: \AA\ with the continuum flux level determined from a linear fit to two

650: regions ($6503-6543$ \AA\ and $6583-6623$ \AA). We then use

651: the $\chi$ factor \citep{Walkowicz2004} to calculate L$_{\rm

652: H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ from these EqWs for the M stars with H$\alpha$

653: emission.  

654: 

655: As mentioned above (\S\ref{star_gal_sep}), the cuts we use to identify

656: a high confidence sample of stellar X-ray sources remove five

657: spectroscopically confirmed stars from our catalog. 

658: CXOMP J114119.9$+$661006 and J234828.4$+$005406 are optically

659: faint main sequence stars with spectral types K7 and M2 and are

660: eliminated by our color-magnitude cut; we remove an M2 star, CXOMP J161958.8$+$292321, 

661: because its X-ray detection falls on the edge of a {\it Chandra} CCD. The remaining three sources are

662: rarer cataclysmic variables, which frequently share color space with

663: QSOs:

664: 

665: \begin{itemize}

666: \item SDSS J020052.2$-$092431 is a previously unknown CV. Follow-up

667: optical observations are required to determine the nature of the

668: system and its period. Its soft ($0.5-2.0$ keV) flux is $3.13\pm0.28

669: \times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, while its broadband ($0.3 -

670: 8.0$ keV) flux is $9.04\pm0.65 \times 10^{-14}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$

671: s$^{-1}$. This CV is eliminated by our color-magnitude cut.

672: 

673: \item SDSS J150722.33$+$523039.8 was identified as a CV by

674: \citet{paula4}. Follow-up photometry revealed that it is an eclipsing

675: system with an extremely short orbital period of only $67$

676: minutes. Furthermore, observations of systems with similarly broad

677: absorption in the Balmer lines suggest that this CV may contain a

678: pulsating WD \citep[e.g.,][]{woudt2004}.

679: 

680: An initial match to the RASS did not return an X-ray counterpart to

681: this CV \citep{paula4}. It was the target of a {\it Chandra} 

682: observation that is included in ChaMP database. The

683: CV's soft flux is $2.36\pm0.84 \times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$

684: s$^{-1}$, while its broadband flux is $7.33\pm1.81 \times 10^{-14}$

685: erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. This CV is listed in the SDSS QSO catalog as

686: having a non-zero $z$, and also is eliminated by our color-magnitude

687: cut.

688: 

689: \item SDSS J170053.29$+$400357.6 is a known X-ray emitting polar, in

690: which the accretion stream flows directly onto the WD's magnetic

691: poles, with a period of $115$ minutes \citep{paula2}. \citet{paula2}

692: convert RASS counts into a flux assuming that for $2$ keV

693: bremsstrahlung spectrum, 1 count s$^{-1}$ corresponds to a $0.1-2.4$

694: keV flux of about $7 \times 10^{12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. In this

695: case, the resulting X-ray flux is $\sim4.9\times 10^{-13}$ ergs

696: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. By contrast, the soft {\it Chandra} flux is

697: $2.07\pm0.27 \times 10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, while its

698: broadband flux is $6.81\pm0.62 \times 10^{-13}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$

699: s$^{-1}$. This CV is eliminated by our color-magnitude cut.

700: \end{itemize}

701: 

702: For all three of these CVs, the broadband flux suggests there is a

703: hard tail to the X-ray emission.

704: 

705: \subsection{Giant Stars}

706: 

707: \begin{figure}

708: %\epsscale{0.55}

709: \plotone{f5.eps}

710: \caption{\normalsize{Simulated $J$ vs.\ $J-K_S$ color-magnitude diagram, produced by the TRILEGAL galaxy model for SDSS/2MASS observations of a $10$ deg$^2$ field, with the ChESS stars overplotted (blue plus signs). The contours and points correspond to the distribution of $10,254$ dwarf stars (log~$g \geq 3.5$); $368$ giants are hightlighted as red asterisks. The solid lines enclose the area of the diagram in which giants are most populous. The green dot-dashed line is $J = 12$; fainter than this magnitude, giants make up only $\sim 10\%$ of the total number of stars, while brighter than this value they dominate the stellar population. We estimate that $\sim 10\%$ of the ChESS stars are giants.}}

711: \label{trilegalcompare}

712: \end{figure}

713: 

714: In order to estimate the fraction of ChESS stars that is likely

715: to be made up of evolved X-ray emitters, we generate simulated SDSS/2MASS

716: observations using the TRILEGAL code \citep{Girardi2005} and standard 

717: Galactic parameters. In Figure~\ref{trilegalcompare} we show the resulting 

718: $J$ vs.\ $J-K_S$ CMD. Dwarf stars are defined as having surface gravities 

719: log~$g \geq 3.5$ and their distribution is shown by the density contours 

720: and points. The positions of the simulated giant stars are given by red 

721: asterisks. TRILEGAL predicts that most giants ($78\%$) should reside in a fairly 

722: narrow locus in $J$ vs.\ $J-K_S$ color-magnitude space that stretches

723: from $J\sim4$ and $0.625 \leq J - K_S \leq 0.825$ down to 

724: $J\sim16$ and $0.4 \leq J-K_S \leq 0.6$; we highlight this region of the CMD.

725: We then plot the positions of the ChESS stars; $57$ inhabit the giant region. 

726: However, the relative fraction of giants is not uniform across this 

727: region. For stars with $J > 12$ mag, giants represent no more than $11\%$ of 

728: our simulated SDSS/2MASS detections, while they dominate the simulated stellar 

729: population at brighter magnitudes. Naively we would therefore only 

730: expect $3$ of the $29$ ChESS stars in the giant region with $J > 12$ to be 

731: giants; conversely, all $28$ ChESS $J < 12$ stars in this region are strong

732: giant candidates. Overall, this implies that $\sim 10\%$ of our sample

733: is made up of giant stars. Our matching to SIMBAD, discussed in \S\ref{simbad}, 

734: identified five known luminosity class III and IV counterparts to ChaMP sources,

735: as well as an RR Lyrae and a candidate Cepheid (see Appendix~\ref{ap_1}), 

736: implying that the minimum fraction of ChESS giants is $2\%$.

737: 

738: \subsection{Stellar Distances}

739: 

740: We wish to derive distances for the ChESS stars using photometric

741: parallax relations appropriate for dwarfs on the main

742: sequence, since these dominate our sample. However, distance estimates 

743: based on SDSS photometry are

744: unreliable for the $175$ saturated stars in our sample. Fortunately,

745: the SDSS photometric pipeline identifies each object's counterpart in

746: the USNO-B catalog \citep{monet2003}; similarly, 2MASS uses a

747: $5$\arcsec\ matching radius to identify counterparts in the Tycho 2 or

748: UNSO-A2.0 catalogs. As a result, we have either USNO or Tycho

749: counterparts for $347$ of the $348$ stars in our sample.

750: 

751: We use the Tycho/USNO $B$ magnitudes to construct $B-K_s$ colors for

752: each source in the catalog and derive a relationship between $g-K_s$

753: and $B-K_s$ for the unsaturated stars:

754: \begin{equation}\label{syn}

755: g-K_s = 0.93 \times (B-K_s)+0.25.

756: \end{equation} 

757: 

758: Comparisons of the synthetic $g-K_s$ obtained using Equation~\ref{syn}

759: to the measured $g-K_s$ for the unsaturated stars reveals that the

760: synthetic $g-K_s$ color is accurate to within $0.3$ mag ($1 \sigma$), which we

761: adopt as the characteristic uncertainty for our synthetic $g-K_s$.

762: 

763: We then generate synthetic $g-K_s$ for the $165$ saturated SDSS stars

764: with $B$ magnitudes. We include in Table \ref{tab:ChaMPstars-oir} the

765: synthetic $g$ predicted for each star (calculated from its

766: synthetic $g-K_s$ and the observed $K_s$), as well as a saturation

767: flag that indicates if a star is unsaturated, saturated in SDSS with a

768: synthetic $g$ from Tycho/USNO photometry, or saturated in SDSS and

769: lacking a Tycho/USNO counterpart.

770: 

771: Finally, we use a preliminary fit to the M$_{K_s}$ vs.\ $g-K_s$ CMD of

772: Golimowski et al.\ (2008, in preparation), which agrees well with the

773: tabulations of \citet{Kraus2007}, to derive distances to each star,

774: using synthetic $g-K_s$ colors for stars with saturated SDSS

775: photometry when possible. One star in our sample, CXOMP

776: J153203.5$+$240501, is undetected in 2MASS, so we estimate its

777: distance using a preliminary fit to the M$_i$ vs.\ $g-i$ CMD of

778: Golimowski et al.\ (2008).

779: 

780: \begin{figure}

781: \plotone{f6.small.eps}

782: \caption {\normalsize{{\it Top Panel:} The distance to ChESS stars as a

783: function of $g-K_s$ color. Stars with unsaturated SDSS photometry and

784: clean X-ray detections are shown as points; those with

785: saturated SDSS photometry and/or flagged X-ray detections 

786: are shown as stars. The dashed line is the

787: distance limit imposed by the $i$ vs.\ $g-i$ CMD cut described in

788: \S\ref{useCMDcut}. {\it Bottom Panel:} L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ as a

789: function of $g-K_s$.}}\label{gkvsdist}

790: \end{figure}

791: 

792: The resulting distances are shown in Figure \ref{gkvsdist} as a

793: function of $g-K_s$; formal uncertainties in these distances are $<10\%$, 

794: but we adopt conservative uncertainties of $20\%$ to account for 

795: potential systematic errors in the underlying parallax relations.  

796: An estimate of the distance limit imposed by the

797: $i$ vs.\ $g-i$ cut described in \S\ref{useCMDcut}, calculated as a

798: function of $g-K_s$ via the color-magnitude data tabulated by

799: \citet{Kraus2007}, is shown in Figure \ref{gkvsdist} as a dashed

800: line. This limit matches the observed upper envelope of the ChESS

801: catalog well. The optical/near-infrared CMD cut imposes

802: implicit distance limits of between $2000$ and $1000$ pc for G

803: and K stars and of $1000$ to $200$ pc for stars with spectral types M0 to M6. 

804:  

805: Five stars in the ChESS catalog have formal distance estimates

806: placing them within $20$ pc; all five have SIMBAD counterparts.

807: Two, CXOMP J080500.8$+$103001 and J144232.8$+$011710, are identified

808: as giant stars, rendering our main sequence distance estimates

809: invalid. Two others, CXOMP J171954.1$+$263003 and J171952.9$+$263003,

810: appear to be members of a binary system, despite rather different

811: photometric distance estimates ($8.2$ and $5$ pc); a

812: trigonometric parallax has been derived for the brighter component

813: (J171954.1$+$263003/V647 Her), placing the system at a distance of

814: $12$ pc. The last of the five, CXOMP J080813.5$+$210608/LHS 5134, is

815: also likely to be nearby: it is identified in SIMBAD as an M2.5 star,

816: with a distance estimate of $\sim$10 pc from spectroscopic parallax.

817: 

818: \subsection{Stellar X-ray Luminosities} \label{sec:lx}

819: 

820: \begin{figure}

821: \plotone{f7.small.eps}

822: \caption {\normalsize{L$_{\rm X}$ as a function of distance for 

823: several samples of X-ray emitting stars. ChESS stars with unsaturated 

824: SDSS photometry and clean X-ray detections are shown as filled circles; 

825: those with saturated SDSS photometry and/or flagged X-ray detections 

826: are shown as stars. Also shown are the samples of

827: \citet{schmitt2004} (red circles), \citet{Hunsch1999} (yellow circles),

828: \citet{feigelson04} (blue diamonds), and \citet{lopez07} (cyan

829: asterisks).}}\label{lxvsdist}

830: \end{figure}

831: 

832: Having estimated the distances to our stars, we determine their X-ray

833: luminosities using both the soft ($0.5-2.0$ keV) and broadband

834: ($0.5-8$ keV) ChaMP fluxes, whose construction is described in 

835: \citet{MKim07a}\footnote{Note that this conversion assumes a $\Gamma = 1.7$ 

836: power-law X-ray spectrum; variations in coronal temperature and

837: metallicity can produce count to flux conversion factors that differ

838: by a factor of two.}. The resultant L$_{\rm X}$ values are

839: included in Table~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-xrays}; here 

840: we limit our discussion to soft X-ray luminosities for comparison purposes. 

841: These luminosities are shown in Figure~\ref{lxvsdist}

842: as a function of distance, along with data from

843: several other catalogs of stellar X-ray emitters.

844: The primary source of the comparison data presented here

845: is {\it ROSAT}: we include the \citet{schmitt2004} and

846: \citet{Hunsch1999} catalogs ($0.1 - 2.4$ keV luminosities). We also

847: include the $11$ stars identified by \citet{feigelson04} in the CDF-N

848: ($0.5-2$ keV) and the nine stars in the \citet{lopez07} {\it XMM} BSS

849: sample ($0.5-4.5$ keV) for which they provide distances. Compared to

850: these surveys, the ChESS catalog samples a unique area in the

851: L$_{\rm X}$--distance plane, covering the ranges of

852: $2\times10^{26}\ \lapprox\ $L$_{\rm X}\ \lapprox\ 2\times10^{31}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and $30\ \lapprox\ $d $\lapprox\ 3000$ pc.

853: 

854: The ChESS stars are for the most part more luminous than those

855: in the volume complete sample assembled by \citet{schmitt2004}. 

856: Despite their low intrinsic luminosities, the nearest stars

857: have moderately large X-ray fluxes ($\sim 10^{-12}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$

858: s$^{-1}$). Fields in the {\it Chandra} archive including such sources

859: are explicitly excluded from the ChaMP survey: the increased

860: likelihood of saturation in X-ray and optical imaging reduces the

861: ability to detect and classify other X-ray sources in the field, and

862: greatly complicates the calculation of the effective area sampled by

863: the observation.

864: 

865: The larger catalog of stellar X-ray emitters assembled by

866: \citet{Hunsch1999} provides a more natural comparison to our ChESS

867: catalog. The L$_{\rm X}$ lower limit of each sample increases with

868: distance, as expected for flux-limited catalogs. While the distance

869: limit of the ChESS catalog is fundamentally optical in nature

870: (due to the CMD cut described in \S\ref{useCMDcut}), a crude

871: comparison of the relative sensitivities of the surveys 

872: can be made by comparing the distances to which each

873: instrument can detect stars of a given L$_{\rm X}$: the

874: \citet{Hunsch1999} sample includes stars with L$_{\rm X} = 10^{28}$

875: ergs s$^{-1}$ to a distance of $30$ pc, while the ChESS catalog

876: contains such stars out to $200$ pc. The surface density of stars

877: in the ChESS catalog ($\sim 10$ deg$^{-2}$) exceeds that of

878: the \citet{Hunsch1999} catalog ($3\times10^{-4}$ deg$^{-2}$) by nearly

879: five orders of magnitude.

880: 

881: Figure~\ref{lxvsdist} shows that the ChESS stars'

882: properties are most similar to those of stars included in other {\it

883: Chandra} and {\it XMM} catalogs. These catalogs are not

884: interchangeable, however. For example, while the luminosities of the

885: \citet{feigelson04} CDF-N stars are comparable to those of the least

886: luminous members of the ChESS catalog, that sample's effective

887: distance limit is beyond that of the ChESS catalog for

888: equivalent X-ray luminosities. Conversely, because the \citet{lopez07}

889: sample relies on trigonometric parallax measurements for distances, these {\it

890: XMM}-detected stars, while also comparably X-ray luminous to the ChESS

891: stars, make up a shallower sample.

892: 

893: We also present in Table~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-xrays} the hardness

894: ratio (HR) for each source, where HR $= ($H$_c-$S$_c$)/(H$_c+$S$_c$) 

895: and H$_c$ and S$_c$ are the number of hard and soft counts, 

896: respectively \citep{MKim07a}. The stars in our catalog are quite soft, 

897: with typical HRs from $-1.0$ to $-0.6$; HR shows no clear correlation 

898: with L$_{\rm X}$ or $g-K_s$.

899: 

900: \subsection{Stellar Bolometric Luminosities}

901: 

902: For each star, we derive the bolometric luminosity using the $g-K_s$ color and the appropriate \citet{Kraus2007} bolometric correction. The resulting L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ ratios are presented in Table~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-xrays} and shown in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{gkvsdist} as a function of $g-K_s$.

903: 

904: The lower limit to the L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ values in the ChESS catalog 

905: is shaped by the sample's effective L$_{\rm X}$ limit, 

906: which is a function of the exposure times of the {\it

907: Chandra} images used to build the ChaMP.  The presence of an upper

908: envelope at L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} \sim 10^{-3}$, however, reflects

909: a physical characteristic of the stars.  Previous investigators have

910: found a similar empirical upper limit to the efficiency of stellar

911: X-ray emission \citep[e.g.,][]{Vilhu1983,Vilhu1987,Herbst1989,Stauffer1994}.  

912: While the cause of this so-called saturation is still unknown, it

913: is most commonly attributed to feedback processes that quench the

914: efficiency of the stellar dynamo and/or the ability of the dynamo to

915: heat the coronal plasma \citep{Cameron1994}, or to centrifugal

916: stripping of the coronal plasma at the high rotational velocities

917: associated with large L$_{\rm X}$ \citep{Jardine2004}.

918: 

919: \begin{figure}

920: \plotone{f8.small.eps}

921: \caption {\normalsize{ {\it Top Panel:} H$\alpha$ EqW vs.\ L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ for stars with ChaMP spectra. Negative EqWs indicate the presence of absorption lines.  F, G, and K stars are shown with plus signs; M stars are indicated with diamonds. The downward-pointing arrows indicate the EqW upper limits for M stars with no detected H$\alpha$ emission.  {\it Bottom panel:} L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ vs.\ L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ for the M stars in the spectroscopic sample, with symbols as above. The red line is the best fit relation between L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ and L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ for the entire sample. The blue-dot dashed line is the relation for the stars with L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} < 3\times10^{-4}$, a value indicated by the dashed line.}}\label{halxlbol}

922: \end{figure}

923: 

924: Figure~\ref{halxlbol} compares non-simultaneous measures of the 

925: strength of the H$\alpha$ emission line, a common diagnostic of 

926: chromospheric activity, with L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$, a tracer

927: of coronal activity for stars in our spectroscopic sample.  

928: Similar measurements from M stars in young clusters and the solar 

929: neighborhood \citep[e.g., ][]{Reid1995}, have found 

930: L$_{\rm X} = (3-5) \times$ L$_{\rm H\alpha}$, but were typically

931: made using {\it ROSAT} data. 

932: As stellar coronae produce very soft X-ray emission, it is 

933: unsurprising that the ChESS data, measuring harder X-rays, produces

934: an L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ ratio of $\sim2/3$, lower than the {\it ROSAT}-measured

935: ratio by a factor of five.

936: 

937: The correlation between L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ and L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ in the ChESS data, however, is  highly significant by Cox Proportional Hazard ($P=0.0008$), Kendall's $\tau$ ($P=0.0027$), and Spearman's $\rho$ tests ($P=0.0064$), as implemented 

938: in the Astronomy Survival Analysis Package \citep{LaValley92}.

939: We perform bivariate linear regressions with log(L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$)

940: as the dependent variable, using the parametric EM algorithm, 

941: and find the following best-fit relationship:

942: 

943: \begin{equation}

944: {\rm log( L_{H\alpha}/L_{bol}) =  (0.58\pm0.13)\times log(L_X/L_{bol}) - (1.69\pm0.48)}

945: \end{equation}

946: 		

947: \noindent with RMS residuals of $0.39$; this relationship is shown as the red line in Figure~\ref{halxlbol}.

948: When restricting the sample to L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} <3\times 10^{-4}$, the best-fit regression line steepens to:

949: 

950: \begin{equation}

951: {\rm log(L_{ H\alpha}/L_{bol}) = (1.27\pm0.24)\times log(L_X/L_{bol}) + (1.13\pm0.94)}, 

952: \end{equation}

953: 

954: \noindent shown as the blue dot-dashed line in Figure~\ref{halxlbol}, with RMS residuals of $0.31$.

955: 

956: The steepening of the L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ vs.\ L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ relation when high L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ sources are excluded, and the turnover in L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ at large L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ that is clearly visible in Figure \ref{halxlbol},

957: reveal that stars with very active coronae can possess very pedestrian chromospheres, at least when viewed at distinct epochs. To ensure that this effect is not merely an effect of uncertain H$\alpha$ measurements in low S/N spectra, we visually inspected the H$\alpha$ region

958: in the stars with L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} > 3 \times 10^{-4}$.

959: We find that these spectra are of high enough quality to confirm that only very low levels of H$\alpha$ emission are present in these stars.  We also verified that there are no significant differences in the spectral type or Galactic height of stars when the sample is divided at L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} = 3\times$10$^{-4}$.

960: 

961: There exist at least two plausible explanations for this seeming disconnect between the chromospheric and coronal properties of the stars with the most active coronae:

962: 

963: \begin{enumerate}

964: 

965: \item{Our X-ray selected sample is biased towards 

966: detecting flaring stars, whose non-simultaneous optical spectra

967: may be obtained when the star has returned to quiescence.

968: The seeming disconnect between the coronal and chromospheric properties 

969: would then simply reflect the temporal disconnect in the 

970: observations of these stars. If this is the case, an extremely crude indicator of the duty cycle 

971: of X-ray flares on M stars in the Galactic disk can be derived from

972: the $\sim45$\% ($19/43$) of the sample with low, and presumably quiescent, 

973: H$\alpha$ luminosity: the failure to observe significant H$\alpha$ 

974: emission during spectroscopic exposures with a median length of $720$ s

975: would imply a upper limit on the typical flare rate of 5 H$\alpha$ flares hr$^{-1}$.}

976: 

977: \item{Alternatively, the lack of correlation between chromospheric and 

978: coronal emission may be a sign that these two types of activity

979: decouple as coronal activity levels approach the saturated regime. 

980: This hypothesis has been advanced previously \citep[e.g., ][]{Cram1982,Pettersen1987,Mathioudakis1989,Houdebine1996}; in this scenario, the relative 

981: efficiencies of radiative processes that cool the corona 

982: and chromosphere (e.g., H$\alpha$, Ca II, and Mg emission, highly 

983: ionized X-ray line emission, and ultraviolet continuum emission) are

984: sensitive to the strength of stellar activity. To explain the effect

985: seen here, extreme levels of stellar activity would have to quench 

986: cooling of the chromosphere via H$\alpha$ emission even as the 

987: corona continues to be cooled efficiently by X-rays.}

988: \end{enumerate}

989: 

990: The relatively weak coronae implied by the 

991: L$_{\rm X}/$L$_{\rm H\alpha}$ relationship measured from the 

992: low-activity portion of our sample and its apparent 

993: breakdown at high activity levels present intriguing clues to the 

994: temporal behavior of coronal activity over timescales characteristic of 

995: both the non-simultaneity effects ($t<10$ yr) and population effects ($t>1$ 

996: Gyr) discussed above. The current sample of stars with 

997: measurements of both L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ and 

998: L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ is too small, however, to draw firm

999: conclusions.  We defer a full analysis of these 

1000: effects to follow-up studies.

1001: 

1002: \subsection{Stellar Colors}

1003: 

1004: While the clearest signatures of magnetic activity are spectroscopic

1005: in nature, stellar activity can impact a star's broadband colors as

1006: well.  In particular, magnetically active stars appear to possess

1007: ultraviolet (UV) excesses of $0.03-0.1$ mag in $U-B$ compared to

1008: non-active stars. This excess has been attributed to continuum

1009: emission generated from hot, active chromospheres

1010: \citep{Houdebine1996,Houdebine1997,Amado1997, James2000,Sung2002,Amado2003,Bochanski2007}.

1011: 

1012: 

1013: \begin{figure}

1014: \plotone{f9.small.eps}

1015: \caption {\normalsize{$u-g$ vs.\ $g-r$ for the ChESS stars with

1016: unsaturated SDSS photometry and unflagged X-ray detections

1017: (dots) with the optically selected SDSS/2MASS 

1018: sample constructed by \citet{Covey2007} 

1019: shown for comparison, as in Figure~\ref{fullcatalog}.

1020: The yellow line is the median stellar colors of the \citet{Covey2007}

1021: sample; the blue dashed line shows the locus of WD/M dwarf pairs

1022: identified by \citet{Smolcic2004}. }}\label{cleancolorcolor}

1023: \end{figure}

1024: 

1025: The $u-g$ vs.\ $g-r$ color-color diagram in Figure~\ref{cleancolorcolor}

1026: shows evidence for a similar shift, with X-ray emitting, optically unsaturated ChESS stars

1027: lying systematically lower than the median $u-g$ vs.\ $g-r$ locus

1028: measured by \citet{Covey2007} from a sample of optically selected

1029: SDSS/2MASS stars.  This shift in color-color space, however, is not

1030: unambiguous proof of a $u-g$ excess, as the offset could be

1031: caused by a red excess in $g-r$, particularly since active stars can

1032: have strong H$\alpha$ emission that contributes additional flux

1033: to the $r$ band.  Our spectroscopic sample, however, does not include

1034: any stars with H$\alpha$ equivalent widths significantly larger than

1035: $10$ \AA\ (see Table~\ref{tab:ChaMPstars-specs}), and even

1036: such strong H$\alpha$ emission lines contribute only a small

1037: fraction to the flux transmitted through a $\sim1000$-\AA\ wide

1038: filter, brightening a star in the $r$ band by only $0.01$ mag.

1039: 

1040: \begin{figure}

1041: \epsscale{.8}

1042: \plotone{f10.small.eps}

1043: \caption {\normalsize{ {\it Top Panel:} Histograms of color

1044: differences between unsaturated ChESS stars and optically selected

1045: stars with identical $i-K_s$.  Differences for $u-g$ (solid line) and

1046: $g-r$ (dashed line) are shown. {\it Second Panel:} $u-g$ differences

1047: for unsaturated stars as a function of L$_{\rm X}$.  M stars are

1048: shown as red crosses, while F, G, and K stars are shown as purple, blue, and green 

1049: diamonds respectively.  {\it Third Panel:}

1050: $u-g$ differences for unsaturated stars as a function of L$_{\rm

1051: X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$. {\it Bottom Panel:} $u-g$ differences for

1052: unsaturated stars as a function of $i-K_s$.}}\label{colorshifts}

1053: \end{figure}

1054: 

1055: 

1056: 

1057: To confirm that the offset in $u-g$ vs.\ $g-r$ is due to the

1058: stars' anomalous $u-g$ colors, we compare the offsets between the $u-g$ and

1059: $g-r$ colors of unsaturated stars in our sample and the median colors

1060: of non-active stars with the same $i-K_s$ color tabulated by

1061: \citet{Covey2007} (see top panel, Figure~\ref{colorshifts}). 

1062: While the spread is large, active stars are

1063: systematically bluer by $0.12$ mag in $u-g$ than inactive stars. By

1064: contrast, the $g-r$ colors of active stars are consistent with those

1065: of inactive stars to within $0.03$ mag, and there the difference is

1066: that active stars are bluer than inactive stars. This is inconsistent

1067: with the idea of a red shift caused by the addition of H$\alpha$

1068: emission into a star's $r$ band.

1069: 

1070: While stellar $u-g$ colors are sensitive to metallicity

1071: and the presence of unresolved WD companions,

1072: neither effect is likely to explain the offset seen here.

1073: The sensitivity of $u-g$ to metallicity is

1074: due to line blanketing, where absorption by a large

1075: number of metal lines in the $u$ band

1076: leads to preferentially redder $u-g$ colors for more

1077: metal-rich stars.  Interpreted as a metallicity

1078: effect, however, the $\sim0.1$ mag blue $u-g$ offset 

1079: implies that X-ray luminous stars have metallicities more than

1080: half a dex lower than the standard field population

1081: \citep{Karaali2005}, exceedingly unlikely given the well

1082: known link between stellar age and X-ray luminosity.

1083: 

1084: Similarly, while main sequence stars with an

1085: unresolved WD companion have anomalously blue

1086: $u-g$ colors, as well as the potential for enhanced X-ray luminosity,

1087: the colors of the stars in our sample disagree

1088: with those expected for such binaries. The SDSS colors of 

1089: WD/main sequence binaries found by \citet{Smolcic2004} and 

1090: \citet{Silvestri2006} are shown in Figure~\ref{cleancolorcolor}. While there

1091: may be a handful of such systems in our sample, the bulk of the

1092: ChESS stars are redder in $u-g$ than would be expected for systems 

1093: with WD components.

1094: 

1095: To investigate the cause of this $u-g$ offset,

1096: Figure~\ref{colorshifts} also shows the magnitude of the $u-g$ offset

1097: as a function of L$_{\rm X}$, L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$, and $i-K_s$,

1098: a proxy for stellar temperature and mass. A slight tendency for the

1099: offset to increase with L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ may be present,

1100: particularly when considering only stars of a given spectral type, but

1101: linear regression does not return a statistically significant

1102: correlation between the two variables. One would expect

1103: the $u-g$ excess to be most prominent for M stars, which

1104: typically have the highest activity and the lowest 

1105: of quiescent UV flux, allowing contributions from the chromosphere to

1106: affect the stars' $u-g$ most significantly. Instead, the $u-g$ excess

1107: reaches a maximum for K stars (at $i-K_s \sim 2.0$) and then 

1108: decreases into the M regime. Whether this effect is real or the result 

1109: of observational bias is hard to access, in part because of 

1110: the increased uncertainties in $u-g$ for late-type stars caused by the 

1111: red leak in the SDSS camera\footnote{The red leak describes an instrumental

1112: effect whereby the $u$-band filter transmits flux longward of $7100$

1113: \AA\ due to changes in the filter's interference coating under

1114: vacuum. This instrumental effect depends on a star's raw $u$ and $r$

1115: magnitudes, which in turn are dependent on the airmass, seeing, and

1116: the sensitivity of each $u$ filter as a function of wavelength and

1117: stellar spectrum. Given the complexity of this effect, the SDSS

1118: photometric pipeline does not attempt to correct each star's $u$-band

1119: photometry, resulting in increased $u$ uncertainties of $0.02$ mag for

1120: K stars, $0.06$ mag for M0 stars, and $0.3$ mag for stars with $r-i >

1121: 1.5$. For more information see

1122: \url{http://www.sdss.org/dr6/products/catalogs/index.html}.}.  The

1123: additional scatter in the $u-g$ colors of these stars may wash out

1124: evidence for trends of $\delta(u-g)$ with either L$_{\rm X}$ or

1125: color. Follow-up studies with more reliable $u$ photometry are 

1126: needed to reveal the nature of any correlation between $u-g$ excess and

1127: coronal or chromospheric activity.

1128: 

1129: \subsection{Stellar Populations} \label{thinthick}

1130: 

1131: \begin{figure}

1132: \plotone{f11.small.eps}

1133: \caption {\normalsize{{\it Left Panel:} Height in the Galactic disk

1134: (in pc) as a function of Galactic latitude. {\it Right Panel:}

1135: Height in the Galactic disk (in pc) as a function of

1136: $g-K_s$.  Symbols as in Fig. \ref{lxvsdist}.}}\label{lvsz}

1137: \end{figure}

1138: 

1139: Previous studies have found that magnetically active stars have a smaller 

1140: Galactic scale height than non-active stars \citep[e.g., ][]{West2008}.

1141: To determine how the stars in our catalog are distributed between the

1142: different Galaxy components, we use each star's

1143: distance and Galactic latitude to calculate its height in the Galactic

1144: disk.  We show in Figure~\ref{lvsz} the resulting Galactic heights as

1145: a function of both Galactic latitude and stellar color. If our catalog

1146: were probing a spherically symmetric halo population, the

1147: color-magnitude cut imposed in \S\ref{useCMDcut} would limit the

1148: catalog mainly as a function of the heliocentric distance to each

1149: star. Sight lines probing higher Galactic latitudes would sample stars

1150: at larger Galactic heights.  The distribution of Galactic heights in

1151: the sample is independent of Galactic latitude, however, indicating

1152: that the distribution of stars within the disk of the Milky Way

1153: imposes a stricter distance limit than the color-magnitude cut imposed

1154: in \S\ref{useCMDcut}.

1155: 

1156: \begin{figure}

1157: \plotone{f12.small.eps}

1158: \caption {\normalsize{{\it Top Panel: }$J-H$ vs.\ $H-K_s$ for ChESS M

1159: stars with unflagged X-ray detections. 

1160: The dashed line is the boundary between the regions identified

1161: by \citet{Stauffer1986} and \citet{Leggett1992} as populated

1162: preferentially on one side by relatively high-metallicity young disk

1163: stars and on the other by relatively low-metallicity old disk

1164: stars. {\it Bottom Panel: } L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ as a function of

1165: offset in $J-H$ from the young disk/old disk boundary in the top

1166: panel.}}\label{fehjhhk}

1167: \end{figure}

1168: 

1169: \citet{Stauffer1986} and \citet{Leggett1992} have correlated the

1170: near-infrared colors of M stars and their metallicities and

1171: kinematics, allowing them to define regions of $J-H$ vs.\ $H-K_s$

1172: color-color space dominated by young and old disk stars. In

1173: Figure~\ref{fehjhhk}, we compare the $JHK_s$ colors of M stars in our

1174: sample to the boundary defined by \citet{Leggett1992} between young

1175: and old disk stars.  This boundary nearly bisects our sample,

1176: suggesting that the ChESS catalog contains both young stars and

1177: the high activity tail of the old disk

1178: population. Figure~\ref{fehjhhk} also shows L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$

1179: for these M stars as a function of their offset from the

1180: young/old disk boundary. The lowest activity sources (L$_{\rm

1181: X}$/L$_{\rm bol} \sim 10^{-5}$) are uniformly identified with the old

1182: disk population, a clear signature of the decay of magnetic activity

1183: with age.  Interpreting the significance of the many old disk stars with

1184: large L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ values is less straightforward, particularly

1185: because these active old disk stars are likely merely color outliers 

1186: of the vastly more numerous young disk population.  If these high 

1187: L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ stars are truly members of the old disk, however,

1188: they would represent a new and very significant population of stars that

1189: experience little decay of magnetic activity over their lifetimes.

1190: 

1191: \section{Conclusions}\label{concl}

1192: 

1193: We have correlated the Extended {\it Chandra} Multiwavelength Project

1194: with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to identify the $348$ X-ray 

1195: emitting stars of the ChaMP Extended Stellar Survey. We used morphological 

1196: star/galaxy separation, matching to an SDSS quasar catalog, an

1197: optical color-magnitude cut, and X-ray data quality tests to identify the

1198: ChESS stars from a sample of $2121$ matched ChaMP/SDSS sources. 

1199: 

1200: \begin{itemize}

1201: \item Our cuts retain $91\%$ of the spectroscopically confirmed stars

1202: in the original sample while excluding $99.6\%$ of the $684$

1203: spectroscopically confirmed extragalactic sources. Fewer than $3\%$ of

1204: the sources in our final catalog are previously identified stellar

1205: X-ray emitters.

1206: 

1207: \item For $42$ catalog members, spectroscopic classifications are

1208: available in the literature. We present new spectral classifications

1209: and H$\alpha$ measurements for an additional $79$ stars. We derive

1210: distances to the stars in our catalog using photometric parallax

1211: relations appropriate for dwarfs on the main sequence and calculate

1212: their X-ray and bolometric luminosities. For $36$ newly identified

1213: X-ray emitting M stars we also provide measurements of L$_{\rm

1214: H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$.

1215: 

1216: \item The stars in our catalog lie in a unique space in the L$_{\rm

1217: X}$--distance plane, filling the gap between the nearby stars

1218: identified as counterparts to sources in the {\it ROSAT} All-Sky

1219: Survey and the more distant stars detected in other {\it Chandra} and

1220: {\it XMM-Newton} surveys.

1221: 

1222: \item The ChESS catalog is dominated by main sequence stars. 

1223: By comparing the distribution of the ChESS sample in $J$ vs.\ $J-K_S$ 

1224: space to that of simulated SDSS/2MASS observations generated by TRILEGAL, 

1225: we estimate that the total fraction of giants in the catalog is $\sim 10\%$.

1226: In addition to seven confirmed giant stars (including a possible Cepheid 

1227: and an RR Lyrae star), we identify three cataclysmic variables.

1228: 

1229: \item We find that L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ 

1230: and L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ are linearly related below 

1231: L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol} \sim 3 \times 10^{-4}$, while 

1232: L$_{\rm H\alpha}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ appears to turn over at larger

1233: L$_{\rm X}$/L$_{\rm bol}$ values.  

1234: 

1235: \item Stars with reliable SDSS photometry have an $\sim0.1$

1236: mag blue excess in $u-g$, likely due to increased chromospheric

1237: continuum emission. Photometric metallicity estimates suggest that our

1238: sample is evenly split between the young and old disk populations of

1239: the Galaxy; the lowest activity sources are identified with the old

1240: disk population, a clear signature of the decay of magnetic activity

1241: with age.

1242: \end{itemize}

1243: 

1244: Future papers will present analyses of ChESS source variability and

1245: comparisons of the ChESS catalog to models of stellar activity in the

1246: Galactic disk.

1247: 

1248: \acknowledgements 

1249: We thank Suzanne Hawley,  Andrew West, Steven Saar, and Thomas Fleming 

1250: for useful discussions of stellar magnetic activity; we also thank the 

1251: anonymous referee and editor for useful comments that improved the work 

1252: presented here. We are indebted to the staffs at the National Optical 

1253: Astronomy Observatories, Las Campanas, and the MMT for assistance with 

1254: optical spectroscopy.  Special thanks to observers including Warren 

1255: Brown, Perry Berlind, and Michael Calkins, for FAST spectroscopy from 

1256: the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory $1.5$ m on Mt Hopkins, and to 

1257: Susan Tokarz and Nathalie Marthimbeau for reductions.  

1258: 

1259: Support for this work was provided by the National

1260: Aeronautics and Space Administration through {\it Chandra}, Award

1261: Number AR4-5017X and AR6-7020X issued by the {\it Chandra} X-ray

1262: Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical

1263: Observatory for and on behalf of the National Aeronautics Space

1264: Administration under contract NAS8-03060. Further NASA support was

1265: provided to K.\ Covey through the Spitzer Space Telescope Fellowship

1266: Program, through a contract issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

1267: California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. M.\

1268: Ag\"ueros is supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics

1269: Postdoctoral Fellowship under award AST-0602099. D.\ Haggard is

1270: supported by a NASA Harriett G.\ Jenkins Predoctoral Fellowship.

1271: 

1272: This work is based in part on observations obtained at Cerro Tololo 

1273: Inter-American Observatory and Kitt Peak Observatory, National Optical 

1274: Astronomy Observatory, operated by the Association of Universities 

1275: for Research in Astronomy, Inc.\ under cooperative agreement with the

1276: National Science Foundation.

1277: 

1278: This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System

1279: Bibliographic Services, the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS,

1280: Strasbourg, France, the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, operated by

1281: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,

1282: under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

1283: and the VizieR database of astronomical catalogs

1284: \citep{Ochsenbein2000}. IRAF (Image Reduction and Analysis Facility) is 

1285: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are 

1286: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, 

1287: Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

1288: 

1289: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred

1290: P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National

1291: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National

1292: Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the

1293: Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for

1294: England. The SDSS Web Site is {\tt http://www.sdss.org/}.

1295: 

1296: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the

1297: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the

1298: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,

1299: University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve

1300: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the

1301: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns

1302: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the

1303: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean

1304: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos

1305: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA),

1306: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State

1307: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh,

1308: University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States

1309: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.

1310: 

1311: The Two Micron All Sky Survey was a joint project of the University of

1312: Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center

1313: (California Institute of Technology). The University of Massachusetts

1314: was responsible for the overall management of the project, the

1315: observing facilities and the data acquisition. The Infrared Processing

1316: and Analysis Center was responsible for data processing, data

1317: distribution and data archiving.

1318: 

1319: 

1320: %--------------------------APPENDICES-----------------------------

1321: %\clearpage

1322: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{A\arabic{section}}

1323: %\setcounter{section}{0}  % reset counter

1324: \appendix

1325: \section{ChaMP Sources With SIMBAD Counterparts}\label{ap_1}

1326: 

1327: In Table~\ref{tab:simbad-stars} we present the optical data for the

1328: $66$ stars cataloged in SIMBAD that we have identified as ChaMP X-ray

1329: sources, and include additional information (spectral type, binarity,

1330: variability) where available. We searched the literature for evidence

1331: that these stars had been identified as X-ray sources and could find

1332: no previous X-ray detections; we therefore consider these all to be

1333: new X-ray source identifications. Four stars are positionally

1334: coincident with X-ray sources in other {\it Chandra} catalogs, but are

1335: not explicitly listed in SIMBAD as X-ray emitters or identified in

1336: these catalogs as stars, and we therefore consider them also to be new

1337: identifications. CXOMP J084944.7$+$445840 is among the sources

1338: detected in Lynx \citep{stern02} and listed in the Serendipitous

1339: Extragalactic X-Ray Source Identification \citep[SEXSI;][]{harrison03}

1340: catalog, but is unidentified in both catalogs. CXOMP

1341: J085005.3$+$445819 and J090941.7$+$541939 are both unidentified SEXSI

1342: sources. Finally, CXOMP J162157.2$+$381734 is less than $10$\arcsec\

1343: from 1RXS J162157.6$+$381727, an unidentified RASS source.

1344: 

1345: $13$ ChaMP stellar sources do not have SIMBAD optical counterparts but

1346: are included in other X-ray catalogs. However, our examination of

1347: these catalogs reveals no additional information about the nature of

1348: these sources, and we also consider these to be new X-ray source

1349: identifications. For example, CXOMP J084854.0$+$450230 is within

1350: $1$\arcsec\ of the X-ray source [STS2002] 43 \citep{stern02}, but the

1351: catalog for that survey does not include an identification for this

1352: X-ray source or for two other ChaMP sources. Similarly, eight ChaMP

1353: sources listed in the SEXSI catalog and two observed in Bootes by

1354: \citet{wang04} are not identified. CXOMP J141120.7$+$521411 is

1355: included in three catalogs and unidentified in all three, although a

1356: magnitude is given for the counterpart by \citet{zickgraf03} in their

1357: catalog of RASS BSC sources. CXOMP J125152.2$+$000528 is listed by

1358: \citet{zickgraf03}, but is unidentified. CXOMP

1359: J214229.3$+$123322 is within $4$\arcsec\ of the unidentified RASS

1360: source 1RXS J214229.5$+$123323. These sources are listed in

1361: Table~\ref{tab:other-xray}. In total, we have $79$ ChESS stars with

1362: cataloged optical or X-ray data, but which had not previously been

1363: identified as stellar X-ray sources.

1364: 

1365: Finally, $10$ ChESS stars are previously known stellar X-ray

1366: sources. We list these in Table~\ref{tab:known-sources}. A full

1367: examination of the properties of these stars (e.g., a comparison of

1368: their previously reported fluxes to those detected by {\it Chandra})

1369: is beyond the scope of this paper.

1370: 

1371: %--------------------------BIBLIOGRAPHY---------------------------

1372: %\clearpage

1373: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{0.6\baselineskip}

1374: %\bibliography{/Users/kevin/astro/ChaMPstars/AllStars/paper/even_newer_refs}

1375: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

1376: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2007){Adelman-McCarthy},

1379:   {Ag{\"u}eros}, {Allam}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall},

1380:   {Bailer-Jones}, {Baldry}, {Barentine}, {Beers}, {Belokurov}, {Berlind},

1381:   {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Bochanski}, {Boroski}, {Bramich}, {Brewington},

1382:   {Brinchmann}, {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carey}, {Carliles},

1383:   {Carr}, {Castander}, {Connolly}, {Cool}, {Cunha}, {Csabai}, {Dalcanton},

1384:   {Doi}, {Eisenstein}, {Evans}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman},

1385:   {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Gillespie}, {Gilmore}, {Glazebrook}, {Gray},

1386:   {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {de Haas}, {Hall}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley}, {Hayes},

1387:   {Heckman}, {Hendry}, {Hennessy}, {Hindsley}, {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg},

1388:   {Holtzman}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Jester}, {Johnston},

1389:   {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}}, {Kauffmann}, {Kent}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp},

1390:   {Kniazev}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin}, {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lee},

1391:   {Leger}, {Lima}, {Lin}, {Long}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Mandelbaum}, {Margon},

1392:   {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Matsubara}, {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin},

1393:   {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Nash}, {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Nichol},

1394:   {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {Oyaizu}, {Okamura}, {Ostriker}, {Padmanabhan},

1395:   {Park}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope}, {Pourbaix}, {Quinn}, {Raddick}, {Re

1396:   Fiorentin}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Rix}, {Rockosi}, {Schlegel},

1397:   {Schneider}, {Scranton}, {Seljak}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Silvestri},

1398:   {Smith}, {Smol{\v c}i{\'c}}, {Snedden}, {Stebbins}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss},

1399:   {SubbaRao}, {Suto}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark}, {Thakar},

1400:   {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vandenberg}, {Vidrih},

1401:   {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Weinberg}, {West}, {White}, {Wilhite}, {Yanny},

1402:   {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, {Zibetti}, \& {Zucker}}]{Adelman-McCarthy2007}

1403: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2007, \apjs, 172, 634

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2008)}]{DR6paper}

1406: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K., {et~al.} 2008, \apjs, 175, 297

1407: 

1408: \bibitem[{{Akerlof} {et~al.}(2000){Akerlof}, {Amrose}, {Balsano}, {Bloch},

1409:   {Casperson}, {Fletcher}, {Gisler}, {Hills}, {Kehoe}, {Lee}, {Marshall},

1410:   {McKay}, {Pawl}, {Schaefer}, {Szymanski}, \& {Wren}}]{Akerlof2000}

1411: {Akerlof}, C. {et~al.} 2000, \aj, 119, 1901

1412: 

1413: \bibitem[{{Aldcroft} {et~al.}(2000){Aldcroft}, {Karovska},

1414:   {Cresitello-Dittmar}, {Cameron}, \& {Markevitch}}]{aldcroft2000}

1415: {Aldcroft}, T.~L., {Karovska}, M., {Cresitello-Dittmar}, M.~L., {Cameron},

1416:   R.~A., \& {Markevitch}, M.~L. 2000, in Presented at the Society of

1417:   Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference, Vol. 4012, Proc.

1418:   SPIE Vol. 4012, p. 650-657, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III,

1419:   Joachim E. Truemper; Bernd Aschenbach; Eds., ed. J.~E. {Truemper} \&

1420:   B.~{Aschenbach}, 650--657

1421: 

1422: \bibitem[{{Alexander} {et~al.}(2003){Alexander}, {Bauer}, {Brandt},

1423:   {Schneider}, {Hornschemeier}, {Vignali}, {Barger}, {Broos}, {Cowie},

1424:   {Garmire}, {Townsley}, {Bautz}, {Chartas}, \& {Sargent}}]{alexander2003}

1425: {Alexander}, D.~M. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 126, 539

1426: 

1427: \bibitem[{{Amado}(2003)}]{Amado2003}

1428: {Amado}, P.~J. 2003, \aap, 404, 631

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[{{Amado} \& {Byrne}(1997)}]{Amado1997}

1431: {Amado}, P.~J., \& {Byrne}, P.~B. 1997, \aap, 319, 967

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[{{Anderson} {et~al.}(2007)}]{anderson06}

1434: {Anderson}, S.~F., {et~al.} 2007, \aj, 133, 313

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[{{Apparao} {et~al.}(1992){Apparao}, {Berthiaume}, \&

1437:   {Nousek}}]{apparao92}

1438: {Apparao}, K.~M.~V., {Berthiaume}, G.~D., \& {Nousek}, J.~A. 1992, \apj, 397,

1439:   534

1440: 

1441: \bibitem[{{Bade} {et~al.}(1998)}]{bade98}

1442: {Bade}, N., {et~al.} 1998, \aaps, 127, 145

1443: 

1444: \bibitem[{{Barkhouse} {et~al.}(2006){Barkhouse}, {Green}, {Vikhlinin}, {Kim},

1445:   {Perley}, {Cameron}, {Silverman}, {Mossman}, {Burenin}, {Jannuzi}, {Kim},

1446:   {Smith}, {Smith}, {Tananbaum}, \& {Wilkes}}]{Barkhouse06}

1447: {Barkhouse}, W.~A. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 645, 955

1448: 

1449: \bibitem[{{Bochanski} {et~al.}(2007){Bochanski}, {West}, {Hawley}, \&

1450:   {Covey}}]{Bochanski2007}

1451: {Bochanski}, J.~J., {West}, A.~A., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {Covey}, K.~R. 2007,

1452:   \aj, 133, 531

1453: 

1454: \bibitem[{{Brandt} \& {Hasinger}(2005)}]{Brandt2005}

1455: {Brandt}, W.~N., \& {Hasinger}, G. 2005, \araa, 43, 827

1456: 

1457: \bibitem[{{Cappi} {et~al.}(2001){Cappi}, {Mazzotta}, {Elvis}, {Burke},

1458:   {Comastri}, {Fiore}, {Forman}, {Fruscione}, {Green}, {Harris}, {Hooper},

1459:   {Jones}, {Kaastra}, {Kellogg}, {Murray}, {McNamara}, {Nicastro}, {Ponman},

1460:   {Schlegel}, {Siemiginowska}, {Tananbaum}, {Vikhlinin}, {Virani}, \&

1461:   {Wilkes}}]{cappi01}

1462: {Cappi}, M. {et~al.} 2001, \apj, 548, 624

1463: 

1464: \bibitem[{{Collier Cameron} \& {Jianke}(1994)}]{Cameron1994}

1465: {Collier Cameron}, A., \& {Jianke}, L. 1994, \mnras, 269, 1099

1466: 

1467: \bibitem[{{Covey} {et~al.}(2007){Covey}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Schlegel},

1468:   {Finkbeiner}, {Padmanabhan}, {Lupton}, {Ag{\"u}eros}, {Bochanski}, {Hawley},

1469:   {West}, {Seth}, {Kimball}, {Gogarten}, {Claire}, {Haggard}, {Kaib},

1470:   {Schneider}, \& {Sesar}}]{Covey2007}

1471: {Covey}, K.~R. {et~al.} 2007, \aj, 134, 2398

1472: 

1473: \bibitem[{{Cram}(1982)}]{Cram1982}

1474: {Cram}, L.~E. 1982, \apj, 253, 768

1475: 

1476: \bibitem[{{Cutri} {et~al.}(2003)}]{Cutri2003}

1477: {Cutri}, R.~M., {et~al.} 2003, {2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources.} (The

1478:   IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, NASA/IPAC Infrared Science

1479:   Archive.~http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/)

1480: 

1481: \bibitem[{{Della Ceca} {et~al.}(2004){Della Ceca}, {Maccacaro}, {Caccianiga},

1482:   {Severgnini}, {Braito}, {Barcons}, {Carrera}, {Watson}, {Tedds}, {Brunner},

1483:   {Lehmann}, {Page}, {Lamer}, \& {Schwope}}]{dellac04}

1484: {Della Ceca}, R. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 428, 383

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[{{Favata} {et~al.}(1992){Favata}, {Micela}, {Sciortino}, \&

1487:   {Vaiana}}]{favata92}

1488: {Favata}, F., {Micela}, G., {Sciortino}, S., \& {Vaiana}, G.~S. 1992, \aap,

1489:   256, 86

1490: 

1491: \bibitem[{{Feigelson} {et~al.}(2004)}]{feigelson04}

1492: {Feigelson}, E.~D., {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 611, 1107

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[{{Freyberg} {et~al.}(2006){Freyberg}, {Altieri}, {Bermejo}, {Esquej},

1495:   {Lazaro}, {Read}, \& {Saxton}}]{freyberg06}

1496: {Freyberg}, M.~J., {Altieri}, B., {Bermejo}, D., {Esquej}, M.~P., {Lazaro}, V.,

1497:   {Read}, A.~M., \& {Saxton}, R.~D. 2006, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 604,

1498:   The X-ray Universe 2005, ed. A.~{Wilson}, 913--+

1499: 

1500: \bibitem[{{Fukugita} {et~al.}(1996)}]{fukugita}

1501: {Fukugita}, M., {et~al.} 1996, \aj, 111, 1748

1502: 

1503: \bibitem[{{Gehrels}(1986)}]{gehrels86}

1504: {Gehrels}, N. 1986, \apj, 303, 336

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[{{Gioia} {et~al.}(1984)}]{gioia84}

1507: {Gioia}, I.~M., {et~al.} 1984, \apj, 283, 495

1508: 

1509: \bibitem[{{Gioia} {et~al.}(1990)}]{gioia90}

1510: ---. 1990, \apjs, 72, 567

1511: 

1512: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2005){Girardi}, {Groenewegen}, {Hatziminaoglou}, \&

1513:   {da Costa}}]{Girardi2005}

1514: {Girardi}, L. {et~al.} 2005, \aap, 436, 895 

1515: 

1516: \bibitem[{{Green} {et~al.}(2004){Green}, {Silverman}, {Cameron}, {Kim},

1517:   {Wilkes}, {Barkhouse}, {LaCluyz{\'e}}, {Morris}, {Mossman}, {Ghosh},

1518:   {Grimes}, {Jannuzi}, {Tananbaum}, {Aldcroft}, {Baldwin}, {Chaffee}, {Dey},

1519:   {Dosaj}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Foltz}, {Gaetz}, {Hooper}, {Kashyap}, {Mathur},

1520:   {McGarry}, {Romero-Colmenero}, {Smith}, {Smith}, {Smith}, {Torres},

1521:   {Vikhlinin}, \& {Wik}}]{green04}

1522: {Green}, P.~J. {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 150, 43

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(1998)}]{gunn}

1525: {Gunn}, J.~E., {et~al.} 1998, \aj, 116, 3040

1526: 

1527: \bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(2006)}]{gunn06}

1528: ---. 2006, \aj, 131, 2332

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[{{Hagen} {et~al.}(1995)}]{hagen95}

1531: {Hagen}, H.-J., {et~al.} 1995, \aaps, 111, 195

1532: 

1533: \bibitem[{{Harris} \& {Johnson}(1985)}]{harris85}

1534: {Harris}, D.~E., \& {Johnson}, H.~M. 1985, \apj, 294, 649

1535: 

1536: \bibitem[{{Harrison} {et~al.}(2003){Harrison}, {Eckart}, {Mao}, {Helfand}, \&

1537:   {Stern}}]{harrison03}

1538: {Harrison}, F.~A., {Eckart}, M.~E., {Mao}, P.~H., {Helfand}, D.~J., \& {Stern},

1539:   D. 2003, \apj, 596, 944

1540: 

1541: \bibitem[{{Herbst} \& {Miller}(1989)}]{Herbst1989}

1542: {Herbst}, W., \& {Miller}, J.~R. 1989, \aj, 97, 891

1543: 

1544: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2001)}]{hogg01}

1545: {Hogg}, D.~W., {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 2129

1546: 

1547: \bibitem[{{Houdebine} {et~al.}(1996){Houdebine}, {Mathioudakis}, {Doyle}, \&

1548:   {Foing}}]{Houdebine1996}

1549: {Houdebine}, E.~R., {Mathioudakis}, M., {Doyle}, J.~G., \& {Foing}, B.~H. 1996,

1550:   \aap, 305, 209

1551: 

1552: \bibitem[{{Houdebine} \& {Stempels}(1997)}]{Houdebine1997}

1553: {Houdebine}, E.~R., \& {Stempels}, H.~C. 1997, \aap, 326, 1143

1554: 

1555: \bibitem[{{H{\"u}nsch} {et~al.}(1999){H{\"u}nsch}, {Schmitt}, {Sterzik}, \&

1556:   {Voges}}]{Hunsch1999}

1557: {H{\"u}nsch}, M., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., {Sterzik}, M.~F., \& {Voges}, W.

1558:   1999, \aaps, 135, 319

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[{{Ishisaki} {et~al.}(2001){Ishisaki}, {Ueda}, {Yamashita}, {Ohashi},

1561:   {Lehmann}, \& {Hasinger}}]{ishisaki01}

1562: {Ishisaki}, Y., {Ueda}, Y., {Yamashita}, A., {Ohashi}, T., {Lehmann}, I., \&

1563:   {Hasinger}, G. 2001, \pasj, 53, 445

1564: 

1565: \bibitem[{{Ivezi{\' c}} {et~al.}(2004)}]{zeljko04}

1566: {Ivezi{\' c}}, {\v Z}., {et~al.} 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583

1567: 

1568: \bibitem[{{James} {et~al.}(2000){James}, {Jardine}, {Jeffries}, {Randich},

1569:   {Collier Cameron}, \& {Ferreira}}]{James2000}

1570: {James}, D.~J., {Jardine}, M.~M., {Jeffries}, R.~D., {Randich}, S., {Collier

1571:   Cameron}, A., \& {Ferreira}, M. 2000, \mnras, 318, 1217

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[{{Jardine}(2004)}]{Jardine2004}

1574: {Jardine}, M. 2004, \aap, 414, L5

1575: 

1576: \bibitem[{{Karaali} {et~al.}(2005){Karaali}, {Bilir}, \& {Tun{\c

1577:   c}el}}]{Karaali2005}

1578: {Karaali}, S., {Bilir}, S., \& {Tun{\c c}el}, S. 2005, Publications of the

1579:   Astronomical Society of Australia, 22, 24

1580: 

1581: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2006){Kim}, {Barkhouse}, {Romero-Colmenero}, {Green},

1582:   {Kim}, {Mossman}, {Schlegel}, {Silverman}, {Aldcroft}, {Anderson}, {Ivezic},

1583:   {Kashyap}, {Tananbaum}, \& {Wilkes}}]{DKim06}

1584: {Kim}, D.-W. {et~al.} 2006, \apj, 644, 829

1585: 

1586: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}}){Kim}, {Cameron}, {Drake}, {Evans},

1587:   {Freeman}, {Gaetz}, {Ghosh}, {Green}, {Harnden}, {Karovska}, {Kashyap},

1588:   {Maksym}, {Ratzlaff}, {Schlegel}, {Silverman}, {Tananbaum}, {Vikhlinin},

1589:   {Wilkes}, \& {Grimes}}]{DKim04a}

1590: ---. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, \apjs, 150, 19

1591: 

1592: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}}){Kim}, {Wilkes}, {Green},

1593:   {Cameron}, {Drake}, {Evans}, {Freeman}, {Gaetz}, {Ghosh}, {Harnden},

1594:   {Karovska}, {Kashyap}, {Maksym}, {Ratzlaff}, {Schlegel}, {Silverman},

1595:   {Tananbaum}, \& {Vikhlinin}}]{DKim04b}

1596: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 600, 59

1597: 

1598: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Kim}, {Kim}, {Wilkes}, {Green},

1599:   {Kim}, {Anderson}, {Barkhouse}, {Evans}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Karovska}, {Kashyap},

1600:   {Lee}, {Maksym}, {Mossman}, {Silverman}, \& {Tananbaum}}]{MKim07a}

1601: {Kim}, M. {et~al.} 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apjs, 169, 401

1602: 

1603: \bibitem[{{Kim} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Kim}, {Wilkes}, {Kim}, {Green},

1604:   {Barkhouse}, {Lee}, {Silverman}, \& {Tananbaum}}]{MKim07b}

1605: {Kim}, M., {Wilkes}, B.~J., {Kim}, D.-W., {Green}, P.~J., {Barkhouse}, W.~A.,

1606:   {Lee}, M.~G., {Silverman}, J.~D., \& {Tananbaum}, H.~D. 2007{\natexlab{b}},

1607:   \apj, 659, 29

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[{{Kraus} \& {Hillenbrand}(2007)}]{Kraus2007}

1610: {Kraus}, A.~L., \& {Hillenbrand}, L.~A. 2007, \aj, 134, 2340

1611: 

1612: \bibitem[{{Lavalley} {et~al.}(1992){Lavalley}, {Isobe}, \&

1613:   {Feigelson}}]{LaValley92}

1614: {Lavalley}, M., {Isobe}, T., \& {Feigelson}, E. 1992, in Astronomical Society

1615:   of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol.~25, Astronomical Data Analysis

1616:   Software and Systems I, ed. D.~M. {Worrall}, C.~{Biemesderfer}, \&

1617:   J.~{Barnes}, 245--+

1618: 

1619: \bibitem[{{Leggett}(1992)}]{Leggett1992}

1620: {Leggett}, S.~K. 1992, \apjs, 82, 351

1621: 

1622: \bibitem[{{Lehmann} {et~al.}(2001){Lehmann}, {Hasinger}, {Schmidt}, {Giacconi},

1623:   {Tr{\"u}mper}, {Zamorani}, {Gunn}, {Pozzetti}, {Schneider}, {Stanke},

1624:   {Szokoly}, {Thompson}, \& {Wilson}}]{lehmann01}

1625: {Lehmann}, I. {et~al.} 2001, \aap, 371, 833

1626: 

1627: \bibitem[{{L{\'o}pez-Santiago} {et~al.}(2007){L{\'o}pez-Santiago}, {Micela},

1628:   {Sciortino}, {Favata}, {Caccianiga}, {Della Ceca}, {Severgnini}, \&

1629:   {Braito}}]{lopez07}

1630: {L{\'o}pez-Santiago}, J., {Micela}, G., {Sciortino}, S., {Favata}, F.,

1631:   {Caccianiga}, A., {Della Ceca}, R., {Severgnini}, P., \& {Braito}, V. 2007,

1632:   \aap, 463, 165

1633: 

1634: \bibitem[{{Mason} {et~al.}(2000){Mason}, {Carrera}, {Hasinger}, {Andernach},

1635:   {Aragon-Salamanca}, {Barcons}, {Bower}, {Brandt}, {Branduardi-Raymont},

1636:   {Burgos-Mart{\'{\i}}n}, {Cabrera-Guerra}, {Carballo}, {Castander}, {Ellis},

1637:   {Gonz{\'a}lez-Serrano}, {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Gonz{\'a}lez},

1638:   {Mart{\'{\i}}n-Mirones}, {McMahon}, {Mittaz}, {Nicholson}, {Page},

1639:   {P{\'e}rez-Fournon}, {Puchnarewicz}, {Romero-Colmenero}, {Schwope}, {Vila},

1640:   {Watson}, \& {Wonnacott}}]{mason00}

1641: {Mason}, K.~O. {et~al.} 2000, \mnras, 311, 456

1642: 

1643: \bibitem[{{Mathioudakis} \& {Doyle}(1989)}]{Mathioudakis1989}

1644: {Mathioudakis}, M., \& {Doyle}, J.~G. 1989, \aap, 224, 179

1645: 

1646: \bibitem[{{Monet} {et~al.}(2003){Monet}, {Levine}, {Canzian}, {Ables}, {Bird},

1647:   {Dahn}, {Guetter}, {Harris}, {Henden}, {Leggett}, {Levison}, {Luginbuhl},

1648:   {Martini}, {Monet}, {Munn}, {Pier}, {Rhodes}, {Riepe}, {Sell}, {Stone},

1649:   {Vrba}, {Walker}, {Westerhout}, {Brucato}, {Reid}, {Schoening}, {Hartley},

1650:   {Read}, \& {Tritton}}]{monet2003}

1651: {Monet}, D.~G. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 984

1652: 

1653: \bibitem[{{Nieto--Santisteban} {et~al.}(2004)}]{sdss_images}

1654: {Nieto--Santisteban}, M.~A., {et~al.} 2004, in ASP Conf. Ser. 314: Astronomical

1655:   Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F.~{Ochsenbein}, M.~G.

1656:   {Allen}, \& D.~{Egret}, 666--+

1657: 

1658: \bibitem[{{Ochsenbein} {et~al.}(2000){Ochsenbein}, {Bauer}, \&

1659:   {Marcout}}]{Ochsenbein2000}

1660: {Ochsenbein}, F., {Bauer}, P., \& {Marcout}, J. 2000, \aaps, 143, 23

1661: 

1662: \bibitem[{{Parejko} {et~al.}(2008){Parejko}, {Constantin}, {Vogeley}, \&

1663:   {Hoyle}}]{Parejko2008}

1664: {Parejko}, J.~K., {Constantin}, A., {Vogeley}, M.~S., \& {Hoyle}, F. 2008, \aj,

1665:   135, 10

1666: 

1667: \bibitem[{{Pettersen}(1987)}]{Pettersen1987}

1668: {Pettersen}, B.~R. 1987, Vistas in Astronomy, 30, 41

1669: 

1670: \bibitem[{{Pflueger} {et~al.}(1996){Pflueger}, {Otterbein}, \&

1671:   {Staubert}}]{pflueger96}

1672: {Pflueger}, B., {Otterbein}, K., \& {Staubert}, R. 1996, \aap, 305, 699

1673: 

1674: \bibitem[{{Popesso} {et~al.}(2004)}]{popesso04}

1675: {Popesso}, P., {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 423, 449

1676: 

1677: \bibitem[{{Randich} {et~al.}(1996){Randich}, {Schmitt}, \&

1678:   {Prosser}}]{randich96}

1679: {Randich}, S., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., \& {Prosser}, C. 1996, \aap, 313, 815

1680: 

1681: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(1995){Reid}, {Hawley}, \& {Mateo}}]{Reid1995}

1682: {Reid}, N., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {Mateo}, M. 1995, \mnras, 272, 828

1683: 

1684: \bibitem[{{Richards} {et~al.}(2007){Richards}, {Myers}, {Brunner}, {Strand},

1685:   {Nichol}, {Gray}, {Riegel}, {Lacy}, \& {Szalay}}]{richards07}

1686: {Richards}, G.~T. {et~al.} 2007, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

1687:   Abstracts, Vol. 211, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts,

1688:   142.02--+

1689: 

1690: \bibitem[{{Richards} {et~al.}(2004){Richards}, {Nichol}, {Gray}, {Brunner},

1691:   {Lupton}, {Vanden Berk}, {Chong}, {Weinstein}, {Schneider}, {Anderson},

1692:   {Munn}, {Harris}, {Strauss}, {Fan}, {Gunn}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {York},

1693:   {Brinkmann}, \& {Moore}}]{richards04}

1694: {Richards}, G.~T. {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 155, 257

1695: 

1696: \bibitem[{{Richards} {et~al.}(2006){Richards}, {Strauss}, {Fan}, {Hall},

1697:   {Jester}, {Schneider}, {Vanden Berk}, {Stoughton}, {Anderson}, {Brunner},

1698:   {Gray}, {Gunn}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kirkland}, {Knapp}, {Loveday}, {Meiksin},

1699:   {Pope}, {Szalay}, {Thakar}, {Yanny}, {York}, {Barentine}, {Brewington},

1700:   {Brinkmann}, {Fukugita}, {Harvanek}, {Kent}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesi{\'n}ski},

1701:   {Long}, {Lupton}, {Nash}, {Neilsen}, {Nitta}, {Schlegel}, \&

1702:   {Snedden}}]{richards06}

1703: ---. 2006, \aj, 131, 2766

1704: 

1705: \bibitem[{{Saxton} {et~al.}(2008){Saxton}, {Read}, {Esquej}, {Freyberg},

1706:   {Altieri}, \& {Bermejo}}]{saxton2008}

1707: {Saxton}, R.~D., {Read}, A.~M., {Esquej}, P., {Freyberg}, M.~J., {Altieri}, B.,

1708:   \& {Bermejo}, D. 2008, \aap, 480, 611

1709: 

1710: \bibitem[{{Schmitt} {et~al.}(1985){Schmitt}, {Golub}, {Harnden}, {Maxson},

1711:   {Rosner}, \& {Vaiana}}]{schmitt85}

1712: {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., {Golub}, L., {Harnden}, Jr., F.~R., {Maxson}, C.~W.,

1713:   {Rosner}, R., \& {Vaiana}, G.~S. 1985, \apj, 290, 307

1714: 

1715: \bibitem[{{Schmitt} \& {Liefke}(2004)}]{schmitt2004}

1716: {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., \& {Liefke}, C. 2004, \aap, 417, 651

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[{{Schmitt} {et~al.}(1995)}]{schmitt95}

1719: {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., {et~al.} 1995, \apj, 450, 392

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[{{Scranton} {et~al.}(2002){Scranton}, {Johnston}, {Dodelson},

1722:   {Frieman}, {Connolly}, {Eisenstein}, {Gunn}, {Hui}, {Jain}, {Kent},

1723:   {Loveday}, {Narayanan}, {Nichol}, {O'Connell}, {Scoccimarro}, {Sheth},

1724:   {Stebbins}, {Strauss}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Tegmark}, {Vogeley}, {Zehavi},

1725:   {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Brinkman}, {Csabai}, {Hindsley}, {Ivezic}, {Kim},

1726:   {Knapp}, {Lamb}, {Lee}, {Lupton}, {McKay}, {Munn}, {Peoples}, {Pier},

1727:   {Richards}, {Rockosi}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Stoughton}, {Tucker},

1728:   {Yanny}, \& {York}}]{Scranton2002}

1729: {Scranton}, R. {et~al.} 2002, \apj, 579, 48

1730: 

1731: \bibitem[{{Silverman} {et~al.}(2005){Silverman}, {Green}, {Barkhouse},

1732:   {Cameron}, {Foltz}, {Jannuzi}, {Kim}, {Kim}, {Mossman}, {Tananbaum},

1733:   {Wilkes}, {Smith}, {Smith}, \& {Smith}}]{Silverman05}

1734: {Silverman}, J.~D. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 624, 630

1735: 

1736: \bibitem[{{Silvestri} {et~al.}(2006){Silvestri}, {Hawley}, {West}, {Szkody},

1737:   {Bochanski}, {Eisenstein}, {McGehee}, {Schmidt}, {Smith}, {Wolfe}, {Harris},

1738:   {Kleinman}, {Liebert}, {Nitta}, {Barentine}, {Brewington}, {Brinkmann},

1739:   {Harvanek}, {Krzesi{\'n}ski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Schneider}, \&

1740:   {Snedden}}]{Silvestri2006}

1741: {Silvestri}, N.~M. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1674

1742: 

1743: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(1997){Skrutskie}, {Schneider}, {Stiening},

1744:   {Strom}, {Weinberg}, {Beichman}, {Chester}, {Cutri}, {Lonsdale}, {Elias},

1745:   {Elston}, {Capps}, {Carpenter}, {Huchra}, {Liebert}, {Monet}, {Price}, \&

1746:   {Seitzer}}]{Skrutskie1997}

1747: {Skrutskie}, M.~F. {et~al.} 1997, in ASSL Vol. 210: The Impact of Large Scale

1748:   Near-IR Sky Surveys, 25--+

1749: 

1750: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006)}]{Skrutskie2006}

1751: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1163

1752: 

1753: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2002)}]{smith02}

1754: {Smith}, J.~A., {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 2121

1755: 

1756: \bibitem[{{Smol{\v c}i{\'c}} {et~al.}(2004){Smol{\v c}i{\'c}}, {Ivezi{\'c}},

1757:   {Knapp}, {Lupton}, {Pavlovski}, {Iliji{\'c}}, {Schlegel}, {Smith}, {McGehee},

1758:   {Silvestri}, {Hawley}, {Rockosi}, {Gunn}, {Strauss}, {Fan}, {Eisenstein}, \&

1759:   {Harris}}]{Smolcic2004}

1760: {Smol{\v c}i{\'c}}, V. {et~al.} 2004, \apjl, 615, L141

1761: 

1762: \bibitem[{{Stauffer} {et~al.}(1994){Stauffer}, {Caillault}, {Gagne}, {Prosser},

1763:   \& {Hartmann}}]{Stauffer1994}

1764: {Stauffer}, J.~R., {Caillault}, J.-P., {Gagne}, M., {Prosser}, C.~F., \&

1765:   {Hartmann}, L.~W. 1994, \apjs, 91, 625

1766: 

1767: \bibitem[{{Stauffer} \& {Hartmann}(1986)}]{Stauffer1986}

1768: {Stauffer}, J.~R., \& {Hartmann}, L.~W. 1986, \apjs, 61, 531

1769: 

1770: \bibitem[{{Stern} {et~al.}(2002){Stern}, {Tozzi}, {Stanford}, {Rosati},

1771:   {Holden}, {Eisenhardt}, {Elston}, {Wu}, {Connolly}, {Spinrad}, {Dawson},

1772:   {Dey}, \& {Chaffee}}]{stern02}

1773: {Stern}, D. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 2223

1774: 

1775: \bibitem[{{Stocke} {et~al.}(1983)}]{stocke83}

1776: {Stocke}, J.~T., {et~al.} 1983, \apj, 273, 458

1777: 

1778: \bibitem[{{Stocke} {et~al.}(1991)}]{stocke91}

1779: ---. 1991, \apjs, 76, 813

1780: 

1781: \bibitem[{{Stoughton} {et~al.}(2002)}]{stoughton02}

1782: {Stoughton}, C., {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 485

1783: 

1784: \bibitem[{{Sung} {et~al.}(2002){Sung}, {Bessell}, {Lee}, \& {Lee}}]{Sung2002}

1785: {Sung}, H., {Bessell}, M.~S., {Lee}, B.-W., \& {Lee}, S.-G. 2002, \aj, 123, 290

1786: 

1787: \bibitem[{{Szkody} {et~al.}(2003)}]{paula2}

1788: {Szkody}, P., {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 126, 1499

1789: 

1790: \bibitem[{{Szkody} {et~al.}(2005)}]{paula4}

1791: ---. 2005, \aj, 129, 2386

1792: 

1793: %\bibitem[{{Tucker} {et~al.}(2006)}]{tucker06}

1794: %{Tucker}, D.~L., {et~al.} 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821

1795: 

1796: \bibitem[{{Vilhu}(1987)}]{Vilhu1987}

1797: {Vilhu}, O. 1987, in Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, Vol.

1798:   291, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun, ed. J.~L. {Linsky} \& R.~E.

1799:   {Stencel}, 110--+

1800: 

1801: \bibitem[{{Vilhu} \& {Rucinski}(1983)}]{Vilhu1983}

1802: {Vilhu}, O., \& {Rucinski}, S.~M. 1983, \aap, 127, 5

1803: 

1804: \bibitem[{{Voges} {et~al.}(1999)}]{voges99}

1805: {Voges}, W., {et~al.} 1999, \aap, 349, 389

1806: 

1807: \bibitem[{{Voges} {et~al.}(2000)}]{fsc}

1808: ---. 2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 9029, 0

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[{{Walkowicz} {et~al.}(2004){Walkowicz}, {Hawley}, \&

1811:   {West}}]{Walkowicz2004}

1812: {Walkowicz}, L.~M., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {West}, A.~A. 2004, \pasp, 116, 1105

1813: 

1814: \bibitem[{{Wang} {et~al.}(2004){Wang}, {Malhotra}, {Rhoads}, {Brown}, {Dey},

1815:   {Heckman}, {Jannuzi}, {Norman}, {Tiede}, \& {Tozzi}}]{wang04}

1816: {Wang}, J.~X. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 213

1817: 

1818: \bibitem[{{Watson} \& {XMM-Newton Survey Science Centre

1819:   Consortium}(2006)}]{Watson2006}

1820: {Watson}, M., \& {XMM-Newton Survey Science Centre Consortium}, t. 2006, in

1821:   Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol.~38, Bulletin of the

1822:   American Astronomical Society, 365--+

1823: 

1824: \bibitem[{{Weinstein} {et~al.}(2004){Weinstein}, {Richards}, {Schneider},

1825:   {Younger}, {Strauss}, {Hall}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Gunn}, {York}, \&

1826:   {Brinkmann}}]{weinstein04}

1827: {Weinstein}, M.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \apjs, 155, 243

1828: 

1829: \bibitem[{{Weisskopf} {et~al.}(2002){Weisskopf}, {Brinkman}, {Canizares},

1830:   {Garmire}, {Murray}, \& {Van Speybroeck}}]{weisskopf02}

1831: {Weisskopf}, M.~C., {Brinkman}, B., {Canizares}, C., {Garmire}, G., {Murray},

1832:   S., \& {Van Speybroeck}, L.~P. 2002, \pasp, 114, 1

1833: 

1834: \bibitem[{{West} {et~al.}(2008){West}, {Hawley}, {Bochanski}, {Covey}, {Reid},

1835:   {Dhital}, {Hilton}, \& {Masuda}}]{West2008}

1836: {West}, A.~A., {Hawley}, S.~L., {Bochanski}, J.~J., {Covey}, K.~R., {Reid},

1837:   I.~N., {Dhital}, S., {Hilton}, E.~J., \& {Masuda}, M. 2008, \aj, 135, 785

1838: 

1839: \bibitem[{{Woudt} {et~al.}(2004)}]{woudt2004}

1840: {Woudt}, P.~A., {et~al.} 2004, \mnras, 351, 1015

1841: 

1842: \bibitem[{{Wo{\'z}niak} {et~al.}(2004){Wo{\'z}niak}, {Vestrand}, {Akerlof},

1843:   {Balsano}, {Bloch}, {Casperson}, {Fletcher}, {Gisler}, {Kehoe}, {Kinemuchi},

1844:   {Lee}, {Marshall}, {McGowan}, {McKay}, {Rykoff}, {Smith}, {Szymanski}, \&

1845:   {Wren}}]{wozniak04}

1846: {Wo{\'z}niak}, P.~R. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 2436

1847: 

1848: \bibitem[{{Zickgraf} {et~al.}(2003)}]{zickgraf03}

1849: {Zickgraf}, F.-J., {et~al.} 2003, \aap, 406, 535

1850: 

1851: \end{thebibliography}

1852: %%\setlength{\baselineskip}{1.667\baselineskip}

1853: 

1854: 

1855: %--------------------------BIG TABLES-----------------------------

1856: \clearpage

1857: 

1858: \begin{landscape}

1859: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

1860: 

1861: \input{Stub.xray}

1862: 

1863: \input{Stub.oir}

1864: \clearpage

1865: \end{landscape}

1866: 

1867: \input{tab4}

1868: 

1869: \input{tab5}

1870: 

1871: %\clearpage

1872: 

1873: \input{tab6}

1874: 

1875: \input{tab7}

1876: 

1877: 

1878: %--- Figures

1879: 

1880: 

1881: 

1882: %\begin{figure}

1883: %\plotone{f3.eps}

1884: %\caption {\normalsize{Stellar spectra from the ChaMP database

1885: %illustrating the resolution and spectral coverage of each of the

1886: %spectrograph/telescope combinations used to follow-up X-ray

1887: %sources.}}\label{example_specs}

1888: %\end{figure}

1889: 

1890: 

1891: 

1892: 

1893: \end{document}

1894: