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

2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

3: %\usepackage{natbib}

4: %\usepackage{epsfig}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\del}{{\bf [..]~}}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \title{Investigating ChaMPlane X-ray sources in the Galactic Bulge with Magellan LDSS2 spectra}

11: 

12: \author{Xavier Koenig,\altaffilmark{1} Jonathan E. Grindlay,\altaffilmark{1} Maureen van den Berg,\altaffilmark{1} Silas Laycock,\altaffilmark{1} Ping Zhao,\altaffilmark{1} JaeSub Hong\altaffilmark{1} and Eric M. Schlegel\altaffilmark{2}}

13: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; xkoenig@cfa.harvard.edu}

14: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249}

15: 

16: \begin{abstract}

17:   We have carried out optical and X-ray spectral analyses on a sample

18:   of 136 candidate optical counterparts of X-ray sources found in five

19:   Galactic-bulge fields included in our $\it{Chandra}$

20:   Multi-wavelength Plane Survey. We use a combination of optical

21:   spectral fitting and quantile X-ray analysis to obtain the hydrogen

22:   column density towards each object, and a three-dimensional dust

23:   model of the Galaxy to estimate the most probable distance in each

24:   case. We present the discovery of a population of stellar coronal

25:   emission sources, likely consisting of pre-main sequence, young main

26:   sequence and main sequence stars, as well as a component of active

27:   binaries of RS CVn or BY Dra type. We identify one candidate

28:   quiescent low-mass X-ray binary with a sub-giant companion; we note

29:   that this object may also be an RS CVn system. We report the

30:   discovery of three new X-ray detected cataclysmic variables (CVs) in

31:   the direction of the Galactic Center (at distances $\lesssim$

32:   2kpc). This number is in excess of predictions made with a simple CV

33:   model based on a local CV space density of $\lesssim$ 10$^{-5}$

34:   pc$^{-3}$, and a scale height $\sim$200pc. We discuss several

35:   possible reasons for this observed excess.

36: \end{abstract}

37: 

38: \keywords{surveys --- stars: activity --- stars: late type --- Galaxy: stellar content --- novae, cataclysmic variables --- X-rays: stars}

39: 

40: \section{Introduction}

41: The goal of the $\it{Chandra}$ Multi-wavelength Plane Survey

42: (ChaMPlane)\footnote{http://hea-www.harvard.edu/ChaMPlane} is to study

43: the galactic X-ray point-source population, in particular

44: accretion-powered X-ray sources. ChaMPlane

45: \citep{grindlay2003,grindlay05} comprises two phases of study of the

46: Galactic plane (Galactic latitudes $|$b$|$ $<$ 12$\degr$): firstly an

47: X-ray survey of serendipitous sources from archival deep

48: $\it{Chandra}$ X-ray Observatory pointings (with exposure times

49: greater than $\sim$20ks), and secondly an optical survey in $H\alpha$

50: (narrow band) and Johnson $V$, $R$, and $I$ filters, using the Mosaic

51: camera on the CTIO and KPNO 4m telescopes to image 36$'$ $\times$

52: 36$'$ fields centered on the $\it{Chandra}$ pointings. Optical spectra

53: are then obtained for classification of candidate optical counterparts

54: to X-ray sources. Infrared (IR) observations are used to identify

55: candidate counterparts in heavily obscured fields.

56: 

57: In this paper we analyze a sample of candidate optical counterparts

58: from five ChaMPlane fields towards the Galactic bulge using

59: low-resolution optical spectra. These fields are within 20$\degr$ of

60: the Galactic Center (GC), and within 3$\degr$ of the Galactic

61: plane. Using the optical band necessarily constrains the scope of this

62: project: stars at the distance of the GC ($\sim$8 kpc) are hidden

63: behind a hydrogen column density $N_H \sim$ 0.5--2.0 $\times$

64: 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, and are thus absorbed by $A_V$ $\gtrsim$ 25

65: ($A_R$ $\gtrsim$ 19). Given our optical survey limit of $R$ = 24 and

66: this level of extinction, optical counterparts at the GC are

67: unobservable, therefore our work is restricted to foreground (d

68: $\lesssim$ 3 kpc) sources. As a consequence we focus our efforts on

69: two main goals: 1) to identify candidate cataclysmic variables (CVs)

70: through their broad $H\alpha$ line emission and 2) to study the

71: properties of the sample of stellar coronal emission sources that we

72: detect. In doing so we highlight anomalous cases as potential active

73: binary or quiescent low-mass X-ray binary (qLMXB) systems.

74: 

75: The X-ray and optical datasets used in this study, and their

76: reduction, are discussed in $\S$2--3. In $\S$3 we highlight new

77: techniques developed for our analysis---a simple spectral fitting

78: process to obtain the extinction $E(B-V)$ and thus $N_H$ from the

79: optical spectra, a three-dimensional (3D) dust model of the Galaxy

80: \citep{drimmel01} to obtain a distance in any direction given

81: $E(B-V)$, and the X-ray Quantile Color-Color Diagram (QCCD) technique

82: for spectral analysis of low-count X-ray point sources. In $\S$4 we

83: give results for X-ray and optical source properties and present our

84: detected candidate CVs and observed stellar X-ray luminosity

85: function. In $\S$5 we discuss the likely composition of our stellar

86: coronal source population and compare the CV sample to predictions of

87: a simple Galactic distribution model. Finally in $\S$6 we present our

88: conclusions.

89: 

90: \section{Observations and Datasets}

91: 

92: \subsection{X-ray Dataset}

93: \citet{hong05} and Hong et al. (2008, in preparation) describe in

94: detail our pipeline processing of archival {\it Chandra} observations

95: for use in the ChaMPlane survey and subsequent, more detailed

96: analysis. In summary, source lists from detections in a broad (B$_X$,

97: 0.3--8.0 keV), soft (S$_X$, 0.3--2.5 keV) and hard (H$_X$, 2.5--8.0

98: keV) energy band, are cross-correlated to form a master source

99: list. Source properties such as flux and energy quantiles (see $\S

100: 3.1$), are derived in energy bands more appropriate to analysis of low

101: count sources. These conventional bands are defined: S$_C$ (0.5--2.0

102: keV), H$_C$ (2.0--8.0 keV) and B$_C$ (0.5--8.0 keV).  In the following

103: analysis, we consider only X-ray sources of level 1 and above---these

104: being sources unaffected by hot pixels, bad columns or bad bias values

105: on the ACIS detector, or readout streaks from bright sources as well

106: as sources too close to the chip boundary; see \citet{hong05} for a

107: complete description of the different levels assigned to sources in

108: our X-ray catalog.

109: 

110: \input{tab1.tex}

111: 

112: X-ray data for this paper come from three ACIS-I and one ACIS-S

113: $\it{Chandra}$ pointings. In addition, we have stacked 14 ACIS-I

114: observations centered on SgrA* to create a deep image of the Galactic

115: Center region. This stack includes the observations analyzed by

116: \citet{muno} (with the exception of ObsID 1561), that amount to a

117: total of 590 ksec exposure time, as well as ObsIDs 3549, 4683, 4684

118: and 5360. The resultant total exposure time is 748ks or 698ks of good

119: time after processing. The process of dealing with duplicate sources

120: between individual pointings in the stack is detailed in

121: \citet{hong05}.  The final stacked SgrA* observation we label ObsID

122: 53392. It overlaps partially with ObsID 945---the two share 46 X-ray

123: sources in common. All fields listed in Table 1 were observed with

124: $\it{Chandra}$ ACIS-I except J1655, for which ACIS-S was

125: used. Exposure times are given before and after correcting for good

126: time intervals (GTI).

127: 

128: \subsection{Optical Dataset}

129: Targets for optical spectral follow-up were selected following

130: observations made in March 2000 with the Mosaic camera on the CTIO 4m

131: telescope in $V$, $R$, $I$ and $H\alpha$ filters to identify candidate

132: counterparts as follows \citep[see][for details]{zhao05}. We determine

133: the systematic offsets between the Chandra and Mosaic astrometries,

134: i.e. the boresight correction, for each pair of X-ray and optical

135: images using the iterative procedure described in

136: \citet{zhao05}. After applying the boresight correction, we search for

137: candidate optical counterparts within some confidence radius of each

138: X-ray source, taking into account optical and X-ray astrometric

139: uncertainties and the boresight error. We elected to search within a 2

140: $\sigma$ radius of each source (thus losing on average $\sim$5\% of

141: the real counterparts). Table 2 summarizes these results. The

142: resultant catalog of candidate counterparts was used to make a target

143: list for the observing runs in 2001--2002 with the Low Dispersion

144: Survey Spectrograph 2 (LDSS2) on the 6.5m Baade Magellan telescope.

145: 

146: \input{tab2.tex}

147: 

148: The LDSS2

149: instrument\footnote{http://www.ociw.edu/lco/magellan/instruments/LDSS2/ldss2\_usersguide.html}

150: uses a multi-aperture mask with a $\sim$5$'$ diameter field of

151: view. With a dispersion of 5.3$\textrm{\AA}$ per pixel, we obtained

152: spectra centered on 6500$\textrm{\AA}$ covering $\sim$3500 to

153: 9500$\textrm{\AA}$ at a resolution of 13.3$\textrm{\AA}$.  Masks for

154: LDSS2 were generated with the $\emph{ldss2mask.f}$ FORTRAN code. Using

155: slit lengths between $\sim$5 and 10$''$, and 3 or 4 alignment stars,

156: between 6 and $\sim$20 targets were assigned to each mask. Given the

157: ChaMPlane goal of finding X-ray binaries largely powered by accretion

158: processes, highest priority for inclusion of targets on the masks went

159: to objects showing both X-ray and $H\alpha$ emission (i.e. $H\alpha -

160: R < -$0.3), followed by X-ray source candidate optical counterparts

161: (regardless of X-ray or optical colors), then $H\alpha$ bright objects

162: ($H\alpha - R < -$0.3), and then `marginal' $H\alpha$ objects (with

163: $-$0.3 $< H\alpha - R < -$0.2). Each of these groups was sorted in

164: order of R-magnitude brightness, with brightest objects having highest

165: priority. Details of the observations are given in Table 3. 

166: 

167: Data from LDSS2 were reduced using the standard IRAF procedure

168: $\emph{ccdproc}$. Spectra were extracted one-by-one using the IRAF

169: $\emph{doslit}$ package. When crowding in dense fields resulted in

170: multiple stars falling on a slit, the correct target star was

171: identified for extraction by comparing the dispersed CCD image of the

172: spectra with the Mosaic image of the field and a reference image of

173: the sky taken without the LDSS2 slit mask and grism in place. Stars

174: too poorly exposed to find any trace on the CCD, too badly saturated,

175: or on incorrectly cut slits were not extracted (these three cases

176: account for $\sim$20\% of the original targets). In total we extracted

177: 136 usable targets within the five $\it{Chandra}$ fields-of-view. Flux

178: calibration was performed on each extracted spectrum using IRAF

179: routines with flux standard spectra taken each night. Where possible,

180: all extracted spectra were then assigned a spectral classification by

181: visual inspection and comparison with published atlases of optical and

182: near-IR spectra \citep{dodgen93,jacoby84,carquill97,andrill95}.

183: 

184: \input{tab3.tex}

185: 

186: \section{Analysis}

187: \subsection{Extinction and Hydrogen Column Density}

188: To estimate the hydrogen column density $N_H$ for all X-ray-optical

189: matches observed with LDSS2, we use the flux-calibrated {\it optical}

190: spectrum of each candidate optical counterpart. We fit the spectrum

191: with a blackbody attenuated by interstellar reddening, using the

192: analytical parameterization of the average Galactic extinction law

193: $E(\lambda -V)/E(B-V)$ given by \citet{howarth83}. We limit the region

194: to be fitted to the central part of the spectra:

195: 5500--6700$\textrm{\AA}$; in part to simplify the fitting procedure,

196: and also because the flux calibrated spectra anomalously fall off in

197: flux redward of $\sim$7000$\textrm{\AA}$. We also interpolate over

198: major spectral lines at 5575, 6300 and 6562$\textrm{\AA}$ and in the

199: case of the molecular bands present in M type stars we fit a smooth

200: continuum shape to the star at 3--4 points between bands (we use a

201: Legendre polynomial of order 10) and fit to this instead. Using a

202: fixed effective temperature (T$_{eff}$), estimated from our spectral

203: type determination from spectral lines, we fit for $E(B-V)$ and a

204: normalization factor: $R^2$/$d^2$ (radius of object $\it{R}$, distance

205: $\it{d}$). We obtain $A_V$ from the standard relation $A_V$ = 3.1

206: $\times E(B-V)$ and the hydrogen column density from $N_H$ = 1.79

207: $\times$ 10$^{21}$ $\times A_V$ cm$^{-2}$

208: \citep[from][]{predehl95}. The T$_{eff}$ in each case is

209: representative of the spectral type range we were able to estimate

210: given only visual classification of each spectrum and no constraint on

211: luminosity class (i.e. A/F means A8 to F2, luminosity class

212: undetermined). The fit is independent of any X-ray emission

213: properties. Effective temperatures and adopted photometry for each

214: spectral type `bin' are given in Table 4 below, (see references listed

215: in the table). Example fits for a K and an M (polynomial fit) star are

216: shown in Figure 1.

217: 

218: To test the above, we derive comparison $N_H$ values using our $V$,

219: $R$ and $I$ photometry (where available). We calculate $E(V-R)$

220: $\equiv$ $V-R - (V-R)_0$ and $E(R-I)$ $\equiv$ $R-I - (R-I)_0$,

221: selecting appropriate values for the intrinsic ($V-R)_0$ and ($R-I)_0$

222: colors \citep[from][]{Allen2000} for a given spectral type (see Table

223: 4). From \citet{dopita03} we find: $A_V$ = 3.97 $\times E(V-R)$ and

224: $A_V$ = 3.76 $\times E(R-I)$ and we convert to $N_H$ as above. Figure

225: 2 below shows spectral fit-determined values of $N_H$ against the

226: color determined results. The values are correlated somewhat, but the

227: spectral fit $N_H$ is systematically higher than that from photometry:

228: from a simple linear regression test we find $N_H(fit)$ =

229: 0.96$\pm$0.09($N_H(R-I)$) + 0.2 and $N_H(fit)$ =

230: 0.81$\pm$0.07($N_H(V-R)$) + 0.25. Dropping the five highest points in

231: either plot however, worsens the correlation: $N_H(fit)$ =

232: 0.81$\pm$0.13($N_H(R-I)$) + 0.27 and $N_H(fit)$ =

233: 0.65$\pm$0.1($N_H(V-R)$) + 0.3. This overestimate in $N_H$ is also

234: seen in a color-magnitude diagram for our stellar sources (Figure 3)

235: of absolute visual magnitude $M_V$ against dereddened color $V-R$. A

236: comparison main sequence is plotted using the data from Table 4. We

237: estimate the systematic excess in $A_V$ from our fitting technique to

238: be 1.1 (equivalent to $N_H$ of $2\times 10^{21}$cm $^{-2}$). This

239: overestimate is perhaps due to the inadequacy of the black-body

240: spectrum as a fit to late-type stellar spectra over this wavelength

241: range where many absorption lines significantly modify the continuum

242: shape.

243: 

244: \input{tab4.tex}

245: 

246: \input{tab5.tex}

247: 

248: \subsection{Quantile Analysis}

249: For stars with low signal-to-noise ratio optical spectra we assign in

250: Table 5 a non-classification to the object `?'. In order to place

251: constraints on $N_H$ for these sources, and for the CVs, whose optical

252: spectra are not well-modelled by single-temperature blackbodies, we

253: utilize X-ray quantile analysis. Objects for which this has been

254: carried out are marked with a $`\dagger'$ in Table 5. Quantile

255: analysis was first presented in \citet{hong04}. It allows us to derive

256: X-ray spectral information despite low source counts. It involves

257: placing sources on an X-ray color-color diagram by the median and

258: quartile energy fractions of their source counts. As defined by H04,

259: any general quantile Q$_x$ is calculated as:

260: \begin{equation}

261: Q_x = \frac{E_{x\%} - E_{lo}}{E_{up} - E_{lo}}

262: \end{equation}

263: where E$_{x\%}$ is the energy below which the net counts is $x\%$ of

264: the total number of counts between E$_{lo}$ and E$_{up}$; we select

265: E$_{lo}$=0.3 and E$_{up}$=8.0 keV (B$_X$ band) for our analysis. We

266: plot the ratio Q$_{25}$/Q$_{75}$ against $\log_{10}$[m/(1$-$m)]

267: (m(${\equiv}$Q$_{50}$) is the median). For a given spectral model, we

268: overlay a grid of column density $N_H$ and model parameter---we

269: interpolate to find a value for $N_H$. The grid shape is dependent on

270: the $\it{Chandra}$ ACIS response function for the ObsID

271: considered.

272: 

273: Figure 4 shows QCCD plots for ObsID 53392, which includes CV-B

274: (detected with $\sim$3500 counts in this ObsID) and ObsID 945, which

275: includes all three CVs we have detected in the {\it Chandra} fields

276: considered in this paper. We use a thermal bremsstrahlung model to

277: construct the grids shown in this case.

278: 

279: \subsection{Extinction Model for the Galaxy}

280: We require a method of deriving luminosity for our sources and so need

281: a way of estimating their distances. Recently, \citet{drimmel01}

282: (hereafter D01) constructed a three-component model for the dust

283: distribution in the Galaxy. This is used via a FORTRAN code

284: \citep[][hereafter: D03]{drimmel03} to derive the extinction, $A_V$ as

285: a function of distance from the Sun over the whole sky. The spatial

286: resolution on which values of $A_V$ can be measured is $\sim$20

287: arcmin. Figure 5 shows the run of $A_V$ with distance for each field

288: in this paper. After fitting the optical spectra or using quantile

289: analysis to derive extinction values $A_V$, we utilize the model of

290: D01 to derive distances to all sources in this paper. The values

291: listed in Table 5 are {\it not} corrected for the overestimate in

292: $A_V$. As a check on the results, the spectral fit scaling factor

293: $R^2$/$d^2$ allows us to derive a radius which we compare with

294: expected values for stars of given spectral type and $M_V$

295: \citep[e.g.][]{Allen2000}.

296: 

297: The code has a `rescaling' option to account for small-scale

298: variations and clumping in the dust density that are smoothed over by

299: the model. This is based on a factor dependent on the residuals

300: between the COBE observed flux at 240$\mu$m and the model prediction

301: for the same. It was found that for all fields, using the rescaling

302: option in the D03 code worked well in producing reasonable stellar

303: radii within 50\% of tabulated values \citep[e.g.][]{Allen2000}, with

304: the exception of G347b, where radii were systematically a factor of

305: four to five times higher. 

306: 

307: For G347b we derive $A_V(d)$ using extracted emission spectra of

308: Galactic molecular CO \citep[from the survey of][]{dame01} and 21cm HI

309: diffuse gas \citep[data taken from the Southern Galactic Plane

310: Survey,][]{taylor03} to derive the column density of molecular and

311: atomic hydrogen respectively, thus $N_H$ via $N_H$ = $N_{HI}$ +

312: $N_{H_2}$ and so $A_V$. The HI data has a resolution of $\sim$1$'$,

313: but for this analysis was smoothed to 3$'$ resolution with 2.7$'$

314: spacing. Emission from CO was assigned a distance based on

315: line-of-sight velocity, splitting the near/far ambiguity based on the

316: latitude of observation, and using the Galactic rotation curve of

317: \citet{brand93}. We assumed a FWHM layer thickness for HI of 220pc

318: \citep{dickey90}, and for CO of 120pc \citep{dame01}. Emission beyond

319: the terminal velocity cutoff was redistributed in a Gaussian below the

320: cutoff with the Gaussian dispersion equal to the cloud-cloud velocity

321: dispersion: $\sigma$(CO) = 4 km s$^{-1}$, $\sigma$(HI) = 8 km

322: s$^{-1}$. We assume an atomic hydrogen spin temperature of 140K. We

323: performed this calculation along two lines of sight---in Galactic

324: coordinates these are at (l, b): 347.375, $-$0.75 and 347.375,

325: $-$0.875 (positions 1 and 2 respectively). Figure 5, right-hand panel

326: shows the resultant $A_V$ versus distance plots for field G347b,

327: labelled position 1 and position 2. We were unable to perform the same

328: derivation for the other fields as the three Galactic Center fields

329: (SgrA$\star$, SgrB2 and GalCA) are too close to the Galactic plane to

330: easily assign distances to molecular emission, and for field J1655 the

331: HI data available was not at high enough resolution to accurately run

332: the calculation.

333: 

334: \subsection{Calculating X-ray Fluxes}

335: We calculate unabsorbed X-ray fluxes for all sources from their net

336: count rates using

337: $\emph{sherpa}$\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/sherpa/threads/index/html}.

338: For simplicity, we assume that the X-ray radiation produced by the

339: majority of objects in our sample will be emission from a hot

340: (T$>$10$^6$ K, kT$>$0.1 keV) coronal plasma. To calculate fluxes in

341: the hard (H$_C$) and soft (S$_C$) bands for each star in our sample we

342: thus adopt a simple single-temperature MEKAL model\footnote{Model:

343:   xsmekal in sherpa} \citep[bremsstrahlung emission of an optically

344: thin, thermal plasma with metal absorption and emission lines;

345: see][]{mewe85} at 1keV and use the $N_H$ value listed in Table

346: 5. $\S$3.4 below discusses the uncertainty introduced by our choice of

347: spectral model on our results for X-ray flux. We derive X-ray

348: luminosities via $L_x$ = 4$\pi$ $d^2$ $F_x$ ergs s$^{-1}$. The X-ray

349: to optical flux ratio is calculated via:

350: \begin{equation}

351: \log(F_x/F_R) = \log(F_x) + 0.4R + 5.765

352: \end{equation}

353: and

354: \begin{equation}

355: \log(F_x/F_V) = \log(F_x) + 0.4V + 5.426

356: \end{equation}

357: where we have assumed a square optical filter transmission function of

358: width 1000$\textrm{\AA}$, centered on the filter's quoted central

359: wavelength, with an underlying A0 stellar spectrum to calculate the

360: constants. Note that the overestimate in $N_H$ from $\S$ 3 carried

361: through results in $\Delta \log(F_x/F_V)$ = +0.3 -- +0.5 and $\Delta

362: \log(L_x) \sim -$0.3. The exact correction depends on the object's

363: initial $N_H$. This is {\it not} incorporated in the results given in

364: Table 5.

365: 

366: \subsection{Error Analysis}

367: The primary source of error in our analysis is the calculation of

368: $E(B-V)$---this has three components. Firstly, there is the

369: uncertainty in assigned T$_{eff}$ values ($\pm \sim$500K). Secondly,

370: from systematic errors in the flux calibrated spectra (from the

371: extraction and calibration processes). The flux calibration error

372: ranges from $\sim$10 to 60\%---estimated by comparing repeat

373: observations of stars observed on multiple nights. This was the case

374: for moderate and also high S/N spectra. Variations were evident in

375: spectra both within a night as well as from night to night. Thirdly,

376: errors introduced by our spectral fitting code. We estimate this by

377: selecting 17 standard star spectra (types M5 V through A7 V) from the

378: catalog of \citet{jacoby84}, applying a range of fake values of

379: interstellar reddening ($E(B-V)$ = 0.3--4.0) with the

380: $\emph{fm\_unred}$ command in

381: IDL\footnote{http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/} and then attempting to

382: retrieve this fake reddening with our spectral fit code. The

383: $`$error$'$ on the returned value $\Delta E(B-V) \approx 50\%$ at

384: $E(B-V) \approx$ 0.3, ranging down to $\approx 6\%$ at $E(B-V)

385: \approx$ 1.3 (independent of spectral type). We linearly interpolate

386: this trend to calculate the uncertainty produced by the fitting

387: process at any $E(B-V)$. The quoted error in column density $N_H$ in

388: Table 5 in column 5 combines all these three sources.

389: 

390: Errors quoted in Table 5 for $\log(F_x/F_R)$ and $\log(L_x)$

391: incorporate uncertainty in $N_H$, in the X-ray count rate and

392: photometric error in the $R$ magnitude (a relatively small

393: contribution). The choice of X-ray spectral model (1.0keV MEKAL) also

394: contributes to our uncertainty. Using a power law model with spectral

395: index $\Gamma$=1.7 or a MEKAL (kT=2.0 keV) reduces the S$_C$ band flux

396: by between 10\% (at $N_H \approx $ 0.2$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) and

397: 50\% (at $N_H \approx $ 2.0$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$). A MEKAL model

398: with kT=0.5 keV creates a similar {\it increase} in the S$_C$ band

399: flux. Thus the errors quoted in $\log(F_x/F_R)$ and $\log(L_x)$ should

400: be considered as lower limits.

401: 

402: Using the model of \citet{drimmel01} introduces error in our distance

403: calculation. Results for $d$ derived from this model for Galactic

404: longitudes $\mid$l$\vert$$<$ 20$\degr$ are likely to suffer from

405: significant systematic uncertainty as true structure in the absorbing

406: interstellar medium is significant in this part of the Galaxy and is

407: poorly modeled in the code. The fact that fields SgrB2 and GalCA

408: ($\sim$0.5$\degr$ apart of the sky) are indistinguishable on this

409: figure and the curve for field SgrA$\star$ (which is only $\sim$12$'$

410: away) is significantly different is almost certainly a resultant

411: artifact, not a real trait of these two three fields. The combined

412: error from spectral fit and dust model (estimated by comparing

413: variation in $A_V$ across the {\it Chandra} field of view) in the

414: distances we derive is typically $\lesssim$60\%. We adopt 60\% as the

415: error on the distances that we quote in Table 5. This carries through

416: to error in X-ray luminosity and optical absolute magnitudes.

417: 

418: \section{Results}

419: Table 5 presents our spectral results. Optical photometry comes from

420: data from our 2000 and 2003 CTIO Mosaic runs

421: \citep[see][]{zhao05}. For each source in Table 5 we list the

422: ChaMPlane IAU optical source ID (column [1]). Readers desiring to find

423: detailed X-ray counterpart properties can readily search our online

424: X-ray

425: database\footnote{http://hea-www.harvard.edu/ChaMPlane/database$\_$xray.html}

426: using the optical source ID for coordinates. We then give the source

427: properties: spectral classification (column [2]), net X-ray source

428: counts in the B$_X$ band (column [3]), the hydrogen column density

429: $N_H$ as derived from our fitting technique or quantile analysis

430: (column [4]), the unabsorbed X-ray to $R$-band flux ratio in the S$_C$

431: band, adopting a 1.0 keV MEKAL X-ray spectral model (column [5], see

432: $\S$ 2 for band definitions). Although subsequent analysis is

433: performed on a derivation of $\log (F_x/F_V)$ for easier comparison

434: with the literature, the actual numbers do not differ significantly

435: from those listed for $\log (F_x/F_R)$. In addition, since $\sim$10\%

436: of our objects are undetected in $V$, we can give a value for more

437: sources by presenting this information instead. The distance and the

438: derived absolute visual magnitude M$_V$ are in columns [6] and [7]. We

439: then give X-ray luminosity, followed by the optical $R$ magnitude and

440: the number of optical sources found to match the same X-ray position

441: (columns [8], [9] and [10]). Column [11] gives the X-ray 2 $\sigma$

442: search radius size in arcseconds and column [12] gives the offset of

443: the optical position in arcsec from the center of the X-ray error

444: circle. Column [13] gives the expected number of optical sources that

445: should fall in an error circle of this size by chance, given the

446: observed surface density of stars within 1 arcmin of the X-ray

447: position on the Mosaic image. For almost all objects in Table 5 one

448: optical source matches the X-ray position, however, in the J1655

449: field, ChOPSJ165407.44$-$394542.7 and J165350.37$-$394621.9, in the

450: G347b field ChOPSJ171524.21$-$395950.9 and in the SgrB2 field

451: ChOPSJ174719.59$-$282204.9, J174633.29$-$282512.7 and

452: J174634.65$-$282721.1 are all one of multiple matches to single X-ray

453: sources. In the case of ChOPSJ165350.37$-$394621.9 in J1655 we have a

454: spectrum of the other match---we select the M-type star as the more

455: likely X-ray emitting candidate over the G-type alternate. The

456: `Classification' column follows the scheme: mid G represents G4--G6,

457: late G: G6--G8, F/G: F8--G2 and so on. A question mark placed next to

458: a classification indicates that the uncertainty in spectral type is

459: greater so mid G?  means G3--G7 and F/G? means F7--G3.  A star

460: classified as G? means G0--G9 (and equivalently for other types).

461: 

462: \subsection{Cataclysmic Variables}

463: The full list of matches between our X-ray and optical source lists

464: having $H\alpha - R < -$0.3, $V <$ 23 and an optical signal to noise

465: ratio $>$ 1.4 is given in Table 6 below\footnote{CV-C is included for

466:   its broad H$\alpha$ emission line.}. We restrict $H\alpha - R$ based

467: on the work of \citet{szkody04} who find that only 17\% of their

468: sample of CVs from the Sloan Survey have an $H\alpha$ equivalent width

469: below 28$\textrm{\AA}$ in emission (i.e. have $H\alpha - R >

470: -0.3$). We can use spectra to rule out 4 of these as dMe, normal or T

471: Tauri stars. The objects: ChOPSJ174559.18$-$290418.9 in field

472: SgrA$\star$ and ChOPSJ165335.32$-$393715.9 in field J1655 had no

473: optical spectra taken in any ChaMPlane observing run and so remain

474: uncertain CV candidates.

475: 

476: \input{tab6.tex}

477: 

478: Qualitative analysis of the remaining spectra reveals two clear CV

479: candidates in the GalCA field from the LDSS2 spectral sample (see

480: Table 5, sources ChOPSJ174638.02$-$285326.2 and

481: ...656.89-285233.9). Hereafter we refer to these as CV-A and CV-C

482: respectively (see Figures 6a and 6c). Another source,

483: ChOPSJ174607.52-285951.3 (hereafter, CV-B), was imaged with LDSS2 in

484: the SgrA$\star$ field, but the spectrum suffered from being on the

485: edge of the slit and was not possible to extract. It was later

486: re-observed by the IMACS instrument at Magellan---its IMACS spectrum

487: is shown in Figure 6b. All three spectra show broad $H\alpha$ in

488: emission. CV-A and CV-B also show emission lines of HeI.

489: 

490: CV-B was previously detected by ROSAT Position Sensitive Proportional

491: Counter (PSPC) observations of the GC regions \citep{sidoli01}, as

492: their source `65,' but without further identification possible at the

493: time. It was found to have a count rate of 1.9$\pm$0.3 cts ks$^{-1}$

494: in the ROSAT band 0.1--2.4keV. Using the online PIMMS tool with an

495: assumed thermal bremsstrahlung spectrum with kT = 7.3 keV and $N_H$ =

496: 5$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ from our QCCD analysis (Figure 4), this

497: converts to a {\it Chandra} hard-band (2--8 keV) flux of 1.0$\pm$0.2

498: $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. From our {\it Chandra}

499: data we estimate 0.64$\pm$0.15 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$

500: cm$^{-2}$, possibly indicative of some slight variability.

501: 

502: We use the QCCD results of Figure 4 to estimate by eye a plausible

503: initial spectral model (CV-A and CV-B were detected in ObsID 945 with

504: $\sim$300 counts, CV-C has only $\sim$26 counts). If we assume that a

505: bremsstrahlung spectrum is representative of their X-ray emission, we

506: can thus estimate their spectral properties (see Table 7). We present

507: XSPEC\footnote{http://xspec.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/index.html}

508: fits for the two X-ray bright CVs (CV-A and CV-B) in Figure 7

509: below. We use a bremsstrahlung emission plus photon absorption model

510: for the fit to each spectrum. CV-C has too few counts to provide

511: adequate signal to noise for spectral fitting. The results we derive

512: are shown in Table 7 below. For CV-A and CV-B, the quantile-derived

513: parameters are in good agreement with the estimates from the XSPEC

514: fits. For CV-C, we can only place weak constraints on $N_H$ and kT,

515: but the error bars are consistent with a typical CV spectrum of

516: bremsstrahlung at $\sim$2--8keV. This is suggestive that these CVs are

517: all dwarf novae (DN)---typically characterized by hot ($\sim$10$^8$K)

518: hard X-ray spectra in quiescence \citep{warner95}. We note however,

519: that the absolute magnitudes $M_V$ for CV-A and CV-C are on the bright

520: side for quiescent DN (3 and $<$3.99 respectively).

521: 

522: \input{tab7.tex}

523: 

524: The final tally of likely CVs is thus: 1 (possibly 2) in SgrA$\star$,

525: 2 in GalCA and possibly 1 in the J1655 field. This latter object lies

526: outside the main ACIS-S chip (S3) and its neighboring S4 chip---the

527: large error circle size in which it is found means that even when

528: looking exclusively at objects with $H\alpha - R < -0.3$ in the field,

529: the probability it is a random match is high ($>$20\%). We consider

530: this a low probability CV candidate.

531: 

532: \subsection{Stellar X-ray Sources}

533: In order to compare our sample of stellar X-ray sources with other

534: surveys we construct their luminosity functions and assemble an X-ray

535: to optical flux ratio histogram.

536: 

537: Since our survey is flux limited, we correct for incompleteness with

538: the 1/$V_{max}$ method of \citet{schmidt68}. In this method, each

539: source contributes 1 over the maximum volume in which it could have

540: been detected in our survey to its bin in the cumulative luminosity

541: histogram. This maximum volume is calculated in the following way:

542: given one ACIS pixel in a {\it Chandra} observation, with a known

543: limiting (3$\sigma$) count rate for detection (and thus limiting flux,

544: given a spectral model) we can calculate a maximum distance d$_{max}$,

545: that an object of known luminosity could be placed and still be

546: detected. This defines a pyramidal volume given by the size of the

547: pixel on the sky. To calculate the full volume, we simply repeat this

548: process across the whole field of view, using the 3$\sigma$ count rate

549: limit at each point and sum the resulting volume elements together. To

550: speed the calculation up we re-bin each {\it Chandra} image by a

551: factor 80.

552: 

553: We divide the sources into intermediate (early F to late G) and late

554: (G/K to M) types, and plot the resultant, V$_{max}$-corrected

555: luminosity functions in Figure 8 below. We use luminosity calculated

556: in the ROSAT band (0.1--2.4keV) for ease of comparison with past

557: surveys, despite the mismatch in bandpass more suitable to our

558: reddened fields. We overplot comparison luminosity functions of main

559: sequence stars \citep[from the volume limited survey of][]{schmitt04},

560: and young main-sequence stars from the ROSAT surveys of the Hyades

561: \citep[age $<$ 1Gyr][]{stern95} and the Pleiades \citep[age

562: $\sim$10$^8$ yrs][]{micela96}. We convert their quoted luminosities

563: into the 0.1--2.4 keV band using the online PIMMS

564: tool\footnote{http://cxc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp}. Since in $\S$

565: 3.1 we concluded that the spectral fit $N_H$ overestimates the true

566: value, for this comparison we generate luminosities with $N_H$ reduced

567: by 0.2$\times$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, and consequently {\it distances}

568: reduced appropriately given the D01 model.

569: 

570: In Figure 9 we plot a comparative histogram of the X-ray to optical

571: flux ratio ($V$-band flux), i.e. $\log(F_X/F_V)$. Again we utilize the

572: reduced $N_H$ values to generate X-ray rate-to-flux conversions to

573: calculate the X-ray fluxes, and de-redden the optical magnitudes. We

574: overplot the samples of \citet{schmitt04}, \citet{stern95} and

575: \citet{micela96}, scaled so that the total area under each curve is

576: the same for all histograms within a plot.

577: 

578: \subsection{Candidate Low Mass X-ray Binary}

579: A quiescent low-mass X-ray binary (qLMXB) system consisting of a black

580: hole or neutron star and a main sequence star will most likely show

581: strong H$\alpha$ in emission in its optical spectrum. Some CVs and

582: qLMXBs have sub-giant companions; these are more likely to be detected

583: in our reddened sample. Since the only objects showing H$\alpha$ in

584: emission in this sample are either CVs or T Tauri stars (and

585: identified as such in Table 5), we look to the example of GRO

586: J1655$−$40 \citep{zhang94,harmon95,bailyn95} a known qLMXB, soft X-ray

587: transient system, consisting of an F3--6IV sub-giant star secondary

588: and an accreting black hole primary. This system shows H$\alpha$ in

589: absorption in quiescence: the secondary star is luminous enough to

590: hide the emission line produced by the accretion disk. Our spectral

591: classification is not precise enough to ascertain the luminosity

592: classes of stars in the sample, so to find analogs to this system we

593: search for stars with spectral type earlier than K, with absolute

594: magnitude $M_V$ more than 2$\sigma$ higher than that expected for a

595: main sequence star of that type (see Table 4). We then look for stars

596: with $\log(F_X/F_R)$ (S$_C$ band) more than 2$\sigma$ greater than

597: that seen in sub-giant stars in the survey of H\"unsch et

598: al. (1998a). In Table 5 we flag the one candidate:

599: ChOPSJ165408.14$-$395636.1 that we find after this search. Figure 10a

600: presents the LDSS2 spectrum. This is only a very tentative

601: classification---it is also possible that this object is an active

602: binary of RS CVn type \citep{hall76}. We note that on the basis of its

603: spectrum, and X-ray properties in quiescence alone, GRO J1655$-$40

604: (see Figure 10b) could be mistaken for an RS CVn system. Further

605: variability analysis and detailed spectral followup is necessary to

606: rule out this object as a black hole or neutron star binary system.

607: 

608: \section{Discussion}

609: \subsection{Stellar Coronal Emission}

610: We have discovered a large sample of stellar coronal emission sources

611: in our survey fields. Recent studies, \citep[for

612: example,][]{taglia94,sciortino95} have shown that flux-limited X-ray

613: surveys of the Galaxy (within the disk) will naturally sample

614: preferentially from the youngest stellar populations present in the

615: Galactic disk, owing to the known decline of stellar X-ray emission

616: with age \citep{vaiana92}. Figures 7 and 8 show that the objects

617: discovered in our survey are somewhat elevated in their X-ray

618: emission, hence one explanation is that they are young. In this

619: picture, the luminosity functions in Figure 8 are possibly explained

620: by a composite of local (old) and younger population (Hyades and

621: Pleiades age) stars. However, the presence of very luminous objects

622: ($\log (L_X) > $ 30) suggests an additional component, as does the

623: excess of objects at high $\log(F_X/F_V)$ in Figure 9.

624: 

625: The first possibility is that we are detecting an even younger

626: population, in other words a component of pre-main-sequence (pre-MS)

627: stars. Results from ROSAT and the COUP \citep{getman05} show that T

628: Tauri stars (weak-lined and classical) can have X-ray luminosities in

629: excess of 10$^{30}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and in some cases greater than

630: 10$^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Since our survey covers fields at low Galactic

631: latitude ($|b| <$ 3$\degr$), and since the scale height of stars also

632: increases with age \citep{wielen77}, this is a likely source of X-ray

633: active objects. To further test the likely pre-MS content of our

634: survey, we examined the near-infrared (near-IR) colors of ChaMPlane

635: objects in this paper \citep[using online data from the 2MASS

636: survey,][]{skrut06}. In Figure 11 we present a plot of $J-H$ versus

637: $H-K_S$ colors obtained in this way. We found 92 2MASS matches to our

638: 136-object source-list. Overlaid on the plot are the locus of

639: Main-Sequence stars and giants from \citet{bessell88}, and a reddening

640: vector created using the near-IR extinction relation of

641: \citet{nishi06}. Objects below the line are candidate infrared excess

642: (T Tauri) young stars \citep[following the work of][]{lada92}---a

643: total of between 36 and 56, or 39--61\% of sources (the range is due

644: to the 2MASS photometric uncertainty). It is also possible for T Tauri

645: stars to be found above the line---this component is not possible to

646: establish without high resolution spectroscopy to measure Lithium

647: 6708$\textrm{\AA}$ absorption equivalent widths.

648: 

649: The other alternative explanation for the X-ray active objects are

650: active binaries (ABs) of either RS CVn or BY Dra \citep{bopp77} type,

651: or cataclysmic variables. The studies of \citet{dempsey93} and

652: \citet{dempsey97} showed that $\log(L_X)$ can range up to 32 for RS

653: CVn and BY Dra systems, with $\log(F_X/F_V)$ up to -1.0. CVs also

654: typically have $\log(F_X/F_V)$ $\sim-$3-- +1 \citep{verbunt97},

655: however the lack of broad H$\alpha$ argues against CVs unless they

656: have sub-giant companions. To estimate the likely contribution of ABs

657: to our sample, we use a method similar to that used by

658: \citet{grindlay05}. We define a maximum distance at which an AB would

659: have been identified given the optical and X-ray detection limits of

660: our survey. Given some model for the distribution of ABs in the

661: Galaxy, we can predict the number we expect to detect in the

662: corresponding volume.

663: 

664: The detectability of a given AB in our {\it Chandra} observations is

665: determined by the detection limit of the observation, the hydrogen

666: column intervening between the telescope and the object, its

667: luminosity and the spectral model assumed for its emission.

668: 

669: To quantify the {\it Chandra} sensitivity in the calculation, we

670: extract the count rate limit for each observation across the field of

671: view. For simplicity we use an average value across the detector for

672: each field in the B$_X$ band. We derive the hydrogen column density

673: $N_H$ encountered as a function of distance using the D01 calculation

674: of $A_V$ in the direction of the aimpoint of each field. As a simple

675: approximation, we assume that ABs are distributed in the Galaxy with

676: some exponential scale height h in the z direction: n$_{CV}\propto

677: \exp^{-d(\sin |b|)/h}$, with n$_{AB}$ the AB space density and $b$ the

678: galactic latitude. This is probably a reasonable assumption for the

679: regions surveyed in this paper (provided we are only considering the

680: distribution within $\sim$3 kpc of the Solar neighborhood). Following

681: \citet{grindlay05}, we consequently utilize the formalism of

682: \citet{tinney93} in constructing an effective detection volume

683: V$_{eff}$, as defined by d$_{max}$:

684: \begin{equation}

685: V_{eff} = \Omega \left( h/ \sin |b| \right) ^3 \left[ 2 - \left( \chi

686: ^2 + 2\chi + 2 \right) \exp \left( -\chi \right)\right]

687: \end{equation}

688: where $\chi$ = $d_{max} (\sin |b|)/h$ and $\Omega$ the solid angle

689: subtended by the ACIS field of view. V$_{eff}$ corrects the

690: $\emph{geometric}$ volume in which we search for the non-uniformity of

691: the AB space density. d$_{max}$ is the limiting distance at which a AB

692: at a luminosity of 10$^{32.0}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ \citep[the maximum value

693: for ABs found by ROSAT][]{dempsey93} could be detected in the {\it

694:   Chandra} observation considered. For the ACIS-S observation J1655,

695: we use the full 8$' \times$ 8$'$ field of view to calculate

696: $\Omega$. The GalCA pointing overlaps the SgrA$\star$ field of view,

697: so this field only adds three-quarters of the full ACIS-I solid angle

698: to the area of sky surveyed. The number of ABs we might expect to be

699: present in such a volume is then N$_{AB}$ = n$_{AB} \times$V$_{eff}$.

700: 

701: Following the conclusions of \citet{sciortino95} we adopt an AB scale

702: height of h = 250pc, and a local space density n$_{AB}$ =

703: 3.7$\times$10$^{-5}$ pc$^{-3}$ \citep{favata95}. For the X-ray

704: spectral model, we adopt a MEKAL kT = 1.0 keV single temperature

705: model. To model the detection rate of ABs, we populate each volume

706: uniformly with a randomly distributed sample of 10$^4$ ABs from 0 pc

707: up to d$_{max}$ as determined for each field. Each is assigned an

708: X-ray luminosity and absolute visual magnitude, sampling randomly from

709: the data of \citet{dempsey93} and \citet{dempsey97}, using {\it only}

710: objects they classify as RS CVn or BY Dra type. This enables us to

711: determine if an object is luminous enough in X-rays and apparent

712: visual magnitude to be detected in our survey (using an assumed

713: detection limit of $V$=21 for an object to be spectrally

714: classified). Combining the detection rate derived with the predicted

715: number of ABs in each volume, we predict between 13 and 14 ABs found

716: in our survey. Based on absolute visual magnitude and high

717: $\log(F_X/F_{opt})$ ratio\footnote{RS CVn: $M_V$ more than 2$\sigma$

718:   less than that expected for a main sequence star of that spectral

719:   type and $\log(F_X/F_R)>-$5.0. BY Dra: $M_V$ consistent with main

720:   sequence, $\log(F_X/F_R)$ more than 2$\sigma$ greater than that

721:   expected for its spectral type \citep{huensch98ms}}, we flag our

722: best AB candidates in Table 5.

723: 

724: Our stellar coronal source sample appears likely to be a mix of both

725: local, young-MS and pre-MS stars, and a component of coronally active

726: binaries: RS CVn and BY Dra type. To specifically compare the stars of

727: these types in our sample with those found by ROSAT would require

728: significantly improved spectral, variability and orbital analysis to

729: more precisely classify our objects and tease out the contributions of

730: age, metallicity, and binarity that might also be contributing to the

731: observed differences the luminosity and X-ray to optical flux ratio.

732: 

733: \subsection{Constraints on the Galactic CV Density}

734: A main aim of the ChaMPlane survey is to investigate what constraints

735: we can place on the local CV space density. We follow a method similar

736: to that described in $\S$ 5.1.

737: 

738: For the {\it Chandra} sensitivity in the calculation, we use a single

739: value for the {\it Chandra} H$_C$ band, averaging over a 5$'$ radius

740: circle centered on the aimpoint. For the X-ray spectral model, we

741: adopt a kT = 8 keV bremsstrahlung emission spectrum as ``typical'' for

742: dwarf nova CVs \citep{warner95}. In this case, d$_{max}$ is the

743: limiting distance at which a CV at a luminosity of 10$^{32.5}$ ergs

744: s$^{-1}$ \citep[the maximum value for CVs found by ROSAT][]{verbunt97}

745: could be detected in the {\it Chandra} observation considered.

746: 

747: We adopt a scale height of h = 200pc, and following the conclusions of

748: \citet{grindlay05} among others, we adopt a local space density

749: n$_{CV}$ = 1$\times$10$^{-5}$ pc$^{-3}$. We populate each volume

750: uniformly with a randomly distributed sample of 10$^5$ CVs from 0 pc

751: up to d$_{max}$ as determined for each field. We assign each fake CV

752: an X-ray luminosity (in the H$_C$ band) and X-ray to optical flux

753: ratio $\log(F_x/F_V)$: we sample $L_x$ X-ray data as collected by

754: \citet{grindlay05}, originally presented in \citet{hertz90}, and the

755: ROSAT survey \citep[see:][]{verbunt97,schwope02}, to construct

756: distributions in $L_x$ and $\log(F_x/F_V)$ from which we randomly

757: sample. We assume that these two parameters are uncorrelated (a simple

758: scatter plot shows this to be the case for the 49 CVs in the ROSAT

759: sample). For a bremsstrahlung X-ray spectral model at 8keV, the

760: luminosity in the ROSAT band 0.1--2.4keV and our H$_C$ band is

761: approximately the same. We then derive an apparent $V$ magnitude and

762: observed X-ray flux. We set our photometric detection limit at a $V$

763: magnitude of 23---the faintest that we could have detected a CV via

764: its $H\alpha - R$ color. The number of CVs {\it expected} to be

765: present in each field is given in Table 8 as `CV$_{32.5}$' (column

766: 5). The X-ray detection and optical identification percentages of

767: these objects are given in columns 6 and 7. The resultant number of

768: predicted CV detections is given as ID$_{32.5}$. Since the optical

769: detection limit is reached at only $\sim$2 kpc, the optical percentage

770: quoted below is essentially equal to the combined `X-ray-and-optical'

771: detection percentage.

772: 

773: \input{tab8.tex}

774: 

775: It is apparent that there is an excess of CV candidates over the

776: number predicted by our simulation. In SgrA$\star$ and GalCA fields

777: considered in isolation there are a factor $\sim$10--70 too

778: many. However, summing over all fields we find between 3 and 5

779: detected, with 0.95$\pm$0.08 predicted. A simple $\chi ^2$ table shows

780: that this result is statistically significant at $\sim$92\%

781: confidence. What factors are contributing to the discrepant estimation

782: of the CV detection rate?

783: 

784: We have assumed that a single relationship between $A_V$ and distance

785: is applicable over each 16$' \times$ 16$'$ $\it{Chandra}$ field of

786: view yet extremes in the level of extinction are observed directly in

787: infrared images of the SgrA$\star$ and GalCA fields \citep[see

788: e.g.][]{laycock05}. The D01 model overlooks this small scale

789: variability across each field. If there were some covering factor of

790: higher-column-density gas and dust across each field or regions of

791: significantly lower extinction, we would expect to alter the number of

792: predicted CVs detected. However, a factor of $\sim$15 decrease in the

793: amount of extinction as a function of distance is necessary to produce

794: the factor $\sim$60 increase in the overall prediction for CV

795: detections in GalCA, and at least a factor $\sim$5 reduction is

796: required to solve the discrepancy for SgrA$\star$. Although there is

797: some great uncertainty in the dust model towards the Galactic Center

798: this appears unlikely. Improvements to the dust model are vital to

799: understand if this effect is more significant.

800: 

801: We included no radial component in our model CV space distribution yet

802: it is likely that there is some increase in the space density of CVs

803: as we approach the Galactic Center \citep[see, e.g.][]{rogel08}. Thus

804: we are underestimating the true number of CVs present in each volume,

805: before we apply our detection criteria. This may only be a minor

806: correction, since our optical detection and spectroscopic

807: identification limit restricts us to looking in the nearest $\sim$2

808: kpc to the Sun. Some additional work on improving how we model where

809: the CVs are in our volume, and how many we expect to be in this volume

810: is important to establish by how much we are underestimating

811: N$_{CV}$. Such a modification would appear to be most necessary for

812: the two fields closest to the Galactic Center: SgrA$\star$ and

813: GalCA. 

814: 

815: We restricted the detection solid angle to the inner 5$'$ of the

816: $\it{Chandra}$ field of view. Including the outer parts of the

817: detector (or for ACIS-S including the other S-chips) increases the

818: detection area by a factor $\sim$3. However, the X-ray count rate

819: limit beyond 5$'$ is lower (on average by a factor $\sim$2) than at

820: the aimpoint, which although not affecting optical detectability,

821: means the increase in predicted CV numbers would be small in

822: comparison with other effects discussed above.

823: 

824: Patterson (private communication) recommends a smaller scale height

825: h=150 pc on the basis of local CV surveys. Implementing this affects

826: only field J1655 significantly and would reduce the $\emph{predicted}$

827: number of CVs by $\sim$20\%---further in line with our lack of CVs

828: detected in this field.

829: 

830: At face value, our results suggest a higher in local value of the CV

831: density, n$_{CV}$, although alternatively the excess of objects

832: detected may simply represent fluctuations over a mean background

833: rate. The parameter n$_{CV}$ directly influences the predicted number

834: of CVs in any given field. Our sample is too small to be used to argue

835: strongly for a change, however the significance of the difference

836: between the observed number of CVs and our predicted number certainly

837: suggests an increase (by a factor $\sim$3--5) is justified. Two recent

838: studies find different values for n$_{CV}$. \citet{rogel08} construct

839: a Galaxy source-distribution model to predict CV detections found in

840: ChaMPlane Galactic Anti-center fields, and find a value of 10$^{-5}$

841: pc$^{-3}$ provides the best fit to their results. However,

842: \citet{ak08} use a sample of 459 local Solar-neighborhood CVs to

843: derive a value of n$_{CV}$ a factor $\sim$3 higher than this, which

844: appears to validate our own findings. Thus it may indeed be that the

845: value of n$_{CV}$ is somewhat higher than our adopted value.

846: 

847: \subsection{Resolving the Galactic Ridge X-ray Emission}

848: The extended Galactic Ridge X-ray Emission observed throughout the

849: Galactic Plane \citep[GRXE, see e.g.][]{worrall82} is the subject of

850: disagreement over whether deeper, higher resolution observations in

851: the X-ray band will eventually completely resolve all observed

852: Galactic emission at this wavelength, or whether in fact there is a

853: truly diffuse emitting plasma confined to the Galactic

854: Plane. \citet{ebisawa05} carried out deep, $\sim$100 ksec X-ray

855: observations of two fields in the Galactic Plane with {\it Chandra}

856: and estimated that point sources contribute at most 10\% of the total

857: X-ray flux they observe in this region. They conclude that no faint,

858: unobserved point source population could simultaneously match their

859: observed $\log$N--$\log$S (number versus source flux) plots of point

860: sources and the total GRXE flux, and hence there is a truly diffuse

861: component to the GRXE. On the other hand, \citet{revniv06} show that,

862: since the morphology of the GRXE very closely matches that of the

863: Galactic near-infrared surface brightness, it must trace the stellar

864: mass distribution of the Galaxy. They calculate the X-ray luminosity

865: per unit stellar mass that this conclusion requires in order to match

866: the observed flux of the GRXE.  Together with the X-ray luminosity

867: function of \citet{sazon06} they show that the X-ray emissivity per

868: unit mass of the local Solar neighborhood X-ray source population

869: extended to the whole Galaxy can easily account for the GRXE.

870: 

871: The probable types of the counterparts to our X-ray source population

872: are active binaries ($\sim$10\% of the sample), CVs ($\sim$2\%), YSOs

873: (perhaps between 39 and 61\%), with the remainder coronally emitting

874: stars, either young main sequence or main sequence objects. Broadly

875: and qualitatively this result agrees with the make-up of the Solar

876: neighborhood population as determined by \citet{sazon06}. A more

877: detailed comparison with their luminosity function is limited by two

878: factors: 1) the fact that our survey is not complete in either

879: magnitude/source flux space, or volume space, and 2) the lack of

880: detailed source classification and hence a determination of the X-ray

881: emissivity per stellar mass of our sources. However, our results

882: suggest a significant contribution to X-ray emitting sources close to

883: the Galactic Plane comes from pre-main sequence and young main

884: sequence stars, which can have relatively high X-ray luminosities

885: ($L_x \sim 10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$). 

886: 

887: In order to make progress to address the conflict over the origin of

888: the GRXE requires one or both of: deep X-ray observations

889: \citep[$\sim$1 Megasec][]{revniv06} or accurate classification (via

890: optical or infrared spectroscopy or X-ray spectral analysis) of the

891: faint, hard X-ray source population present in many {\it Chandra}

892: X-ray studies of the Galactic Plane \citep[e.g.][]{muno04}. Although

893: our Galactic center pointing approaches the first requirement, it

894: still falls somewhat short and is hindered by the large extinction

895: towards this field ($\log (N_H) \approx 23.0$ cm$^{-2}$. Since we use

896: optical spectroscopy to classify targets, we are necessarily limited

897: to relatively bright ($R \lesssim$21), nearby objects and as a result

898: preferentially observe soft X-ray emitting, more unabsorbed sources. A

899: forthcoming ChaMPlane paper (Hong et al 2008, in preparation) will

900: utilise very deep ($\sim$1 Megasec) {\it Chandra} observations of the

901: Galactic center together with our quantile analysis technique to

902: classify faint point sources to directly consider the origin of the

903: GRXE.

904: 

905: \section{Conclusion}

906: We have carried out optical and X-ray spectral analysis on a sample of

907: X-ray detected optical sources in the Galactic plane, using a

908: combination of optical spectral fitting and quantile X-ray analysis to

909: obtain the extinction $E(B-V)$ and hence $A_V$ and hydrogen column

910: density, $N_H$ towards each object. We combine these estimates with

911: the work of \citet{drimmel01} who present a three-dimensional dust

912: model of the Galaxy in order to derive $A_V$ as a function of distance

913: in any direction, and thus further derive a distance to each object.

914: 

915: We present the discovery of a population of stellar coronal emission

916: sources, detected by $\it{Chandra}$ in five fields towards the

917: Galactic bulge. These are likely a mix of young stars, of roughly

918: Hyades and Pleiades age, as well as some pre-MS stars, and a component

919: of RS CVn or BY Dra type. We find no strong evidence that we have

920: sampled from stars with significantly different properties from local,

921: similarly active stars. We report the properties of the most probable

922: RS CVn and BY Dra-type candidates from our sample, and identify one

923: possible qLMXB candidate also. We note that this latter object could

924: instead be an RS CVn system. High resolution optical spectra can make

925: this clear.

926: 

927: We report the discovery of three X-ray detected CVs in the direction

928: of the Galactic Center. All three are consistent with having an X-ray

929: spectrum consisting of bremsstrahlung at kT $\approx$ 8keV, and are

930: within $\approx$2 kpc of the Sun. An additional 2 CVs are indicated by

931: our photometry and X-ray data, and can be tested with optical

932: spectroscopy.

933: 

934: The number of CVs detected in our survey is consistent with a local CV

935: space density of $\sim$10$^{-5}$ pc$^{-3}$, and a scale height

936: $\sim$200pc, but is suggestive of a larger local value or strong

937: radial gradient. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the

938: model we use to predict extinction as a function of distance and hence

939: derive the number detected in our survey. Although the numerical

940: uncertainty in the model appears to be a factor of $\sim$3 (see Figure

941: 5), cf. the required factor $\sim$5--15 to rectify the discrepancies

942: seen in the GalCA and SgrA fields, it is possible that true variations

943: in the distribution of dust in the Galaxy might be able to explain

944: this. Further work on better modelling the Galactic dust distribution

945: and CV content of our fields is desirable to improve our constraints.

946: 

947: \acknowledgements The author would like to thank John Silverman for

948: collecting the LDSS2 spectral data during the 2001 run; JEG collected

949: the LDSS2 spectra in the 2002 run. We also thank the two anonymous

950: referees and Eric Feigelson whose suggestions considerably improved

951: the manuscript. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database,

952: operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France and the NASA Astrophysics Data

953: System. This work is supported in part by NASA/$\it{Chandra}$ grants

954: AR1-2001X, AR2-3002A, AR3-4002A, AR4-5003A, AR6-7010X, NSF grant

955: AST-0098683, and the $\it{Chandra}$ X-ray Center. We thank NOAO for

956: its support via the Long Term Survey program.

957: 

958: %\bibliographystyle{apj} \bibliography{koenig4}

959: \begin{thebibliography}{69}

960: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

961: 

962: \bibitem[{{Ak} {et~al.}(2008){Ak}, {Bilir}, {Ak}, \& {Eker}}]{ak08}

963: {Ak}, T., {Bilir}, S., {Ak}, S., \& {Eker}, Z. 2008, New Astronomy, 13, 133

964: 

965: \bibitem[{{Andrillat} {et~al.}(1995){Andrillat}, {Jaschek}, \&

966:   {Jaschek}}]{andrill95}

967: {Andrillat}, Y., {Jaschek}, C., \& {Jaschek}, M. 1995, \aaps, 112, 475

968: 

969: \bibitem[{{Bailyn} {et~al.}(1995){Bailyn}, {Orosz}, {McClintock}, \&

970:   {Remillard}}]{bailyn95}

971: {Bailyn}, C.~D., {Orosz}, J.~A., {McClintock}, J.~E., \& {Remillard}, R.~A.

972:   1995, \nat, 378, 157

973: 

974: \bibitem[{{Bertout}(1989)}]{bertout89}

975: {Bertout}, C. 1989, \araa, 27, 351

976: 

977: \bibitem[{{Bessell} \& {Brett}(1988)}]{bessell88}

978: {Bessell}, M.~S. \& {Brett}, J.~M. 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134

979: 

980: \bibitem[{{Bessell}(1991)}]{bessell91}

981: {Bessell}, M.~S. 1991, \aj, 101, 662

982: 

983: \bibitem[{{Bopp} \& {Fekel}(1977)}]{bopp77}

984: {Bopp}, B.~W. \& {Fekel}, Jr., F. 1977, \aj, 82, 490

985: 

986: \bibitem[{{Brand} \& {Blitz}(1993)}]{brand93}

987: {Brand}, J. \& {Blitz}, L. 1993, \aap, 275, 67

988: 

989: \bibitem[{{Carquillat} {et~al.}(1997){Carquillat}, {Jaschek}, {Jaschek}, \&

990:   {Ginestet}}]{carquill97}

991: {Carquillat}, M.~J., {Jaschek}, C., {Jaschek}, M., \& {Ginestet}, N. 1997,

992:   \aaps, 123, 5

993: 

994: \bibitem[{{Cox}(2000)}]{Allen2000}

995: {Cox}, A.~N. 2000, {Allen's astrophysical quantities} (Allen's astrophysical

996:   quantities, 4th ed.~Publisher: New York: AIP Press; Springer, 2000.~Edited by

997:   Arthur N.~Cox.~ ISBN: 0387987460)

998: 

999: \bibitem[{{Dame} {et~al.}(2001){Dame}, {Hartmann}, \& {Thaddeus}}]{dame01}

1000: {Dame}, T.~M., {Hartmann}, D., \& {Thaddeus}, P. 2001, \apj, 547, 792

1001: 

1002: \bibitem[{{Dempsey} {et~al.}(1993){Dempsey}, {Linsky}, {Fleming}, \&

1003:   {Schmitt}}]{dempsey93}

1004: {Dempsey}, R.~C., {Linsky}, J.~L., {Fleming}, T.~A., \& {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M.

1005:   1993, \apjs, 86, 599

1006: 

1007: \bibitem[{{Dempsey} {et~al.}(1997){Dempsey}, {Linsky}, {Fleming}, \&

1008:   {Schmitt}}]{dempsey97}

1009: ---. 1997, \apj, 478, 358

1010: 

1011: \bibitem[{{Dickey} \& {Lockman}(1990)}]{dickey90}

1012: {Dickey}, J.~M. \& {Lockman}, F.~J. 1990, \araa, 28, 215

1013: 

1014: \bibitem[{{Dopita} \& {Sutherland}(2003)}]{dopita03}

1015: {Dopita}, M.~A. \& {Sutherland}, R.~S. 2003, {Astrophysics of the diffuse

1016:   universe} (Astrophysics of the diffuse universe, Berlin, New York: Springer,

1017:   2003.~Astronomy and astrophysics library, ISBN 3540433627)

1018: 

1019: \bibitem[{{Drimmel} {et~al.}(2003){Drimmel}, {Cabrera-Lavers}, \& {L{\'

1020:   o}pez-Corredoira}}]{drimmel03}

1021: {Drimmel}, R., {Cabrera-Lavers}, A., \& {L{\' o}pez-Corredoira}, M. 2003, \aap,

1022:   409, 205

1023: 

1024: \bibitem[{{Drimmel} \& {Spergel}(2001)}]{drimmel01}

1025: {Drimmel}, R. \& {Spergel}, D.~N. 2001, \apj, 556, 181

1026: 

1027: \bibitem[{{Ebisawa} {et~al.}(2005){Ebisawa}, {Tsujimoto}, {Paizis}, 

1028:   {Hamaguchi}, {Bamba}, {Cutri}, {Kaneda}, {Maeda}, {Sato}, {Senda}, 

1029:   {Ueno}, {Yamauchi}, {Beckmann}, {Courvoisier}, {Dubath}, \& {

1030:   Nishihara}}]{ebisawa05}

1031: {Ebisawa}, K., et~al.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 214

1032: 

1033: \bibitem[{{Favata} {et~al.}(1995){Favata}, {Micela}, \& {Sciortino}}]{favata95}

1034: {Favata}, F., {Micela}, G., \& {Sciortino}, S. 1995, \aap, 298, 482

1035: 

1036: \bibitem[{{Favata} \& {Micela}(2003)}]{favata03}

1037: {Favata}, F. \& {Micela}, G. 2003, Space Science Reviews, 108, 577

1038: 

1039: \bibitem[{{Getman} {et~al.}(2005){Getman}, {Flaccomio}, {Broos},

1040:   {Grosso}, {Tsujimoto}, {Townsley}, {Garmire}, {Kastner}, {Li}, 

1041:   {Harnden}, {Wolk}, {Murray}, {Lada}, {Muench}, {McCaughrean}, 

1042:   {Meeus}, {Damiani}, {Micela}, {Sciortino}, {Bally}, {Hillenbrand}, 

1043:   {Herbst}, {Preibisch}, \& {Feigelson}}]{getman05}

1044: {Getman}, K.~V., et~al.\ 2005, \apjs, 160, 319

1045: 

1046: \bibitem[{{G{\"u}del}(2004)}]{gudel04}

1047: {G{\"u}del}, M. 2004, \aapr, 12, 71

1048: 

1049: \bibitem[{{Gray}(1992)}]{Gray1992}

1050: {Gray}, D.~F. 1992, {The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres}

1051:   (Cambridge Astrophysics Series, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992,

1052:   2nd ed., ISBN 0521403200.)

1053: 

1054: \bibitem[{{Grindlay} {et~al.}(2003){Grindlay}, {Zhao}, {Hong}, {Jenkins},

1055:   {Kim}, {Schlegel}, {Drake}, {Kashyap}, {Edmonds}, {Cohn}, {Lugger}, \&

1056:   {Cool}}]{grindlay2003}

1057: {Grindlay}, J., et~al.\ 2003, Astronomische Nachrichten, 324, 57

1058: 

1059: \bibitem[{{Grindlay} {et~al.}(2005){Grindlay}, {Hong}, {Zhao}, {Laycock}, {van

1060:   den Berg}, {Koenig}, {Schlegel}, {Cohn}, {Lugger}, \& {Rogel}}]{grindlay05}

1061: {Grindlay}, J.~E., et~al.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 920

1062: 

1063: \bibitem[{{Harmon} {et~al.}(1995){Harmon}, {Wilson}, {Zhang}, {Paciesas},

1064:   {Fishman}, {Hjellming}, {Rupen}, {Scott}, {Briggs}, \& {Rubin}}]{harmon95}

1065: {Harmon}, B.~A., et~al.\ 1995, \nat, 374, 703

1066: 

1067: \bibitem[{{Hall(1976)}}]{hall76}

1068: {Hall}, D.~S. 1976, in IAU Colloq. 29, Multiple Periodic Variable Stars, ed. W.~S. Fitch (Dordrecht: Reidel), 287

1069: 

1070: \bibitem[{{Hertz} {et~al.}(1990){Hertz}, {Bailyn}, {Grindlay}, {Garcia},

1071:   {Cohn}, \& {Lugger}}]{hertz90}

1072: {Hertz}, P., {Bailyn}, C.~D., {Grindlay}, J.~E., {Garcia}, M.~R., {Cohn}, H.,

1073:   \& {Lugger}, P.~M. 1990, \apj, 364, 251

1074: 

1075: \bibitem[{{Hong}, {Schlegel} \& {Grindlay}(2004; hereafter H04){Hong}, {Schlegel}, \& {Grindlay}}]{hong04}

1076: {Hong}, J., {Schlegel}, E.~M., \& {Grindlay}, J.~E. 2004, \apj, 614, 508

1077: 

1078: \bibitem[{{Hong} {et~al.}(2005){Hong}, {van den Berg}, {Schlegel}, {Grindlay},

1079:   {Koenig}, {Laycock}, \& {Zhao}}]{hong05}

1080: {Hong}, J., {van den Berg}, M., {Schlegel}, E.~M., {Grindlay}, J.~E., {Koenig},

1081:   X., {Laycock}, S., \& {Zhao}, P. 2005, \apj, 635, 907

1082: 

1083: \bibitem[{{Houk} {et~al.}(1997){Houk}, {Swift}, {Murray}, {Penston}, \&

1084:   {Binney}}]{houk97}

1085: {Houk}, N., {Swift}, C.~M., {Murray}, C.~A., {Penston}, M.~J., \& {Binney},

1086:   J.~J. 1997, in ESA SP-402: Hipparcos - Venice '97, 279--282

1087: 

1088: \bibitem[{{Howarth}(1983)}]{howarth83}

1089: {Howarth}, I.~D. 1983, \mnras, 203, 301

1090: 

1091: \bibitem[{{H{\"u}nsch} {et~al.}(1998){H{\"u}nsch}, {Schmitt}, \& {Voges}}]{huensch98ms}

1092: {H{\"u}nsch}, M., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., \& {Voges}, W. 1998, \aaps, 132, 155

1093: 

1094: \bibitem[{{Jacoby} {et~al.}(1984){Jacoby}, {Hunter}, \& {Christian}}]{jacoby84}

1095: {Jacoby}, G.~H., {Hunter}, D.~A., \& {Christian}, C.~A. 1984, \apjs, 56, 257

1096: 

1097: \bibitem[{{Johnson}(1966)}]{johnson66}

1098: {Johnson}, H.~L. 1966, \araa, 4, 193

1099: 

1100: \bibitem[{{Lada} \& {Adams}(1992)}]{lada92}

1101: {Lada}, C.~J \& {Adams}, F.~C. 1992, \apj, 393, 278

1102: 

1103: \bibitem[{{Laycock} {et~al.}(2005){Laycock}, {Grindlay}, {van den Berg},

1104:   {Zhao}, {Hong}, {Koenig}, {Schlegel}, \& {Persson}}]{laycock05}

1105: {Laycock}, S., {Grindlay}, J., {van den Berg}, M., {Zhao}, P., {Hong}, J.,

1106:   {Koenig}, X., {Schlegel}, E.~M., \& {Persson}, S.~E. 2005, \apjl, 634, L53

1107: 

1108: \bibitem[{{Mewe} {et~al.}(1985){Mewe}, {Gronenschild}, \& {van den

1109:   Oord}}]{mewe85}

1110: {Mewe}, R., {Gronenschild}, E.~H.~B.~M., \& {van den Oord}, G.~H.~J. 1985,

1111:   \aaps, 62, 197

1112: 

1113: \bibitem[{Micela} {et~al.}(1996){Micela}, {Sciortino}, {Kashyap}, {Harnden} \& {Rosner}]{micela96}

1114: {Micela}, G., {Sciortino}, S., {Kashyap}, V., {Harnden}, F.~R.,~Jr., \& {Rosner}, R. 1996, \apjs, 102, 75

1115: 

1116: \bibitem[{{Mikami} \& {Heck}(1982)}]{mikami82}

1117: {Mikami}, T. \& {Heck}, A. 1982, \pasj, 34, 529

1118: 

1119: \bibitem[{{Muno} {et~al.}(2003){Muno}, {Baganoff}, {Bautz}, {Brandt}, {Broos},

1120:   {Feigelson}, {Garmire}, {Morris}, {Ricker}, \& {Townsley}}]{muno}

1121: {Muno}, M.~P., et~al.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 225

1122: 

1123: \bibitem[{{Muno} {et~al.}(2004){Muno}, {Baganoff}, {Bautz}, {Feigelson}, {Garmire}, {Morris}, {Park}, {Ricker} \& {Townsley}}]{muno04}

1124: {Muno}, M.~P., et~al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 326

1125: 

1126: \bibitem[{{Nishiyama} {et~al.}(2006){Nishiyama}, {Nagata}, {Kusakabe}, 

1127:   {Matsunaga}, {Naoi}, {Kato}, {Nagashima}, {Sugitani}, {Tamura}, 

1128:   {Tanab{\'e}}, \& {Sato}}]{nishi06}

1129: {Nishiyama}, S., et~al.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 839

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[{{Panzera} {et~al.}(1999){Tagliaferri}, {Pasinetti}, \& {Antonello}}]{panzera99}

1132: {Panzera}, M.~R., {Tagliaferri}, G., {Pasinetti}, L., \& {Antonello} 1999, \aap, 348, 161

1133: 

1134: \bibitem[{{Patterson}(1998)}]{patterson98}

1135: {Patterson}, J. 1998, \pasp, 110, 1132

1136: 

1137: \bibitem[{{Predehl} \& {Schmitt}(1995)}]{predehl95}

1138: {Predehl}, P. \& {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M. 1995, \aap, 293, 889

1139: 

1140: \bibitem[{{Rogel} {et~al.}(2008){Rogel, {Cohn}, \& {Lugger}}}]{rogel08}

1141: {Rogel}, A.~B., {Cohn}, H.~N., \& {Lugger}, P.~M. 2008, \apj, 675, 373

1142: 

1143: \bibitem[{{Revnivtsev} {et~al.}(2006){Revnivtsev}, {Sazonov}, {Gilfanov}, {Churazov}, \& {Sunyaev}}]{revniv06}

1144: {Revnivtsev}, M., {Sazonov}, S., {Gilfanov}, M., {Churazov}, E., \& {Sunyaev}, R. 2006, \aap, 452, 169

1145: 

1146: \bibitem[{{Sazonov} {et~al.}(2006){Sazonov}, {Revnivtsev}, {Gilfanov}, {Churazov}, \& {Sunyaev}}]{sazon06}

1147: {Sazonov}, S., {Revnivtsev}, M., {Gilfanov}, M., {Churazov}, E., \& {Sunyaev}, R. 2006, \aap, 450, 117

1148: 

1149: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&

1150:   {Davis}}]{schlegel98}

1151: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1152: 

1153: \bibitem[{{Schmidt}(1968)}]{schmidt68}

1154: {Schmidt}, M. 1968, \apj, 151, 393

1155: 

1156: \bibitem[{{Schmitt} \& {Liefke}(2004)}]{schmitt04}

1157: {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M. \& {Liefke}, C. 2004, \aap, 417, 651

1158: 

1159: \bibitem[{{Schwope} {et~al.}(2002){Schwope}, {Brunner}, {Buckley}, {Greiner},

1160:   {Heyden}, {Neizvestny}, {Potter}, \& {Schwarz}}]{schwope02}

1161: {Schwope}, A.~D., {Brunner}, H., {Buckley}, D., {Greiner}, J., {Heyden},

1162:   K.~v.~d., {Neizvestny}, S., {Potter}, S., \& {Schwarz}, R. 2002, \aap, 396,

1163:   895

1164: 

1165: \bibitem[{{Sciortino} {et~al.}(1995){Sciortino}, {Favata}, \& {Micela}}]{sciortino95}

1166: {Sciortino}, S., {Favata}, F., \& {Micela}, G. 1995, \aap, 296, 370

1167: 

1168: \bibitem[{{Sidoli} {et~al.}(2001){Sidoli}, {Belloni}, \&

1169:   {Mereghetti}}]{sidoli01}

1170: {Sidoli}, L., {Belloni}, T., \& {Mereghetti}, S. 2001, \aap, 368, 835

1171: 

1172: \bibitem[{{Silva} \& {Cornell}(1992)}]{silva92}

1173: {Silva}, D.~R. \& {Cornell}, M.~E. 1992, \apjs, 81, 865

1174: 

1175: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006){Skrutskie}, {Cutri}, {Stiening}, 

1176:   {Weinberg}, {Schneider}, {Carpenter}, {Beichman}, {Capps}, {Chester}, 

1177:   {Elias}, {Huchra}, {Liebert}, {Lonsdale}, {Monet}, {Price}, {Seitzer}, 

1178:   {Jarrett}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Gizis}, {Howard}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, 

1179:   {Fullmer}, {Hurt}, {Light}, {Kopan}, {Marsh}, {McCallon}, {Tam}, 

1180:   {Van Dyk}, \& {Wheelock}}]{skrut06}

1181: {Skrutskie}, M.~F., et~al.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1163

1182: 

1183: \bibitem[{{Stern} {et~al.}(1995){Stern}, {Schmitt}, \& {Kahabka}}]{stern95}

1184: {Stern}, R.~A., {Schmitt}, J.~H.~M.~M., \& {Kahabka}, P.~T. 1995, \apj, 448, 683

1185: 

1186: \bibitem[{{Szkody} {et~al.}(2004){Szkody}, {Henden}, {Fraser}, {Silvestri},

1187:   {Bochanski}, {Wolfe}, {Ag{\" u}eros}, {Warner}, {Woudt}, {Tramposch},

1188:   {Homer}, {Schmidt}, {Knapp}, {Anderson}, {Covey}, {Harris}, {Hawley},

1189:   {Schneider}, {Voges}, \& {Brinkmann}}]{szkody04}

1190: {Szkody}, P., et~al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 1882

1191: 

1192: \bibitem[{{Tagliaferri} {et~al.}(1994){Tagliaferri}, {Cutispoto}, {Pallavicini}, {Randich}, \& {Pasquini}}]{taglia94}

1193: {Tagliaferri}, G., {Cutipoto}, G., {Pallavicini}, R., {Randich}, S., \& {Pasquini}, L. 1994, \aap, 285, 272

1194: 

1195: \bibitem[{{Taylor} {et~al.}(2003){Taylor}, {Gibson}, {Peracaula}, {Martin},

1196:   {Landecker}, {Brunt}, {Dewdney}, {Dougherty}, {Gray}, {Higgs}, {Kerton},

1197:   {Knee}, {Kothes}, {Purton}, {Uyaniker}, {Wallace}, {Willis}, \&

1198:   {Durand}}]{taylor03}

1199: {Taylor}, A.~R., et~al.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 3145

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[{{Tinney} {et~al.}(1993){Tinney}, {Reid}, \& {Mould}}]{tinney93}

1202: {Tinney}, C.~G., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Mould}, J.~R. 1993, \apj, 414, 254

1203: 

1204: \bibitem[{{Torres-Dodgen} \& {Weaver}(1993)}]{dodgen93}

1205: {Torres-Dodgen}, A.~V. \& {Weaver}, W.~B. 1993, \pasp, 105, 693

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[{{Vaiana} {et~al.}(1992){Vaiana}, {Maggio}, {Micela}, \& {Sciortino}}]{vaiana92}

1208: {Vaiana}, G.~S., {Maggio}, A., {Micela}, G., \& {Sciortino}, S. 1992, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 63, 545

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[{{Verbunt} {et~al.}(1997){Verbunt}, {Bunk}, {Ritter}, \&

1211:   {Pfeffermann}}]{verbunt97}

1212: {Verbunt}, F., {Bunk}, W.~H., {Ritter}, H., \& {Pfeffermann}, E. 1997, \aap,

1213:   327, 602

1214: 

1215: \bibitem[{{Voges}(1992)}]{voges92}

1216: {Voges}, W. 1992, {The ROSAT all-sky X ray survey}, Tech. rep.

1217: 

1218: \bibitem[{{Warner}(1995)}]{warner95}

1219: {Warner}, B. 1995, {Cataclysmic variable stars} (Cambridge Astrophysics Series,

1220:   Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, |c1995)

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[{{Wielen}(1977)}]{wielen77}

1223: {Wielen}, R. 1977, \aap, 60, 263

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[{{Worrall} {et~al.}(1982){Worrall}, {Marshall}, {Boldt}, \& {Swank}}]{worrall82}

1226: {Worrall}, D.~M., {Marshall}, F.~E., {Boldt}, E.~A., \& {Swank}, J.H. 1982, \apj, 255, 111

1227: 

1228: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(1994){Zhang}, {Wilson}, {Harmon}, {Fishman},

1229:   {Wilson}, {Paciesas}, {Scott}, \& {Rubin}}]{zhang94}

1230: {Zhang}, S.~N., {Wilson}, C.~A., {Harmon}, B.~A., {Fishman}, G.~J., {Wilson},

1231:   R.~B., {Paciesas}, W.~S., {Scott}, M., \& {Rubin}, B.~C. 1994, \iaucirc,

1232:   6046, 1

1233: 

1234: \bibitem[{{Zhao} {et~al.}(2005){Zhao}, {Grindlay}, {Hong}, {Laycock}, {Koenig},

1235:   {Schlegel}, \& {van den Berg}}]{zhao05}

1236: {Zhao}, P., {Grindlay}, J.~E., {Hong}, J.~S., {Laycock}, S., {Koenig}, X.~P.,

1237:   {Schlegel}, E.~M., \& {van den Berg}, M. 2005, \apjs, 161, 429

1238: 

1239: \end{thebibliography}

1240: 

1241: \clearpage

1242: 

1243: \begin{figure}

1244: \begin{center}	

1245: \includegraphics[width=5.6in]{f1.eps}

1246: \caption{Two example fits to spectra from the LDSS2 sample. The panel

1247:   for the M star (right) also shows the polynomial fit to the spectrum

1248:   (see text for description) to which the blackbody curve was

1249:   subsequently fit.}

1250: \end{center}

1251: \end{figure}

1252: 

1253: \begin{figure}[ht]

1254: \begin{center}

1255: \includegraphics[width=6in]{f2.eps}

1256: \caption{Plots of hydrogen column density for all stars with available

1257:   $V-R$ or $R-I$ photometry in the sample, derived from the spectral

1258:   fit and color methods detailed in $\S$$\S$ 3.1 and 3.2. Typical

1259:   error bars and lines of $N_H$(Color)=$N_H$(Fit) (dotted line) are

1260:   shown for reference.}

1261: \end{center}

1262: \end{figure}

1263: 

1264: \begin{figure}[ht]

1265: \begin{center}

1266: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f3.eps}

1267: \caption{A Color-Magnitude diagram of the stars in the LDSS2

1268: sample. We plot M$_V$ = $V$ $-5\log$(dist) + 5 $- A_V$, and $(V-R)_0$

1269: = $V-R - 0.781E(B-V)$. The star marked `K' is the K giant in SgrB2,

1270: ChOPSJ174642.22$-$282907.4. The dotted curve and spectral type labels are from \citet{Allen2000} and the error bars show the range of M$_V$ for spectral type range plotted.}

1271: \end{center}

1272: \end{figure}

1273: 

1274: \begin{figure}

1275: \begin{center}

1276: \includegraphics[width=6.5in]{f4.eps}

1277: \caption{Left panel: QCCD plot for ObsID 53392 (SgrA$\star$) showing

1278:   the positions of CV-B and non-identified sources from the

1279:   SgrA$\star$ field with at least 107 counts. Right panel: ObsID 945

1280:   (GalCA) showing all three CVs.}

1281: \end{center}

1282: \end{figure}

1283: 

1284: \begin{figure}[ht]

1285: \begin{center}	

1286: \includegraphics[width=6in]{f5.eps}

1287: \caption{\footnotesize{Plots of $A_V$ (re-scaled values) versus

1288: distance from the model of \citet{drimmel01} for the five

1289: $\it{Chandra}$ fields. For field G347b (right-hand plot) we show the

1290: results of both rescaled and non-rescaled $A_V$ versus distance from

1291: this paper, and also overplot our own results, as derived from CO+HI

1292: observations. See $\S$ 3.2 for a description.}}

1293: \end{center}

1294: \end{figure}

1295: 

1296: \begin{figure}

1297: \begin{center}

1298: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f6.eps}

1299: \caption{The three CVs discovered in the five $\it{Chandra}$ fields in

1300: this paper. The LDSS2 spectra for CV-A and CV-C have y-axis

1301: units ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ $\textrm{\AA}$. The IMACS spectrum

1302: for CV-B was not flux calibrated and has y-axis units in raw

1303: counts. The region 6990--7500$\textrm{\AA}$ has been removed from CV-B

1304: as it covers a CCD chip gap.}

1305: \end{center}

1306: \end{figure}

1307: 

1308: \begin{figure}

1309: \begin{center}

1310: \includegraphics{f7.eps}

1311: \caption{XSPEC fits to the X-ray data for the CV-A and CV-B detected

1312: in this survey. Upper spectrum, CV-A: 438$\pm$22 net counts (B$_X$ band),

1313: lower spectrum, CV-B: 3539$\pm$63 net counts. We plot the spectrum plus

1314: fit, and in the lower panel in each case the residuals of the spectrum divided by the errors.}

1315: \end{center}

1316: \end{figure}

1317: 

1318: \begin{figure}[ht]

1319: \begin{center}	

1320: \includegraphics[width=6.4in]{f8.eps}

1321: \caption{X-ray luminosity functions of our stellar coronal sample,

1322:   1/V$_{max}$ corrected. We divide our sample into stars from type

1323:   F2--G8 (58 stars, left panel) and G8--M5 (48 stars, right

1324:   panel). Inset in each Figure is a zoomed in portion of the top part

1325:   of the plot. We overplot comparison stellar samples from the a local

1326:   sample, plus the Hyades and Pleiades.}

1327: \end{center}

1328: \end{figure}

1329: 

1330: \begin{figure}

1331: \begin{center}

1332: \includegraphics[width=6.3in]{f9.eps}

1333: \caption{Histograms by spectral type grouping (same as Figure 7) of

1334:   the X-ray to optical flux ratio of our stellar sample, overplotted

1335:   with data from the studies of \citet{schmitt04} (dashed) and the

1336:   Hyades and Pleiades samples of \citet{stern95} and

1337:   \citet{micela96}. We classify 62--77\% of our M stars as dMe from

1338:   their H$\alpha$ emission.}

1339: \end{center}

1340: \end{figure}

1341: 

1342: \begin{figure}

1343: \begin{center}

1344: \includegraphics[width=5in]{f10.eps}

1345: \caption{Upper spectrum: the qLMXB candidate found in our LDSS2

1346: sample. Lower spectrum: GRO J1655 $-$40 as observed by LDSS2 from our

1347: June 2002 observing run. The flux scale has units: ergs s$^{-1}$

1348: cm$^{-2}$ $\textrm{\AA} ^{-1}$. Important spectral lines are marked on

1349: the spectra for reference. The strongest spectral feature at $\lambda$7600 

1350: is telluric absorption by the Earth's atmosphere.}

1351: \end{center}

1352: \end{figure}

1353: 

1354: \begin{figure}

1355: \begin{center}

1356: \includegraphics[width=5in]{f11.eps}

1357: \caption{$J-H$ versus $H-K_S$ plot of 2MASS sources matched with

1358:   ChaMPlane sources in this paper. Overlaid is the locus of dwarf and

1359:   giant stars (giant stars are redder) from \citet{bessell88}. The

1360:   arrow represents an extinction of $A_V$=30 using the extinction

1361:   relation of \citet{nishi06}. Sources marked with diamond points are

1362:   candidate excess sources/young stars. A typical error bar is shown,

1363:   upper left.}

1364: \end{center}

1365: \end{figure}

1366: 

1367: \end{document}

1368: