1: % draft: August 28, 2006
2: % Primary contact: Kevin Covey
3: % e-mail: covey@astro.washington.edu
4: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
5: \documentclass{emulateapj}
6: \bibliographystyle{apj}
7:
8: % Authors may supply running head information, if they wish to do so
9: \slugcomment{DRAFT \today}
10: \shorttitle{SDSS/2MASS M star Lum./Mass Function}
11: \shortauthors{Covey et al.}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{The Luminosity and Mass Functions of Low-Mass Stars in the Galactic Disk: I. The Calibration Region\footnote{Based in part on observations obtained with the Apache Point Observatory 3.5-meter telescope, which is owned and operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium.}}
16:
17: \author{Kevin~R.~Covey\altaffilmark{1}, Suzanne~L.~Hawley\altaffilmark{2}, John~J.~Bochanski\altaffilmark{2}, Andrew A. West\altaffilmark{3}, I.~Neill~Reid\altaffilmark{4}, David A. Golimowski\altaffilmark{5}, James R. A. Davenport\altaffilmark{6}, Todd Henry\altaffilmark{7}, Alan Uomoto\altaffilmark{8}}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, MS-72, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; kcovey@cfa.harvard.edu}
20: \altaffiltext{2}{University of Washington, Department of Astronomy, Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195}
21: \altaffiltext{3}{Univeristy of California Berkeley, Astronomy Department, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3411}
22: \altaffiltext{4}{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}
23: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218-2686}
24: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-1221}
25: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302-4106}
26: \altaffiltext{8}{Carnegie Observatories, Pasadena, CA, USA}
27:
28: %email address: covey@astro.washington.edu
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We present measurements of the luminosity and mass functions of low-mass stars constructed from a catalog of matched Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and 2 Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) detections. This photometric catalog contains more than 25,000 matched SDSS and 2MASS point sources spanning $\sim$30 square degrees on the sky. We have obtained follow-up spectroscopy, complete to J=16, of more than 500 low mass dwarf candidates within a 1 square degree sub-sample, and thousands of additional dwarf candidates in the remaining 29 square degrees. This spectroscopic sample verifies that the photometric sample is complete, uncontaminated, and unbiased at the 99\% level globally, and at the 95\% level in each color range. We use this sample to derive the luminosity and mass functions of low-mass stars over nearly a decade in mass (0.7 M$_{\odot} >$ M$_* >$ 0.1 M$_{\odot}$). The luminosity function of the Galactic disk is statistically consistent with that measured from volume complete samples in the solar neighborhood. We find that the {\it logarithmically binned} mass function is best fit with an M$_c$=0.29 log-normal distribution, with a 90\% confidence interval of M$_c$=0.20--0.50. These 90\% confidence intervals correspond to {\it linearly binned} mass functions peaking between 0.27 M$_{\odot}$ and 0.12 M$_{\odot}$, where the best fit MF turns over at 0.17 M$_{\odot}$. A power law fit to the entire mass range sampled here, however, returns a best fit of $\alpha$=1.1 (where the Salpeter slope is $\alpha$ = 2.35); a broken power law returns $\alpha$=2.04 at masses greater than log M = -0.5 (M=0.32 M$_{\odot}$), and $\alpha$=0.2 at lower masses. These results agree well with most previous investigations, though differences in the analytic formalisms adopted to describe those mass functions, as well as the range over which the data are fit, can give the false impression of disagreement. Given the richness of modern-day astronomical datasets, we are entering the regime whereby stronger conclusions can be drawn by comparing the actual datapoints measured in different mass functions, rather than the results of analytic analyses that impose structure on the data {\it a priori}. Having validated this method to generate a low-mass luminosity function from matched SDSS/2MASS datasets, future studies will extend this technique to the entirety of the SDSS footprint.
32: \end{abstract}
33: \keywords{Surveys -- stars: late-type -- stars: low-mass -- stars: luminosity function -- stars: mass function -- Galaxy: stellar content}
34:
35: \section{Introduction}
36:
37: The mass function (MF) is a fundamental property
38: of stellar systems, describing the number of stars
39: as a function of stellar mass. The MF is thus a statistical measure of the
40: end result of the star formation process. Succinctly
41: characterizing a stellar population, the MF also informs our
42: understanding of the structure and dynamical evolution of
43: stellar clusters, the Milky Way and other galaxies.
44:
45: %Complicating efforts to measure MF variations as a function of environment,
46: %the MF measured from a stellar population can also change over time, reflecting
47: %the effects of stellar evolution and dynamical processes; most measurements
48: %of the mass function are implicitly a measurement of the present day
49: %mass function, or PDMF. Higher mass stars evolve more
50: %rapidly than lower mass stars, increasingly depleting the high-mass end of
51: %the PDMF, while mass segregration in clusters can lead to radial gradients in
52: %the PDMF, with a high-mass rich MF in the cluster core and a high-mass poor MF in
53: %the cluster outskirts \citep{de-Marchi2005}. Studies of the high-mass end of the MF are often
54: %directed at very young clusters, from which very few high-mass stars have
55: %been lost to evolution; these studies aim to produce a complete estimate of the
56: %initial mass function (IMF), or the MF that is a direct by-product of the star
57: %formation process.
58:
59: The first measurement of the MF was conducted by \citet{Salpeter1955};
60: for higher mass stars, this seminal result
61: remains essentially unchanged to the present day.
62: Salpeter found that the MF can be fit as a power law,
63: formally expressed as:
64:
65: \begin{equation}
66: \label{fundamental mass function}
67: \Psi(M) = \frac{dN}{dM} \propto M^{-\alpha}~~stars~~pc^{-3}~~M_{\odot}^{-1}
68: \end{equation}
69:
70: \noindent where $\alpha =$ 2.35 is known as the `Salpeter
71: slope'. Power law MFs which find a larger fraction of low-mass stars have
72: larger values of alpha and are expressed as being `steeper', while mass
73: functions that find a lower fraction of low-mass stars have smaller values
74: of $\alpha$ and are described as `flatter'.
75:
76: Other functional forms have been suggested to characterize the MF.
77: In particular, a number of investigators \citep{Miller1979,Chabrier2005a}
78: present log normal MFs, which can be expressed as
79:
80: \begin{equation}
81: \label{eq:bestfitlognormalmf}
82: \xi(M) = \frac{dN}{d~{\rm log}~M} = A~{\rm exp} \bigg( \frac{- ( {\rm log}~M - {\rm log}~M_c)^2}{2 \sigma^2} \bigg)
83: \end{equation}
84:
85: Whichever functional form they adopt, most studies agree
86: that the stellar MF appears to reach
87: a peak at a few tenths of a solar mass. Power law
88: characterizations of the MF require a flattening from
89: a Salpeter slope for M $>$ 1 M$_{\odot}$ to $\alpha
90: \sim$0.5--1.7 below 1~$M_{\odot}$, while \citet{Chabrier2005a}
91: finds a log-normal MF with a characteristic mass of M$_c$=0.2
92: is required to reproduce the stellar MF for a volume complete
93: sample in the solar neighborhood. We refer the
94: reader to comprehensive reviews by \citet{Scalo1986},
95: \citet{Reid2000}, \citet{Kroupa2002}, \citet{Chabrier2003},
96: and \citet{Corbelli2005} for a more detailed understanding of the vast literature
97: devoted to measuring the stellar MF.
98:
99: Several processes have been advanced to
100: explain the shape of the MF; examples include
101: gravitational fragmentation \citep{Klessen1998},
102: competitive accretion
103: \citep{Larson1992}, truncation of mass accretion due to radiative or
104: dynamical feedback
105: \citep{Silk1995}, star-star interactions \citep{Reipurth2001} and the primordial
106: distribution of clump masses within molecular clouds \citep{Padoan2002}.
107: The efficiency of each mechanism is influenced by
108: physical variables, such as the metallicity and magnetic field strength
109: of the parent molecular cloud, the local stellar density, and the intensity
110: of the surrounding radiation field. These effects may ultimately result in
111: observable MF variations as a function of environment, but at present
112: the observed variations can be largely attributed to uncertainties arising
113: from finite sample sizes and systematic differences in methodology \citep{Chabrier2005a},
114: though intriguing signs of MF variations with environment may be emerging \citep[e.g., Taurus; ][]{Luhman2004}.
115:
116: Previous studies of the Galactic disk MF have been limited, however, to samples
117: of a few thousand low-mass stars (with low-mass stars
118: defined for the purposes of this paper as M$_{*} <$ 0.7 M$_{\odot}$), due
119: to the inability to simultaneously obtain a deep and wide photometric sample.
120: \citet{Hawley2002} demonstrated that Sloan Digital
121: Sky Survey (SDSS) and Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) photometry of low-mass stars
122: shows monotonic behavior across a wide range of colors.
123: The accurate, multi-color catalogs produced by SDSS and 2MASS thereby allow the
124: identification and characterization of millions of low-mass stars in the
125: local Galactic neighborhood, enlarging previous photometric samples of field
126: low-mass dwarfs by several orders of magnitude. The statistical power of such
127: a sample makes an SDSS/2MASS catalog of low-mass dwarfs a promising avenue
128: for improving our measurement of the low-mass stellar luminosity and mass
129: functions.
130:
131: To test and calibrate this technique before applying it to the entirety of the SDSS and
132: 2MASS databases, we have performed a combined photometric and
133: spectroscopic study of nearly 30,000 stars detected in $\sim$30 square degrees of overlap
134: between the SDSS and 2MASS footprints. We describe in \S \ref{merge} the construction
135: of this sample by matching the SDSS, 2MASS, and Guide Star Catalog
136: (GSC) photometric databases.
137: In \S \ref{specsec:overall} we present the spectroscopic follow-up of
138: more than a third of the sample. We verify the completeness limit of the photometric sample
139: in \S 4, where we also analyze the spectroscopic sample to understand the level of contamination and
140: bias within the photometric catalog. We use this photometric catalog to measure the luminosity function of low-mass stars in the Galactic neighborhood
141: in \S 5, derive a measurement of the low-mass stellar mass function in \S 6, and summarize our conclusions in \S 7. An appendix to this work presents native or
142: transformed SDSS photometry for stars with measured trigonometric parallaxes, useful
143: for constraining the empirical SDSS/2MASS color-magnitude relation applied in \S 5.
144:
145: We note that a full and complete description
146: of our analysis necessarily results in a rather lengthy
147: paper; we therefore suggest that many readers may wish to
148: skip directly to \S 5 \& 6 to concentrate upon the core
149: scientific findings of this work, and then return to read
150: \S 2, 3 \& 4 if a deeper understanding of the assembly of
151: the photometric sample and the effects of incompleteness,
152: contamination and bias is desired.
153:
154: \section{A Unified Catalog of Survey Photometry }
155: \label{merge}
156:
157: We analyzed SDSS, 2MASS, and GSC photometry for objects lying
158: within a `calibration region' defined as the area between
159: right ascensions ($\alpha$) of 3 and 15 degrees and
160: declinations ($\delta$) of -1.25 to +1.25 degrees. An abnormally large number
161: of SDSS spectra of point sources were obtained in this region, allowing a test
162: of the efficiency and robustness of
163: the photometric sample assembled here (see \S \ref{specsec:SDSS}). We excluded
164: a small area [13.1 $< \alpha <$ 13.3, $\delta <$ -1.05]
165: surrounding HD5112, a bright (V = 4.77) M0 giant, which badly saturates
166: SDSS photometry over a large area. The area of the calibration
167: region thus subtends 29.957 square degrees on the sky.
168:
169: \subsection{Individual Survey Datasets \label{photsec}}
170:
171: \subsubsection{Selecting 2MASS Stars \label{photsec:2MASS}}
172:
173: The Two Micron All Sky Survey \citep[2MASS;][]{Skrutskie2006} provides
174: a homogeneous catalog in three near infrared
175: filters ($JHK_s$) ranging from 1 to 2.4 $\mu$m. We queried the 2MASS All Sky
176: Data Release \citep{Cutri2003} via the GATOR
177: interface\footnote{http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/} for
178: all objects detected within the calibration region, retaining only objects with:
179:
180: \begin{itemize}
181: \item{astrometric location within the boundaries of the calibration
182: region;}
183: \item{high quality $J$ band photometry (jphqual flag $=$ `A' or
184: jrdflag $=$ `1' or `3');}
185: \item{unique detections of catalog objects (use-src flag $=$ `1');}
186: \item{point source morphology (ext-key $=$ `null');}
187: \item{no association with the predicted location of a known minor planet,
188: comet, planet or planetary satellite (mp\_flg $=$ 0).}
189: \end{itemize}
190:
191: These selection criteria generate a sample of 30,449 stellar candidates
192: with IR detections within the calibration region.
193:
194: \subsubsection{Selecting SDSS Stars \label{photsec:SDSS}}
195:
196: The initial mission of the SDSS was to map a quarter of the night sky
197: centered on the North Galactic cap, acquiring accurate photometry of
198: 100 million objects in 5 filters \citep{Fukugita1996,Gunn1998} and
199: accumulating over 1 million spectra \citep{York2000}. This mission
200: is now complete, with over 9000 square degrees of photometry and over
201: 1.25 million spectra released to the public in Data Release 6
202: \citep{Adelman-McCarthy2008}. SDSS
203: observations were obtained with a dedicated 2.5 meter telescope at the
204: Apache Point Observatory \citep{Gunn2006}. Photometric
205: data were acquired as the telescope's 3 degree field imaged in 5
206: filters ($u$,$g$,$r$,$i$,$z$) nearly simultaneously by scanning a great circle
207: across the sky at approximately the sidereal rate. Photometric data
208: were reduced by a custom SDSS data processing pipeline
209: \citep[PHOTO ;][]{Lupton2001} with calibrations obtained from observations
210: by a 20-inch photometric telescope at the same site
211: \citep{Hogg2001,Smith2002,Tucker2006}. The article describing the Early Data
212: Release \citep{Stoughton2002} provides information on the central
213: wavelengths and widths of the SDSS filters, while papers discussing
214: the ``asinh'' magnitude system \citep{Lupton1999} and the SDSS
215: standard star system \citep{Smith2002} provide further information
216: on the calibration of the SDSS photometric system. Astrometric
217: precision and data quality assurance are also described by \citet{Pier2003}
218: and \citet{Ivezic2004}.
219:
220: We assembled a catalog of stellar SDSS sources within the
221: calibration region from imaging data first made public as Data
222: Release 2 \citep{Abazajian2004}. SDSS stellar candidates satisfied the following criteria:
223:
224: \begin{itemize}
225: \item{SDSS astrometric location within 0.005 degrees (15-20 $\arcsec$) of
226: the calibration region (to allow matches for 2MASS objects whose proper
227: motion may have carried them slightly out of the calibration region by
228: the time of the SDSS imaging epoch);}
229: \item{observed during a run which passed basic data quality tests
230: (GOOD flag set);}
231: \item{object represents the primary detection in the
232: SDSS photometric database (PRIMARY flag set) to prevent multiple
233: detections from overlap areas between adjacent SDSS runs;}
234: \item{morphological identification as a point source (TYPE = 6).}
235: \item{$i$ and $z$ magnitudes above survey completeness limits
236: ($i <$ 21.1, $z <$ 20.3);}
237: \item{no photometric processing flaws to ensure accurate photometry
238: (SATURATED flag not set in either $r$, $i$ or $z$, PEAKCENTER flag
239: not set, NOTCHECKED flag not set, DEBLEND-NOPEAK flag not set for
240: an object with $i$ psf error $>$ 0.2 magnitudes, PSF-FLUX-INTERP
241: flag not set, BAD-COUNTS-ERROR flag not set, INTERP-CENTER and CR
242: flags not both set);}
243: \end{itemize}
244:
245: These selection criteria identified 76,966 high quality SDSS detections
246: of stellar candidates within this region; the last set of quality cuts removed
247: 1486 stellar candidates, or $\sim$1.9\% of the initial
248: stellar catalog.
249:
250: We note a subtle source of uncertainty in the SDSS $z$ band photometry
251: which may be of more importance for this study than for most other
252: uses of the SDSS database. Spectral synthesis of L and T dwarfs
253: (Burgasser, private communication)
254: indicates that slight differences in the spectral response of the
255: CCD detectors used for the $z$ band observations can introduce $z$
256: magnitude variations up to 0.1 mags for early L through late T dwarfs.
257: As we lack a robust characterization of this effect, and
258: the vast majority of our sample is composed of K and M dwarfs for
259: which this source of uncertainty is less important, we have not applied
260: any z-band corrections to the survey photometry.
261:
262: \subsubsection{Selecting GSC Stars \label{photsec:GSC}}
263:
264: The depth of the SDSS comes at the expense of a relatively faint
265: saturation limit of $i_{sat} \sim$ 14. This fixed apparent magnitude
266: limit imposes a lower limit on the distance to SDSS stars with good
267: photometric detections, and this distance limit is itself a function
268: of the absolute magnitude of the star. Typical M0 dwarfs within 100 parsecs
269: are saturated in SDSS imaging, for example, while M8 dwarfs only saturate in
270: $i$ for distances less than 10 parsecs.
271: The 2MASS faint limit, however, restricted our sample to objects
272: within 100 parsecs for objects of type M8 and later. Constructing
273: a luminosity function of stars
274: detected in both SDSS and 2MASS then required that early and late M
275: dwarfs be sampled from disjoint physical volumes. As the calibration
276: region is located at a Galactic latitude of -62 degrees, this could
277: potentially have introduced a bias in our analysis related to the scale
278: height of the Galactic disk.
279:
280: To include stars with saturated SDSS imaging in our catalog, we
281: made use of GSC (version 2.2) optical photometry. The GSC
282: \citep[][]{Space-Telescope-Science-Institute2001} is
283: based on scans of photographic plates from the Palomar and UK
284: Schmidt telescopes and provides star/galaxy morphological
285: classification from measurements of 500 million objects in
286: photographic $B_J$ \citep[as defined by][ $\lambda \sim$ 4500 \AA]{Reid1991}
287: and $R_F$ ($\lambda \sim$ 6500 \AA) to a completeness limit of $R_F \sim$ 18.5.
288:
289: We assembled a catalog of GSC (version 2.2) objects brighter
290: than a magnitude of 19.5 using the GSC data access
291: page\footnote{http://www-gsss.stsci.edu/support/data\_access.htm}, which
292: we searched for morphological point sources
293: (GSC Classification code $=$ 0). These criteria identified
294: 33,612 stellar candidates with GSC detections within
295: the calibration region.
296:
297: \subsection{Creating a Matched Sample \label{photsec:matching}}
298:
299: To generate a comprehensive optical/near-infrared catalog of calibration
300: region stars, we have merged the 2MASS, SDSS, and GSC
301: stellar samples into a single matched catalog. As 2MASS photometry
302: provides our only source of infrared observations, only objects with
303: 2MASS detections were retained. 2MASS stars were matched to SDSS and
304: GSC counterparts using a maximum matching radius of 5\arcsec.
305: We required unique matches -- if an optical source was a potential
306: counterpart for multiple NIR sources, only the closest association
307: was preserved.
308:
309: Of the 30,499 2MASS sources in the calibration region, 19,617 possessed
310: both SDSS and GSC stellar counterparts. An additional 5265 and 4608
311: 2MASS detections were identified with only a GSC or SDSS stellar
312: counterpart, respectively. The final 959 2MASS stellar candidates
313: ($\sim$ 3\% of the input 2MASS sample) were not matched to counterparts
314: in either optical catalog. Of these unmatched sources, 606 have 15.2 $< J <$ 16.3,
315: and 753 have $J < 16.3$; given the $J=16.2$ completeness limit of our catalog (see \S \ref{quality:completelimit}), this indicates that the bulk
316: of these unmatched sources lie at the faint end of our sample, but still are
317: confident detections. Visual analysis of SDSS imaging of the 753 $J < 16.3$
318: sources identified 73\% (550/753) as galaxies: these objects were unresolved
319: by 2MASS imaging, but resolved by the optical surveys, and were therefore
320: not contained in the SDSS and GSC stellar catalogs.
321:
322: The remaining 203 unmatched 2MASS sources brighter than $J=$ 16.3 were
323: stellar sources, dominated by sources too faint for the GSC catalog
324: and with sub-optimal SDSS photometry, and therefore excluded by the quality cuts described
325: in \S \ref{photsec:SDSS}. As these unmatched stellar sources represent
326: a possible source of incompleteness in our final sample, we explore
327: their properties in more detail in \S \ref{quality:completelimit}.
328:
329: \subsection{Recalibrating GSC Photometry \label{photsec:recalibrateGSC} }
330:
331: The 19,617 sources in common between the SDSS and GSC catalogs allowed an
332: assessment of zero point errors in the GSC data. We calculated synthetic GSC magnitudes
333: for SDSS sources using equations originally derived by
334: \citet{Sesar2006}, modified to account for local
335: zero-point offsets:
336:
337: \begin{equation}
338: \label{synjgsc}
339: B_{J,syn} = g + 0.279(g-r) + 0.06
340: \end{equation}
341:
342: \begin{equation}
343: \label{synfgsc}
344: R_{F,syn} = r - 0.209(g-r) - 0.09
345: \end{equation}
346:
347: The shape of the calibration region, 12 degrees wide in
348: right ascension and only 2.5 degrees across in declination, implies that
349: spatial gradients in imaging quality in right
350: ascension are more important than gradients in declination, an expectation borne out
351: in our dataset. The top panel of Figure \ref{photfig:rawresidualsra}
352: shows residuals between observed and synthetic GSC magnitudes as a function of
353: right ascension. Assuming that the digital, drift-scanned SDSS data
354: has a uniform zero point across the calibration region, these residuals
355: reflect changes in photographic sensitivity across POSS plates.
356: This expectation is supported by sharp discontinuities in the
357: residuals on 5 degree spatial scales, the size of the POSS
358: plates from which GSC magnitudes are measured.
359:
360: \begin{figure}
361: \centering
362: \includegraphics[height=4in]{f1.eps}
363: \caption[GSC residuals vs. RA]{Residuals of observed and synthetic
364: GSC $B_J$ magnitudes calculated from SDSS photometry as a function of $\alpha$ b
365: efore (top)
366: and after (bottom) recalibration with SDSS-based zero-points. The structure on
367: 5
368: degree spatial scales in the top panel suggests that GSC magnitudes, measured fr
369: om digitized
370: POSS plates 5 degrees in size, contain systematic zero-point errors of the same
371: order
372: as the random photometric errors. }
373: \label{photfig:rawresidualsra}
374: \end{figure}
375:
376: To correct for spatial variations in the GSC zero point, we
377: calculated the mean offset between synthetic and observed GSC
378: magnitudes in 0.25 degree bins of right ascension. Applying this offset
379: to all objects in that spatial bin produces recalibrated $B_J$ and
380: $R_F$ magnitudes, corrected for the presence of the known zero-point
381: error. Though these systematic zeropoint offsets are
382: largely a function of right ascension, we have also repeated this process
383: using 0.1 degrees bins in declination. The result of this
384: recalibration is illustrated in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{photfig:rawresidualsra}, which
385: shows that large scale spatial gradients in the residuals have been removed.
386:
387: We adopt characteristic errors for the recalibrated GSC magnitudes based
388: on the remaining residuals between the recalibrated and
389: synthetic GSC magnitudes. Gaussian errors with $\sigma=$0.13 accurately
390: describe the recalibrated $B_J$ residuals across the entirety
391: of the calibration region. The recalibrated $R_F$ residuals are
392: well described by a Gaussian distribution with $\sigma=$ 0.1
393: magnitudes for $\alpha >$ 8.2; at $ \alpha <$ 8.2, $\sigma \sim$0.15 is required
394: to fit the bulk of the sources, and a tail of sources with large errors
395: is still present. We thus conservatively assign errors of 0.2 magnitudes
396: to recalibrated $B_J$ magnitudes, and 0.15 magnitudes to
397: recalibrated $R_F$ magnitudes. Given the increased
398: uncertainty of the $R_F$ magnitudes for $\alpha <$ 8.2 degrees,
399: we rely largely on
400: $B_J$ magnitudes in conducting our analysis.
401:
402: \subsection{Synthetic SDSS/2MASS Colors for GSC Sources \label{photsec:synthsdss}}
403:
404: Measuring the luminosity and mass functions from photometric observations
405: of the Galactic field requires the adoption of a color-magnitude relation
406: to estimate the absolute magnitude, and ultimately mass, of each star.
407: We used $i-J$ for this purpose, as \citet{Hawley2002} have demonstrated
408: that this color is a monotonic indicator of spectral type, and therefore
409: temperature and luminosity, for late type dwarfs.
410:
411: To create a sample of uniform $i-J$ colors for the
412: full photometric sample, we derived synthetic $i-J$ colors for
413: objects with observed $B_J-J$ colors. Figure \ref{photfig:jjij}
414: shows the $B_J-J$ and $i-J$ colors for sources detected in
415: both optical surveys. Interpolating the $B_J-J$ colors of
416: our sample onto the median trend of $i-J$ as a function of
417: $B_J-J$, we assigned each GSC/2MASS object that lacked bona fide
418: SDSS data a synthetic $i-J$ color. We estimated errors by
419: combining in quadrature photometric uncertainties in $B_J-J$
420: and the dispersion of the $B_J-J$ vs. $i-J$ relation.
421:
422: \begin{figure}
423: \centering
424: \includegraphics[height=3in]{f2.ps}
425: \caption[The $B_J-J$ vs. $i-J$ relation]{$B_J-J$ and $i-J$
426: colors for objects observed in both optical catalogs shown as black
427: points and contours. The median $i-J$ colors measured for 0.1 magnitude
428: bins of $B_J-J$ color are shown as triangles; the dashed line shows
429: the function used to assign synthetic $i-J$ colors as a function of
430: $B_J-J$ color to sources that lack SDSS data (e.g., saturated).}
431: \label{photfig:jjij}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: Using the same methodology, we also derived synthetic $i-z$
435: and $r-i$ colors for all GSC sources with $B_J-J$ colors.
436: For GSC sources with only $R_F$ magnitudes, we calculated the
437: full suite of synthetic SDSS colors ($i-J$, $r-i$, $i-z$) using
438: the same technique as applied to observed $R_F-J$ colors. This
439: minimizes the impact of the poorly recalibrated $R_F$ photometry
440: on our sample: only 232 objects are detected only in $R_F$; all
441: other sources have either native SDSS colors or synthetic colors
442: generated from an observed $B_J-J$ color.
443:
444: \section{Spectroscopic Sample}
445: \label{specsec:overall}
446:
447: We assembled an
448: extensive database of follow-up spectroscopy to test
449: for contamination (e.g., background giants, mis-identified QSOs, etc.) and
450: bias (e.g., systemic misclassification of numerous M2 dwarfs as rarer M6
451: dwarfs due to dim, noisy photometry) in our photometrically selected sample of
452: low-mass stars.
453:
454: \subsection{SDSS Spectroscopy\label{specsec:SDSS}}
455:
456: SDSS spectroscopic observations were made with twin fiber-fed
457: spectrographs, covering wavelengths from 3800\AA\ to 9200\AA\
458: with a spectral resolution
459: of $\lambda/\Delta\lambda$ $\sim$ 1800. Each
460: fiber was 3\arcsec~in diameter and plugged into a
461: pre-drilled metal plate allowing observations across the 3 degree field of
462: view of the SDSS telescope. A single plate accomodated 640 fibers, with
463: 320 going to each spectrograph. The SDSS spectroscopic pipeline performed
464: automated data reduction, producing flux calibrated spectra
465: corrected for telluric absorption.
466:
467: Each autumn, when the North Galactic Cap was completely inaccessable from
468: Apache Point Observatory, SDSS-I focused its attention on an
469: area along the celestial equator known as the Southern Equatorial Stripe,
470: or Stripe 82. The observational projects conducted in Stripe 82
471: with the SDSS instruments during the autumn observing seasons included
472: repeat imaging to allow investigations of SDSS data quality and to conduct
473: time variability studies, as well as stand-alone observing programs proposed
474: by collaboration scientists which had different targeting algorithms and data
475: quality benchmarks than standard survey operations. Data products generated by these
476: observing programs were released as part of DR4, and are described
477: in more detail by \citet{Adelman-McCarthy2006}.
478:
479: These additional datasets motivated us to place our calibration region
480: in Stripe 82, as they contain thousands of stars with spectroscopic observations.
481: Particularly useful to us were the SLoMaSS and `Spectra of Everything' samples, described in
482: full by \citet{Bochanski2007} and \citet{Vanden-Berk2005}.
483: We identified stars in our sample with SDSS spectra using
484: a 2\arcsec~matching
485: radius between the position of each spectral fiber
486: and the 2MASS position of each photometric object.
487: Due largely to the two observing programs mentioned above,
488: 10,784 stars in the calibration region, or more than
489: a third of our matched sample, have an SDSS spectrum.
490:
491: \subsection{Complete Observations}
492:
493: For two areas within the calibration region, covering
494: one square degree in total, we acquired complete
495: spectroscopic samples of low-mass stellar candidates. We
496: refer to these areas as `complete region 1' (4.19 $< \alpha <$ 5.32,
497: -1.04 $< \delta <$ -0.58) and `complete region 2'
498: (11.68 $< \alpha <$ 12.31, -0.24 $< \delta <$ +0.8), and
499: the union of the two as the `main complete' sample.
500: The `main complete' samples include candidate
501: late type dwarfs satisfying the following criteria:
502:
503: \begin{itemize}
504: \item{2MASS astrometric positions within the boundaries
505: of complete region 1 or 2;}
506:
507: \item{2MASS photometry meeting the criteria expressed in \S
508: \ref{photsec:2MASS}, and $J <$ 16;}
509:
510: \item{SDSS or GSC counterparts meeting the
511: selection criteria outlined in \S \ref{photsec:SDSS} or \ref{photsec:GSC};}
512:
513: \item{Identification as a candidate late-type dwarf by one
514: of the following two color-color cuts:
515:
516: \begin{itemize}
517:
518: \item{SDSS counterparts satisfying an $r-i > 0.6 -1.9(i-z)$
519: color-cut, encompassing the typical colors of late-type dwarfs
520: identified by \cite{Hawley2002};}
521:
522: \item{Objects lacking a high-quality SDSS counterpart but identified
523: as candidate late-type dwarfs with a synthetic $i-J >$ 1.2 color cut.
524: These candidates were only targeted in complete
525: region 2, where the GSC photometry underpinning the synthetic $i-J$ color
526: is most reliable.}
527:
528: \end{itemize}}
529:
530: \end{itemize}
531:
532: These cuts identified 536 targets for spectroscopic follow-up from
533: an initial sample of 978 2MASS objects within the complete regions.
534: The bulk of these objects (503) had SDSS counterparts meeting the
535: criteria outlined in \S \ref{photsec:SDSS} for inclusion in this
536: sample; a smaller number (33) had photometric flaws
537: in SDSS, and we therefore resorted to synthethic, GSC-based magnitudes
538: to characterize them.
539:
540: To increase the statistics of this sample at the reddest
541: colors, we expanded our criteria to cover larger areas of the sky,
542: targeting candidates meeting the criteria for inclusion in
543: `extended red' and `super red' samples. Candidates in these samples
544: met the following criteria:
545:
546: \begin{itemize}
547: \item{2MASS photometry meeting the criteria expressed in
548: \S \ref{photsec:2MASS};}
549: \item{Color and astrometric cuts:
550: \begin{itemize}
551: \item{the `extended red' sample contains objects with 2MASS
552: positions within -1.25 $< \delta$ $<$ 1.25 and 4 $< \alpha$ $<$ 6.5 or
553: 11.5 $< \alpha$ $<$ 14, and $i-z >$ 0.9,
554: $i-J >$ 2.4 and $J <$ 15.8.}
555: \item{the `super red' sample contains objects with 2MASS positions
556: within the area defined by 3 $< \alpha$ $<$ 15 and
557: -1.25 $< \delta$ $<$ 1.25, and $i-J >$ 2.8 and $J <$ 16.}
558: \end{itemize}}
559: \end{itemize}
560:
561: The union of the `main complete', `extended red', and `super red'
562: samples is a set of 672 candidate dwarf stars, of which 131
563: required spectroscopic observations with the ARC 3.5m telescope at APO. Table \ref{tab:selectcomplete}
564: documents the construction of each of these samples, listing the number of 2MASS sources
565: that fell within the boundaries of each complete sample, the number that matched to SDSS and
566: GSC sources, along with the subset that met the criteria for spectroscopic
567: observation, and finally the number of 2MASS point sources with no point source
568: counterpart in either SDSS or GSC. Table \ref{tab:completespecs} breaks down the sources of the spectra
569: in each sub-sample.
570:
571: \begin{deluxetable*}{l || c || cc | cc | c }
572: \tablewidth{0pt}
573: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
574: \tablecaption{Selecting the Complete Samples \label{tab:selectcomplete} }
575: \tablehead{
576: \colhead{Sample} &
577: \colhead{2MASS sources} &
578: \multicolumn{2}{c |}{SDSS counterpart} &
579: \multicolumn{2}{c |}{GSC counterpart} &
580: \colhead{No optical} \\
581: \colhead{} &
582: \colhead{in footprint} &
583: \colhead{Total} &
584: \colhead{Spectra} &
585: \colhead{Total} &
586: \colhead{Spectra} &
587: \colhead{counterpart} }
588: \startdata
589: Main Complete & 978 & 765 & 503 & 201 & 33 & 12 \\
590: Extended Red & 9654 & 7382 & 101 & 2182 & 3 & 90 \\
591: Super Red & 20499 & 15957 & 32 & 4246 & 0 & 296 \\
592: \enddata
593: \end{deluxetable*}
594:
595: \begin{deluxetable}{l | cccr}
596: \tablewidth{0pt}
597: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
598: \tablecaption{Spectroscopic Observations \label{tab:completespecs}}
599: \tablehead{
600: \colhead{Sample} &
601: \colhead{SLoMaSS} &
602: \colhead{Misc. SDSS} &
603: \colhead{APO} &
604: \colhead{Visually} \\
605: \colhead{Sample} &
606: \colhead{Spectra} &
607: \colhead{Spectra} &
608: \colhead{Spectra} &
609: \colhead{Rejected} }
610: \startdata
611: Main Complete & 421 & 15 & 100 & 0 \\
612: Extended Red & 73 & 12 & 19 & 0 \\
613: Super Red & 7 & 10 & 12 & 3 \\
614: Other & 7354 & 2892 & 60 & 0 \\
615: \hline
616: TOTAL & 7855 & 2929 & 191 & 3
617: \enddata
618: \end{deluxetable}
619:
620: Finally, we note that SDSS spectra exist for many stars in Stripe 82
621: outside the boundaries of the complete regions, and 60 ARC 3.5m spectra were also
622: obtained prior to the definition of the boundaries of the complete regions. We
623: include these incompletely (though still densely) sampled
624: sources in Table \ref{tab:completespecs} under the
625: `Other' category, and used them to provide additional constraints
626: on the quality of the photometric sample.
627:
628: Using the Dual Imaging Spectrograph (DIS) on the ARC 3.5 meter telescope
629: at Apache Point Observatory, we obtained spectra of 191 candidate
630: late type dwarfs in the calibration region that lacked SDSS spectra.
631: The DIS spectrograph simultaneously and independently records spectra
632: at blue and red
633: optical wavelengths using a dichroic beamsplitter centered at 5550 \AA.
634: Our observations used the `low' blue and
635: `medium' red gratings and a 1.5 arcsecond (3 pixel) slit, providing
636: wavelength coverage from 3800 \AA~~to 8700 \AA~~with a typical spectral
637: resolution of $\sim$ 700 in the blue and $\sim$ 1000 in the red.
638: Each DIS spectrum was reduced with a reduction script written in
639: Pyraf, the Python-based command language for the Image Reduction and
640: Analysis Facility\footnote{PyRAF is a product of the Space Telescope
641: Science Institute, which is operated by AURA for NASA. IRAF is
642: distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which
643: are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
644: Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science
645: Foundation.}. All spectra were
646: trimmed, overscan and bias corrected, cleaned of cosmic rays, flat
647: fielded, extracted, dispersion corrected, and flux calibrated using
648: standard IRAF tasks.
649:
650: \section{Quality Checks \label{QualityChecks}}
651:
652: Measuring the luminosity and mass functions of
653: low-mass stars from a purely photometric catalog
654: requires a sample of the utmost quality. In particular, past
655: efforts have often been waylaid by the effects of incompleteness
656: (failing to detect all stars within the adopted completeness limit),
657: contamination (incorporating objects other than main sequence
658: late-type dwarfs in the photometrically selected sample), and bias
659: (color-dependent errors in detection efficiency or source classification).
660: We used our photometric and spectroscopic observations to
661: constrain the impact of these effects on our sample.
662:
663: \subsection{Completeness \label{quality:completelimit}}
664:
665: Incompleteness in our sample would lead to a systematic underestimate
666: of the true physical density of stars in the Galaxy. Given the relative
667: depths of the 2MASS and SDSS surveys, and the optical/NIR colors
668: typical of low-mass stars, the inclusion of stars in our final
669: sample depends primarily on the 2MASS sensitivity at faint
670: magnitudes. This expectation is borne out by the results of the
671: catalog matching described in \S \ref{photsec:matching}; the vast majority
672: ( $> 99\%$) of 2MASS detections match to an optical
673: counterpart. The few which do not match, however, represent a
674: second possible source of incompleteness in our final matched sample.
675: Below we describe tests of the completeness of our sample, performed by
676: empirically deriving the faint limit of 2MASS in the calibration region and
677: studying the population of unmatched NIR sources.
678:
679: \subsubsection{The Completeness Limit of the 2MASS survey \label{photsec:completefaint}}
680:
681: \indent The canonical 2MASS 99\% completeness limit is $J = 15.9$
682: \citep{2MASSexplanatorystatement}, applicable over the entirety of the
683: 2MASS catalog except in areas where source confusion is the primary cause
684: of non-detections. As the calibration region probes high ( $|b| > 50$)
685: Galactic latitudes, stellar density is low enough that observational sensitivity
686: is the main source of incompleteness.
687: Variations in seeing, airglow intensity, and system
688: zeropoints, however, result in individual 2MASS tiles possessing true
689: completeness limits up to a magnitude fainter than the canonical value.
690: Deeper SDSS observations, however, allow a direct measurement of the
691: magnitude at which 2MASS becomes incomplete.
692:
693: To test the completeness limit of 2MASS in the calibration region,
694: added an estimate of each star's $i-J$ color, derived from a least
695: squares quadratic fit to the median $i-J$ vs. $i-z$ relation
696: for sources with both SDSS and 2MASS detections, to their measured
697: $i$ magnitudes, producing a synthetic $J$ magnitude ($J_{syn}$) for
698: each SDSS star. Comparing $J_{syn}$ to the actual $J$ magnitude observed
699: from bona fide 2MASS detections revealed that $J_{syn}$ is accurate to
700: within $\sim$ 0.1 magnitudes (median error = 0.05 magnitudes, $\sigma =
701: $0.13 magnitudes).
702:
703: Figure \ref{photfig:completeness} compares the distribution of
704: $J$ magnitudes measured in the matched 2MASS/SDSS sample with the
705: distribution of $J_{syn}$ values estimated for all SDSS sources in
706: the calibration region, demonstrating that the matched 2MASS/SDSS sample
707: becomes incomplete at $J =$ 16.3. Given the $\sim$ 0.1 mag. uncertainties in
708: $J_{syn}$, we select $J=$ 16.2 as a conservative estimate of the 2MASS
709: completeness limit in the calibration region.
710:
711: \begin{figure}
712: \centering
713: \includegraphics[height=3.5in]{f3.ps}
714: \caption[Examining 2MASS completeness limits]{Top: The number
715: of 2MASS sources detected in the calibration region (solid black line)
716: vs. $J$ magnitude compared to the number predicted on the basis of SDSS detectio
717: ns
718: (dotted line). Bottom: As above, focusing on the faint limit of the
719: 2MASS survey. Indicated are the adopted $J=$16.2 2MASS completeness
720: limit (dot-dashed line), and the number of 2MASS sources matched to optical coun
721: terparts
722: (dashed line). The presence of faint 2MASS `orphans' is revealed by
723: the gap between the solid and dashed lines; these sources are
724: discussed in \S \ref{photsec:unmatched}.}
725: \label{photfig:completeness}
726: \end{figure}
727:
728: Applying a $J <$16.2 completeness limit to our catalog reduced the
729: number of 2MASS stellar candidates to 26,585. Of these candidates,
730: 20,869 matched to SDSS counterparts and 23,099 matched to GSC
731: counterparts, with 18,012 candidates matched to counterparts in both
732: catalouges.
733:
734: \subsubsection{Understanding Unmatched 2MASS sources \label{photsec:unmatched}}
735:
736: \indent The 753 2MASS sources in the calibration region with J$ <$ 16.3 and
737: no optical counterpart represent a second potential
738: source of incompleteness.
739: To understand the nature of these unmatched sources, we visually
740: inspected their SDSS and 2MASS imaging.
741: As noted previously in \S \ref{photsec:matching}, 550 were galaxies; these objects correctly had no
742: counterpart in our optical catalogs of point sources.
743: Of the remaining 203, only 11 appear to be spurious 2MASS detections:
744: nine due to the mistaken identification of a bright star's diffraction
745: spike as an independent photometric object, and two due to identifying
746: random sky noise fluctuations as objects.
747:
748: The remaining 192 objects appear to be genuine detections of point sources,
749: but whose SDSS counterpart does not meet the quality cuts discussed in
750: \S \ref{photsec:SDSS}. Table \ref{tab:flags} summarizes the
751: photometric flaws preventing 2MASS sources from matching to optical
752: counterparts in the SDSS catalog. We exhaustively investigated these
753: unmatched stars, and provide a brief summary of the most relevant details below. Curious readers can find a full description of this inquiry presented in
754: \citet{Covey2006a}.
755:
756: \begin{deluxetable}{lc}
757: \tablewidth{0pt}
758: \tabletypesize{\small}
759: \tablecaption{SDSS Flags For Counterparts of Unmatched 2MASS Sources\label{tab:flags}}
760: %
761: \tablehead{
762: \colhead{Stars Affected} &
763: \colhead{Photometric Flaw} }
764: \startdata
765:
766: 73 & SATURATED \\
767: 53 & PSF-FLUX-INTERP \\
768: 22 & dubious GALAXY classification \\
769: 17 & NOTCHECKED \\
770: 13 & not PRIMARY \\
771: 8 & PEAKCENTER \\
772: 3 & INTERPCENTER \\
773: 2 & undetected by PHOTO \\
774: 1 & satellite track \\
775: \hline
776: 9 & 2MASS diffraction spike \\
777: 2 & 2MASS false detections \\
778: \enddata
779: \end{deluxetable}
780:
781:
782: SDSS counterparts for 73 of the 192 unmatched stars were eliminated
783: from our sample due to the SATURATED flag being set; counter-intuitively, these
784: were typically faint stars, but located within the PSF wings of a
785: saturated star. The bulk of the remaining unmatched 2MASS sources
786: possessed SDSS counterparts with substandard imaging, either due to
787: random noise (cosmic rays) or instrumental effects
788: (landing on a bad CCD column, etc).
789: These flaws, indicated by the PSF-FLUX-INTERP, NOTCHECKED, PEAKCENTER,
790: and INTERPCENTER flags, accounted for another 81 of the 192 2MASS stars
791: unable to match to their SDSS counterpart. The remaining 38 sources were
792: excluded either
793: because PHOTO identified them as extended objects (often affecting members
794: of a marginally resolved visual binary), because they were
795: subject to extremely rare photometric errors (sources eluding
796: identification by PHOTO, or contamination of the star's PSF by the path
797: of a satellite).
798:
799: The Guide Star Catalog, an independent set of optical measurements, should
800: protect against the loss of stars from the sample
801: due to SDSS photometric errors. Sub-standard DR4 photometry
802: indicates that the majority of these sources (114/186) are too dim
803: ($r <$ 18.5) to be properly detected in the Guide Star Catalog.
804: The remaining 72 sources are typically bona fide bright stars or
805: close binaries with a marginally saturated component -- the saturation
806: contaminates both SDSS detections, while the pair is unresolved in GSC
807: imaging.
808:
809: The tendency for unmatched 2MASS sources to possess faint and red
810: counterparts in substandard SDSS photometry suggests our matching
811: algorithm may be biased against the latest type stars. To quantify
812: this effect, we compared $i-J$ colors for sources with substandard
813: SDSS detections to those of the full SDSS/2MASS matched sample.
814: Sources with substandard SDSS detections are
815: skewed towards redder $i-J$ colors than the full SDSS/2MASS sample,
816: but represent less than 6\% of all sources
817: for all but the reddest colors ($i-J \sim$ 2.6, where small number statistics [n$_{stars}$/bin=3] dominate).
818:
819: From this analysis, we conclude that the sample is
820: more than 99\% complete to $J=16.2$, and more than 94\% complete
821: for every color where $i-J <$ 2.6. Photometric flaws in
822: SDSS imaging marginally affect the completeness of faint sources
823: without GSC counterparts; coupled with the NIR magnitude limit
824: of this sample, this effect may introduce a small color-dependent
825: bias into our sample, such that we underestimate the true density of the
826: reddest stars at the 20\% level.
827:
828: \subsection{Spectroscopic Quality Tests}
829:
830: Using the spectroscopic catalog described in Section \ref{specsec:overall},
831: we placed empirical limits on the contamination of our
832: photometric catalog by objects other than low-mass dwarf stars.
833: Additionally, we tested for bias within our sample,
834: ensuring that photometric colors accurately predict
835: spectral types (and thus luminosities
836: and masses) of late type dwarfs in our catalog. Unresolved binary
837: systems represent a particularly important source of bias for
838: this study, and as such we discuss them separately in \S \ref{sec:lf}.
839:
840: \subsubsection{Identifying Exotic Contaminants}
841:
842: We began our spectroscopic analysis by assigning spectral types to each
843: spectrum, using the `Hammer' spectral typing software.
844: This set of IDL routines uses 28 spectral indices to
845: estimate the spectral type of an input spectrum, and then allows the user
846: to modify the assigned type via visual comparison to a grid of dwarf
847: standards. The automated spectral typing algorithm has been tested
848: with template spectra degraded to S/N $\sim 4$, returning results
849: accurate to $\pm$ 2 subclasses. Tests of spectral types
850: interactively assigned by multiple users agree to within one subclass.
851: For a full description of the Hammer algorithm, we refer
852: readers to appendix A of \citet{Covey2007}\footnote{The Hammer has been made
853: available for community use and can be downloaded from
854: \url{http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/$\sim$kcovey/thehammer}, and/or from
855: the tarfile provided by \citet{Covey2007} to the \textit{AJ} to be archived with
856: the electronic edition of their article}.
857:
858: Using the Hammer, we assigned spectral types to the vast majority of the
859: spectra in our sample. Of the 669 spectra in the Main Complete, Extended Red,
860: and Super Red spectroscopic samples, only one object could not be
861: confidently assigned a stellar spectral type; it contained spectral
862: features from both a white dwarf and an M dwarf component. These
863: unresolved white dwarf-M dwarf (WDMD) binary systems
864: have proven to be relatively
865: abundant in the SDSS spectroscopic database \citep{Silvestri2006}.
866:
867: Similarly, of the 9649 sparsely sampled spectra with counterparts brighter than $J$ = 16.2,
868: all but 24 were assigned stellar spectral types.
869: Of the 24 non-stellar spectra, three were too noisy to confidently
870: estimate a spectral type, and seven revealed additional WDMD pairs.
871: The remaining 14 spectra revealed more
872: exotic contaminants: four carbon stars, six unresolved galaxy populations
873: (i.e, galactic bulges or clusters), and four QSOs. The QSOs, as well
874: as the seven WDMD pairs, fall within the $u-g <$ 1 and
875: $g-r <$ 1.1 region that contains more than 95\% of the QSOs in the
876: SDSS Quasar Catalog \citep{Schneider2005}. The galactic
877: populations and carbon stars lie within the stellar locus, unidentifiable
878: by photometry alone. Extending our analysis to the 1326 additional
879: spectra fainter than $J$ = 16.2 revealed 11 more objects without
880: stellar spectral types. The majority (nine) of these objects were QSOs,
881: while two objects were simply too noisy to confidently assign a spectral type.
882:
883: In total, analysis of the 10,975 spectra within our sample revealed 35
884: objects which cannot be assigned a stellar spectral type, implying a global
885: contamination rate of 0.3\% for our matched sample. More than half (20/35)
886: of these exotic contaminants, however, can be eliminated by restricting
887: our sample to objects outside the $u-g <$ 1 and $g-r <$ 1.1 region.
888: Similarly, \citet{Ivezic2002} identified a $g-i$ vs. $i-K_s$
889: color-color cut which can also help to distinguish stars from QSOs.
890:
891: \subsubsection{$i-J_{2MASS}$ as a Spectral Type Indicator}
892:
893: Figure \ref{fig:SpecTypeAccuracy} displays spectral types
894: of stars in our sample as a function of $i-J$ color.
895: Consistent with previous studies
896: \citep{Hawley2002,West2005}, we found that $i-J$
897: predicts spectral type reliably in the M and K spectral classes. The typical
898: spread of $i-J$ at a given spectral type is $\sim$ 0.1 mag, though there
899: is a slight color dependence; the standard deviation of $i-J$
900: increases from 0.07 mag for G5 stars to 0.12 mag for M3 stars.
901:
902: \begin{figure}
903: \centering
904: \includegraphics[height=2in]{f4.eps}
905: \caption[Spectral types vs. $i-J$ color]{Assigned spectral types
906: as a function of photometric $i-J$ color (either directly measured
907: from SDSS/2MASS photometry, or transformed from GSC/2MASS photometry).
908: Grey diamonds denote all calibration region objects with spectra and $J <$ 16.2,
909: while black circles indicate members of the complete spectroscopic samples.
910: The dashed line demonstrates a cut to identify sources whose photometry
911: and spectral types disagree significantly.}
912: \label{fig:SpecTypeAccuracy}
913: \end{figure}
914:
915: While the vast majority of the sample shows a well-behaved color vs.
916: spectral type relation, there are stars with $i-J$ colors
917: significantly redder than other stars of the same spectral type. For
918: our purposes, stars with late K and early M
919: spectral types but $i-J$ colors typical of late M and early L
920: types are of the most concern. With only a small number
921: of bona-fide late M and early L type objects in our sample,
922: consistently misclassifying even a small fraction
923: of the earlier type stars could significantly inflate the
924: luminosity and mass functions at the lowest masses.
925:
926: To investigate the cause of these color/spectral type discrepancies,
927: we inspected 20 sources with $i-J$ colors significantly redder than other
928: stars of the same spectral type (this cut is shown as a dashed line in
929: Figure \ref{fig:SpecTypeAccuracy}). Four of these sources were
930: early type F and G stars that saturated the SDSS, and their
931: anomalous $i-J$ colors, more typical of late K/early M stars, are likely due to the
932: larger errors of synthetic $i-J$ colors calculated from GSC photometry.
933: Given the large number of
934: bona fide late-K/early-M objects in our sample, and the low incidence of
935: mis-classified saturated SDSS stars (4/10,940 stars in the complete
936: spectroscopic sample), this effect will have a negligible
937: impact on our analysis.
938:
939: The remaining 16 sources with anomalous $i-J$ colors are
940: due to difficulties in properly associating SDSS and 2MASS sources
941: into a matched catalog. One such mismatch is SMSS (Sloan M Star Survey) J003716.5+000106.4;
942: with the PSF-FLUX-INTERP flag set in the SDSS detection of this object, our
943: algorithm incorrectly identifies a nearby faint star as
944: this object's SDSS counterpart, resulting in a non-physical
945: matched detection with an extremely red $i-J$ color.
946: Due to the differing spatial resolutions of
947: the two surveys, visual binaries with small ($\le 1.5\arcsec$)
948: separations were often resolved into distinct objects by SDSS, but not
949: by 2MASS. This scenario also results in an anamolously red $i-J$ color, as
950: the $i$ band flux is being derived from a single component of
951: the system, while the $J$ band flux is the sum of both components.
952:
953: Given the relative scarcity of objects with true $i-J$ colors $\ge 3$,
954: these mismatches could artificially double the number of objects
955: in the reddest bins of our luminosity and mass functions. We
956: eliminated such mismatches from our sample, however, by requiring that
957: the SDSS and SDSS/2MASS properties of each detection
958: are self-consistent.
959: Figure \ref{ijcut} shows a simple $i-z$ vs.
960: $i-J$ color cut ($i-z$ $<$ $i-J$*0.574 - 0.738; $i-z$ $<$ 1.5)
961: that we used to remove these mismatches from our sample.
962:
963: \begin{figure}
964: \centering
965: \includegraphics[height=2in]{f5.ps}
966: \caption[Identifying mimatches in the $i-z$ vs. $i-J$ color-color
967: diagram]{Mismatched SDSS and 2MASS detections in $i-z$ vs. $i-J$
968: color-color space. Black points
969: and greyscale contours show the colors of the entire photometric
970: sample. Sources identified in the full spectroscopic sample
971: as possessing discrepant $i-J$ colors and spectral types are shown
972: with nested black and white diamonds. Sources with discrepant $i-J$ colors
973: and spectral types that fall in the middle of the $i-z$ vs. $i-J$ stellar locus
974: typically lack reliable SDSS detections, and have synthetic $i-J$
975: and $i-z$ colors estimated from GSC photometry and are thus consistent
976: with the stellar locus by construction. Sources with $i-J$ colors
977: redward of the dashed line are likely mismatches, and are shown as
978: filled circles.}
979: \label{ijcut}
980: \end{figure}
981:
982: \subsubsection{Kinematically Selected Subdwarf Candidates \label{specsec:kinematicsubdwarfs}}
983:
984: We estimated the number of subdwarfs in our
985: photometric sample by identifying objects with proper
986: motions indicative of halo kinematics. Such objects can be found
987: photometrically using the reduced proper motion,
988:
989: \begin{equation}
990: \label{reducedpropermotion.eq}
991: H_r = r + 5 + 5 log \mu
992: \end{equation}
993:
994: \noindent for a star with magnitude $r$ and proper motion $\mu$,
995: expressed in arc seconds per year.
996: Preliminary proper motions measured from the USNO-B
997: and SDSS catalogs produce the reduced proper
998: motion diagram shown in Figure \ref{reducedpropermotion}
999: for objects in the calibration region with
1000: SDSS counterparts and $>$ 3 $\sigma$ detections of proper
1001: motion \citep[corresponding to a proper motion limit of 1
1002: \arcsec/century; ][]{Munn2004}, or more than a third of the objects in the photometric
1003: sample (12022/30449). The disk population dominates
1004: this diagram, but a spur of objects with reduced proper motions
1005: lying significantly below the disk locus is clearly seen.
1006: We isolated candidate subdwarfs within this spur as objects
1007: with ($r-i$) $>$ 0.1 and H$_r >$ 13.86 + 6.666*($r-i$),
1008: identifying 0.5\% (69/12022) of SDSS/2MASS
1009: objects with well-measured proper motions as candidate
1010: subdwarfs.
1011:
1012: \begin{figure}
1013: \centering
1014: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{f6.ps}
1015: \caption[Subdwarf Candidates in an SDSS reduced proper
1016: motion diagram]{Reduced proper motion (H$_{r}$) vs. $r-i$
1017: for calibration region stars with SDSS colors and
1018: $\mu >$ 1\arcsec/century. Objects with thin/thick disk
1019: kinematics are shown as black points and contours;
1020: subdwarf candidates are highlighted with open circles.
1021: The ($r-i$) $>$ 0.1 and H$_r >$ 13.86 + 6.666*($r-i$)
1022: subdwarf selection criteria is shown as a dashed line.}
1023: \label{reducedpropermotion}
1024: \end{figure}
1025:
1026: The colors of these candidates butress their status as
1027: subdwarf candidates. These kinematically
1028: selected candidate subdwarfs are $\sim$ 0.1 mag.
1029: bluer in $u-g$ than typical dwarfs
1030: with similar $g-r$ colors, consistent with the $U-B$
1031: `ultraviolet excess' previously observed for subdwarfs \citep[see][Figure 2]{Bessell1979}.
1032: The 10 coolest ($r-i >$ 0.55) candidate subdwarfs also
1033: show a redward shift in $g-r$, consistent with the trend
1034: observed by \citet{West2004} in their sample of
1035: spectroscopically selected SDSS candidate subdwarfs.
1036:
1037: We note that the 0.5\% subdwarf contamination
1038: rate implied by this kinematically selected sample
1039: overestimates the fraction of subdwarfs
1040: present in our sample. The large space velocities
1041: of subdwarfs make them more likely than slower moving
1042: disk dwarfs to fulfill a 3 $\sigma$ cut on proper
1043: motion. Indeed, our 0.5\% subdwarf contamination
1044: rate implies a local normalization of the disk and
1045: halo populations at the 200:1 level, a factor of
1046: two larger than the accepted value \citep{Reid2000}.
1047:
1048: \subsubsection{Spectroscopically Identified Subdwarf Candidates}
1049:
1050: M subdwarfs can
1051: also be identified by comparing the strength of
1052: metallicity sensitive spectral features, such
1053: as CaH and TiO \citep{Gizis1997}. Unfortunately, no similarly
1054: broad features exist to identify G and K
1055: subdwarfs with spectra of moderate resolution
1056: and signal-to-noise \citep{Morell1988}.
1057:
1058: We identified late-type subdwarfs in
1059: our sample by measuring the TiO5 and CaH2 indices
1060: defined by \citet{Reid1995} for our spectroscopic
1061: sample. The resulting TiO5 vs. CaH2 diagram is
1062: shown in Figure \ref{tio5cah2}, along with the
1063: polynomial fit defined by \citet{Gizis1997} to
1064: select M type subdwarfs. Detailed abundance
1065: analyses by \citet{Woolf2005a} suggest that
1066: the subdwarf boundary defined by \citet{Gizis1997}
1067: identifies late type stars with [Fe/H] $\sim$ -0.5
1068: dex or below.
1069:
1070: \begin{figure}
1071: \centering
1072: \includegraphics[height=2in]{f7.ps}
1073: \caption[Tio5 vs. CaH2 Index plot]{Measurements of the
1074: TiO5 and CaH2 indices defined by \citet{Reid1995}.
1075: Black points and grayscale
1076: contours show the values measured from the
1077: subset of our sample with spectroscopic observations.
1078: The dashed line shows the
1079: boundary defined by \citet{Gizis1997} to separate
1080: subdwarfs from solar metallicity stars.
1081: Objects identified as candidate subdwarfs by this
1082: cut are shown as asterisks.}
1083: \label{tio5cah2}
1084: \end{figure}
1085:
1086: Within the full spectroscopic sample,
1087: 41 stars were identified as candidate subdwarfs
1088: by their TiO5 vs. CaH2 ratio. Visual inspection led us
1089: to discard 22 of these sources with noisy or flawed spectra,
1090: leaving 19 candidate low metallicity M dwarfs. Of
1091: 546 M stars in the complete spectroscopic sample,
1092: only one was identified as a candidate late
1093: type subdwarf, representing an M star subdwarf
1094: contamination rate of 0.18\%. Similarly, of the
1095: 7593 M stars in the full spectroscopic
1096: sample, the 19 candidate late type subdwarfs
1097: represent a 0.25\% contamination rate.
1098: Combining these results with the $\sim$0.5\% subdwarf fraction
1099: implied by the kinematic analysis in \S \ref{specsec:kinematicsubdwarfs},
1100: it appears that subdwarf/halo stars make up less than 0.75\%
1101: percent of a matched SDSS/2MASS sample of late-type
1102: stars.
1103:
1104: \subsubsection{Giant Stars}
1105:
1106: Evolved stars, with effective temperatures and
1107: colors similar to main sequence stars,
1108: represent a particularly important source of
1109: contaminantion to a photometric catalog of main
1110: sequence stars. Since giants are much more luminous
1111: than dwarfs, a given flux limit for observational
1112: detection implies a larger distance limit
1113: for giants than for main sequence dwarfs of the same color;
1114: effective distance limits for giants are typically 50 times
1115: larger, such that a survey is sensitive to giants over
1116: a volume more than 100,000 times greater than that for
1117: dwarf stars. Thus, while the absolute space density of giants is low,
1118: they can make up a significant component of a magnitude
1119: limited sample of point sources.
1120:
1121: \citet{Bessell1988} and \citet{Worthey2006} have
1122: identified the $JHK_s$ and $VIK_s$ color spaces (see their
1123: Figs. 5 and 4, respectively)
1124: as particularly useful for separating late-type
1125: dwarfs and giants. Given the size of the expected
1126: $JHK$ color shifts ($\sim$0.2 mag) relative to the
1127: accuracy of the 2MASS photometry, we can only draw
1128: the general conclusion that the sample is dominated by dwarf stars;
1129: in our sample, $J-H$ becomes noticably bluer redward of $H-K_s \sim 0.15$,
1130: with no distinct plume of giant stars extending towards $J-H \sim$ 1 at
1131: $H-K_s \sim 0.15$. Very few stars in the calibration
1132: region have $giK_s$ colors indicative of giants, and the tens of objects
1133: that do make up a very small percentage
1134: of the total number of sources detected at that $i-K_s$ color.
1135:
1136: Spectroscopic indices allowed us to identify
1137: G and K giant candidates within our sample,
1138: producing an empirical estimate of their effect
1139: on our analysis.
1140: Using 2388 spectra from numerous spectral libraries
1141: \citep{Torres-Dodgen1993,Danks1994,Fluks1994,
1142: Lancon2000,Prugniel2001,Bagnulo2003,Le-Borgne2003,
1143: Bochanski2007}, we tested spectroscopic indices
1144: that identify giant stars in moderate resolution,
1145: moderate signal to noise spectra \citep{Malyuto1997,Malyuto1999}.
1146: These indices
1147: are given in Table \ref{tab:giantindices}, with each index
1148: calculated as a ratio of the mean flux
1149: in the spectral regions identified as the index numerator and denominator. The only exception is
1150: the Mg$_2$ index, which was calculated as a
1151: psuedo-equivalent width, consistent with its original
1152: definition in \citet{Morrison2003}.
1153:
1154: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccc}
1155: \tablewidth{0pt}
1156: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1157: \tablecaption{Spectral indices for Dwarf/Giant discrimination \label{tab:giantindices}}
1158: %
1159: \tablehead{
1160: \colhead{Band name} &
1161: \colhead{Numerator 1} &
1162: \colhead{Numerator 2} &
1163: \colhead{Denominator} &
1164: \colhead{Reference}}
1165:
1166: \startdata
1167:
1168: Mg$_2$ & 4935 -- 4975 & 5303 -- 5367 & 5130 -- 5200 & \citet{Morrison2003} \\
1169: Mg b & 5100 -- 5150 & 5320 -- 5420 & 5150 -- 5320 & \citet{Malyuto1997} \\
1170: Na D 5900 & 5789 -- 5839 & 6020 -- 6120 & 5839 -- 6020 & \citet{Malyuto1997} \\
1171: Blend 6497 & 6406 -- 6470 & 6582 -- 6637 & 6470 -- 6536 & \citet{Malyuto1999} \\
1172: TiO 6700 & 6425 -- 6525 & 6970 -- 7040 & 6613 -- 6832 & \citet{Malyuto1997} \\
1173: CN 7900 & 7815 -- 7887 & 7970 -- 8037 & 7887 -- 7970 & \citet{Malyuto1999} \\
1174: Na D 8200 & 8120 -- 8170 & 8210 -- 8260 & 8170 -- 8210 & \nodata \\
1175:
1176: \enddata
1177: \end{deluxetable*}
1178:
1179: We used Mg$_2$ vs. $g-r$ as our primary
1180: giant/dwarf discriminant (Morrison et al., in prep; Yanny et al., in prep.). At red $g-r$ colors, however, the dwarf and giant
1181: sequences reconnect. To identify even the reddest giant stars, we
1182: selected giant candidates from this confused
1183: region of Mg$_2$ vs. $g-r$ space using three
1184: supplementary spectroscopic criteria
1185: (Na D 5900 vs. Mg b; TiO 6700 vs. Blend 6497;
1186: CN 7900 vs. Na D 8200) to reject likely late type dwarfs.
1187: This technique identified 104 candidate giants from 8750 objects
1188: in our sample with both $g-r$ colors and spectra, representing a
1189: 1\% global giant contamination rate.
1190:
1191: To test if these spectroscopically identified
1192: candidate giants are consistent with
1193: standard models of the stellar population of the Milky Way,
1194: we generated simulated SDSS/2MASS observations
1195: using the TRILEGAL code \citep{Girardi2005}.
1196: The top two panels of Figure
1197: \ref{ijtrilegalcompare} show the locations of giant stars in
1198: $i-J$ vs. $J$ color-magnitude space as predicted by the TRILEGAL
1199: simulation using standard
1200: Galactic parameters and the location of the calibration region
1201: (top left panel) and as identified in our spectroscopic
1202: sample (top right panel). The
1203: TRILEGAL simulation predicts that giants should reside in
1204: a relatively narrow locus in $i-J$ vs. $J$ color-magnitude space
1205: stretching from $J \sim$ 6 and $i-J \sim$ 1.3 down to
1206: $J \sim$ 16 and $i-J \sim$ 1.0.
1207: The locations of our spectroscopically
1208: identified candidate giant stars in
1209: $i-J$ vs. $J$ color-magnitude space
1210: match these predictions well;
1211: though the spectroscopic catalog only contains
1212: sources with relatively faint J magnitudes, Figure
1213: \ref{ijtrilegalcompare} shows the faint spectroscopically
1214: identified giant star candidates are indeed
1215: concentrated about $i-J \sim$ 1.1. Additionally, the
1216: photometric sample shows a distinct plume of sources
1217: tracking the expected giant star locus, most prominently
1218: at $J \sim$ 11 and $i-J \sim$ 1.2.
1219:
1220: \begin{figure*}
1221: \centering
1222: \includegraphics[height=6in]{f8.ps}
1223: \caption[$i-J$ Giant distribution]{The location of giant star
1224: candidates in $i-J$ vs. $J$ color-magnitude space, as predicted
1225: by the standard TRILEGAL galaxy model (left panels) and as
1226: indicated by our photometric and spectroscopic catalogs (right
1227: panels). Dwarfs are shown as black points and contours in the
1228: top two panels, while giant stars are highlighted as red asterisks and
1229: identified using surface gravity in the TRILEGAL output or
1230: spectroscopic indices in the SDSS/2MASS sample. Dashed blue lines
1231: show photometric cuts of $J >$ 12 and $i-J > $1.25 ($>$ K5). Bottom panels comp
1232: are the $i-J$
1233: color distributions for all stars with $J >$ 12 (solid black line) and
1234: for giants (dashed red lines). To reduce contamination by
1235: giants, we restrict our luminosity function sample to sources
1236: with J $>$ 12 and $i-J>$ 1.25 (blue dashed lines).}
1237: \label{ijtrilegalcompare}
1238: \end{figure*}
1239:
1240: The bottom panels of Figure \ref{ijtrilegalcompare}
1241: show histograms of the $i-J$ colors of all
1242: stars, as well as just giants, in both the TRILEGAL
1243: simulation and the observed data.
1244: The TRILEGAL simulation predicts a global
1245: contamination rate for our sample of 4\%, but this is
1246: a strong function of color, with giant star contamination
1247: rising above 10\% blueward of $i-J \sim$ 1.15.
1248: We drastically reduced giant star contamination
1249: by restricting our analysis to sources with
1250: $J >$ 12 and $i-J >$ 1.25 ($>$ K5), bounded in Figure \ref{ijtrilegalcompare}
1251: by blue dashed lines. These cuts reduce giant star
1252: contamination to a negligible level
1253: (less than 2\% in the bluest, most contaminated
1254: color bin) while sacrificing only a handful of
1255: bona fide low-mass dwarf stars.
1256:
1257: \section{The Luminosity Function}
1258: \label{lumfunc}
1259: The previous section demonstrates that we
1260: can construct a matched SDSS/2MASS dataset for
1261: stars with 12 $< J <$16.2 and 1.25 $< i-J <$ 4.5 where
1262: incompleteness, contamination, and bias are limited to $\leq$1\%
1263: for the full sample, and $<$5\% for stars in a small ($\sim$ 0.1 mag) color range.
1264: We are thus confident in the
1265: quality of the calibration region data, and now describe the use
1266: of this dataset to measure
1267: the luminosity and mass functions of the Galactic disk.
1268:
1269: Begining with the combined photometric sample
1270: assembled in \S \ref{merge}, we culled the catalog to ensure
1271: completeness and reduce contamination
1272: and bias from background giants and bad matches.
1273: In doing so, we restricted our analysis to only those
1274: sources meeting the following additional color and
1275: magnitude criteria:
1276:
1277: \begin{itemize}
1278: \item{completeness cut: $J < $ 16.2 \& SDSS or GSC optical counterpart (leaves 25,947 candidates);}
1279: \item{giant contamination cut: $J > 12$ \& $i-J > $ 1.25 (leaves 13,159 candidates);}
1280: \item{bad match cut: $i-z <$ 1.5 \& $i-z > 0.574(i-J)$ - 0.738 (leaves 13,088 candidates)}
1281: \item{QSO/WDMD contamination cuts\footnote{The need for $u-g$ colors to implement these cuts restricts their usage to only those objects with SDSS optical counterparts.}: $u-g >$ 1 or $g-r >$ 1.1 or $i-K < 1.5+0.8*(g-i)$ (leaves 13,064 objects in final sample).}
1282: \end{itemize}
1283:
1284: We will refer to this set of 13,064 objects as the Luminosity
1285: Function (or LF) sample. All but
1286: 714 of these objects possess native SDSS magnitudes; the rest
1287: possess psuedo-SDSS magnitudes transformed from GSC observations.
1288:
1289: The calibration region probes a sight line that passes directly through the
1290: mid-plane of the Milky Way, where the bulk of the dust in the Galaxy is thought
1291: to lie (h$_{dust} \sim$ 125 pc; Marshall et al. 2006). As the vast majority of the
1292: stars in our sample lie at distances in excess of 250 pcs, or two dust scale heights
1293: past the midplane of the Galaxy, we assume the bulk of the extinction along
1294: the line of sight to each star is foreground extinction. We therefore applied
1295: extinction corrections to the photometry for stars in our sample, using the extinction
1296: estimates measured by \citet{Schlegel1998} and stored in the SDSS database (for GSC
1297: detections, we adopt the reddening estimate of the nearest SDSS star in
1298: our sample). We use the relative extinctions in Table 6 of \citet{Schlegel1998} to apply
1299: corrections to our SDSS and 2MASS photometry using the R$_V$=3.1 extinction
1300: laws of \citet{Cardelli1989} and \citet{Odonnell1994}.
1301: These corrections are minimal, with a maximum E($i-J$) of
1302: 0.11 mags and more than 95\% of the sample possessing
1303: E($i-J$) $<$ 0.05 mags; indeed, tests indicate that neglecting
1304: the effects of extinction produces a negligible impact on our
1305: results.
1306:
1307: \subsection{The SDSS/2MASS Color-Magnitude Relation For Late-Type Stars}
1308:
1309: Producing an LF from our photometric,
1310: magnitude-limited sample required us to estimate the absolute magnitude
1311: and distance of each star from its observed colors and an
1312: adopted color-magnitude relation (CMR). The CMR for low-mass stars
1313: is reasonably well known in the standard Johnsons-Cousins
1314: photometric system; the relative youth of the SDSS, however,
1315: make the transformation of standard
1316: CMRs onto the SDSS photometric system difficult
1317: for stars with red colors.
1318:
1319: By spectroscopically classifying a sample of low-mass stars
1320: with measured SDSS and 2MASS colors, \citet{Hawley2002} derived
1321: photometric parallax relations for low-mass stars
1322: in SDSS by linking distinct color-spectral type and
1323: absolute magnitude-spectral type relations. Subsequent
1324: studies \citep{West2005,Bochanski2007,West2008} have used larger samples
1325: to produce new measurements of the relation between
1326: spectral type and SDSS color, shifting the mean colors of
1327: a given spectral type somewhat bluer; these
1328: new color-spectral type relations produce new
1329: photometric parallax relations when
1330: coupled to the previously measured absolute
1331: magnitude-spectral type relation. Stellar colors and magnitudes in the
1332: SDSS and 2MASS systems have also been predicted using theoretical stellar models,
1333: such as those calculated by \citet{Girardi2002} and \citet{Dotter2007}.
1334:
1335: Ultimately, it would be best to determine the CMR
1336: by directly measuring native SDSS colors and magnitudes
1337: for stars with measured trigonometric parallaxes. In practice, nearly
1338: all such stars saturate the SDSS 2.5m camera, requiring
1339: observations with smaller telescopes to be
1340: transformed onto the 2.5m photometric system. \citet{Williams2002} and
1341: \citet{Golimowski2007} have observed parallax standards
1342: with the 0.6 meter SDSS Photometric Telescope (PT) and the
1343: USNO 1 meter telescope, using the relevant
1344: transformations \citep{Tucker2006,Davenport2007} to
1345: place their photometry on the SDSS 2.5 meter system.
1346: We fit preliminary photometric parallax relations to describe
1347: the dependence of $M_J$ on $r-J$ and $i-J$ using 2MASS $JHK$ magnitudes
1348: and transformed SDSS $ugriz$ magnitudes kindly provided to
1349: us by \citet{Golimowski2007} prior to publication\footnote{With an ultimate goal to
1350: measure the MF of low-mass stars, we chose to use CMRs
1351: to estimate M$_J$, for which well-established mass/luminosity relations exist
1352: \citep{Henry1993,Delfosse2000}.}. These empirical CMR fits are shown in
1353: Figure \ref{jijCMR}, along with SDSS/2MASS
1354: colors and magnitudes for individual stars measured in Appendix A.
1355:
1356: \begin{figure}
1357: \centering
1358: \includegraphics[height=3in]{f9.ps}
1359: \caption[Colors to Absolute Magnitudes]{Color-magnitude relations
1360: necessary to estimate the distribution of stellar absolute magnitudes
1361: from the $i-J$ colors of low-mass stars in the calibration
1362: region. The solid line shows a preliminary fit to the data of
1363: \citet{Golimowski2007}, assuming a smooth fit through $i-J \sim 2.3$;
1364: the dotted line shows a fit to the same data, but assuming the
1365: presence of a sharp break at $i-J \sim 2.375$.
1366: Shown for comparision (but not fitted directly) are the SDSS/2MASS
1367: colors and magnitudes of individual stars as
1368: reported in Appendix A. }
1369: \label{jijCMR}
1370: \end{figure}
1371:
1372: The empirical CMR we have derived, however, suffers from some level of
1373: uncertainty. In particular, the data are too sparsely sampled
1374: to definitively reveal the presence or absence of a
1375: sharp break at $i-J \sim 2.3$, as is seen in other
1376: color-magnitude diagrams on the Johnson-Cousins system. As
1377: discussed by \citet{Reid1997}, this feature significantly
1378: affects the shape of the LF
1379: inferred from a magnitude limited photometric sample.
1380: In the absence of data clearly indicating the presence
1381: of a sharp break in the SDSS/2MASS CMR, for our analysis we adopt the smoothly
1382: varying CMR shown as a solid line in Fig. \ref{jijCMR}.
1383: Understanding the important role the CMR plays in
1384: measuring the luminosity and mass functions of magnitude limited
1385: samples, however, we include uncertainty in the empirical CMR
1386: as a potential source of systematic error in our analysis, which
1387: we discuss in more detail in \S \ref{sec:lf}.
1388:
1389: \subsection{The V$_{eff}$ Technique}
1390:
1391: Robust space density measurements of low-mass stars
1392: required a careful assessment of the volume we sampled for
1393: stars at each luminosity. In
1394: particular, we needed to account for the interplay between the
1395: vertical density gradient of the Galactic disk and the magnitude
1396: limits of our catalog. We did so by using the effective volume technique.
1397:
1398: With roots in the $\frac{V}{V_{max}}$ technique first introduced
1399: by \citet{Schmidt1968}, the concept of an `effective volume' was
1400: first suggested by \citet{Huchra1973}, who
1401: modified the $\frac{V}{V_{max}}$ test to accomodate a spatial gradient as a function
1402: of position on the sky. \citet{Felten1976} extended the V$_{eff}$ formalism to
1403: include gradients as a function of depth along the line of sight and proved that the
1404: sum of $\frac{1}{V_{eff}}$ for a sample of objects can serve as an unbiased estimator
1405: of their spatial density, even in situations where the objects are distributed
1406: inhomogeneously.
1407:
1408: The effective volume of an object can be expressed mathematically as
1409:
1410: \begin{equation}
1411: \label{eq:veff}
1412: V_{eff} = \Omega \int_{dmin}^{dmax} r^2 \frac{\rho}{\rho_0} dr
1413: \end{equation}
1414:
1415: \noindent where $\Omega$ is the observed solid angle, $r$ is the
1416: position along the line of sight to an object, $dmin$ is the minimum distance at which
1417: the object could be detected, $dmax$ is the maximum distance at which the object could
1418: be detected, and $\frac{\rho}{\rho_0}$ describes the ratio of the sampled density to the
1419: local density as a function of position along the line of sight.
1420: For non-uniform source distributions, $\frac{\rho}{\rho_0}$ effectively
1421: weights each volume element along the line of sight according to the
1422: expected likelihood of finding a source in that volume, such that sampling equivalent
1423: effective volumes should result in samples with similar numbers of sources.
1424:
1425:
1426: Using this methodology, space densities (represented by $\Phi$)
1427: are given by the sum of $\frac{1}{V_{eff}}$ for
1428: each source within the sample:
1429:
1430: \begin{equation}
1431: \label{eq:nonuniformphi}
1432: \Phi = \sum_N \frac{1}{V_{eff}} = \sum_N \frac{1}{\Omega \int_{dmin}^{dmax} r^2 \frac{\rho}{\rho_0} dr}
1433: \end{equation}
1434:
1435: As shown by \citet{Huchra1973}, the uncertainty in this estimator of $\Phi$ is:
1436:
1437: \begin{equation}
1438: \label{eq:variancephi}
1439: \sigma_{\Phi} = \sqrt{\sum_N \frac{1}{V_{eff}^2}}
1440: \end{equation}
1441:
1442: Combining the bright and faint limits of our survey sample ($J =$ 12 and
1443: $J =$ 16.2 respectively) with the value of $M_J$ estimated for a single source
1444: allows us to calculate its individual distance limits, \textit{dmin} and \textit{dmax}.
1445: Thus, all that remains in the calculation of $V_{eff}$, and thus $\Phi(M_J)$, is to integrate
1446: $r^2 \frac{\rho}{\rho_0}$ between \textit{dmin} and \textit{dmax}.
1447:
1448: \subsection{Adopted Galactic Structure Model}
1449:
1450: Adopting a standard multi-component Galactic model allows us to calculate the
1451: stellar density profile expected along a given line of sight; the total density, $\rho_{tot}$,
1452: is simply the sum of the density profiles of the individual disk and halo components.
1453: Expressed as a function of position within the Galaxy (using the standard
1454: Galactic coordinates R and Z), these profiles are:
1455:
1456: \begin{eqnarray}
1457: \label{eq:galrho}
1458: \rho_{thin} = \exp^{\Big(-\frac{|Z|}{H_{thin}}\Big)} \;\exp^{\Big(-\frac{|R|}{L_{thin}}\Big)} \nonumber \\
1459: \rho_{thick} = \exp^{\Big(-\frac{|Z|}{H_{thick}}\Big)} \;\exp^{\Big(-\frac{|R|}{L_{thick}}\Big)} \nonumber \\
1460: \rho_{halo} = \Bigg( \sqrt{R^2 + (Z\times \frac{a}{c})^2} \Bigg)^{r_{halo}} \nonumber \\
1461: \rho_{tot} = f_{thin}\frac{\rho_{thin}}{\rho_{thin,0}} \; + \; f_{thick}\frac{\rho_{thick}}{\rho_{thick,0}} \; + \; f_{halo}\frac{\rho_{halo}}{\rho_{halo,0}} \nonumber
1462: \end{eqnarray}
1463:
1464: The total stellar density at a given point in the Galaxy thus depends on
1465: the nine parameters given in Table \ref{tab:galparams}.
1466: Given the Galactic latitude ({\it b} $\sim$ -62) and
1467: the color and magnitude limits of the calibration region sample,
1468: $\frac{\rho}{\rho_0}$ is set primarily by the vertical
1469: profile of the thin disk; the thick disk only begins to
1470: dominate observed star counts at distances of $\sim$1.25
1471: kpc, where even our most intrinsically luminous stars
1472: approach the faint limit of our sample.
1473:
1474: \begin{deluxetable}{llc}
1475: \tablewidth{0pt}
1476: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1477: \tablecaption{Galactic Structure Parameters \label{tab:galparams}}
1478: %
1479: \tablehead{
1480: \colhead{Parameter name} &
1481: \colhead{Parameter description} &
1482: \colhead{Adopted value} }
1483: \startdata
1484:
1485: $f_{thin}$ & thin disk stellar density & (1 - $f_{thick}$ - $f_{halo}$) \\
1486: & in the solar neighborhood & \\
1487: $H_{thin}$ & thin disk scale height & 280 pc \\
1488: $L_{thin}$ & thin disk scale length & 2500 pc \\
1489: $f_{thick}$ & thick disk stellar density & 5\% \\
1490: & in the solar neighborhood & \\
1491: $H_{thick}$ & thick disk scale height & 900 pc \\
1492: $L_{thick}$ & thick disk scale length & 3500 pc \\
1493: c/a & halo flattening parameter & 0.7 \\
1494: & axial ratio c/a & \\
1495: $r_{halo}$ & exponent of halo power & -2.75 \\
1496: & law density gradient & \\
1497: $f_{halo}$ & halo stellar density & 0.15\% \\
1498: & in the solar neighborhood &
1499: \enddata
1500: \end{deluxetable}
1501:
1502:
1503: In principle, the parameters in Table \ref{tab:galparams} can be
1504: constrained by fitting observed star counts to the output
1505: of Galactic stellar population models produced with
1506: a range of Galactic structure parameters. The best
1507: estimates, however, are produced by comparing models to
1508: star counts along multiple lines of sight that sample regions
1509: of the Galaxy dominated by different Galactic components.
1510: Even in this best case, there often remain significant degeneracies
1511: between various Galactic structure parameters \citep[e.g., $f_{thick}$
1512: and $H_{thick}$; see Fig. 1 of ][]{Siegel2002}.
1513:
1514: As the calibration region
1515: probes only a single sight line through the Galaxy, attempts to
1516: fit the Galactic model directly from the observed star counts
1517: produced unphysical results with significant degeneracies between
1518: parameters. A follow-up paper in this series (Bochanski et al. 2009, in prep.)
1519: will present robust Galactic structure parameters measured from low-mass
1520: stars detected across the entirety of the SDSS footprint; for now,
1521: however, we calculated $\frac{\rho}{\rho_0}$ using standard
1522: Galactic structure parameters from the literature
1523: \citep[see Table 1 of ][]{Siegel2002, Juric2008} which
1524: are shown in Table \ref{tab:galparams}. As Figure
1525: \ref{data-model-starcounts} demonstrates, the profile of
1526: stellar counts predicted by this model is in good
1527: agreement with the observed star counts in the calibration region
1528: over the entire magnitude range of our sample.
1529:
1530: \begin{figure}
1531: \centering
1532: \includegraphics[height=2.5in]{f10.ps}
1533: \caption[Galaxy Model Vs. Observed Star Counts]{Star counts as a
1534: function of distance for stars with
1535: similar M$_J$ values (colored circles). For clarity, each observed
1536: profile is shown twice: once compared to a common star count profile
1537: predicted for the Galactic structure paramaters adopted here
1538: (solid black line, bottom), and once compared to the same
1539: model profile but with a unique vertical offset (dashed grey line).
1540: Observed star count profiles have been normalized such that the
1541: total number of stars along the line of sight matches the prediction
1542: of the model, allowing sets of stars with different local density
1543: normalizations to be compared to the same model profile. The
1544: Galactic structure model adopted here produces a good agreement
1545: between the observed and predicted star count profiles.}
1546: \label{data-model-starcounts}
1547: \end{figure}
1548:
1549: \subsection{The Luminosity Function of the Galactic Disk}\label{sec:lf}
1550:
1551: Applying the V$_{eff}$ technique to the LF sample,
1552: we obtained a first measure of the LF of
1553: the Galactic disk, shown in the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig:lf} as green filled diamonds.
1554: Derived from a magnitude-limited sample of stars with distances
1555: up to a kiloparsec or more, this measurement
1556: suffers from Malmquist-type effects and represents
1557: the LF of \textit{systems}, not
1558: individual stars, in the Galactic disk.
1559:
1560: \begin{figure}
1561: \centering
1562: \includegraphics[height=4.5in]{f11.eps}
1563: \caption[Luminosity Function of the Galactic Disk]{The calibration region
1564: luminosity function. \textit{Top Panel:} System luminosity function
1565: measured from the calibration region (green triangles), and the resultant
1566: single-star luminosity function, after accounting for the impact of
1567: unresolved binaries and Malmquist type effects (black circles).
1568: \textit{Middle Panel:} Systematic uncertainties in the luminosity function,
1569: shown by comparing the calibration region single-star luminosity function
1570: (black circles) with results obtained when adopting a
1571: color-magnitude relation with a sharp break at $\sim$M4 ($i-J=$2.375;
1572: red dashed line), a Galactic model with a $\sim$20 % larger thin disk
1573: scale height (green dash-dot line), and correcting for binaries assuming
1574: a flat mass ratio distribution (blue dotted line). \textit{Bottom Panel:}
1575: The calibration region single-star luminosity function (black circles),
1576: including error bars for statistical (hatted) and systematic (un-hatted)
1577: effects. Shown for comparison are luminosity functions
1578: derived from the volume complete 8 pc sample
1579: \citep[blue filled squares; ][]{Reid2002} and for late-M/L dwarfs within
1580: 20 pc \citep[red filled triangles; ][]{Cruz2007}.}
1581: \label{fig:lf}
1582: \end{figure}
1583:
1584: To account for the effects of unresolved binaries and Malmquist-like biases,
1585: we constructed an algorithm to reveal the intrinsic {\it stellar} LF required to reproduce the raw {\it system} LF measured
1586: from the calibration region sample. This routine
1587: uses a Monte Carlo approach to
1588: produce a simulated photometric sample given an input
1589: LF, CMR, and parameters to describe the
1590: adopted Galactic model and binary population. We then
1591: conduct a V$_{eff}$ analysis on this
1592: synthetic sample, which incorporates both observational errors
1593: and the intrinsic width of the CMR. Using the difference
1594: between the synthetic `measured' LFs and the actual raw LF
1595: measured from the calibration region to adjust the input LF used
1596: to run the next simulation, we iteratively converged on the true LF
1597: required to replicate our observed LF in the
1598: presence of these observational biases.
1599:
1600: For our primary analysis, we adopted the
1601: fiducial Galactic model outlined in Table \ref{tab:galparams}.
1602: We began by generating a synthetic set of star counts,
1603: randomly sampling the raw calibration region LF as an initial guess for the
1604: input LF and accounting for the increase
1605: in V$_{eff}$ towards brighter M$_J$. We used the
1606: smooth empirical CMR shown as a solid line in Fig. \ref{jijCMR} and the
1607: M$_J$ vs. mass relation derived by \citet{Delfosse2000}\footnote{We note
1608: that the \citet{Delfosse2000} M$_J$ vs. mass relations as published
1609: and archived on the A\&A website and the
1610: arXiv preprint server contain typographical errors. The original authors confirm that the correct relation
1611: is Log $\frac{M}{M_{\odot}}$ = (10$^{-3} \times (1.6 + 6.01 M_J + 14.888 M_J^2 -5.3557 M_J^3 + 0.285181 M_J^4)$. (T. Forveille, priv. communication, 2008)} to assign
1612: masses and $i-J$ colors to each star.
1613: We included an intrinsic dispersion in the CMR by sampling
1614: color offsets from a normal distribution with
1615: $\sigma_{color} \sim 0.1$ mag, or equivalently, magnitude
1616: offsets with $\sigma_{mag} \sim 0.5$ mag.
1617:
1618: We accounted for the presence of unresolved binaries in our
1619: sample by randomly assigning secondary companions to synthetic
1620: stars with a mass dependent
1621: binary fraction, $f_{bin}(M) = 0.45 - (0.7-M_{p})/4$,
1622: consistent with observations of the stellar binary fraction in the Galactic
1623: disk \citep{Duquennoy1991,Reid1997,Delfosse2004,Lada2006,Burgasser2007}.
1624: In our model, companion star luminosities were randomly selected from the same
1625: input LF used to generate the primary stars, but
1626: secondaries were required to have lower luminosities than their primaries.
1627: This quasi-independent sampling of the LF nicely
1628: reproduces the observed correlation between mass ratio and primary mass,
1629: producing a mass ratio distribution which peaks at 0.4 for stars
1630: more massive than 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ and at 0.9 for stars less
1631: massive than 0.2 $M_{\odot}$.
1632:
1633: We assumed that all binary systems in our sample are unresolved,
1634: based on the relatively poor spatial sampling of the 2MASS
1635: detectors (2\arcsec pixels). This assumption is not
1636: uniformly correct, as resolving a binary depends
1637: on the ratio of this resolution limit to the binary's apparent
1638: separation, itself a function of both the
1639: physical separation of the companions and the distance
1640: to the system. Systems with an $M_J = 8$ primary, for example,
1641: are resolved only if their separation exceeds 30-200 AU, depending
1642: on the location of the system within the volume to which we
1643: are sensitive to such stars; the situation is even worse for
1644: instrinsically brighter stars, which are drawn from a more distant
1645: volume and thus have smaller apparent separations for equivalent
1646: physical separations. As most binary stars have separations less
1647: than 100 AU, and our sample is dominated by stars at the largest
1648: distances, we treat all simulated binary systems as unresolved.
1649: Fluxes from each companion are merged to produce system magnitudes
1650: and colors, at which point random observational errors are added
1651: to produce a psuedo-observed photometric sample.
1652:
1653: We then measured the LF of this sample using the same
1654: algorithm as applied to our observed sample, and used the difference
1655: between the two measured luminosity functions to modify the input LF used
1656: to produce the synthetic sample. After a small (n$\sim$5) number of
1657: iterations, the LF measured from the synthetic sample converges to that measured
1658: from the calibration region dataset. The final input LF whose `measured' LF
1659: reproduces the raw calibration region LF is therefore a measure of the
1660: true LF of the calibration region after correcting for unresolved
1661: binaries and Malmquist-type biases, as each effect is included
1662: in producing the catalog of synthetic stars.
1663:
1664: The calibration region LF with corrections for Malmquist biases and unresolved
1665: binaries is shown with black circles in each panel of Fig. \ref{fig:lf}.
1666: Somewhat counter-intuitively, aside from making the peak at $M_J = 7$
1667: more prominent, the corrected LF is very
1668: similar to the uncorrected LF we measure from the calibration
1669: region. Applying binary and Malmquist corrections
1670: independently showed that the two effects offset one another
1671: to a large degree; as discussed extensively by \citet{Stobie1989},
1672: the Malmquist correction shifts the peak of the LF to
1673: brighter magnitudes, primarily by decreasing the
1674: densities measured on the faint side of the LF peak.
1675: Accounting for unresolved binary systems, however,
1676: has the opposite effect -- splitting binary systems into
1677: individual components increases the source density in the
1678: {\it stellar} LF above that of the {\it system} LF, and is most
1679: important for fainter stars, which are most likely to be hidden
1680: as secondaries to more luminous primaries.
1681: The primary impact of these corrections, therefore, is to increase the
1682: peak density of the
1683: LF (at M$_J = 7.5$) by 20\%; outside the 7 $< M_J <$ 8 range,
1684: the {\it corrected stellar} LF is remarkably similar to the
1685: {\it measured system} LF.
1686:
1687: To test how sensitive our LF measurement is to our
1688: underlying assumptions, we re-derived the LF after
1689: modifying the adopted CMR, Galactic model, and binarity
1690: prescription. We varied, in turn, the binary
1691: prescription to assign secondaries assuming a flat mass
1692: ratio distribution, the Galactic model by increasing the
1693: scale height of the thin disk by 50 parsecs, and the CMR
1694: by adopting the red dashed empirical fit in Fig. \ref{jijCMR}
1695: that includes a sharp jump in magnitude at $i-J=2.375$.
1696: The LFs derived under each of these modified assumptions
1697: are shown in the middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:lf}.
1698:
1699: We characterized the systematic uncertainties in our
1700: analysis as the fractional change induced in the LF by
1701: modifying each portion of the LF measurement algorithm;
1702: adding each of these individual uncertainties in
1703: quadrature produced a global estimate of the
1704: systematic uncertainties in our analysis, which
1705: is shown as an additional set of error bars
1706: for the corrected single-star LF in the bottom
1707: panel of Fig. \ref{fig:lf}.
1708: The binary correction introduces a relatively small
1709: $\sim$5\% systematic uncertainty, rising above 10\% only at the faintest
1710: magnitudes. The LF is somewhat more sensitive to the Galaxy model adopted
1711: in the V$_{eff}$ analysis, typically producing a 20\%
1712: uncertainty in the derived LF. The uncertainty in
1713: the LF due to the Galaxy model is more pronounced at brighter
1714: magnitudes, where the volume sampled is several scale heights
1715: above the plane of the Milky Way, and thus the densities
1716: expected by the V$_{eff}$ calculation are more sensitive to
1717: the adopted thin disk scale height.
1718:
1719: The uncertainty in the exact
1720: behavior of the CMR at $i-J \sim 2.375$, however, introduces the
1721: largest systematic uncertainty into our analysis; LFs produced
1722: using the two empirical fits in Fig. \ref{jijCMR} differ
1723: by more than 90\% at M$_J = $ 9.25. Reducing this uncertainty
1724: is clearly necessary to realize the full promise of the
1725: SDSS and 2MASS to characterize the low-mass stellar content of the
1726: Galactic disk. Doing so will require a concerted effort
1727: to transform photometry of trigonometric parallax standards from
1728: moderate aperature telescopes onto the native photometric system of
1729: the SDSS 2.5m.
1730:
1731: The bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:lf} displays the
1732: single-star calibration region LF along with
1733: error bars accounting for both statistical and systematic effects.
1734: Shown for comparison are the low-mass stellar LFs
1735: measured by \citet{Reid2002} and \citet{Cruz2007} from volume complete samples
1736: in the solar neighborhood; with the exception of the $M_J=6.75$ bin, the
1737: calibration region LF agrees with the LFs measured
1738: from the volume complete samples, given the uncertainties in each measurement.
1739:
1740: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1741: \tablewidth{0pt}
1742: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1743: \tablecaption{The Luminosity Function of the Calibration Region\label{tab:calibregionlf}}
1744: %
1745: \tablehead{
1746: \colhead{} &
1747: \colhead{Raw} &
1748: \colhead{Corrected} &
1749: \colhead{} &
1750: \colhead{} \\
1751: \colhead{M$_J$} &
1752: \colhead{LF} &
1753: \colhead{LF} &
1754: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm stat}$} &
1755: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm sys}$} }
1756: \startdata
1757: 5.25 & 2.79 & 2.99 & 0.25 & 0.79 \\
1758: 5.75 & 3.41 & 3.82 & 0.31 & 0.83 \\
1759: 6.25 & 4.27 & 4.83 & 0.39 & 1.20 \\
1760: 6.75 & 5.70 & 6.53 & 0.54 & 1.30 \\
1761: 7.25 & 8.09 & 9.64 & 0.77 & 1.55 \\
1762: 7.75 & 9.52 & 11.33 & 1.04 & 1.84 \\
1763: 8.25 & 8.40 & 8.08 & 1.23 & 0.72 \\
1764: 8.75 & 7.01 & 6.51 & 1.46 & 2.82 \\
1765: 9.25 & 5.37 & 4.71 & 1.67 & 4.54 \\
1766: 9.75 & 6.12 & 4.60 & 2.37 & 1.31 \\
1767: 10.25 & 3.26 & 3.37 & 2.35 & 0.79 \\
1768: 10.75 & 1.42 & 1.10 & 1.75 & 1.27 \\
1769: 11.25 & 0.30 & 0.41 & 0.59 & 0.28 \\
1770: \enddata
1771: \tablecomments{LFs and uncertainties reported in units of $10^{-3}$ stars $(0.5 M_J)^{-1} pc^{-3}$}
1772: \end{deluxetable}
1773:
1774: \section{The Mass Function}
1775:
1776: The same simulations that allowed us to correct our observed
1777: LF for unresolved binaries and Malmquist effects also
1778: provided an opportunity to measure the stellar mass function.
1779: Applying the $V_{eff}$ technique to the synthetic stellar sample, but
1780: binning by mass instead of M$_J$ magnitude, produced the MF shown
1781: in the top panel of Figure \ref{fig:mf}, again with both systematic
1782: and statistical error bars. The {\it logarithmically binned} mass
1783: function of the calibration region has a clear peak at
1784: M$_* \sim$0.3 M$_{\odot}$. We note that the systematic error bars,
1785: due mainly to the uncertainty in the color magnitude relation, dominate
1786: the statistical error bars for all mass bins; until the SDSS/2MASS
1787: color-magnitude relation is clarified, we will be unable to reap the
1788: full benefit of a sample of this size.
1789:
1790: \begin{figure}
1791: \centering
1792: \includegraphics[height=4.5in]{f12.eps}
1793: \caption[]{The \textit{single-star} (not system) mass function ($\frac{dN}{d lo
1794: g M}$) of the Galactic disk as measured from the calibration region sample (aste
1795: risks; hatted error bars show statistical errors, unhatted error bars show syste
1796: matic uncertainties). \textit{Top Panel: } Analytic fits to the calibration reg
1797: ion MF data; log normal, power law, and broken power law fits to the data are sh
1798: own as dotted, dot-dashed, and dashed lines respectively. An F-test indicates t
1799: hat the log normal fit provides the greatest fidelity given the number of parame
1800: ters used to produce the fit. \textit{Middle Panel: } A comparison between the
1801: calibration region MF and that derived by \citet{Reid2002} from the 8-pc volume
1802: complete sample (red diamonds); the two measurements agree within the uncertaint
1803: ies for all but the lowest mass point. \textit{Bottom Panel: } Analytic descri
1804: ptions of the \textit{single-star} MFs presented by \citet{Reid2002} and \citet{
1805: Kroupa2002}, shown as red dotted and blue dashed lines respectively, compared to
1806: the log normal fit adopted here (solid black line). While the data underlying
1807: these fits agree well, the analytic descriptions diverge significantly, particul
1808: arly at the low-mass end.}
1809: \label{fig:mf}
1810: \end{figure}
1811:
1812: We used a Markwardt minimization
1813: to fit various analytic forms to this data, with results shown in
1814: the top panel of Fig. \ref{fig:mf}. We fit a log normal form to the
1815: data, finding best fit values of A=0.1 \citep[in units of stars (Log M$_{\odot}$)$^{-1} pc^{-3}$ for comparison with the values
1816: reported by ][]{Chabrier2003}, M$_c$=0.29, and $\sigma$=0.32; we also fit a
1817: single ($\alpha=$1.1) and broken power law ($\alpha_{log M > -0.5}$=2.04;
1818: $\alpha_{log M < -0.5}$=0.2) to the data as well. An F-test
1819: evaluates the quality of an analytic fit to a dataset relative to the number
1820: of degrees of freedom in the fit. Applying an F-test to these fits revealed
1821: that the log normal formalism produces a quantifiably better fit than a
1822: single power law: there is a less than 1\% chance that the underlying
1823: distribution is truly a single power-law and that the improved quality
1824: of the log-normal fit is a random occurance. A dual power law fit provides
1825: an even better fit than either the single power law or the
1826: log normal form, but at the cost of additional degrees of freedom; the F-test
1827: indicates there is a 35\% chance that the dual power law fit does not
1828: provide a statistically superior fit to the data, and as such we adopted
1829: the log normal fit as the most efficient analytic description of our data.
1830:
1831: M$_c$ represents the peak of the {\it logarithmically binned}
1832: mass function, such that while the density of stars per logarithmic
1833: mass bin declines for masses less than M$_c$, the width of each
1834: bin in {\it linear} mass units is also changing as well. As a result,
1835: a log normal MF with a given M$_c$ corresponds to a {\it linearly binned} MF
1836: whose peak occurs at smaller masses than M$_c$. The log normal fit
1837: described above corresponds to a {\it linearly binned} MF
1838: that turns over at 0.17 M$_{\odot}$.
1839:
1840: The MF we measure here agrees well with previous investigations.
1841: Using a Monte Carlo routine to refit the MF after applying random offsets consistent with each datapoint's
1842: total error budget, we derive 90\% confidence intervals for the log-normal
1843: fits' parameters of A=0.08--0.12, M$_c$=0.20--0.50, and $\sigma$=0.22--0.37.
1844: These agree well with the values reported by
1845: \citet{Chabrier2005a}, with the exception of $\sigma$, for which Chabrier
1846: finds a somewhat larger value of 0.55, outside the bounds of our 90\%
1847: confidence interval. This may result from the difference in the range
1848: of masses studied here and by Chabrier; Chabrier's work attempts to
1849: describe the MF well above and below the masses sampled
1850: here, which may drive the fit to larger values of $\sigma$, and wider
1851: MF peaks. We also include in the middle panel of Fig.
1852: \ref{fig:mf} the individual datapoints for the MF constructed by
1853: \citet{Reid2002}, which agree within 1 $\sigma$ with the datapoints
1854: reported here for all but the lowest mass bin. Similarly, the $\alpha=1.1$ power law
1855: fit to the entire mass range sampled here is
1856: a good match to the $\alpha$=1.2 power law measured by \citet{Reid2002}.
1857:
1858: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1859: \tablewidth{0pt}
1860: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1861: \tablecaption{The Mass Function of the Calibration Region\label{tab:calibregionmf}}
1862: %
1863: \tablehead{
1864: \colhead{Log M$_{*}$} &
1865: \colhead{MF $\rho$} &
1866: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm stat.}$} &
1867: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm sys.}$} }
1868: \startdata
1869: -0.15 & 5.42 & 0.44 & 1.29 \\
1870: -0.25 & 6.13 & 0.50 & 1.53 \\
1871: -0.35 & 7.91 & 0.65 & 1.52 \\
1872: -0.45 & 10.76 & 0.89 & 1.73 \\
1873: -0.55 & 10.82 & 1.18 & 1.54 \\
1874: -0.65 & 7.40 & 1.28 & 1.37 \\
1875: -0.75 & 6.07 & 1.59 & 3.54 \\
1876: -0.85 & 4.73 & 1.93 & 3.50 \\
1877: -0.95 & 5.61 & 3.38 & 1.47 \\
1878: \enddata
1879: \tablecomments{MF densities and uncertainties are reported in units of $10^{-3}$ stars $(0.1 {\rm log} M_{*})^{-1} pc^{-3}$.}
1880: \end{deluxetable}
1881:
1882: Simply comparing analytic fits from other studies to the MF data
1883: measured here, however, can give the potentially false impression
1884: of disagreement in the underlying MFs. This is due in part to the
1885: sensitivity of analytic fits to the exact formalism chosen to represent
1886: the data, as well the exact range of masses spanned by the fit.
1887: As shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \ref{fig:mf}, the log normal description
1888: of the MF data reported here diverges strongly from the analytic fits
1889: reported by \citet{Reid2002} and \citet{Kroupa2002}, which would
1890: seem to provide evidence for significant MF differences. In
1891: particular, the log normal fit presented here predicts
1892: an MF that peaks in the stellar regime, while the break points
1893: adopted for the power-law fits measured by \citet{Reid2002} and
1894: \citet{Kroupa2002} imply that the MF rises all the way to the sub-stellar
1895: limit. As shown previously, however, the individual MF datapoints derived
1896: here and by \citet{Reid2002} agree well, revealing that these varations are
1897: due more to differences in the formalisms adopted to describe the
1898: MF than to confident detections of significant MF differences.
1899:
1900: Traditionally,
1901: the utility of analytic descriptions of the data has been to produce a more
1902: robust description of a potentially noisy dataset, collapsing the many degrees of freedom
1903: of the sample to improve the quality of the measurement of a reduced set of parameters.
1904: Given the richness of modern-day astronomical datasets, however, where
1905: one can construct samples of stellar populations that contain thousands, and
1906: in some cases millions, of objects useful for deriving mass functions,
1907: the underlying data can produce MFs with vanishingly small statistical
1908: error bars, and systematic errors are not reduced by describing the
1909: data with analytic fits. As a result, we are entering the regime where
1910: we create more noise than signal by comparing analytic descriptions of the MF, which impose
1911: structure on the data {\it a priori}, rather than comparing actual MF datapoints
1912: with statistical and systematic error bars.
1913:
1914: Having validated this method to generate a low-mass luminosity function from matched SDSS/2MASS datasets, future studies (Bochanski et al., in prep.) will extend this technique to the entirety of the SDSS footprint, producing simultaneous measurements of the low-mass MF and Galactic structure parameters of the thin and thick disks.
1915:
1916:
1917:
1918:
1919: \section{Conclusions}
1920:
1921: \begin{enumerate}
1922:
1923: \item{We have identified a sample of more than
1924: 13,000 candidate low-mass stars detected within
1925: 30 square degrees of 2MASS, SDSS and/or GSC imaging.
1926: Empirical tests verify the sample is
1927: more than 99\% complete to $J=16.2$, and more than
1928: 90\% complete at even the reddest colors.}
1929:
1930: \item{Analysis of the spectroscopic sample reveals that exotic
1931: contaminants, such as QSOs, extragalactic stellar populations, CVs,
1932: and white dwarf/M dwarf pairs, comprise less than 0.3\% of our matched sample.}
1933:
1934: \item{Photometric $i-J$ color provides a reliable proxy
1935: for stellar spectral type and T$_{eff}$; we measure
1936: dispersions of 1 subclass for a given
1937: 0.1 magnitude slice in $i-J$, or of 0.1 magnitude in $i-J$
1938: for objects with a given MK spectral type.}
1939:
1940: \item{In a small percentage of cases (20/9624; 0.02\%), a
1941: star's observed spectral type differs significantly from
1942: that expected on the basis of its photometric $i-J$ color.
1943: This usually occurs when the 2MASS and SDSS detections of
1944: a close visual binary are improperly matched, and we have
1945: identified an $i-z$ vs. $i-J$ color cut which can be used
1946: to eliminate such spurious detections from the sample.}
1947:
1948: \item{Analysis of the kinematic and spectroscopic
1949: properties of our sample reveal 88 candidate subdwarfs,
1950: representing a subdwarf fraction of 0.68\% for our
1951: broader sample. As the bulk of the candidate
1952: subdwarfs (69/88) were identified kinematically,
1953: and proper motion catalogs are biased towards
1954: objects with large space motions such as subdwarfs,
1955: this is an upper limit to the
1956: true subdwarf fraction of our photometric sample.}
1957:
1958: \item{TRILEGAL simulations of the Galactic stellar population
1959: predict giant stars will contaminate our sample at
1960: the 4\% level globally, but with giants exceeding 10\% of
1961: stars with $i-J \sim$ 1.15. Candidate giant stars identified
1962: in our sample using spectral indices verify the colors of
1963: giants predicted by the TRILEGAL simulation. Restricting our
1964: analysis to sources with $J >$ 12 and $i-J >$ 1.25,
1965: however, reduce contamination of our
1966: sample by giant stars to a managable level
1967: (less than 2\% in the bluest, most contaminated
1968: color bin) while sacrificing only a handful of
1969: bona fide low-mass dwarf stars.}
1970:
1971: \item{After correcting for unresolved binaries and
1972: Malmquist effects, we find the luminosity function
1973: of the Galactic disk is consistent with that measured
1974: from volume complete samples of the solar neighborhood.
1975: The dominant systematic uncertainty in our analysis is
1976: due to the remaining uncertainty in the SDSS/2MASS CMR,
1977: which translates into a 70\% uncertainty at the peak of
1978: the stellar LF. Systematic effects due to the binary correction
1979: prescription and the adopted Galactic model are comparatively
1980: small, at the 10-20\% level.}
1981:
1982: \item{The logarithmically binned mass function measured from our sample
1983: peaks at 0.3 M$_{\odot}$ and agrees within 1$\sigma$ for all but one
1984: data point of the mass function measured by \citet{Reid2002}
1985: from their volume complete sample. A log normal characterization
1986: with A=0.1 \citep[in units of stars (Log M$_{\odot}$)$^{-1} pc^{-3}$ for comparison with the values
1987: reported by ][]{Chabrier2003}, M$_c$=0.29, and $\sigma$=0.32 provides
1988: an adequate description of the data, with 90\% confidence intervals
1989: for each parameter of A=0.08--0.12 ,
1990: M$_c$=0.20--0.50, and $\sigma$=0.22--0.37. These 90\% confidence intervals correspond to {\it linearly binned} mass functions peaking between 0.27 M$_{\odot}$ and 0.12 M$_{\odot}$, where the best fit MF turns over at 0.17 M$_{\odot}$. A power law fit to the entire mass range sampled here, however, returns a best fit of $\alpha$=1.1 (where the Salpeter slope is $\alpha$ = 2.35); a broken power law returns $\alpha$=2.04 at masses greater than log M = -0.5 (M=0.32 M$_{\odot}$), and $\alpha$=0.2 at lower masses.}
1991:
1992: \item{We emphasize that comparisions of analytic MF fits, rather than the
1993: underlying data, can give the false impression of MF variations
1994: even when the underlying data agree well. We are entering the regime where
1995: we create more noise than signal by comparing analytic descriptions of the MF, which impose
1996: structure on the data {\it a priori}, rather than comparing the actual MF datapoints
1997: themselves.}
1998:
1999: \end{enumerate}
2000:
2001: \acknowledgements
2002:
2003: We thank Michael Meyer and Charles Lada for helping clarify the current empirical constraints on the fraction and properties of low-mass multiple systems, August Muench and Thomas Greene for useful discussions of the mass function of low-mass stars in young clusters and the effects of extinction, and Chris McKee for a careful and thoughtful reading of a previous draft of this paper. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Connie Rockosi for assistance in obtaining and analyzing SDSS data on occassions too numerous to count, and to Russet, Jack, Bill and John, the APO observing specialists whose assistance, patience, and occasional skirting of the telescope's strict wind limit were instrumental in helping obtain the complete spectoscopic sample necessary for this work. We also thank the anonomyous referee, whose comments have improved this manuscript, resulting in a clearer, more concise presentation of this work.
2004:
2005: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
2006:
2007: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
2008:
2009: The Two Micron All Sky Survey was a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (California Institute of Technology). The University of Massachusetts was responsible for the overall management of the project, the observing facilities and the data acquisition. The Infrared Processing and Analysis Center was responsible for data processing, data
2010: distribution and data archiving.
2011:
2012: This research has made use of NASA's Astrophysics Data System Bibliographic Services, the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France, and the VizieR database of astronomical catalogues \citep{Ochsenbein2000}. K.R.C gratefully acknowledges the support of NASA grant 80-0273 during the completion of this work. Support for this work was provided by NASA through the Spitzer Space Telescope Fellowship Program.
2013:
2014: %--------------------------APPENDICES-----------------------------
2015: %\clearpage
2016: \renewcommand{\thesection}{A\arabic{section}}
2017: \setcounter{section}{0} % reset counter
2018:
2019: \section{Appendix: Photometry of Parallax Standards on the SDSS system}\label{ap_1}
2020:
2021: An accurate characterization of the color-magnitude diagram for
2022: low-mass stars is of critical importance for inferring
2023: stellar densities and distributions from purely photometric
2024: datasets. By mining the SDSS database, and conducting
2025: supplementary observations with the NMSU 1m
2026: telescope, we have obtained colors and magnitudes on the
2027: SDSS photometric system for 76 stars and brown dwarfs with
2028: measured trigonometric parallaxes.
2029:
2030: \subsection{Mining the SDSS database for Parallax Standards}
2031:
2032: As the SDSS contains photometry of nearly a quarter of the
2033: night sky, thousands of stars with measured trigonometric standards
2034: lie within the survey footprint. While the vast majority of
2035: parallax standards are so bright that they saturate SDSS imaging,
2036: parallax standards with servicable SDSS observations represent
2037: a valuable opportunity to map the main sequence color-magnitude
2038: relation directly from SDSS photometry, obviating the need to
2039: employ delicate, color-dependent transformations to place observations
2040: from other telescopes onto the SDSS photometric system.
2041:
2042: To identify a catalog of parallax standards with native SDSS photometry, we
2043: have searched the SDSS database for detections of objects contained within several
2044: publicly available parallax catalogs \citep{Monet1992,van-Altena1995,Tinney1995,Perryman1997,Dahn2002,Gould2004,Vrba2004}.
2045: Culling the list to remove objects with flags indicative of severe
2046: photometric problems (ie, SATURATED-CENTER and/or INTERP-CENTER)
2047: left 40 objects with native SDSS photometry and direct trigonometric
2048: parallax measurements. SDSS and 2MASS photometry for these objects,
2049: as well as their measured trigonometric parallaxes, are presented in Table
2050: \ref{tab:nativephot}. Figure \ref{jijCMR} displays the locations
2051: of these sources in an $i-J$ vs. M$_J$ color-magnitude diagram.
2052:
2053:
2054: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccr}
2055: \tablewidth{0pt}
2056: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2057: \tablecaption{Native SDSS Photometry of Parallax Standards \label{tab:nativephot}}
2058: \tablehead{
2059: \colhead{Star} &
2060: \colhead{SDSS} &
2061: \colhead{SDSS} &
2062: \colhead{SDSS} &
2063: \colhead{2MASS} &
2064: \colhead{2MASS} &
2065: \colhead{2MASS} &
2066: \colhead{$\pi$} &
2067: \colhead{$\pi$} &
2068: \colhead{$\pi$} \\
2069: \colhead{Name} &
2070: \colhead{$i$} &
2071: \colhead{$r-i$} &
2072: \colhead{$i-z$} &
2073: \colhead{$J$} &
2074: \colhead{$J-H$} &
2075: \colhead{$H-K_s$} &
2076: \colhead{(mas/yr)} &
2077: \colhead{err.} &
2078: \colhead{ref.} }
2079: \startdata
2080: LHS 1970 & 16.26 & 0.83 & 0.49 & 14.58 & 0.58 & 0.12 & 12.9 & 0.7 & 1 \\
2081: G 195-022 & 12.79 & 1.74 & 1.00 & 10.26 & 0.56 & 0.30 & 64.4 & 4.0 & 1 \\
2082: LHS 2364 & 17.01 & 0.29 & 0.16 & 15.98 & 0.45 & -0.03 & 38.3 & 2.7 & 1 \\
2083: LP 323-239 & 13.55 & 1.66 & 0.90 & 11.18 & 0.44 & 0.26 & 48.1 & 1.9 & 1 \\
2084: LHS 2828 & 14.81 & 2.23 & 1.14 & 12.00 & 0.52 & 0.33 & 36.5 & 0.9 & 1 \\
2085: \\
2086: LHS 2930 & 14.29 & 2.82 & 1.52 & 10.79 & 0.65 & 0.35 & 103.8 & 1.3 & 1 \\
2087: LHS 3061 & 17.54 & 1.20 & 0.60 & 15.52 & 0.51 & 0.11 & 8.9 & 0.7 & 1 \\
2088: J090551.11+553218.5 & 13.66 & 1.39 & 0.78 & 11.49 & 0.60 & 0.23 & 20.9 & 0.97 & 2 \\
2089: J091841.52+582747.5 & 14.33 & 1.44 & 0.74 & 12.16 & 0.58 & 0.28 & 16.0 & 1.2 & 2 \\
2090: J103327.6+472202.6 & 14.01 & 1.51 & 0.83 & 11.71 & 0.65 & 0.26 & 15.4 & 4.0 & 2 \\
2091: \\
2092: J113212.96+003632.5 & 14.18 & 1.44 & 0.95 & 11.78 & 0.52 & 0.29 & 21.2 & 4.0 & 2 \\
2093: J113304.07+131816.9 & 14.91 & 1.36 & 0.69 & 12.79 & 0.61 & 0.27 & 10.8 & 1.5 & 2 \\
2094: J120723.99+130213.9 & 15.68 & 2.01 & 1.05 & 13.00 & 0.60 & 0.32 & 24.1 & 1.4 & 2 \\
2095: J123426.4+391309.4 & 14.21 & 1.36 & 0.76 & 12.10 & 0.57 & 0.24 & 14.4 & 3.1 & 2 \\
2096: J132820.87+300319 & 16.73 & 2.50 & 1.37 & 13.31 & 0.67 & 0.35 & 20.7 & 2.0 & 2 \\
2097: \\
2098: J135921.6+251403.1 & 15.02 & 1.89 & 1.00 & 12.43 & 0.56 & 0.31 & 24.2 & 2.1 & 2 \\
2099: J141436.71+160121.7 & 14.39 & 1.73 & 0.90 & 12.00 & 0.59 & 0.31 & 28.1 & 1.1 & 2 \\
2100: J155719.67+074500.1 & 14.90 & 1.44 & 0.75 & 12.76 & 0.52 & 0.27 & 12.7 & 1.5 & 2 \\
2101: LP374-4 & 17.01 & 0.29 & 0.16 & 15.98 & 0.45 & -0.03 & 38.3 & 2.8 & 3 \\
2102: LP130-226 & 15.32 & 2.54 & 1.28 & 12.20 & 0.51 & 0.33 & 39.6 & 1.1 & 3 \\
2103: \\
2104: LP323-239 & 13.55 & 1.66 & 0.90 & 11.18 & 0.44 & 0.26 & 49.0 & 2.2 & 3 \\
2105: LP499-5 & 14.81 & 2.23 & 1.14 & 12.00 & 0.52 & 0.33 & 36.5 & 1.0 & 3 \\
2106: LP98-79 & 14.29 & 2.82 & 1.52 & 10.79 & 0.65 & 0.35 & 10.38 & 1.4 & 3 \\
2107: J003259.36+141036.4 & 23.09 & 1.16 & 3.69 & 16.83 & 1.18 & 0.70 & 30.1 & 5.2 & 4 \\
2108: J010752.46+004156.3 & 21.19 & 2.02 & 2.55 & 15.82 & 1.31 & 0.80 & 64.1 & 4.5 & 4 \\
2109: \\
2110: J015141.68+124429.4 & 22.85 & 1.60 & 3.39 & 16.57 & 0.96 & 0.42 & 46.7 & 3.4 & 4 \\
2111: TVLM 832-10443 & 17.08 & 2.86 & 1.67 & 13.13 & 0.69 & 0.48 & 36.0 & 0.4 & 5 \\
2112: J074642.48+200031.6 & 16.08 & 2.57 & 1.85 & 11.76 & 0.75 & 0.54 & 81.9 & 0.3 & 5 \\
2113: J082519.44+211550.3 & 20.61 & 2.80 & 2.76 & 15.10 & 1.31 & 0.76 & 93.8 & 1.0 & 5 \\
2114: J083008.16+482847.2 & 21.22 & 2.35 & 3.14 & 15.44 & 1.10 & 0.67 & 76.4 & 3.4 & 4 \\
2115: \\
2116: TVLM 213-2005 & 17.14 & 2.77 & 1.66 & 13.39 & 0.65 & 0.48 & 30.1 & 0.4 & 5 \\
2117: LHS 2471 & 14.70 & 2.60 & 1.50 & 11.26 & 0.60 & 0.40 & 70.2 & 2.1 & 5 \\
2118: J125453.99-012247.4 & 22.25 & 2.05 & 4.22 & 14.89 & 0.80 & 0.25 & 75.7 & 2.9 & 4 \\
2119: LHS 2924 & 16.19 & 2.39 & 1.80 & 11.99 & 0.76 & 0.48 & 95.0 & 5.7 & 5 \\
2120: LHS 2930 & 14.29 & 2.82 & 1.52 & 10.79 & 0.65 & 0.35 & 103.3 & 1.3 & 5 \\
2121: \\
2122: J143517.28-004612.8 & 20.35 & 2.58 & 1.79 & 16.48 & 0.87 & 0.29 & 9.9 & 5.2 & 4 \\
2123: J144600.48+002451.9 & 20.75 & 2.68 & 2.18 & 15.89 & 1.38 & 0.58 & 45.5 & 3.3 & 4 \\
2124: TVLM 513-46546 & 16.08 & 2.64 & 1.79 & 11.87 & 0.69 & 0.47 & 94.4 & 0.6 & 5 \\
2125: J171145.59+223204.2 & 22.15 & 1.38 & 2.33 & 17.09 & 1.29 & 1.07 & 33.1 & 4.8 & 4 \\
2126: J225529.03-003434 & 19.85 & 2.36 & 1.91 & 15.65 & 0.89 & 0.32 & 16.2 & 2.6 & 4 \\
2127: \enddata
2128: \tablecomments{Reference 1: \citet{van-Altena1995} \\ Reference 2: \citet{Gould2004} \\ Reference 3: \citet{Monet1992} \\ Reference 4: \citet{Vrba2004} \\ Reference 5: \citet{Dahn2002} }
2129: \end{deluxetable*}
2130:
2131:
2132:
2133:
2134: \subsection{Observations of Parallax Standards with the NMSU 1m}
2135:
2136: Additional constraints on the location of the lower main sequence
2137: in SDSS/2MASS color-magnitude space can be derived by transforming
2138: observations from secondary telescopes onto the native SDSS photometric
2139: system. Using time on the NMSU 1m telescope made available to the public
2140: through the NSF PREST program, we obtained $r'i'z'$ observations of 36 stars with measured
2141: trigonometric parallaxes, along with `deep' observations of fields containing
2142: late type stars with unsaturated SDSS photometry.
2143:
2144: The NMSU 1m telescope
2145: features a 2048x2048 E2V CCD providing a plate scale of 0.467 arcsec/pixel.
2146: Observations were carried out in robotic mode under good conditions
2147: (clear to light cirrus, seeing 1-2\arcsec) on February 6th and 7th, 2007.
2148: Images were bias subtracted, flat fielded, and overscan corrected before
2149: instrumental magnitudes were measured via aperture photometry, using
2150: apertures with a 15 pixel radius and sky annuli 15 pixels in width
2151: with an inner radius of 25 pixels. Observations of $u'g'r'i'z'$ photometric
2152: standards \citet{Smith2002} demonstrate internal photometric
2153: accuracy of $\sigma$=0.04 magnitudes.
2154:
2155: Comparing
2156: instrumental magnitudes to SDSS database magnitudes for stars in the
2157: `deep' SDSS fields allow the derivation of airmass corrections simultaneously
2158: with the zeropoints and color-terms required to transform from NMSU instrumental
2159: magnitudes onto the SDSS photmetric system. The accuracy of the NMSU to SDSS transformation
2160: is limited by statistical uncertainties in NMSU detections of stars in the `deep' SDSS fields; residuals
2161: in the transformed SDSS $i$ magnitudes range from 0.03 to 0.13 magnitudes for sources with $i=15-18$, respectively.
2162: Similar results are seen for stellar colors, with maximum $r-i$ and $i-z$
2163: residuals at the faint ($i=18$) end of 0.15 and 0.2 magnitudes, respectively.
2164: As a result, we adopt conservative uncertainties for our transformed SDSS photometry
2165: of 0.15 magnitudes in $i$ and $r-i$, and 0.2 magnitudes in $i-z$.
2166:
2167: The SDSS magnitudes we derive for these sources from our transformed NMSU photometry
2168: are presented in Table \ref{tab:NMSUphot}, along with their 2MASS magnitudes and
2169: measured trigonometric parallaxes. These sources are also shown in Fig. \ref{jijCMR}.
2170:
2171:
2172: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccr}
2173: \tablewidth{0pt}
2174: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
2175: \tablecaption{NMSU-1m Photometry of Parallax Standards \label{tab:NMSUphot}}
2176: \tablehead{
2177: \colhead{Star} &
2178: \colhead{SDSS} &
2179: \colhead{SDSS} &
2180: \colhead{SDSS} &
2181: \colhead{2MASS} &
2182: \colhead{2MASS} &
2183: \colhead{2MASS} &
2184: \colhead{$\pi$} &
2185: \colhead{$\pi$} &
2186: \colhead{$\pi$} \\
2187: \colhead{Name} &
2188: \colhead{$i$} &
2189: \colhead{$r-i$} &
2190: \colhead{$i-z$} &
2191: \colhead{$J$} &
2192: \colhead{$J-H$} &
2193: \colhead{$H-K_s$} &
2194: \colhead{(mas/yr)} &
2195: \colhead{err.} &
2196: \colhead{ref.} }
2197: \}
2198: \startdata
2199: AC +61 23399 & 9.72 & 0.66 & 0.32 & 8.150 & 0.69 & 0.14 & 32.1 & 1.6 & 1 \\
2200: BD+37 2337 & 9.29 & 0.29 & 0.12 & 8.033 & 0.56 & 0.11 & 24.99 & 1.6 & 1 \\
2201: CN Leo & 10.41 & 2.39 & 1.38 & 7.085 & 0.60 & 0.40 & 425.0& 7.0 & 2 \\
2202: G 88-28 & 9.66 & 0.96 & 0.48 & 7.818 & 0.64 & 0.23 & 50.9 & 2.7 & 1 \\
2203: G 96-1 & 9.67 & 0.16 & 0.01 & 8.645 & 0.46 & 0.02 & 24.07 & 3.1 & 1 \\
2204: \\
2205: G 176-8 & 9.76 & 0.76 & 0.41 & 8.107 & 0.67 & 0.22 & 30.1 & 2.3 & 1 \\
2206: G 198-37 & 9.23 & 0.69 & 0.33 & 7.610 & 0.64 & 0.20 & 43.25 & 2.0 & 1 \\
2207: G 199-13 & 9.09 & 0.22 & 0.06 & 8.000 & 0.50 & 0.10 & 22.7 & 1.2 & 1 \\
2208: G 221-23 & 8.37 & 0.47 & 0.20 & 6.873 & 0.61 & 0.15 & 57.53 & 2.7 & 1 \\
2209: G 221-24 & 9.23 & 0.95 & 0.45 & 7.379 & 0.58 & 0.23 & 57.53 & 2.7 & 1 \\
2210: \\
2211: G 222-1 & 9.55 & 0.71 & 0.30 & 7.955 & 0.72 & 0.14 & 28.8 & 1.4 & 1 \\
2212: G 250-34 & 9.67 & 0.94 & 0.46 & 7.872 & 0.61 & 0.24 & 56.51 & 2.2 & 1 \\
2213: G 256-10 & 10.28 & 0.33 & 0.07 & 9.131 & 0.48 & 0.13 & 27.00 & 10.0 & 2 \\
2214: GJ 3452 & 9.68 & 1.07 & 0.54 & 7.772 & 0.55 & 0.27 & 76.3 & 2.6 & 1 \\
2215: GJ 3504 & 15.26 & 2.48 & 1.40 & 12.035 & 0.56 & 0.34 & 50.8 & 0.5 & 2 \\
2216: \\
2217: GJ 3855 & 14.33 & 2.74 & 1.50 & 10.79 & 0.65 & 0.35 & 103.3& 1.3 & 2 \\
2218: GJ 585.1 & 9.15 & 0.53 & 0.23 & 7.693 & 0.61 & 0.18 & 39.0 & 1.7 & 1 \\
2219: GJ 9455B & 10.01 & 0.19 & 0.04 & 8.948 & 0.38 & 0.13 & 20.7 &10.6 & 1 \\
2220: GSC 03722-00302 & 9.70 & 0.30 & 0.09 & 8.450 & 0.51 & 0.12 & 20.39 & 2.0 & 1 \\
2221: HD 24916 & 7.31 & 0.34 & 0.12 & 6.063 & 0.58 & 0.15 & 63.41 & 2.0 & 1 \\
2222: \\
2223: HD 284552 & 9.78 & 0.38 & 0.14 & 8.427 & 0.59 & 0.15 & 24.98 & 2.0 & 1 \\
2224: HIC 33805 & 9.72 & 0.64 & 0.32 & 8.129 & 0.59 & 0.19 & 43.9 & 2.2 & 1 \\
2225: LHS 35 & 10.68 & 1.59 & 0.80 & 8.424 & 0.50 & 0.27 & 143.0& 4.0 & 2 \\
2226: LHS 197 & 14.37 & 2.26 & 1.14 & 11.559 & 0.50 & 0.29 & 51.8 & 1.0 & 2 \\
2227: LHS 224 & 10.99 & 1.75 & 0.91 & 8.537 & 0.44 & 0.32 & 109.1 & 2.8 & 2 \\
2228: \\
2229: LHS 231 & 14.01 & 1.78 & 0.90 &11.606 & 0.49 & 0.24 & 40.7 & 1.0 & 2 \\
2230: LHS 287 & 10.82 & 1.57 & 0.83 & 8.493 & 0.49 & 0.29 & 96.7 & 2.3 & 2 \\
2231: LHS 303 & 9.72 & 0.87 & 0.46 & 7.994 & 0.60 & 0.23 & 47.1 & 2.4 & 1 \\
2232: LHS 331 & 12.17 & 1.48 & 0.74 & 9.983 & 0.48 & 0.28 & 39.9 & 1.0 & 2 \\
2233: LHS 2914 & 12.04 & 0.29 & 0.13 & 10.803 & 0.47 & 0.16 & 27.0 & 13.0 & 2 \\
2234: \\
2235: LHS 1653 & 10.35 & 0.45 & 0.22 & 8.926 & 0.61 & 0.13 & 28.7 & 3.4 & 1 \\
2236: LTT 13340 & 9.29 & 0.32 & 0.15 & 8.036 & 0.53 & 0.12 & 23.2 & 1.8 & 1 \\
2237: NLTT 36978 & 9.58 & 0.31 & 0.12 & 8.287 & 0.55 & 0.09 & 23.6 & 1.7 & 1 \\
2238: NSV 5426 & 10.14 & 0.35 & 0.15 & 8.835 & 0.55 & 0.15 & 23.0 & 2.2 & 1 \\
2239: NSV 6424 & 9.45 & 0.51 & 0.24 & 8.031 & 0.70 & 0.13 & 39.0 & 1.8 & 1 \\
2240: \\
2241: TVLM 263-71765 & 17.11 & 2.70 & 1.71 & 13.363 & 0.64 & 0.41 & 31.9 & 2.9 & 3 \\
2242: \enddata
2243: \tablecomments{Reference 1: \citet{Perryman1997} \\ Reference 2: \citet{van-Altena1995} \\ Reference 3: \citet{Tinney1995}}
2244: \end{deluxetable*}
2245:
2246: %%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2247:
2248: %\clearpage
2249:
2250: %--------------------------BIBLIOGRAPHY---------------------------
2251: \setlength{\baselineskip}{0.6\baselineskip}
2252:
2253: \begin{thebibliography}{108}
2254: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
2255:
2256: \bibitem[{{Abazajian} {et~al.}(2004){Abazajian}, {Adelman-McCarthy},
2257: {Ag{\"u}eros}, {Allam}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Baldry},
2258: {Bastian}, {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Bochanski}, {Boroski},
2259: {Briggs}, {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carey}, {Carliles},
2260: {Castander}, {Connolly}, {Csabai}, {Doi}, {Dong}, {Eisenstein}, {Evans},
2261: {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Gal}, {Gillespie},
2262: {Glazebrook}, {Gray}, {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {Hall}, {Hamabe},
2263: {Harris}, {Harris}, {Harvanek}, {Heckman}, {Hendry}, {Hennessy}, {Hindsley},
2264: {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Holmgren}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Jester},
2265: {Johnston}, {Jorgensen}, {Kent}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kniazev}, {Kron},
2266: {Krzesinski}, {Kunszt}, {Kuropatkin}, {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lee}, {Leger},
2267: {Li}, {Lin}, {Loh}, {Long}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Malik}, {Margon},
2268: {Matsubara}, {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Nash},
2269: {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Newman}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban},
2270: {Nitta}, {Okamura}, {O'Mullane}, {Ostriker}, {Owen}, {Padmanabhan},
2271: {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope}, {Quinn}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Rix}, {Rockosi},
2272: {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Scranton}, {Sekiguchi}, {Seljak}, {Sergey},
2273: {Sesar}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Siegmund}, {Silvestri}, {Smith}, {Smol{\v
2274: c}i{\'c}}, {Snedden}, {Stebbins}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao},
2275: {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Szokoly}, {Tegmark}, {Teodoro}, {Thakar},
2276: {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vandenberg}, {Vogeley},
2277: {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Walkowicz}, {Wang}, {Weinberg}, {West}, {White}, {Wilhite},
2278: {Xu}, {Yanny}, {Yasuda}, {Yip}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, {Zibetti}, \&
2279: {Zucker}}]{Abazajian2004}
2280: {Abazajian}, K. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 128, 502
2281:
2282: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2008){Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},
2283: {Allam}, {Allende Prieto}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall},
2284: {Bailer-Jones}, {Baldry}, {Barentine}, {Bassett}, {Becker}, {Beers}, {Bell},
2285: {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Bochanski}, {Boroski}, {Brinchmann},
2286: {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carliles}, {Carr}, {Castander},
2287: {Cinabro}, {Cool}, {Covey}, {Csabai}, {Cunha}, {Davenport}, {Dilday}, {Doi},
2288: {Eisenstein}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman},
2289: {Fukugita}, {G{\"a}nsicke}, {Gates}, {Gillespie}, {Glazebrook}, {Gray},
2290: {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {Hall}, {Harding}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley},
2291: {Hayes}, {Heckman}, {Hendry}, {Hindsley}, {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Hyde},
2292: {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Jester}, {Johnson}, {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}},
2293: {Kent}, {Kessler}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin},
2294: {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lebedeva}, {Lee}, {Leger}, {L{\'e}pine}, {Lima}, {Lin},
2295: {Long}, {Loomis}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Malanushenko}, {Malanushenko},
2296: {Mandelbaum}, {Margon}, {Marriner}, {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Matsubara},
2297: {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Morrison}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Neilsen},
2298: {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {Okamura},
2299: {Owen}, {Oyaizu}, {Padmanabhan}, {Pan}, {Park}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope},
2300: {Purger}, {Raddick}, {Re Fiorentin}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Riess}, {Rix},
2301: {Rockosi}, {Sako}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Schreiber}, {Schwope}, {Seljak},
2302: {Sesar}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Sivarani}, {Smith}, {Snedden}, {Steinmetz},
2303: {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Suto}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark},
2304: {Thakar}, {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vandenberg},
2305: {Vidrih}, {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Wadadekar}, {Weinberg}, {West},
2306: {White}, {Wilhite}, {Yanny}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, \&
2307: {Zucker}}]{Adelman-McCarthy2008}
2308: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2008, \apjs, 175, 297
2309:
2310: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2006){Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},
2311: {Allam}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Baldry}, {Barentine},
2312: {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Boroski}, {Brewington}, {Brinchmann},
2313: {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carey}, {Carr}, {Castander},
2314: {Connolly}, {Csabai}, {Czarapata}, {Dalcanton}, {Doi}, {Dong}, {Eisenstein},
2315: {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Gillespie},
2316: {Glazebrook}, {Gray}, {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {de Haas}, {Hall},
2317: {Harris}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley}, {Hayes}, {Hendry}, {Hennessy}, {Hindsley},
2318: {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Holmgren}, {Holtzman}, {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}},
2319: {Jester}, {Johnston}, {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp},
2320: {Kniazev}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin}, {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lee},
2321: {Leger}, {Lin}, {Long}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Margon},
2322: {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Mandelbaum}, {Matsubara}, {McGehee}, {McKay},
2323: {Meiksin}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Nash}, {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Newman},
2324: {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {O'Mullane}, {Okamura},
2325: {Owen}, {Padmanabhan}, {Pauls}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope}, {Pourbaix},
2326: {Quinn}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Rockosi}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider},
2327: {Schroeder}, {Scranton}, {Seljak}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Smith}, {Smol{\v
2328: c}i{\'c}}, {Snedden}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay},
2329: {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark}, {Thakar}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk},
2330: {Vandenberg}, {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Walkowicz}, {Weinberg}, {West},
2331: {White}, {Xu}, {Yanny}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, {Zibetti}, \&
2332: {Zucker}}]{Adelman-McCarthy2006}
2333: ---. 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
2334:
2335: \bibitem[{{Bagnulo} {et~al.}(2003){Bagnulo}, {Jehin}, {Ledoux}, {Cabanac},
2336: {Melo}, {Gilmozzi}, \& {The ESO Paranal Science Operations
2337: Team}}]{Bagnulo2003}
2338: {Bagnulo}, S., {Jehin}, E., {Ledoux}, C., {Cabanac}, R., {Melo}, C.,
2339: {Gilmozzi}, R., \& {The ESO Paranal Science Operations Team}. 2003, The
2340: Messenger, 114, 10
2341:
2342: \bibitem[{{Bessell} \& {Brett}(1988)}]{Bessell1988}
2343: {Bessell}, M.~S., \& {Brett}, J.~M. 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134
2344:
2345: \bibitem[{{Bessell} \& {Wickramasinghe}(1979)}]{Bessell1979}
2346: {Bessell}, M.~S., \& {Wickramasinghe}, D.~T. 1979, \apj, 227, 232
2347:
2348: \bibitem[{{Bochanski} {et~al.}(2007){Bochanski}, {West}, {Hawley}, \&
2349: {Covey}}]{Bochanski2007}
2350: {Bochanski}, J.~J., {West}, A.~A., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {Covey}, K.~R. 2007,
2351: \aj, 133, 531
2352:
2353: \bibitem[{Burgasser {et~al.}(2007)}]{Burgasser2007}
2354: Burgasser, A.~J., {et~al.} 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed.
2355: B.~{Reipurth}, D.~{Jewitt}, \& K.~{Keil}, 427--441
2356:
2357: \bibitem[{{Cardelli} {et~al.}(1989){Cardelli}, {Clayton}, \&
2358: {Mathis}}]{Cardelli1989}
2359: {Cardelli}, J.~A., {Clayton}, G.~C., \& {Mathis}, J.~S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
2360:
2361: \bibitem[{{Chabrier}(2003)}]{Chabrier2003}
2362: {Chabrier}, G. 2003, \pasp, 115, 763
2363:
2364: \bibitem[{{Chabrier}(2005)}]{Chabrier2005a}
2365: {Chabrier}, G. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 327, The
2366: Initial Mass Function 50 Years Later, ed. E.~{Corbelli}, F.~{Palla}, \&
2367: H.~{Zinnecker}, 41--+
2368:
2369: \bibitem[{{Corbelli} {et~al.}(2005){Corbelli}, {Palla}, \&
2370: {Zinnecker}}]{Corbelli2005}
2371: {Corbelli}, E., {Palla}, F., \& {Zinnecker}, H., eds. 2005, Astrophysics and
2372: Space Science Library, Vol. 327, {The Initial Mass Function 50 years later}
2373:
2374: \bibitem[{{Covey}(2006)}]{Covey2006a}
2375: {Covey}, K.~R. 2006, PhD thesis, University of Washington, United States --
2376: Washington
2377:
2378: \bibitem[{{Covey} {et~al.}(2007){Covey}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Schlegel},
2379: {Finkbeiner}, {Padmanabhan}, {Lupton}, {Ag{\"u}eros}, {Bochanski}, {Hawley},
2380: {West}, {Seth}, {Kimball}, {Gogarten}, {Claire}, {Haggard}, {Kaib},
2381: {Schneider}, \& {Sesar}}]{Covey2007}
2382: {Covey}, K.~R. {et~al.} 2007, \aj, 134, 2398
2383:
2384: \bibitem[{{Cruz} {et~al.}(2007){Cruz}, {Reid}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Burgasser},
2385: {Liebert}, {Solomon}, {Schmidt}, {Allen}, {Hawley}, \& {Covey}}]{Cruz2007}
2386: {Cruz}, K.~L. {et~al.} 2007, \aj, 133, 439
2387:
2388: \bibitem[{{Cutri} {et~al.}(2003){Cutri}, {Skrutskie}, {van Dyk}, {Beichman},
2389: {Carpenter}, {Chester}, {Cambresy}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Gizis}, {Howard},
2390: {Huchra}, {Jarrett}, {Kopan}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Light}, {Marsh}, {McCallon},
2391: {Schneider}, {Stiening}, {Sykes}, {Weinberg}, {Wheaton}, {Wheelock}, \&
2392: {Zacarias}}]{Cutri2003}
2393: {Cutri}, R.~M. {et~al.} 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246, 0
2394:
2395: \bibitem[{Cutri {et~al.}(2007)}]{2MASSexplanatorystatement}
2396: Cutri, R.~M., {et~al.} 2007, Explanatory Supplement to the 2MASS All Sky Data
2397: Release and Extended Mission Products
2398:
2399: \bibitem[{{Dahn} {et~al.}(2002){Dahn}, {Harris}, {Vrba}, {Guetter}, {Canzian},
2400: {Henden}, {Levine}, {Luginbuhl}, {Monet}, {Monet}, {Pier}, {Stone}, {Walker},
2401: {Burgasser}, {Gizis}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Liebert}, \& {Reid}}]{Dahn2002}
2402: {Dahn}, C.~C. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 124, 1170
2403:
2404: \bibitem[{{Danks} \& {Dennefeld}(1994)}]{Danks1994}
2405: {Danks}, A.~C., \& {Dennefeld}, M. 1994, \pasp, 106, 382
2406:
2407: \bibitem[{{Davenport} {et~al.}(2007){Davenport}, {Bochanski}, {Covey},
2408: {Hawley}, {West}, \& {Schneider}}]{Davenport2007}
2409: {Davenport}, J.~R.~A., {Bochanski}, J.~J., {Covey}, K.~R., {Hawley}, S.~L.,
2410: {West}, A.~A., \& {Schneider}, D.~P. 2007, \aj, 134, 2430
2411:
2412: %\bibitem[{{de Marchi} {et~al.}(2005){de Marchi}, {Paresce}, \& {Portegies
2413: % Zwart}}]{de-Marchi2005}
2414: %{de Marchi}, G., {Paresce}, F., \& {Portegies Zwart}, S. 2005, in Astrophysics
2415: % and Space Science Library, Vol. 327, The Initial Mass Function 50 Years
2416: % Later, ed. E.~{Corbelli}, F.~{Palla}, \& H.~{Zinnecker}, 77--+
2417:
2418: %\bibitem[{{Deacon} {et~al.}(2008){Deacon}, {Nelemans}, \&
2419: % {Hambly}}]{Deacon2008}
2420: %{Deacon}, N.~R., {Nelemans}, G., \& {Hambly}, N.~C. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804
2421:
2422: \bibitem[{{Delfosse} {et~al.}(2004){Delfosse}, {Beuzit}, {Marchal}, {Bonfils},
2423: {C.~Perrier}, {S{\'e}gransan}, {Udry}, {Mayor}, \&
2424: {Forveille}}]{Delfosse2004}
2425: {Delfosse}, X. {et~al.} 2004, in ASP Conf. Ser. 318: Spectroscopically and
2426: Spatially Resolving the Components of the Close Binary Stars, 166--174
2427:
2428: \bibitem[{{Delfosse} {et~al.}(2000){Delfosse}, {Forveille}, {S{\'e}gransan},
2429: {Beuzit}, {Udry}, {Perrier}, \& {Mayor}}]{Delfosse2000}
2430: {Delfosse}, X., {Forveille}, T., {S{\'e}gransan}, D., {Beuzit}, J.-L., {Udry},
2431: S., {Perrier}, C., \& {Mayor}, M. 2000, \aap, 364, 217
2432:
2433: \bibitem[{{Dotter} {et~al.}(2007){Dotter}, {Chaboyer}, {Jevremovi{\'c}},
2434: {Baron}, {Ferguson}, {Sarajedini}, \& {Anderson}}]{Dotter2007}
2435: {Dotter}, A., {Chaboyer}, B., {Jevremovi{\'c}}, D., {Baron}, E., {Ferguson},
2436: J.~W., {Sarajedini}, A., \& {Anderson}, J. 2007, \aj, 134, 376
2437:
2438: \bibitem[{{Duquennoy} {et~al.}(1991){Duquennoy}, {Mayor}, \&
2439: {Halbwachs}}]{Duquennoy1991}
2440: {Duquennoy}, A., {Mayor}, M., \& {Halbwachs}, J.-L. 1991, \aaps, 88, 281
2441:
2442: \bibitem[{{Felten}(1976)}]{Felten1976}
2443: {Felten}, J.~E. 1976, \apj, 207, 700
2444:
2445: \bibitem[{{Fluks} {et~al.}(1994){Fluks}, {Plez}, {The}, {de Winter},
2446: {Westerlund}, \& {Steenman}}]{Fluks1994}
2447: {Fluks}, M.~A., {Plez}, B., {The}, P.~S., {de Winter}, D., {Westerlund}, B.~E.,
2448: \& {Steenman}, H.~C. 1994, \aaps, 105, 311
2449:
2450: \bibitem[{{Fukugita} {et~al.}(1996){Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Gunn}, {Doi},
2451: {Shimasaku}, \& {Schneider}}]{Fukugita1996}
2452: {Fukugita}, M., {Ichikawa}, T., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Doi}, M., {Shimasaku}, K., \&
2453: {Schneider}, D.~P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
2454:
2455: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2002){Girardi}, {Bertelli}, {Bressan}, {Chiosi},
2456: {Groenewegen}, {Marigo}, {Salasnich}, \& {Weiss}}]{Girardi2002}
2457: {Girardi}, L., {Bertelli}, G., {Bressan}, A., {Chiosi}, C., {Groenewegen},
2458: M.~A.~T., {Marigo}, P., {Salasnich}, B., \& {Weiss}, A. 2002, \aap, 391, 195
2459:
2460: \bibitem[{{Girardi} {et~al.}(2005){Girardi}, {Groenewegen}, {Hatziminaoglou},
2461: \& {da Costa}}]{Girardi2005}
2462: {Girardi}, L., {Groenewegen}, M.~A.~T., {Hatziminaoglou}, E., \& {da Costa}, L.
2463: 2005, \aap, 436, 895
2464:
2465: \bibitem[{{Gizis}(1997)}]{Gizis1997}
2466: {Gizis}, J.~E. 1997, \aj, 113, 806
2467:
2468: \bibitem[{{Golimowski} {et~al.}(2008){Golimowski}, {Henry}, {Reid}, \&
2469: {Uomoto}}]{Golimowski2007}
2470: {Golimowski}, D.~A., {Henry}, T.~J., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Uomoto}, A. 2008, SDSS
2471: parallaxes (in prep.)
2472:
2473: \bibitem[{{Gould} \& {Chanam{\'e}}(2004)}]{Gould2004}
2474: {Gould}, A., \& {Chanam{\'e}}, J. 2004, \apjs, 150, 455
2475:
2476: \bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(1998){Gunn}, {Carr}, {Rockosi}, {Sekiguchi}, {Berry},
2477: {Elms}, {de Haas}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Lupton}, {Pauls}, {Simcoe},
2478: {Hirsch}, {Sanford}, {Wang}, {York}, {Harris}, {Annis}, {Bartozek},
2479: {Boroski}, {Bakken}, {Haldeman}, {Kent}, {Holm}, {Holmgren}, {Petravick},
2480: {Prosapio}, {Rechenmacher}, {Doi}, {Fukugita}, {Shimasaku}, {Okada}, {Hull},
2481: {Siegmund}, {Mannery}, {Blouke}, {Heidtman}, {Schneider}, {Lucinio}, \&
2482: {Brinkman}}]{Gunn1998}
2483: {Gunn}, J.~E. {et~al.} 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
2484:
2485: \bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(2006){Gunn}, {Siegmund}, {Mannery}, {Owen}, {Hull},
2486: {Leger}, {Carey}, {Knapp}, {York}, {Boroski}, {Kent}, {Lupton}, {Rockosi},
2487: {Evans}, {Waddell}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Barentine}, {Bartoszek}, {Bastian},
2488: {Bracker}, {Brewington}, {Briegel}, {Brinkmann}, {Brown}, {Carr},
2489: {Czarapata}, {Drennan}, {Dombeck}, {Federwitz}, {Gillespie}, {Gonzales},
2490: {Hansen}, {Harvanek}, {Hayes}, {Jordan}, {Kinney}, {Klaene}, {Kleinman},
2491: {Kron}, {Kresinski}, {Lee}, {Limmongkol}, {Lindenmeyer}, {Long}, {Loomis},
2492: {McGehee}, {Mantsch}, {Neilsen}, {Neswold}, {Newman}, {Nitta}, {Peoples},
2493: {Pier}, {Prieto}, {Prosapio}, {Rivetta}, {Schneider}, {Snedden}, \&
2494: {Wang}}]{Gunn2006}
2495: ---. 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
2496:
2497: %\bibitem[{{Hartman} {et~al.}(2008){Hartman}, {Gaudi}, {Holman}, {McLeod},
2498: % {Stanek}, {Barranco}, {Pinsonneault}, {Meibom}, \& {Kalirai}}]{Hartman2008}
2499: %{Hartman}, J.~D. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 675, 1233
2500:
2501: \bibitem[{{Hawley} {et~al.}(2002){Hawley}, {Covey}, {Knapp}, {Golimowski},
2502: {Fan}, {Anderson}, {Gunn}, {Harris}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Long}, {Lupton},
2503: {McGehee}, {Narayanan}, {Peng}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Spahn}, {Strauss},
2504: {Szkody}, {Tsvetanov}, {Walkowicz}, {Brinkmann}, {Harvanek}, {Hennessy},
2505: {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Newman}, {Nitta}, {Snedden}, \&
2506: {York}}]{Hawley2002}
2507: {Hawley}, S.~L. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 3409
2508:
2509: \bibitem[{{Henry} \& {McCarthy}(1993)}]{Henry1993}
2510: {Henry}, T.~J., \& {McCarthy}, D.~W. 1993, \aj, 106, 773
2511:
2512: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2001){Hogg}, {Finkbeiner}, {Schlegel}, \&
2513: {Gunn}}]{Hogg2001}
2514: {Hogg}, D.~W., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., {Schlegel}, D.~J., \& {Gunn}, J.~E. 2001,
2515: \aj, 122, 2129
2516:
2517: \bibitem[{{Huchra} \& {Sargent}(1973)}]{Huchra1973}
2518: {Huchra}, J., \& {Sargent}, W.~L.~W. 1973, \apj, 186, 433
2519:
2520: \bibitem[{{Ivezi{\'c}} {et~al.}(2002){Ivezi{\'c}}, {Becker}, {Blanton}, {Fan},
2521: {Finlator}, {Gunn}, {Hall}, {Kim}, {Knapp}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Menou},
2522: {Narayanan}, {Richards}, {Rockosi}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Strateva},
2523: {Strauss}, {vanden Berk}, {Voges}, {Yanny}, \& {The SDSS
2524: Collaboration}}]{Ivezic2002}
2525: {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. {et~al.} 2002, in ASP Conf. Ser. 284: AGN Surveys, 137--+
2526:
2527: \bibitem[{{Ivezi{\'c}} {et~al.}(2004){Ivezi{\'c}}, {Lupton}, {Schlegel},
2528: {Boroski}, {Adelman-McCarthy}, {Yanny}, {Kent}, {Stoughton}, {Finkbeiner},
2529: {Padmanabhan}, {Rockosi}, {Gunn}, {Knapp}, {Strauss}, {Richards},
2530: {Eisenstein}, {Nicinski}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Newman}, {Snedden},
2531: {Thakar}, {Szalay}, {Munn}, {Smith}, {Tucker}, \& {Lee}}]{Ivezic2004}
2532: {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. {et~al.} 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 583
2533:
2534: \bibitem[{{Juri{\'c}} {et~al.}(2008){Juri{\'c}}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Brooks},
2535: {Lupton}, {Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, {Padmanabhan}, {Bond}, {Sesar},
2536: {Rockosi}, {Knapp}, {Gunn}, {Sumi}, {Schneider}, {Barentine}, {Brewington},
2537: {Brinkmann}, {Fukugita}, {Harvanek}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long},
2538: {Neilsen}, {Nitta}, {Snedden}, \& {York}}]{Juric2008}
2539: {Juri{\'c}}, M. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 673, 864
2540:
2541: \bibitem[{{Klessen} {et~al.}(1998){Klessen}, {Burkert}, \&
2542: {Bate}}]{Klessen1998}
2543: {Klessen}, R.~S., {Burkert}, A., \& {Bate}, M.~R. 1998, \apjl, 501, L205+
2544:
2545: %\bibitem[{{Kroupa}(2001)}]{Kroupa2001}
2546: %{Kroupa}, P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 231
2547:
2548: \bibitem[{{Kroupa}(2002)}]{Kroupa2002}
2549: ---. 2002, Science, 295, 82
2550:
2551: \bibitem[{{Lada} (2006){Lada}, C.~J.}]{Lada2006}
2552: {Lada}, C.~J. 2006, \apj, 640L, 63
2553:
2554: \bibitem[{{Lan{\c c}on} \& {Wood}(2000)}]{Lancon2000}
2555: {Lan{\c c}on}, A., \& {Wood}, P.~R. 2000, \aaps, 146, 217
2556:
2557: %\bibitem[{{Larson}(1986)}]{Larson1986}
2558: %{Larson}, R.~B. 1986, \mnras, 218, 409
2559:
2560: \bibitem[{{Larson}(1992)}]{Larson1992}
2561: ---. 1992, \mnras, 256, 641
2562:
2563: \bibitem[{{Le Borgne} {et~al.}(2003)}]{Le-Borgne2003}
2564: {Le Borgne}, J.-F., {et~al.} 2003, \aap, 402, 433
2565:
2566: %\bibitem[{{Lodieu} {et~al.}(2007){Lodieu}, {Dobbie}, {Deacon}, {Hodgkin},
2567: % {Hambly}, \& {Jameson}}]{Lodieu2007}
2568: %{Lodieu}, N., {Dobbie}, P.~D., {Deacon}, N.~R., {Hodgkin}, S.~T., {Hambly},
2569: % N.~C., \& {Jameson}, R.~F. 2007, \mnras, 380, 712
2570:
2571: \bibitem[{{Luhman}(2004)}]{Luhman2004}
2572: {Luhman}, K.~L. 2004, \apj, 617, 1216
2573:
2574: \bibitem[{{Lupton} {et~al.}(2001){Lupton}, {Gunn}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp},
2575: {Kent}, \& {Yasuda}}]{Lupton2001}
2576: {Lupton}, R., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Ivezi{\'c}}, Z., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Kent}, S., \&
2577: {Yasuda}, N. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 238: Astronomical Data Analysis Software
2578: and Systems X, 269--+
2579:
2580: \bibitem[{{Lupton} {et~al.}(1999){Lupton}, {Gunn}, \& {Szalay}}]{Lupton1999}
2581: {Lupton}, R.~H., {Gunn}, J.~E., \& {Szalay}, A.~S. 1999, \aj, 118, 1406
2582:
2583: \bibitem[{{Malyuto} {et~al.}(1997){Malyuto}, {Oestreicher}, \&
2584: {Schmidt-Kaler}}]{Malyuto1997}
2585: {Malyuto}, V., {Oestreicher}, M.~O., \& {Schmidt-Kaler}, T. 1997, \mnras, 286,
2586: 500
2587:
2588: \bibitem[{{Malyuto} \& {Schmidt-Kaler}(1999)}]{Malyuto1999}
2589: {Malyuto}, V., \& {Schmidt-Kaler}, T. 1999, Astronomische Nachrichten, 320, 71
2590:
2591: \bibitem[{ {Marshall} {et~al.}(2006){Marshall}, {Robin}, {Reyl{\'e}},
2592: {Schultheis}, \& {Picaud}, S.}]{Marshall2006}
2593: {Marshall}, D.~J., {Robin}, A.~C., {Reyl{\'e}}, C., {Schultheis}, M., {Picaud}, S. 2006, \aap, 453, 635
2594:
2595: %\bibitem[{{Martini} \& {Osmer}(1998)}]{Martini1998}
2596: %{Martini}, P., \& {Osmer}, P.~S. 1998, \aj, 116, 2513
2597:
2598: \bibitem[{{Miller} \& {Scalo}(1979)}]{Miller1979}
2599: {Miller}, G.~E., \& {Scalo}, J.~M. 1979, \apjs, 41, 513
2600:
2601: \bibitem[{{Monet} {et~al.}(1992){Monet}, {Dahn}, {Vrba}, {Harris}, {Pier},
2602: {Luginbuhl}, \& {Ables}}]{Monet1992}
2603: {Monet}, D.~G., {Dahn}, C.~C., {Vrba}, F.~J., {Harris}, H.~C., {Pier}, J.~R.,
2604: {Luginbuhl}, C.~B., \& {Ables}, H.~D. 1992, \aj, 103, 638
2605:
2606: \bibitem[{{Morell}(1988)}]{Morell1988}
2607: {Morell}, O. 1988, in IAU Symp. 132: The Impact of Very High S/N Spectroscopy
2608: on Stellar Physics, ed. G.~{Cayrel de Strobel} \& M.~{Spite}, 519--+
2609:
2610: \bibitem[{{Morrison} {et~al.}(2003){Morrison}, {Norris}, {Mateo}, {Harding},
2611: {Olszewski}, {Shectman}, {Dohm-Palmer}, {Helmi}, \& {Freeman}}]{Morrison2003}
2612: {Morrison}, H.~L. {et~al.} 2003, \aj, 125, 2502
2613:
2614: %\bibitem[{{Muench} {et~al.}(2002){Muench}, {Lada}, {Lada}, \&
2615: % {Alves}}]{Muench2002}
2616: %{Muench}, A.~A., {Lada}, E.~A., {Lada}, C.~J., \& {Alves}, J. 2002, \apj, 573,
2617: % 366
2618:
2619: \bibitem[{{Munn} {et~al.}(2004){Munn}, {Monet}, {Levine}, {Canzian}, {Pier},
2620: {Harris}, {Lupton}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Hindsley}, {Hennessy}, {Schneider}, \&
2621: {Brinkmann}}]{Munn2004}
2622: {Munn}, J.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 3034
2623:
2624: %\bibitem[{{Ochsenbein} {et~al.}(2000){Ochsenbein}, {Bauer}, \&
2625: % {Marcout}}]{Ochsenbein2000}
2626: %{Ochsenbein}, F., {Bauer}, P., \& {Marcout}, J. 2000, \aaps, 143, 23
2627:
2628: \bibitem[{{O'Donnell}(1994)}]{Odonnell1994}
2629: {O'Donnell}, J.~E. 1994, \apj, 422, 158
2630:
2631: \bibitem[{{Padoan} \& {Nordlund}(2002)}]{Padoan2002}
2632: {Padoan}, P., \& {Nordlund}, {\AA}. 2002, \apj, 576, 870
2633:
2634: \bibitem[{{Perryman} {et~al.}(1997){Perryman}, {Lindegren}, {Kovalevsky},
2635: {Hoeg}, {Bastian}, {Bernacca}, {Cr{\'e}z{\'e}}, {Donati}, {Grenon}, {van
2636: Leeuwen}, {van der Marel}, {Mignard}, {Murray}, {Le Poole}, {Schrijver},
2637: {Turon}, {Arenou}, {Froeschl{\'e}}, \& {Petersen}}]{Perryman1997}
2638: {Perryman}, M.~A.~C. {et~al.} 1997, \aap, 323, L49
2639:
2640: \bibitem[{{Pier} {et~al.}(2003){Pier}, {Munn}, {Hindsley}, {Hennessy}, {Kent},
2641: {Lupton}, \& {Ivezi{\'c}}}]{Pier2003}
2642: {Pier}, J.~R., {Munn}, J.~A., {Hindsley}, R.~B., {Hennessy}, G.~S., {Kent},
2643: S.~M., {Lupton}, R.~H., \& {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
2644:
2645: \bibitem[{{Prugniel} \& {Soubiran}(2001)}]{Prugniel2001}
2646: {Prugniel}, P., \& {Soubiran}, C. 2001, \aap, 369, 1048
2647:
2648: \bibitem[{{Reid} \& {Gizis}(1997)}]{Reid1997}
2649: {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Gizis}, J.~E. 1997, \aj, 113, 2246
2650:
2651: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(1991){Reid}, I.~N., {Brewer}, C., {Brucato}, R.~J., {McKinley}, W.~R.,
2652: {Maury}, A., {Mendenhall}, D., {Mould}, J.~R., {Mueller}, J.,
2653: {Neugebauer}, G., {Phinney}, J., {Sargent}, W.~L.~W.,
2654: {Schombert}, J., {Thicksten}, R.}]{Reid1991}
2655: {Reid}, I.~N., {Brewer}, C., {Brucato}, R.~J., {McKinley}, W.~R.,
2656: {Maury}, A., {Mendenhall}, D., {Mould}, J.~R., {Mueller}, J.,
2657: {Neugebauer}, G., {Phinney}, J., {Sargent}, W.~L.~W.,
2658: {Schombert}, J., {Thicksten}, R. 1991, \pasp, 103, 661
2659:
2660: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(2002){Reid}, {Gizis}, \& {Hawley}}]{Reid2002}
2661: {Reid}, I.~N., {Gizis}, J.~E., \& {Hawley}, S.~L. 2002, \aj, 124, 2721
2662:
2663: \bibitem[{{Reid} {et~al.}(1995){Reid}, {Hawley}, \& {Gizis}}]{Reid1995}
2664: {Reid}, I.~N., {Hawley}, S.~L., \& {Gizis}, J.~E. 1995, \aj, 110, 1838
2665:
2666: \bibitem[{{Reid} \& {Hawley}(2000)}]{Reid2000}
2667: {Reid}, N., \& {Hawley}, S.~L. 2000, {New light on dark stars : red dwarfs, low
2668: mass stars, brown dwarfs} (Springer)
2669:
2670: \bibitem[{{Reipurth} \& {Clarke}(2001)}]{Reipurth2001}
2671: {Reipurth}, B., \& {Clarke}, C. 2001, \aj, 122, 432
2672:
2673: %\bibitem[{{Richer} {et~al.}(2007){Richer}, {Dotter}, {Hurley}, {Anderson},
2674: % {King}, {Davis}, {Fahlman}, {Hansen}, {Kalirai}, {Paust}, {Rich}, \&
2675: % {Shara}}]{Richer2007}
2676: %{Richer}, H.~B. {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708
2677:
2678: \bibitem[{{Salpeter}(1955)}]{Salpeter1955}
2679: {Salpeter}, E.~E. 1955, \apj, 121, 161
2680:
2681: \bibitem[{{Scalo}(1986)}]{Scalo1986}
2682: {Scalo}, J.~M. 1986, Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics, 11, 1
2683:
2684: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
2685: {Davis}}]{Schlegel1998}
2686: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
2687:
2688: \bibitem[{{Schmidt}(1968)}]{Schmidt1968}
2689: {Schmidt}, M. 1968, \apj, 151, 393
2690:
2691: %\bibitem[{{Schneider} {et~al.}(2005){Schneider}, {Hall}, {Richards}, {Vanden
2692: % Berk}, {Anderson}, {Fan}, {Jester}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao},
2693: % {Brandt}, {Gunn}, {Yanny}, {Bahcall}, {Barentine}, {Blanton}, {Boroski},
2694: % {Brewington}, {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Csabai}, {Doi}, {Eisenstein},
2695: % {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Gray}, {Harvanek}, {Heckman}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent},
2696: % {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Loveday}, {Lupton},
2697: % {Margon}, {Munn}, {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Newman}, {Nichol}, {Nitta}, {Pier},
2698: % {Rockosi}, {Saxe}, {Schlegel}, {Snedden}, {Szalay}, {Thakar}, {Uomoto},
2699: % {Voges}, \& {York}}]{Schneider2005}
2700: %{Schneider}, D.~P. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 130, 367
2701:
2702: %\bibitem[{Schultheis {et~al.}(2005)}]{Schultheis2005}
2703: %Schultheis, M., {et~al.} 2005, \aap, 447, 185
2704:
2705: \bibitem[{Sesar {et~al.}(2006)}]{Sesar2006}
2706: Sesar, B., {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 2801
2707:
2708: \bibitem[{{Siegel} {et~al.}(2002){Siegel}, {Majewski}, {Reid}, \&
2709: {Thompson}}]{Siegel2002}
2710: {Siegel}, M.~H., {Majewski}, S.~R., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Thompson}, I.~B. 2002,
2711: \apj, 578, 151
2712:
2713: \bibitem[{{Silk}(1995)}]{Silk1995}
2714: {Silk}, J. 1995, \apjl, 438, L41
2715:
2716: \bibitem[{{Silvestri} {et~al.}(2006){Silvestri}, {Hawley}, {West}, {Szkody},
2717: {Bochanski}, {Eisenstein}, {McGehee}, {Schmidt}, {Smith}, {Wolfe}, {Harris},
2718: {Kleinman}, {Liebert}, {Nitta}, {Barentine}, {Brewington}, {Brinkmann},
2719: {Harvanek}, {Krzesi{\'n}ski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Schneider}, \&
2720: {Snedden}}]{Silvestri2006}
2721: {Silvestri}, N.~M. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1674
2722:
2723: \bibitem[{{Skrutskie} {et~al.}(2006){Skrutskie}, {Cutri}, {Stiening},
2724: {Weinberg}, {Schneider}, {Carpenter}, {Beichman}, {Capps}, {Chester},
2725: {Elias}, {Huchra}, {Liebert}, {Lonsdale}, {Monet}, {Price}, {Seitzer},
2726: {Jarrett}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Gizis}, {Howard}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Fullmer},
2727: {Hurt}, {Light}, {Kopan}, {Marsh}, {McCallon}, {Tam}, {Van Dyk}, \&
2728: {Wheelock}}]{Skrutskie2006}
2729: {Skrutskie}, M.~F. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 1163
2730:
2731: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2002){Smith}, {Tucker}, {Kent}, {Richmond},
2732: {Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Jorgensen}, {Uomoto}, {Gunn}, {Hamabe},
2733: {Watanabe}, {Tolea}, {Henden}, {Annis}, {Pier}, {McKay}, {Brinkmann}, {Chen},
2734: {Holtzman}, {Shimasaku}, \& {York}}]{Smith2002}
2735: {Smith}, J.~A. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
2736:
2737: %\bibitem[{{Sollima} {et~al.}(2007){Sollima}, {Ferraro}, \&
2738: % {Bellazzini}}]{Sollima2007}
2739: %{Sollima}, A., {Ferraro}, F.~R., \& {Bellazzini}, M. 2007, \mnras, 381, 1575
2740:
2741: \bibitem[{{Space Telescope Science Institute} \& {Osservatorio Astronomico di
2742: Torino}(2001)}]{Space-Telescope-Science-Institute2001}
2743: {Space Telescope Science Institute}, \& {Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino}.
2744: 2001, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1271, 0
2745:
2746: \bibitem[{{Stobie} {et~al.}(1989){Stobie}, {Ishida}, \& {Peacock}}]{Stobie1989}
2747: {Stobie}, R.~S., {Ishida}, K., \& {Peacock}, J.~A. 1989, \mnras, 238, 709
2748:
2749: \bibitem[{{Stoughton} {et~al.}(2002){Stoughton}, {Lupton}, {Bernardi},
2750: {Blanton}, {Burles}, {Castander}, {Connolly}, {Eisenstein}, {Frieman},
2751: {Hennessy}, {Hindsley}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Kunszt}, {Lee}, {Meiksin},
2752: {Munn}, {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Pier}, {Richards}, {Richmond},
2753: {Schlegel}, {Smith}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay}, {Thakar}, {Tucker},
2754: {Vanden Berk}, {Yanny}, {Adelman}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis},
2755: {Bahcall}, {Bakken}, {Bartelmann}, {Bastian}, {Bauer}, {Berman},
2756: {B{\"o}hringer}, {Boroski}, {Bracker}, {Briegel}, {Briggs}, {Brinkmann},
2757: {Brunner}, {Carey}, {Carr}, {Chen}, {Christian}, {Colestock}, {Crocker},
2758: {Csabai}, {Czarapata}, {Dalcanton}, {Davidsen}, {Davis}, {Dehnen},
2759: {Dodelson}, {Doi}, {Dombeck}, {Donahue}, {Ellman}, {Elms}, {Evans}, {Eyer},
2760: {Fan}, {Federwitz}, {Friedman}, {Fukugita}, {Gal}, {Gillespie}, {Glazebrook},
2761: {Gray}, {Grebel}, {Greenawalt}, {Greene}, {Gunn}, {de Haas}, {Haiman},
2762: {Haldeman}, {Hall}, {Hamabe}, {Hansen}, {Harris}, {Harris}, {Harvanek},
2763: {Hawley}, {Hayes}, {Heckman}, {Helmi}, {Henden}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Holmgren},
2764: {Holtzman}, {Huang}, {Hull}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Johnston}, {Kauffmann},
2765: {Kim}, {Kimball}, {Kinney}, {Klaene}, {Kleinman}, {Klypin}, {Knapp},
2766: {Korienek}, {Krolik}, {Kron}, {Krzesi{\'n}ski}, {Lamb}, {Leger},
2767: {Limmongkol}, {Lindenmeyer}, {Long}, {Loomis}, {Loveday}, {MacKinnon},
2768: {Mannery}, {Mantsch}, {Margon}, {McGehee}, {McKay}, {McLean}, {Menou},
2769: {Merelli}, {Mo}, {Monet}, {Nakamura}, {Narayanan}, {Nash}, {Neilsen},
2770: {Newman}, {Nitta}, {Odenkirchen}, {Okada}, {Okamura}, {Ostriker}, {Owen},
2771: {Pauls}, {Peoples}, {Peterson}, {Petravick}, {Pope}, {Pordes}, {Postman},
2772: {Prosapio}, {Quinn}, {Rechenmacher}, {Rivetta}, {Rix}, {Rockosi}, {Rosner},
2773: {Ruthmansdorfer}, {Sandford}, {Schneider}, {Scranton}, {Sekiguchi}, {Sergey},
2774: {Sheth}, {Shimasaku}, {Smee}, {Snedden}, {Stebbins}, {Stubbs}, {Szapudi},
2775: {Szkody}, {Szokoly}, {Tabachnik}, {Tsvetanov}, {Uomoto}, {Vogeley}, {Voges},
2776: {Waddell}, {Walterbos}, {Wang}, {Watanabe}, {Weinberg}, {White}, {White},
2777: {Wilhite}, {Wolfe}, {Yasuda}, {York}, {Zehavi}, \& {Zheng}}]{Stoughton2002}
2778: {Stoughton}, C. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 485
2779:
2780: \bibitem[{{Tinney} {et~al.}(1995){Tinney}, {Reid}, {Gizis}, \&
2781: {Mould}}]{Tinney1995}
2782: {Tinney}, C.~G., {Reid}, I.~N., {Gizis}, J., \& {Mould}, J.~R. 1995, \aj, 110,
2783: 3014
2784:
2785: %\bibitem[{{Tinney} {et~al.}(1993){Tinney}, {Reid}, \& {Mould}}]{Tinney1993a}
2786: %{Tinney}, C.~G., {Reid}, I.~N., \& {Mould}, J.~R. 1993, \apj, 414, 254
2787:
2788: \bibitem[{{Torres-Dodgen} \& {Weaver}(1993)}]{Torres-Dodgen1993}
2789: {Torres-Dodgen}, A.~V., \& {Weaver}, W.~B. 1993, \pasp, 105, 693
2790:
2791: \bibitem[{{Tucker} {et~al.}(2006){Tucker}, {Kent}, {Richmond}, {Annis},
2792: {Smith}, {Allam}, {Rodgers}, {Stute}, {Adelman-McCarthy}, {Brinkmann}, {Doi},
2793: {Finkbeiner}, {Fukugita}, {Goldston}, {Greenway}, {Gunn}, {Hendry}, {Hogg},
2794: {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Lampeitl}, {Lee}, {Lin}, {McKay},
2795: {Merrelli}, {Munn}, {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Richards}, {Schlegel},
2796: {Stoughton}, {Uomoto}, \& {Yanny}}]{Tucker2006}
2797: {Tucker}, D.~L. {et~al.} 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821
2798:
2799: \bibitem[{{van Altena} {et~al.}(1995){van Altena}, {Lee}, \&
2800: {Hoffleit}}]{van-Altena1995}
2801: {van Altena}, W.~F., {Lee}, J.~T., \& {Hoffleit}, E.~D. 1995, {The general
2802: catalogue of trigonometric [stellar] paralaxes} (New Haven, CT: Yale
2803: University Observatory, |c1995, 4th ed., completely revised and enlarged)
2804:
2805: \bibitem[{{Vanden Berk} {et~al.}(2005){Vanden Berk}, {Schneider}, {Richards},
2806: {Hall}, {Strauss}, {Brunner}, {Fan}, {Baldry}, {York}, {Gunn}, {Nichol},
2807: {Meiksin}, \& {Brinkmann}}]{Vanden-Berk2005}
2808: {Vanden Berk}, D.~E. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 129, 2047
2809:
2810: \bibitem[{{Vrba} {et~al.}(2004){Vrba}, {Henden}, {Luginbuhl}, {Guetter},
2811: {Munn}, {Canzian}, {Burgasser}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Fan}, {Geballe},
2812: {Golimowski}, {Knapp}, {Leggett}, {Schneider}, \& {Brinkmann}}]{Vrba2004}
2813: {Vrba}, F.~J. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 2948
2814:
2815: \bibitem[{{West} {et~al.}(2008){West}, {Hawley}, {Bochanski}, {Covey}, {Reid},
2816: {Dhital}, {Hilton}, \& {Masuda}}]{West2008}
2817: {West}, A.~A., {Hawley}, S.~L., {Bochanski}, J.~J., {Covey}, K.~R., {Reid},
2818: I.~N., {Dhital}, S., {Hilton}, E.~J., \& {Masuda}, M. 2008, \aj, 135, 785
2819:
2820: \bibitem[{{West} {et~al.}(2004){West}, {Hawley}, {Walkowicz}, {Covey},
2821: {Silvestri}, {Raymond}, {Harris}, {Munn}, {McGehee}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, \&
2822: {Brinkmann}}]{West2004}
2823: {West}, A.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 128, 426
2824:
2825: \bibitem[{West {et~al.}(2005)West, Walkowicz, \& Hawley}]{West2005}
2826: West, A.~A., Walkowicz, L.~M., \& Hawley, S.~L. 2005, \pasp, 117, 706
2827:
2828: \bibitem[{{Williams} {et~al.}(2002){Williams}, {Golimowski}, {Uomoto}, {Reid},
2829: {Henry}, {Dieterich}, {Jue}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Spahn}, \&
2830: {Walkowicz}}]{Williams2002}
2831: {Williams}, C.~C. {et~al.} 2002, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society,
2832: 34, 1292
2833:
2834: \bibitem[{Woolf \& Wallerstein(2005)}]{Woolf2005a}
2835: Woolf, V.~M., \& Wallerstein, G. 2005, \mnras, 356, 963
2836:
2837: \bibitem[{{Worthey} \& {Lee}(2006)}]{Worthey2006}
2838: {Worthey}, G., \& {Lee}, H.~. 2006, astro-ph/0604590
2839:
2840: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000){York}, {Adelman}, {Anderson}, {Anderson},
2841: {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Bakken}, {Barkhouser}, {Bastian}, {Berman}, {Boroski},
2842: {Bracker}, {Briegel}, {Briggs}, {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Burles}, {Carey},
2843: {Carr}, {Castander}, {Chen}, {Colestock}, {Connolly}, {Crocker}, {Csabai},
2844: {Czarapata}, {Davis}, {Doi}, {Dombeck}, {Eisenstein}, {Ellman}, {Elms},
2845: {Evans}, {Fan}, {Federwitz}, {Fiscelli}, {Friedman}, {Frieman}, {Fukugita},
2846: {Gillespie}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {de Haas}, {Haldeman}, {Harris}, {Hayes},
2847: {Heckman}, {Hennessy}, {Hindsley}, {Holm}, {Holmgren}, {Huang}, {Hull},
2848: {Husby}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Kim}, {Kinney},
2849: {Klaene}, {Kleinman}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Korienek}, {Kron}, {Kunszt},
2850: {Lamb}, {Lee}, {Leger}, {Limmongkol}, {Lindenmeyer}, {Long}, {Loomis},
2851: {Loveday}, {Lucinio}, {Lupton}, {MacKinnon}, {Mannery}, {Mantsch}, {Margon},
2852: {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Merelli}, {Monet}, {Munn}, {Narayanan},
2853: {Nash}, {Neilsen}, {Neswold}, {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nonino},
2854: {Okada}, {Okamura}, {Ostriker}, {Owen}, {Pauls}, {Peoples}, {Peterson},
2855: {Petravick}, {Pier}, {Pope}, {Pordes}, {Prosapio}, {Rechenmacher}, {Quinn},
2856: {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Rivetta}, {Rockosi}, {Ruthmansdorfer}, {Sandford},
2857: {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Sekiguchi}, {Sergey}, {Shimasaku}, {Siegmund},
2858: {Smee}, {Smith}, {Snedden}, {Stone}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {Stubbs},
2859: {SubbaRao}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szokoly}, {Thakar}, {Tremonti}, {Tucker},
2860: {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vogeley}, {Waddell}, {Wang}, {Watanabe},
2861: {Weinberg}, {Yanny}, \& {Yasuda}}]{York2000}
2862: {York}, D.~G. {et~al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
2863:
2864: %\bibitem[{{Zheng} {et~al.}(2001){Zheng}, {Flynn}, {Gould}, {Bahcall}, \&
2865: % {Salim}}]{Zheng2001}
2866: %{Zheng}, Z., {Flynn}, C., {Gould}, A., {Bahcall}, J.~N., \& {Salim}, S. 2001,
2867: % \apj, 555, 393
2868:
2869: \end{thebibliography}
2870:
2871: %%%%%%%% TABLES %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2872:
2873: %\clearpage
2874:
2875: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
2876: %\bibliography{/pool/uatu0/LaTeX/bibTeX/covey.bib}
2877:
2878: %\clearpage
2879:
2880: % This is where the figures go
2881: % in the text refer to by label
2882: % e.g. In Figure~\ref{fig-targetflags} we plot ...
2883:
2884: \end{document}
2885:
2886: