1: %% The command below calls the preprint style
2: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
3: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
4: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
5: %%
6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
9:
10: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
11:
12: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
13:
14: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
15:
16: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
17: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
18: %% use the longabstract style option.
19:
20: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
21:
22: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
23: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
24: %% the \begin{document} command.
25: %%
26: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
27: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
28: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
29: %% for information.
30: \newcommand{\lessim}{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
31: \newcommand{\gtsim}{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
32:
33: %\usepackage{natbib}
34:
35: \newcommand{\logg}{$\log{g}$}
36: \newcommand{\loggs}{$\log{g}$ }
37: \newcommand{\teff}{$T_{\rm eff}$}
38: \newcommand{\teffs}{$T_{\rm eff}$ }
39: \newcommand{\ebv}{${\rm E(B-V)}$}
40:
41: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
42: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
43:
44: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
45:
46: %\slugcomment{}
47:
48: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
49:
50: \shorttitle{White dwarf initial-final mass relation}
51: \shortauthors{Salaris et al.}
52:
53: \begin{document}
54:
55:
56: \title{Semi-empirical white dwarf initial-final mass relationships: \\
57: a thorough analysis of systematic uncertainties \\
58: due to stellar evolution models}
59:
60:
61: \author{Maurizio Salaris\altaffilmark{1}}
62: \affil{Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores
63: University,
64: Twelve Quays House, Egerton Wharf, Birkenhead CH41 1LD, UK}
65: \email{ms@astro.livjm.ac.uk}
66:
67: \and
68:
69: \author{Aldo Serenelli\altaffilmark{1}}
70: \affil{Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton,
71: NJ~08540, USA}
72:
73: \and
74: \author{Achim Weiss}
75: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik,
76: Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.~1, 85748~Garching, Germany}
77:
78: \and
79:
80: \author{Marcelo Miller Bertolami\altaffilmark{2}}
81: \affil{Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'omicas y Geof\'isicas,
82: Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Paseo del Bosque S/N, (1900) La
83: Plata, Argentina}
84:
85: \altaffiltext{1}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.~1, 85748~Garching, Germany}
86: \altaffiltext{2}{IALP-CONICET, La Plata, Argentina}
87:
88: \begin{abstract}
89: Using the most recent results about white dwarfs in 10 open clusters,
90: we revisit semi-empirical estimates of the initial-final mass relation in star clusters,
91: with emphasis on the use of stellar evolution models.
92: We discuss the influence of these models on
93: each step of the derivation. One intention of our work is to use
94: consistent sets of calculations both for the isochrones and the white
95: dwarf cooling tracks. The second one is to derive the range of systematic
96: errors arising from stellar evolution theory. This is achieved by
97: using different sources for the stellar models and by varying physical
98: assumptions and input data. We find that systematic errors, including
99: the determination of the cluster age, are
100: dominating the initial mass values, while observational uncertainties
101: influence the final mass primarily. After having determined the systematic
102: errors, the initial-final mass relation allows us finally to draw
103: conclusions about the physics of the stellar models, in particular
104: about convective overshooting.
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
108: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
109: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
110: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
111:
112: \keywords{stars: AGB and post-AGB --- stars: evolution ---
113: stars: individual(Sirius) --- stars: mass loss --- white
114: dwarfs --- open clusters and associations: individual (Pleiades,
115: Hyades, Praesepe, NGC1039, NGC2168, NGC2099, NGC2516, NGC3532,
116: NGC6819, NGC7789)}
117:
118:
119: \section{Introduction}
120:
121: The initial-final mass relation (IFMR) for low- and intermediate-mass stars
122: is an important input for many astrophysical problems. Given the initial Main
123: Sequence (MS) mass of a formed star, the IFMR
124: provides the expected mass during its final White Dwarf (WD) cooling stage,
125: and is an estimate of the total mass lost by the
126: star during its evolutionary history. A correct assessment of the IFMR
127: is very important when predicting, for example, the
128: chemical evolution history of stellar populations, or
129: their mass-to-light ratio (defined as the ratio of the mass of
130: evolving stars plus remnants -- WDs, neutron stars and black
131: holes -- to the integrated luminosity of the population), and in
132: general for any problem related to the origin and evolution of gas in stellar
133: populations. It is also a crucial item when using the WD luminosity
134: functions to determine the age of stellar populations
135: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{prad07}. It also provides an
136: empirical test concerning the upper initial mass value $M_{\rm up}$ of
137: stars developing degenerate carbon-oxygen cores, and thus a lower
138: limit of the mass range of core-collapse supernovae. For a thorough
139: review of the history of the IFMR, we recommend \citet{weide00}.
140:
141: Theoretical estimates of the IFMR are still prone to large
142: uncertainties. This is due to our poor knowledge of the
143: efficiency of mass loss processes for low- and intermediate-mass
144: stars but also to uncertainties in the predicted size
145: of CO cores during the Asymptotic
146: Giant Branch (AGB) evolution, resulting mainly from uncertainties in the
147: treatment of the thermal pulse phase, with the associated third
148: dredge-up, hot bottom burning \citep[see, e.g.,][]{iberen83} and also
149: the treatment of rotation \citep{domi96}. In fact, the recognition
150: that intermediate-mass stars may lose the largest part of their mass
151: during the AGB phase stems from early IFMRs
152: \citep{koeweid80}.
153:
154: Starting with the pioneering work by
155: \cite{weid77}, (semi-)empirical routes have been followed to establish
156: the IFMR independently of theoretical modelling the AGB phase,
157: leading to a series of global determinations
158: of the IFMR by, e.g., \citet{weidkoe83}, \citet{weid87},
159: \citet{weide00}, \citet{fer05}, and many others.
160:
161: Methods to estimate the IFMR that make use of the smallest number of
162: assumptions are probably those based on the
163: use of WDs harbored in star clusters
164: \citep[but see also][for a very recent study of the IFMR based on
165: WDs in common proper motion pairs]{cata07}.
166: Thanks to a large amount of observational effort by various authors
167: \cite[see, e.g.][]{kr93, kr96, clav01, dob04, kal05,
168: bars05, dobbie06} the recent study of the IFMR by \citet{fer05}
169: makes use of 40 DA (hydrogen-atmosphere)
170: WDs belonging to 7 open clusters.
171: Even more recently \citet{kalir08} have added a few more data
172: points below the low-mass end
173: (initial masses below $\sim$2.0 $M_{\odot}$)
174: of the \citet{fer05} sample, by including WDs
175: detected in the old open clusters NGC6819, NGC7789 and
176: NGC6791, while \citet{rubin08} have provided WD data for
177: the $\sim$200~Myr old cluster NGC1039.
178: Therefore, the observational material is increasingly
179: covering not only more objects, but also a larger range of cluster --
180: and thus WD -- ages and metallicities, such that even differential
181: investigations may become feasible in the near future. At the same
182: time, high-resolution, high signal-to-noise spectra and improved
183: spectral analysis methods reduce the intrinsic errors in the
184: determination of the WD masses. It is therefore time to investigate
185: the systematic errors arising from stellar evolution theory and
186: models that enter these semi-empirical methods.
187: This is the main object of this work.
188:
189: IFMR determinations based on cluster WDs work as follows:
190: after detection, spectroscopic estimates of the WD
191: surface gravity $g$ and \teff\ are needed. For a fixed $g$-\teff\
192: pair, interpolation within a
193: grid of theoretical WD models covering a range of masses provides the
194: mass $M_{\rm f}$ and the age $t_{\rm cool}$ of the WD.
195: Independent theoretical isochrone fits to the Turn Off (TO)
196: luminosity in the cluster Color-Magnitude-Diagram (CMD)
197: provide an estimate of the cluster age
198: $t_{\rm clus}$. The difference $t_{\rm clus}-t_{\rm cool}$ is equal to the
199: lifetime
200: $t_{\rm prog}$ of the WD progenitor, from the MS until the start of the WD
201: cooling. Making use of mass-lifetime relationships from theoretical
202: stellar evolution models, the initial progenitor mass $M_{\rm i}$ is
203: immediately obtained from $t_{\rm prog}$.
204:
205: It is clear how and where theoretical models play
206: an important role in this procedure. WD cooling models
207: plus progenitor evolutionary tracks and isochrones
208: are needed to determine the various $t_{\rm clus}$, $t_{\rm cool}$
209: and $t_{\rm prog}$. Given the very short timescale of the AGB evolution
210: (see also next section for a short discussion on this issue) AGB
211: modelling and its related uncertainties do not
212: play a role in these types of analyses, but
213: uncertainites entering the previous evolutionary phases and the WD
214: cooling stage can affect the derived IFMR.
215: Another important point is the issue of consistency. First of all,
216: the isochrones
217: employed to determine $t_{\rm clus}$ should be computed
218: starting from the same evolutionary tracks adopted to
219: determine $M_{\rm i}$ from the estimated value of $t_{\rm prog}$.
220: Consistency is not usually achieved in existing estimates of the
221: IFMR. Even in the most recent studies of the IFMR, in several cases
222: cluster ages are obtained from earlier studies that have employed models
223: different from the ones used to estimate $M_{\rm i}$.
224: Secondly, all cluster ages should be determined following the same
225: method, and -- most importantly -- employing the same set of
226: isochrones. Instead, results from different sources for the various
227: clusters are used.
228:
229: As an example, we summarize briefly the work by \citet{fer05}. The
230: Hyades age has been taken from \citet{perr98}, who had calculated
231: their own isochrones with an updated version of the CESAM code
232: \citep{morel97}. In case of M35 the age quoted in Table~1 of
233: \citet{hippel05} was employed; this age was derived summarizing the
234: results of three different previous works by other authors. The same
235: is true for the Pleiades, where the assumed cluster age comes from a
236: synthesis of the results of several groups, obtained with different
237: generations of stellar evolution models.
238: The isochrones by \citet{schall92} led \citet{meynet93} to an age of
239: 141~Myrs for NGC2516, which was quoted by \citet{fer05} as
240: 158~Myr. The remaining clusters in that sample also have ages from
241: various isochrone sources, which span more than a decade of progress
242: in stellar evolution modelling, most notably the significant improvements
243: in opacities and the equation of state. The cooling tracks came from
244: \citet{font01}, and the $t_{\rm prog}$-- $M_{\rm i}$ relation from
245: \citet{gir02}, taken from the tracks with the metallicity closest
246: to the adopted one, but without interpolation between compositions. It
247: is obvious that there is a certain degree of arbitrariness in the use
248: of stellar evolution theory.
249: This inherent inconsistency is probably the result
250: of the fact that most works on the IFMR are more focused on
251: acquiring new and improved data with an emphasis on the
252: internal errors of their derived \teff\ and $M_{\rm f}$.
253:
254: The aim of the present work is instead to concentrate on the stellar
255: evolution models needed for deriving the IFMR. It is obvious from the previous discussion
256: that a consistent use of stellar models and procedures about how to
257: employ them is required, to achieve a
258: higher accuracy. We therefore will make use of calculations of stellar
259: models, that cover all phases from the MS to the WD
260: cooling phase. They will be used for the appropriate metallicity of
261: each cluster, in order to have at hand accurate and homogeneous
262: isochrones and progenitor lifetimes. This will provide an
263: IFMR with the highest internal consistency achieved so far.
264:
265: To get a measure of the errors introduced by using different codes and
266: input physics, we also repeat the procedure by using alternative sets of
267: models for the WD cooling and/or progenitor and cluster ages.
268: While this gives a first indication about the size of the
269: systematic errors resulting form different stellar model sources, we
270: finally quantify the influence of various physical effects important
271: for both the isochrone and WD cooling calculations. Using Monte Carlo
272: methods we determine the total extent of the systematic
273: errors. This allows us also to verify which features of the
274: IFMR are robust and which ones depend on present model uncertainties.
275:
276: Using the robust results, we can finally exclude some of the stellar models
277: because they lead to internal contradictions. One of our conclusions is that
278: models without overshooting from convective cores on the MS do not
279: yield self-consistent results. On the other hand, the parametrization of
280: overshooting during the AGB
281: phase, which influences the growth of the carbon-oxygen core, cannot be the
282: same in all convective layers as it is at the convective core during
283: the MS phase, because it produces final masses inconsistent with
284: observations. We thus can also reduce
285: uncertainties in the physics of stellar interiors.
286:
287: The structure of the paper is as follows: In Sect.~2 we outline the
288: procedure to obtain an IFMR, summarize the observational input data
289: we have used for the WDs and the parent clusters, and
290: present the set of the stellar models used for determining the
291: reference IFMR as well as for the evaluation of the systematics.
292: Section~3 then concentrates on the estimates of the global error
293: bars, while Sect.~4 contains the results and a comparison with
294: theoretical IFMRs. A summary and conclusions follow in Sect.~5.
295:
296:
297: \section{IFMR determination \label{sec:ifmr}}
298:
299: As discussed in the Introduction, the method we follow to determine
300: the IFMR makes use of WDs in star clusters. Observations have to
301: provide us with:
302: \begin{itemize}
303: \item{Surface gravity $g$ and effective temperature \teff\ of
304: individual WDs.}
305: \item{Observed CMDs, estimates of [Fe/H] and \ebv\ for the clusters
306: harboring the observed WDs.}
307: \end{itemize}
308: Theory has to provide:
309:
310: \begin{itemize}
311: \item{Sets of stellar evolutionary tracks, plus isochrones --
312: transformed to the CMD -- for a range of age and
313: [Fe/H] values, to determine -- in conjuction with theoretical, empirical
314: or semi-empirical distance determination methods -- the cluster ages, plus
315: stellar lifetimes.}
316: \item{WD cooling tracks covering a range of masses, to
317: provide the cooling ages of the observed WDs.}
318: \end{itemize}
319:
320: Concerning the cooling tracks, the metallicity of
321: the WD models is irrelevant as the envelopes are of pure H (He and
322: metals have settled below the envelope due to diffusion) and the
323: previous core composition may influence only the chemical profile
324: of the core. This will be investigated in a broader context later
325: in this study.
326:
327: The method works as already summarized in the Introduction;
328: for each cluster WD with an estimated pair of $g$ and \teff\
329: values,
330: linear interpolation within a grid of theoretical WD models provides
331: the mass $M_{\rm f}$ (mainly fixed by the value of $g$)
332: and the age $t_{\rm cool}$ (mostly determined by the value of \teff) of
333: the WD.
334: Isochrone fits to the TO region of the observed ${\rm V-(B-V)}$ CMD
335: determine the cluster age $t_{\rm clus}$.
336: If the actual cluster [Fe/H] does not correspond to
337: any of the values in the isochrone grid used, we
338: determined the age with the two closest grid values bracketing the
339: cluster [Fe/H]. The final cluster age is then obtained by linear
340: interpolation between these two values.
341:
342: The difference $t_{\rm clus}-t_{\rm cool}$ represents the lifetime
343: $t_{\rm prog}$ of the WD progenitor, from the MS until the start of the WD
344: cooling. Theoretical mass-lifetime relationships for the cluster
345: metallicity, obtained from the same evolutionary calculations, finally
346: provide the initial progenitor mass $M_{\rm i}$. We
347: employ a quadratic interpolation
348: in mass and a linear interpolation in [Fe/H] among the available model
349: grids to determine $M_{\rm i}$ from the value of $t_{\rm prog}$.
350:
351: A potential inconsistency in this procedure is the effect of the
352: duration of the AGB thermal pulse phase on the estimate of $M_{\rm i}$.
353: Theoretical models without inclusion of the thermal pulse phase, or
354: predicting an IFMR different from the one obtained semi-empirically,
355: might be providing inconsistent thermal pulse lifetimes,
356: hence wrong values of the total
357: lifetimes, that in turn affect the derivation of $M_{\rm i}$. Luckily, this
358: effect is negligible; estimates of thermal pulse lifetimes
359: obtained from synthetic AGB modelling \citep{wg98, mg07} show that the
360: duration of this phase is typically at most within a few Myr (decreasing
361: sharply with increasing total mass) even in extreme
362: cases of the largest possible growth of the CO core. In fact, from full
363: evolutionary stellar models, \cite{Serfuk07}
364: have shown that the duration of the AGB phase (including both the early-AGB
365: and the thermally pulsating phases), for stars with initial masses between 1
366: and 8~M$_\odot$, is at most 1\% of the MS lifetime.
367:
368: \subsection{WD data}
369:
370: Our reference data set comprises 52 WDs in 10 open clusters, plus
371: Sirius~B, for a total of 53 DA objects, as reported in
372: Table~\ref{WDsample}. We considered the same cluster sample as in the
373: recent work by \citet{fer05},
374: that contains data for WDs in the Pleiades \citep{fer05},
375: Hyades and Praesepe \citep{clav01, dob04},
376: NGC2516 \citep{kr96}, NGC3532 \citep{kr93}, NGC2099 \citep{kal05},
377: NGC2168 \citep{wbk04, fer05}. We wish to notice that our Pleiades sample
378: contains only the object listed by \citet{fer05}. We did not
379: include data for additional two WDs (GD~50 and PG~0136+251) discussed by
380: \citet{doetal06}, because their membership of the Pleiades
381: is not absolutely certain.
382:
383: To this cluster sample we added
384: NGC6819, NGC7789,
385: and NGC1039. For the WDs in the first two clusters, \teff\ and $g$ values
386: are taken from \citet{kalir08}, and from \citet{rubin08} for the last
387: one.
388:
389: The \teff, $g$ and corresponding error estimates for the clusters in
390: common with \citet{fer05} are the same as in their Table~1, with a few
391: exceptions. Values of \teff\ and $g$ for two Praesepe WDs (0837+185
392: and 0837+218), identified as WD \#13 and \#14 in Table~\ref{WDsample},
393: have been updated following \citet{dobbie06}. The same authors provide
394: data for four additional WDs in the same cluster (ID numbers from 16
395: to 19 in Table~\ref{WDsample}), that we have included in our
396: analysis. And finally, we also use their data for the single Pleiades
397: WD.
398:
399: As an additional note about the cluster WD sample,
400: our referee (K. Williams) has pointed out that the Hyades
401: WD~0437+138, that appears as WD \#8 in Table~\ref{WDsample}, has been incorrectly included as
402: a DA object in \citep{fer05} study. In fact, it is a DBA WD, with
403: log($n_H/n_{He}$)=$-$4.5 in the atmosphere. To assess the errors in the derived
404: mass and cooling age for this object when using DA models,
405: we have made the following test. We have compared log($g$) values
406: derived from DB and DA models at the observed \teff\ of WD \#8,
407: for the two extreme cases of 0.55 and 1.0~$M_{\odot}$ (the mass
408: we obtain from the analysis with DA models is $\sim$0.77$M_{\odot}$).
409: Our adopted DB models have been computed as described in \citet{scg01}.
410:
411: For both masses the difference
412: in log($g$) derived from the DA and DB tracks is smaller than the 1$\sigma$ error bar
413: on the observed value for WD \#8 (as listed in Table~\ref{WDsample}).
414: Also the difference in cooling ages at the observed
415: \teff\ is well below the error bars we derive from our analysis, as reported in Table~\ref{WDage1}.
416: This implies that the analysis of WD \#8 with DB models would provide mass and cooling age compatible
417: (within the 1$\sigma$ errors) with the results obtained
418: from the DA models employed in this analysis. The reason is that the mass-radius relation is not strongly
419: affected by the atmospheric composition, and also at the relatively high \teff\ of
420: this object the evolutionary timescales of DA and DB models are similar.
421: Moreover, given that this WD does not have a pure-He envelope,
422: differences will be even more negligible.
423:
424:
425: In addition to a large sample of cluster WDs, we also include
426: Sirius~B in our analysis. The data for Sirius~B \citep[also
427: included in][]{fer05} in Table~\ref{WDsample} are from the
428: recent determination by \citet{bars05}.
429: From the estimated
430: mass and radius of the primary MS star (Sirius~A) one can derive its age
431: by comparison with stellar evolutionary tracks in the mass-radius plane.
432: We assumed [Fe/H]=0.0 for Sirius~A, following
433: \citet{lieb05}, to which we associated an 0.10~dex 1$\sigma$ error.
434: The age of the star is obtained from
435: models bracketing the metallicity of the system (if different from the values
436: provided by the employed isochrone grid). Linear interpolation in [Fe/H]
437: between the two bracketing results gives then the age for the appropriate [Fe/H].
438: The age of Sirus~A provides the age of the system
439: $t_{\rm sys}$. Sirius~B cooling time $t_{\rm cool}$ and mass are determined
440: from the spectroscopic $T_{\rm eff}$ and $g$ estimates, as described before. The difference
441: $t_{\rm sys}$-$t_{\rm cool}$ provides the age of the Sirius~B progenitor,
442: hence $M_{\rm i}$ after using a grid of theoretical lifetimes for solar
443: metallicity.
444:
445:
446: \subsection{Cluster data}
447:
448: The sources for the cluster [Fe/H], E(B-V), and their CMDs used for age
449: determinations, are listed in Table~\ref{clsource}.
450:
451: Values for [Fe/H] have been taken mainly from the compilation by
452: \citet{grat00}, who presents a collection of
453: [Fe/H] estimates for a large sample of open clusters,
454: recalibrated against results from high-resolution spectroscopy.
455: Alternative estimates have been adopted for NGC2099, which is not
456: in the \citet{grat00} compilation,
457: NGC6819 and NGC1039, for which recent high-resolution spectroscopic
458: measurements have appeared in the literature (see Table~\ref{clsource}).
459:
460: Reddenings are taken from the compilation by \citet{lot01}. These are weighted averages of
461: estimates obtained with various methods, all based essentially
462: on color-color relationships. For NGC6819 we employed a very recent E(B-V) determination
463: based on spectroscopy \citep{brag01}, and
464: for the Pleiades reddenings to individual stars have been adopted, as discussed in
465: \citet{per03a}. The case of NGC7789 is discussed below.
466:
467: In case of Hyades and Praesepe we have assumed
468: -- as usual -- zero reddening. Throughout this paper we use
469: ${\rm{A_V}}=3.2~{\rm E(B-V)}$.
470: We adopted a 0.02~mag uncertainty in \ebv\ when no error is quoted by
471: the source of the data.
472:
473: To estimate the age of the whole cluster sample we have
474: followed a two-step procedure
475: where we tried to minimize the inputs from theoretical isochrones.
476: First, cluster distance moduli have been determined using a fully
477: empirical MS-fitting to the
478: ${\rm V-(B-V)}$ CMDs, that makes use of the sample of field dwarf with accurate
479: $Hipparcos$ parallaxes and [Fe/H] presented by \citet{per03a}.
480: Details about the method can be found in the same paper.
481:
482: Here we just recall that for each cluster a MS fiducial line
483: has been derived, by plotting color histograms in
484: V-magnitude bins, and considering the mode of the resulting distribution. In this way
485: one minimizes the impact of unresolved binaries. The resultant points are fitted
486: to a cubic function that provides the cluster fiducial line.
487: After applying (empirical) color corrections that account for the actual
488: cluster metallicity
489: and for the reddening E(B-V), the field dwarf template sequence is shifted
490: in magnitude to match the MS fiducial line, and the
491: apparent distance modulus is obtained by $\chi^2$ minimization.
492: For objects like NGC2168 or the Pleiades, with an extremely well defined and
493: thin (in color) MS,
494: the separation of the binary sequence is very evident, and a cubic fit directly to the
495: single star MS is performed in order to derive the fiducial line.
496:
497: In case of NGC3532 we could not find available data with good photometry in
498: the MS magnitude
499: range of our template field dwarf sample.
500: The distance modulus of this cluster has been obtained by comparison with
501: Praesepe, that has
502: the same [Fe/H] within errors (and also a comparable age).
503: The larger (as compared to our other estimates) error bar on its distance
504: (hence on its age) reflects
505: this less direct determination of the distance modulus.
506:
507: As a final remark, we wish to notice that, as discussed i.e.\ in \citet{per03a}, a
508: simultaneous MS-fitting to both VI and BV data can provide both
509: the cluster distance modulus and reddening. This procedure has been
510: applied (using the same
511: field dwarf sample, that has homogeneous BVI photometry) to NGC7789, employing additionally
512: the VI data by \citet{gim98}. Our adopted E(B-V) for NGC7789, used also in \citet{per03b},
513: has been determined in this way. This method to determine the reddening
514: could not however be applied to the whole cluster sample because
515: of the lack of suitable BV and VI photometry for all clusters.
516:
517: For a few clusters we have used distances already published in the
518: literature, obtained with the same technique and the same $Hipparcos$
519: field dwarf sample. More in detail, for the Hyades we have used the result by
520: \citet{per03a}, that is in
521: perfect agreement with the $Hipparcos$ distance by \citet{perr98}.
522: For the Pleiades we have used the distance modulus determined by
523: \citet{per05}, while for NGC7789 we have employed the result
524: by \citet{per03b}. The cluster NGC6791, which is also part of the
525: investigation by \citet{kalir08} was not considered in our analysis
526: because its metallicity [Fe/H]$\sim$+0.45 \citep{gra06}
527: is higher than the upper [Fe/H] range of the
528: field dwarf sample ([Fe/H]=+0.30), and therefore we could
529: not apply this empirical method to determine its distance. Since we
530: did not want to introduce a second, inconsistent method, we
531: disregarded this cluster.
532:
533: Second, isochrone fits to the TO region (in the ${\rm V-(B-V)}$ plane),
534: employing the distance moduli derived in the previous step, determine
535: the cluster age.
536:
537: The final ages for various choices of the isochrone grid, as well as
538: the adopted cluster [Fe/H] and \ebv\ values are reported in
539: Table~\ref{Ages}. Age uncertainties are due to both distance (which is in turn
540: affected by the assumed [Fe/H] and \ebv\ values and their errors)
541: and [Fe/H] uncertainties.
542: Figure~\ref{clustagecomp} compares the ages
543: obtained with the BaSTI overshooting isochrones (that throughout the
544: paper will be considered as our reference set of models to determine
545: the IFMR; see Sect.~2.3) with the ages adopted by \citet{fer05} for
546: the clusters in
547: common (plus Sirius~A). In spite of the dishomogeneity in terms of
548: methods, data and isochrones employed, the two sets of ages compare
549: well, within the respective error bars. The only exception occurs for
550: NGC2099 (M37), for which our derived distance modulus is 0.4
551: magnitudes larger than implicitly assumed in \citet{fer05} --
552: who adopt the age estimate by \citet{kal01a} -- leading to
553: a smaller cluster age (320~Myr as compared to 520~Myr). However, if we
554: adopt a lower metallicity and reddening as suggested by
555: \citet{kal05} and discussed in Sect.~2.4 (see Table~\ref{Ages}) we
556: derive an age of 550~Myr for NGC2099, in close agreement with
557: \citet{fer05}. Obviously, at this time the uncertainties in the
558: cluster parameters dominate the determination over those from using
559: different theoretical isochrones, which constitutes our first result.
560:
561:
562: \subsection{Models}
563:
564: Our reference IFMR is defined by the use of the following set of
565: models. We refer the reader to the original papers quoted below for
566: details of the models and calculations.
567:
568: -- \citet{pietr04} models from the MS to the AGB
569: with the inclusion of core overshooting during the central H-burning phase
570: (hereafter BaSTI models with overshooting), to
571: estimate in a consistent way both $t_{\rm clus}$ and $t_{\rm prog}$.
572:
573: -- \citet{sala00} WD cooling models (hereafter S00 WD models) to
574: estimate $t_{\rm cool}$. The code employed to compute these WD models
575: is the same as for the progenitors. Some major sources of input
576: physics in the WD models (see S00) are different from what has been
577: employed in BaSTI models, most notably equation of state and
578: low-temperature opacities. This is somewhat unavoidable, given the
579: different range covered by many physical parameters throughout WD
580: structures, as compared to their progenitors. It is very important to
581: remark here about the internal CO stratification of the WD models. The
582: CO profile in the inner core of a WD is built up during the central
583: He-burning phase, whereas the more external part of the WD core is
584: processed during the early AGB phase and the thermal pulses. Current
585: uncertainties in the treatment of mixing in stellar interiors and in
586: some key reaction rate (i.e., the ${\rm C}^{12}+\alpha$ reaction)
587: introduce additional uncertainties in the predicted CO profiles. S00
588: models employ a CO stratification obtained from evolutionary models of
589: solar metallicity progenitors, from the MS until the
590: completion of the first thermal pulse \citep{sal97}. The core mass and
591: associated CO profile at the end of the pulse were taken as
592: representative of the final WD object. When estimating the total
593: error budget in the IFMR, we have accounted for the uncertainties in
594: the CO profiles by using WD models with different C/O mass fraction
595: ratios in their cores. This will be described in detail in
596: Sect.~\ref{sec:uncert}. We anticipate, however, that these
597: uncertainties are very small since all the WD stars in our sample have
598: not entered yet the crystallization phase, where the detailed core
599: composition could have a larger effect.
600:
601: We have studied systematic effects on the IFMR relation due to:
602:
603: i) Different model grids. We redetermine the
604: IFMR employing \citet{gir00} models from the MS to the AGB (hereafter
605: Padua models; they also include core overshooting but with a different
606: formalism compared to BaSTI), keeping the WD models unchanged (S00).
607:
608: ii) Effect of overshooting. We redetermine the
609: IFMR employing \citet{pietr04} models from the MS to the AGB without
610: core overshooting (hereafter BaSTI no-OV models), again keeping the
611: WD models unchanged (S00).
612:
613: iii) Different WD model grids. We redetermine the IFMR
614: employing the WD models computed with the LPCODE (hereafter LPCODE models;
615: details of the LPCODE are given in \citealt{alt03}),
616: keeping the progenitor models unchanged (BaSTI with overshooting).
617: This tests not only different codes,
618: but also -- in an unsystematic way -- variations of the physics
619: employed and of the WD chemical stratification.
620:
621: iv) Systematic variation in WD input physics and chemical profiles. We
622: redetermine the IFMR employing the LPCODE WD models, by varying the CO-core
623: stratification, H-envelope thickness, electron conduction opacities and
624: neutrino energy loss rates. In this case, the progenitor models are
625: unchanged throughout (BaSTI with overshooting).
626:
627:
628: \subsection{The reference IFMR}
629:
630: We present in this section our reference IFMR, while we defer to
631: subsequent sections the discussion of the uncertainties involved in
632: the IFMR determination. We use the S00 WD models to derive the WD (final)
633: masses and cooling ages. Using our reference cluster ages
634: (fifth column in Table~\ref{Ages}) and the BaSTI models with
635: overshooting we construct the IFMR by deriving the
636: progenitor (initial) masses. Figure~\ref{fig:ref_ifmr} displays this reference
637: semi-empirical IFMR. Error bars include all
638: uncertainty sources we consider. We defer a detailed discussion to
639: Sections~\ref{sec:uncert}~and~\ref{sec:results}, but note here that the most
640: relevant sources of uncertainty are due to the following effects:
641: (i) errors in the WD \teff\ and $g$ values; (ii) uncertainties in
642: the cluster [Fe/H]; these affect the age through their influence on
643: the derived cluster distance (mainly) and on the isochrones to be used for the
644: age determination; (iii) errors in the reddening \ebv, which
645: influence the age determination through the effect on the cluster
646: distance. In case of one star
647: (WD \#38 in NGC2099) the progenitor age results to
648: be negative. We did not consider this object in the analysis of the IFMR.
649:
650: We have performed at this stage a simple check of our reference IFMR,
651: comparing the distribution of $M_{\rm i}$ and $M_{\rm f}$ values with
652: \citet{fer05} -- disregrading the attached error bars -- by means of a
653: bi-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test \citep{ptvf92}. We
654: considered only clusters (plus Sirius) in common between the two
655: studies. As customary, we accept the existence of a significant
656: difference between the two IFMRs if the probability $P$ that the two
657: samples of ($M_{\rm i}$, $M_{\rm f}$) pairs were drawn from different
658: distributions was higher than 95\%. We obtain $P$ values smaller than
659: 50\%, highlighting the statistical agreement between our reference
660: IFMR and \citet{fer05} results for the clusters (plus Sirius~B) in common.
661:
662:
663: We have also performed analytical fits to the data. In doing this, we have left out
664: the data from NGC2099 because our results for this cluster show some anomalies,
665: e.g. a progenitor with negative age (WD \#38 mentioned above), a
666: 0.45~M$_\odot$ WD with a progenitor mass above 8~M$_\odot$ (WD \#37) and some
667: other issues to be discussed later in the paper.
668:
669: In Figure~\ref{fig:ref_ifmr} we show two analytic fits to the data. The first
670: one, linear, gives
671: \begin{equation}
672: M_{\rm f}= 0.084 M_{\rm i} + 0.466
673: \end{equation}
674: and a reduced chi-squared $\chi^2_r=3.7$. Approximate values for the 1$\sigma$ rms
675: dispersion about this relation are: 0.075~M$_\odot$ below 2~M$_\odot$,
676: 0.12~M$_\odot$ between 2.7 and 4~M$_\odot$, 0.09~M$_\odot$ between 4 and
677: 6~M$_\odot$ and then it increases almost linearly up to 0.20~M$_\odot$ at
678: around 8.5~M$_\odot$.
679:
680: Guided by theoretical models, which
681: show a break in the slope of the IFMR at around 4~M$_\odot$ (see
682: Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo}), we have also performed a piecewise linear fit with a
683: pivot point at $M_{\rm i}=4~{\rm M_\odot}$ that yields
684: \begin{equation}
685: M_{\rm f} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lllc} 0.134 M_{\rm i} + 0.331 & & & 1.7~
686: {\rm M}_\odot \leq M_{\rm i} \leq 4~{\rm
687: M}_\odot\\
688: 0.047 M_{\rm i} + 0.679 & & & 4~{\rm M}_\odot \leq M_{\rm i}.
689: \end{array} \right.
690: \end{equation}
691: This fit gives $\chi^2_r=2.7$ at the expense of introducing only one more
692: free parameter (we force the fit to be continuous at the pivot point). In
693: this case, the dispersion is reduced to 0.05~M$_\odot$ below 2~M$_\odot$
694: and to 0.09~M$_\odot$ above 6~M$_\odot$, while it remains basically
695: unchanged anywhere else. The reader should keep in mind that these cluster data
696: do not constrain the IFMR at masses lower than about 1.7 M$_\odot$.
697: As a consequence, the present analytic relations, particularly the piecewise
698: linear fit, should not be extrapolated towards lower initial masses.
699:
700: We could attempt more complicated fits to the data, but in our opinion
701: the uncertainties in
702: mass determinations, and possibly the existence of an intrinsic spread in
703: the IFMR to be discussed below, render such efforts probably unnecessary. In fact, we
704: have found polynomial fits beyond second order do not produce any relevant
705: improvement in the goodness of fit.
706:
707: As an additional check, we performed a
708: direct comparison of our fits with the polynomial relationship from
709: \citet{fer05}, that was derived
710: by combining an assumed star formation rate and initial mass function
711: for the Galactic Disk, with the observed field WD mass distribution.
712: For masses between 2.5 and 6.5~M$_\odot$ -- the range of initial
713: masses covered in their study -- at a given $M_{\rm i}$, differences in the
714: $M_{\rm f}$ values are less than
715: 0.04~M$_\odot$, well below the dispersions given above.
716:
717: Another point that we wish to address is the presence of a possible
718: intrinsic spread in the reference IFMR, as noticed by \citet{reid96} in an
719: analysis of Praesepe WD population. With intrinsic spread we mean a signature
720: of differential mass loss among stars with the same mass and same initial
721: chemical composition. \citet{cata08} have investigated very recently the spread
722: around their mean semi-empirical IFMR (determined from cluster WDs and
723: WDs in common proper motion pairs) and found no clear cut
724: indication that is either due to a spread in mass loss or to some
725: other individual stellar properties (e.g. the thickness of the envelope
726: layers) that vary between objects.
727:
728: To investigate this issue with our data, we made the
729: following test. We considered objects in a single cluster, namely
730: Praesepe, with $M_{\rm i}$ values
731: in agreement within their respective 1$\sigma$ error bars. There are
732: 8 stars with $M_{\rm i}$ between 3.045 and 3.543~$M_{\odot}$ satisfying this
733: constraint, and we assume that -- within the present error bars --
734: they share the same $M_{\rm i}$, equal to the average value $\langle M_{\rm i}
735: \rangle=3.207~M_{\odot}$.
736: %with a 1$\sigma$ rms equal to 0.158$M_{\odot}$.
737: For these objects, the average WD mass is $\langle M_{\rm f} \rangle
738: =0.769~M_{\odot}$ with 1$\sigma$ rms equal to 0.045$M_{\odot}$. To
739: test whether this observed dispersion in $M_{\rm f}$ is due exclusively to
740: the errors in the $M_{\rm f}$ estimates, we built a synthetic sample by
741: drawing randomly 10000 $M_{\rm f}$ values for each of the 8 objects,
742: according to a Gaussian distribution centred on $\langle M_{\rm f}
743: \rangle=0.769~M_{\odot}$, with a 1$\sigma$ spread given by their
744: individual error bars. The synthetic distribution has obviously
745: $\langle M_{\rm f} \rangle=0.769~M_{\odot}$, but a 1$\sigma$ rms equal only
746: to 0.028$M_{\odot}$. We compared statistically the $\sigma$ values of
747: the two distributions by means of an F-test, that returned a probability
748: of $P$=96.3\% that $\sigma$ of the synthetic sample is different from
749: (smaller than) the observed one. By fixing, as customary, a threshold
750: of $P$=95\% to accept the existence of a real difference between the
751: two $\sigma$ values, our simple test seems to point to the existence
752: of a spread in the IFMR, at least in this cluster. Adding 5 more
753: objects in the Hyades and in NGC3532 (the [Fe/H] estimates
754: for these two clusters plus Praesepe span a range of only $\sim$0.10~dex,
755: and overlap within their associated $\sim$ 2$\sigma$ error bars, see
756: Table~\ref{Ages})
757: with initial masses within the same
758: overlapping $M_{\rm i}$ range and repeating the previous analysis does not
759: change this conclusion. In fact, for this enlarged sample, $\langle
760: M_{\rm f} \rangle =0.729~M_{\odot}$, with a 1$\sigma$ rms equal to
761: 0.10$M_{\odot}$. The probability that the corresponding synthetic
762: sample -- constructed in the same way as for the 8 Hyades WDs -- has a
763: different $\sigma$ than observed is $P$=96.9\%.
764:
765: However, this evidence for an intrinsic spread (i.e.\ due to a
766: significantly varying mass loss at a fixed mass and chemical composition)
767: in the IFMR is weakened if we take into account theoretical
768: expectations for near-solar metallicities, displayed in
769: Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo}. Although the $M_{\rm i}$ values
770: estimated for these 13 WDs (or just the 8 Praesepe objects discussed above)
771: overlap within the 1$\sigma$ error bars, the same error bars suggest
772: that they may also cover a range of values. Just
773: considering the range covered by the central $M_{\rm i}$ estimates for these
774: 13 WDs, theoretical IFMRs \citep[see also another completely
775: independent theoretical IFMR for solar metallicity in Fig.~3 of][]{prad07}
776: generally display a steep rise of $M_{\rm f}$ with
777: $M_{\rm i}$. Over the $M_{\rm i}$ range between 3.05 and 3.5~$M_{\odot}$, the
778: theoretical IFMRs of Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo} predict an increase in
779: $M_{\rm f}$ by about $0.1\,M_\odot$, which corresponds to $\sim 2\sigma$ of
780: the observed $M_{\rm f}$ spread in the 8 Praesepe objects, and to $\sim
781: 1\sigma$ of the observed spread in the 13-object enlarged
782: sample. Without accounting for errors in the estimate of $M_{\rm f}$, the
783: predicted change within the $M_{\rm i}$ range allowed by the error bars of
784: the estimated initial masses can potentially explain the observed
785: $M_{\rm f}$ spread. This would imply that the observed spread is not the
786: result of star-to-star mass loss variations, but due to,
787: as predicted from theory, the steep increase of $M_{\rm f}$ with $M_{\rm i}$
788: in the relevant mass range.
789:
790: Moving this analysis to different $M_{\rm i}$ ranges can hardly provide
791: additional constraints on the existence of an intrinsic spread in the IFMR,
792: because of either smaller numbers of objects
793: in comparable $M_{\rm i}$ intervals (when moving to lower $M_{\rm i}$ values) or a
794: combination of much larger error bars on $M_{\rm i}$ and small numbers (when
795: moving to higher $M_{\rm i}$ values). It may however be interesting to
796: notice the situation at $M_{\rm i} \sim 1.8~M_{\odot}$, where we have 5
797: objects (belonging to NGC7789 and NGC6819) with formally the same
798: $M_{\rm i}$, small errors in both $M_{\rm i}$ and $M_{\rm f}$ and theoretical
799: predictions for an IFMR essentially flat (see
800: Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo}). By applying the same statistical analysis
801: described before we do not find any statistically significant spread
802: in the IFMR for this sample.
803:
804: Before concluding this section we discuss briefly another test of our
805: reference IFMR. In the case of NGC2099 we have considered the alternative
806: value [Fe/H]=$-$0.20 and reduced reddening (E(B-V)=0.23) used by
807: \citet{kal05} and given by \citet{del02}. Note however that Deliyannis
808: (private communication) considers this as a possible but as yet
809: unconfirmed value for [Fe/H]. Using this alternative metallicity and
810: reddening we derive an age for NGC2099 of 550~Myr which, compared to
811: 320~Myr derived with [Fe/H]=0.09, has a dramatic effect in the
812: inferred initial masses (Fig.~\ref{fig:m37}). Results for NGC2099 stars
813: (\#27-\#38) are repeated in the last part of Table~\ref{MiMftab} but
814: in this case corresponding to the low [Fe/H]. As expected from the
815: relatively large change in the inferred cluster age, changes in $M_{\rm i}$
816: due to the different cluster parameters generally exceed the
817: uncertainties in $M_{\rm i}$ determination.
818:
819: This test, based on estimates that are admittedly not confirmed,
820: is just to exemplify in a quantitative way
821: how crucial the assessment of the cluster [Fe/H] and E(B-V) values is.
822:
823: We will return to this issue in Sect.~4.
824:
825:
826: \section{Global error-bar estimates \label{sec:uncert}}
827:
828: The method used to determine the IFMR has been described in
829: Section~\ref{sec:ifmr}, where we also presented our reference
830: IFMR. We now focus on a detailed determination of the
831: global uncertainties both in the initial and final masses for each
832: star in our sample. Since the global errors have contributions from
833: various sources, they have been estimated by means of Monte Carlo simulations.
834: In the following we detail the procedure followed for each star in our sample.
835:
836:
837: \subsection{White Dwarf Uncertainties \label{sec:mcwd}}
838:
839: We have tried to cover all major sources of uncertainties in the
840: WD mass and cooling age determinations, that are going to be
841: discussed in this section.
842: While we have used S00 models as our standard set of WD models, all
843: the WD evolutionary sequences to test the effect of WD input physics and
844: chemical stratification have been computed with the
845: LPCODE described below. This should not invalidate our procedure,
846: since we are using LPCODE models
847: only to determine differential changes in the WD properties (e.g. core
848: composition), not absolute values.
849: In what follows, $X$ represents the logarithmic values of either the WD
850: mass or the cooling age.
851:
852: -- Observational uncertainties. The central values and
853: $1\sigma$ uncertainties for \loggs and \teffs are listed in
854: Table~\ref{WDsample}. We leave them unmodified as they are given in
855: the original papers quoted in Sect.~2.1.
856:
857: -- Systematic uncertainties from WD cooling tracks. In addition to our
858: standard choice of WD
859: cooling tracks (S00), we have specifically computed a completely independent
860: set of WD cooling models with the LPCODE. The aim is to
861: estimate the {\it systematic} uncertainties in the inferred WD properties
862: that arises from using different WD models. We define the $1\sigma$
863: uncertainty by
864: \begin{equation}
865: \sigma_{\rm syst}(X)=|X_{\rm S00}-X_{\rm LP}|;
866: \label{eq:wdsys}
867: \end{equation}
868: where $X_{\rm S00}$ is derived from S00 models and $X_{\rm LP}$ from
869: models computed with the LPCODE. WD models computed with the LPCODE
870: have been used in \cite{Serfuk07}, where the evolution of a set of
871: stellar models from 1 to 8~M$_\odot$ and solar metallicity has been
872: consistently followed from the main sequence phase up to the WD
873: phase, including the thermal pulse (TP) AGB phase. It should be noted that, in addition
874: to differences in numerics, $\sigma_{\rm syst}(X)$ also accounts for
875: differences in input physics between the two sets of models. While S00
876: and LPCODE models have used the same neutrino energy loss rates
877: \citep{itoh96}, conductive opacities in the CO cores \citep{itoh93} and very
878: similar hydrogen envelope thickness and core composition, they differ
879: in other relevant aspects such as the equation of state and low temperature
880: opacities
881: (see \citealt{alt03} and \citealt{sala00} for details about the LPCODE and S00
882: input physics respectively) and the inclusion of gravitational
883: settling in the model envelopes (S00 models mimic the effects of
884: gravitational settling by adopting a pure hydrogen envelope and fixed
885: chemical H/He and He/C/O interfaces while in LPCODE the chemical
886: profiles are evolved according to time-dependent equations of element
887: diffusion).
888:
889: -- Neutrino energy loss rates. For the WD evolutionary sequences we
890: are considering in this work, plasma neutrinos always contribute at least 90\%
891: of the total neutrino emission. Uncertainties in the theoretical calculation
892: of plasma neutrino emission rates, within the framework of the standard model
893: of particle physics, are at most a few percent (Fukugita, private communication) and
894: thus we do not expect them to represent an important source of uncertainty in
895: determining WD cooling ages.
896: Several additional cooling
897: mechanisms that could operate in WD interiors have been proposed,
898: e.g. enhanced neutrino cooling due to a non-null neutrino magnetic dipole
899: moment, axion production or other particles like
900: Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (see \citealp{raf_book}
901: for a complete discussion of these mechanisms). It
902: is not our aim here to consider the effects on the WD properties --
903: particularly on the cooling rate -- of all such mechanisms, especially because
904: they remain purely hypothetical\footnote{Among the
905: non-standard cooling mechanisms, axions are probably the best
906: motivated. Recently, \cite{bish08} and \cite{ise08} have used WD pulsation
907: properties
908: and the luminosity function of local Disk WDs, respectively, to constrain the
909: axion mass $m_a$. While \cite{bish08} find an upper limit
910: $m_a=13$~\mbox{meV}, \cite{ise08} rule out values as low as 10~\mbox{meV}
911: and give a preferred value of $m_a=5$~\mbox{meV}. With this mass value, axion
912: cooling is never the dominating WD cooling mechanism (contrary to neutrino
913: cooling, that dominates for hot WDs) but it is strong enough that it can
914: have a moderate effect on WD age determinations for WDs with luminosities in
915: the range $-1.2 < \log L/{\rm L_\odot} \lesssim -1.7$.}. We do
916: not want, however, ignore the
917: possibility that some additional cooling might be present. Consequently,
918: we have adopted a more conservative point of view and
919: have computed additional WD cooling models where standard neutrino energy loss
920: rates \citep{haft94,itoh96} have been multiplied by factors of 2 and 0.5
921: respectively to take into account the possibility of such additional
922: cooling mechanisms.
923: These large factors were
924: chosen to represent our conservative approach.
925: We define the WD mass (and cooling age) $1\sigma$ uncertainties due to
926: neutrino energy losses as
927: \begin{equation}
928: \sigma_\nu(X)=\frac{|X_{\rm 2}-X_{\rm 0.5}|}{2},
929: \label{eq:wdneu}
930: \end{equation}
931: where the subindices refer
932: to quantities corresponding to the WD cooling models with the modified
933: neutrino emission rates as described above.
934:
935: -- Conductive opacity. For the physical conditions and composition of a
936: representative set
937: of WD models, we have
938: computed conductive opacities according to both Itoh and collaborators
939: (\cite{itoh93} and references therein -- our references set of conductive
940: opacities)
941: and Potekhin and collaborators (see \citealt{cass07} for the most up to
942: date calculations). We find differences between both sets of
943: calculations to be usually below 20\% for the range of temperatures
944: and densities relevant to the WD models used in this paper. In
945: analogy with the neutrino emission rates, we have estimated the effect of
946: electron conduction uncertainties by computing
947: additional WD models where the conductive opacities from Itoh and
948: collaborators
949: have been multiplied by factors of 1.25 and 0.8 and
950: have used these models to define the WD mass and cooling age
951: $1\sigma$ uncertainties due to errors in conductive opacities
952: calculations as
953: \begin{equation}
954: \sigma_\kappa(X)=\frac{|X_{\rm 1.25}-X_{\rm 0.8}|}{2}.
955: \label{eq:wdkap}
956: \end{equation}
957:
958: -- WD core composition. The mass fraction of the central oxygen
959: $X_{\rm O}$ in S00 WD models ranges from 0.65 up to 0.80 depending on the
960: mass
961: of the WD.
962: The internal CO stratification is however subject to uncertainties
963: due to the uncertainty on the ${\rm C}^{12}+\alpha$ reaction rate
964: (see, e.g. S00) and, very important,
965: the treatment of mixing (semiconvection, breathing pulses and the mechanism
966: to
967: suppress them) during the central He-burning phase \citep{stra03}.
968: These effects are larger than the expected change in CO profiles due to the
969: small metallicity
970: range covered by the cluster sample.
971: In our analysis we have been conservative and have defined the
972: $1\sigma$ uncertainty due uncertainties in the core composition as
973: \begin{equation}
974: \sigma_{\rm core}(X)=\frac{|X_{\rm 0.9}-X_{\rm 0.3}|}{2},
975: \label{eq:wdcor}
976: \end{equation}
977: where $X_{\rm 0.9}$ and $X_{\rm 0.3}$ are derived from WD cooling
978: tracks where the original chemical profiles have been rescaled to have
979: $X_{\rm O}$= 0.9 and 0.3 at the center, respectively.
980:
981: -- Hydrogen envelope thickness ($M_{\rm H}$). As shown by, e.g.,
982: \citet{prov98}
983: the H-envelope thickness of DA WDs displays a range of values.
984: To include this effect in our error analysis, in addition to the standard
985: thick envelopes considered in our LPCODE calculations
986: (usually $10^{-4}$~M$_\odot$, but larger values
987: were used for WD masses below 0.6~M$_\odot$) we have computed also
988: cooling sequences with thinner H-layers of $10^{-6}$~M$_\odot$.
989: Similar to the above procedures, we have defined the corresponding
990: $1\sigma$ errors
991: \begin{equation}
992: \sigma_{\rm env}(X)=\frac{|X_{\rm thick}-X_{\rm thin}|}{2};
993: \label{eq:wdenv}
994: \end{equation}
995: where $X_{\rm thick}$ and $X_{\rm thin}$ are derived from WD
996: models with thick and thin hydrogen envelopes respectively.
997: We have performed
998: an additional test to explore very thin hydrogen envelopes (as in
999: \citealt{cata08}) by computing a 0.6 and a 1~M$_\odot$ WD models with
1000: hydrogen envelopes of $M_{\rm H} \sim 10^{-10}$~M$_\odot$. When compared
1001: to models with thick envelopes, we have found
1002: that differences in the cooling ages never exceeded 11\% in both cases
1003: and are usually at the level of 7\% for the 0.60~M$_\odot$ model and
1004: 5\% for the more massive one in the range of effective temperatures of
1005: interest to this work. Asteroseismology studies of ZZ Ceti stars
1006: disclose a wide range of
1007: hydrogen envelope thickness, ranging between $\sim 10^{-4}$~M$_\odot$
1008: and $\sim 10^{-9}$~M$_\odot$ \citep[see, e.g.,][]{ck08}.
1009: In this regard,
1010: the changes in the cooling ages due to uncertainties in the H-envelope
1011: thickness quoted above can probably be taken as robust upper limits.
1012:
1013: For neutrino emission rates, conductive opacities, core composition and
1014: hydrogen-envelope thickness we have assumed that uncertainties distribute
1015: normally. In the case of systematic uncertainties from different WD cooling
1016: tracks we have assumed uniform distributions of uncertainties
1017: ($f_X$) which are defined, in each case,
1018: by $\int_{-\sigma_{\rm syst}}^{+\sigma_{\rm syst}}{f_X dX}=0.683$. We
1019: tabulate $\sigma_\nu(X)$, $\sigma_\kappa(X)$, $\sigma_{\rm core}(X)$,
1020: $\sigma_{\rm env}(X)$ and $\sigma_{\rm syst}(X)$ in (\logg,\teff)
1021: grids for using them in the Monte Carlo simulations. We summarize the
1022: results for the WD uncertainties, both for mass and cooling age, in
1023: Table~\ref{tab:uncert}, where for a
1024: small subset of (\logg, \teff) values, we give the $1-\sigma$ fractional
1025: uncertainties in WD mass and cooling age as defined
1026: by Eqs.~\ref{eq:wdsys}-\ref{eq:wdenv}, but transformed to linear scale to
1027: facilitate interpretation of the results.
1028:
1029: \subsection{Progenitor Star Uncertainties \label{sec:mcms}}
1030:
1031: Progenitor masses $M_{\rm i}$ are obtained from the estimated progenitor
1032: lifetime
1033: and stellar models. In addition to the uncertainty sources discussed in the
1034: previous section for $t_{\rm cool}$, the determination of $M_{\rm i}$ is affected by:
1035:
1036: -- Cluster age. Progenitor lifetimes are obtained simply as
1037: $t_{\rm prog}=t_{\rm clus} - t_{\rm cool}$, so uncertainties in $t_{\rm clus}$
1038: directly affect the determination of $M_{\rm i}$. Central values and adopted
1039: $1\sigma$ uncertainties for the cluster ages determined for this paper are
1040: listed in
1041: Table~\ref{Ages}. As our standard choice, we have adopted uniform
1042: distributions $f_t(t_{\rm clus})$ for
1043: cluster age uncertainties, where $f_t$ is a constant
1044: defined by the simple relation $\int_{-\sigma_{t {\rm clus}}}^{+\sigma_{t {\rm
1045: clus}}} f_t \,dt_{\rm clus}=0.683$.
1046:
1047:
1048: -- Stellar metallicity (${\rm \Delta[Fe/H]}$). ${\rm \Delta[Fe/H]}$
1049: affects the determination of
1050: $M_{\rm i}$ in two different ways. The first and most important relates to the
1051: determination of the cluster age (mainly through the
1052: change in the distance modulus obtained via MS-fitting)
1053: and has already been taken into account in
1054: the uncertainty of $t_{\rm clus}$. Additionally, ${\rm \Delta[Fe/H]}$
1055: introduces uncertainty in the determination of the progenitor mass because,
1056: for different metallicities, a fixed $t_{\rm prog}$ corresponds to different
1057: progenitor masses. We treat this effect by adopting the central values and
1058: uncertainties in the metallicities listed in Table~\ref{Ages} to generate
1059: stellar metallicity distributions (normal distributions are our standard
1060: choice). For a fixed $t_{\rm prog}$ we then compute $M_{\rm i}$ for the
1061: corresponding metallicity distribution.
1062:
1063: -- Different stellar models and isochrones. In order to estimate the
1064: systematic uncertainties arising from using different sets of stellar models
1065: and isochrones we have proceeded in a similar fashion as in the case of the
1066: WD cooling tracks and define as the $1\sigma$ uncertainty
1067: \begin{equation}
1068: \sigma_{\rm syst}(M_{\rm i})=|M_{\rm i, BaSTI}-M_{\rm i, Padua}|;
1069: \end{equation}
1070: where $M_{\rm i, BaSTI}$ represents the progenitor masses derived with
1071: Basti stellar models and isochrones and $M_{\rm i, Padua}$ those derived
1072: with Padua models and isochrones. We have adopted a uniform distribution
1073: for systematic uncertainties. It should be noted here again that consistency
1074: in the calculations requires the same set of models and
1075: isochrones be used to derive $M_{\rm i}$ and $t_{\rm prog}$, i.e. the cluster
1076: age.
1077: It is in principle not correct to adopt a cluster age derived with, let us say
1078: the BaSTI isochrones, and then the Padua stellar models to derive $M_{\rm i}$
1079: from
1080: the calculated $t_{\rm prog}$. As already stated in the Introduction, such
1081: inconsistencies are ubiquitous in the current literature and can introduce
1082: noticeable systematic changes in the derived $M_{\rm i}$, particularly for
1083: $M_{\rm i} \gtsim 5$M$_\odot$.
1084: %{\bf
1085: %(see Fig.~\ref{mibastileo}).
1086: %}
1087:
1088: We close this section by stressing that both codes, BaSTI
1089: and Padua, are employing up-to-date physics input, and therefore are, at
1090: least nominally, quite similar in their treatment of stellar evolution.
1091: Systematic uncertainties
1092: arising from code-to-code differences are therefore possibly
1093: underestimated in the above error analysis, if they arise from
1094: different physical assumptions, as, for example, the inclusion
1095: or neglect of convective overshooting, which we did not include
1096: in the discussion of this section (we provide separate results for models
1097: without core overshooting).
1098:
1099: When considering models without core overshooting, the systematic effect of
1100: using different models and isochrones was taken into account with a slightly
1101: different approach because Padua calculations are only available for one
1102: chemical composition, i.e. $Z$=0.019 and $Y$=0.273.
1103: This pair of ($Y,Z$) values corresponds
1104: to [Fe/H]=0.04 when considering the \citet{gn93} solar mixture
1105: (that provides $Z/X$=0.0245$\pm$0.005 for the present Sun)
1106: employed in those stellar model calculations. Also BaSTI models
1107: employ the \citet{gn93} solar mixture, and the ($Y,Z$) pair closest to the
1108: Padua one around the solar metallicity is $Z$=0.0198, $Y=$0.2734,
1109: that corresponds to [Fe/H]=0.06.
1110: In this case, and just for estimating this
1111: systematic uncertainty, we have computed all
1112: progenitor masses for both BaSTI and Padua non-overshooting models
1113: assuming a fixed [Fe/H]=0.04 for Padua and [Fe/H]=0.06 for BaSTI.
1114: As above, the difference between the masses has been adopted as a
1115: measure of the systematic uncertainty and we have assumed this difference does
1116: not depend on the actual [Fe/H] value. This is in fact a reasonable
1117: approximation and, in addition, systematic uncertainties from isochrones and
1118: models turn out to be a small contribution to the overall uncertainty budget,
1119: so our simplified treatment should not affect our results and conclusions.
1120:
1121:
1122: \subsection{Monte Carlo simulations}
1123:
1124: For each star in our sample, the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations
1125: consist of the following steps:
1126:
1127:
1128: -- generate $ \{\log{g}_{\rm j},T_{\rm eff,j}\}_{\rm {j=1}}^{\rm N}$
1129: distributions according to observational uncertainties and use S00 WD
1130: models to get the initial WD mass $ \{M^0_{\rm f,j} \}_{\rm
1131: {j=1}}^{\rm N}$ and cooling age $ \{t^0_{\rm cool,j} \}_{\rm
1132: {j=1}}^{\rm N}$ distributions. Here $N(=10^5)$ is the total number
1133: of trials in the MC simulations and quantities with the $j$ suffix
1134: denote results of each one of the trials;
1135:
1136: -- For each trial $j$ include additional WD mass and cooling age
1137: uncertainties according to the details given in
1138: Section~\ref{sec:mcwd}. Each mass in the the final WD mass
1139: distribution $ \{M_{\rm f,j} \}_{\rm {j=1}}^{\rm N}$ (analogously
1140: for the WD cooling age) is given by
1141: \begin{equation}
1142: M_{\rm f,j}= M^0_{\rm f,j} + \sum_{\rm k=1,5} \delta M_{\rm j,k},
1143: \end{equation}
1144: where each $\delta M_{\rm j,k}$, the individual contributions to the
1145: WD mass global uncertainty, is randomly drawn from distributions
1146: constructed as described in Section~\ref{sec:mcwd}. The final WD
1147: cooling age distribution $\{t_{\rm cool,j} \}_{\rm {j=1}}^{\rm N}$
1148: is computed in the same way;
1149:
1150: -- generate the cluster age distribution $\{t_{\rm clus,j} \}_{\rm
1151: {j=1}}^{\rm N}$ and then the progenitor age distribution $\{t_{\rm
1152: prog,j} \}_{\rm {j=1}}^{\rm N}$, where for each trial $t_{\rm
1153: prog,j} = t_{\rm clus,j} - t_{\rm cool,j}$;
1154:
1155: -- From $\{t_{\rm prog,j} \}_{\rm {j=1}}^{\rm N}$ get the initial
1156: progenitor mass distribution $ \{M^0_{\rm i,j} \}_{\rm {j=1}}^{\rm
1157: N}$ using the BaSTI stellar models;
1158:
1159: -- The final progenitor mass distribution $ \{M_{\rm i,j} \}_{\rm
1160: {j=1}}^{\rm N}$ is obtained by adding the star metallicity and
1161: stellar models systematic uncertainties, i.e. $M_{\rm i,j}= M^0_{\rm
1162: i,j} + \delta M_{\rm i,[Fe/H]} + \delta M_{\rm i,syst}$ as discussed
1163: in Section~\ref{sec:mcms}.
1164:
1165: \section{Results and comparisons with theory \label{sec:results}}
1166:
1167: \subsection{Global error assessment}
1168:
1169: Table~\ref{WDage1} displays the results about cooling age and mass for all
1170: the WDs in our sample. The central values have been
1171: obtained using S00 WD models and the uncertainties are the result of
1172: the MC simulations described in the previous section and thus include
1173: {\sl all sources of uncertainty considered in this work}. We also provide,
1174: as additional information, the bolometric luminosity of the WDs, as
1175: obtained from the interpolation among the WD model grid in \loggs and
1176: \teff. It is important to notice that none of the objects have yet
1177: entered the crystallization phase. This minimizes the effect of
1178: uncertainties in the interior CO profiles, that play a very important
1179: role during the phase separation associated to the crystallization
1180: process (S00).
1181:
1182: Our reference IFMR relation (BaSTI with core overshooting plus S00
1183: models) is displayed in Table~\ref{MiMftab} (labelled ``ov''). For
1184: the WD masses, the
1185: quoted uncertainties are the average of $\sigma_-(M_{\rm f})$ and
1186: $\sigma_+(M_{\rm f})$ given in Table~\ref{WDage1}. For the progenitor
1187: masses we give the results of our Monte Carlo simulations, that show
1188: strongly asymmetric error bars arising from the highly non-linear
1189: relation between evolutionary lifetime and mass for MS
1190: stars. Results for BaSTI models without core overshooting are also shown
1191: (labelled ``non-ov'').
1192:
1193: As already discussed, our estimates of the global uncertainties in
1194: the IFMR include systematic effects due to the use of different sets of stellar
1195: models and isochrones, and different WD cooling models. It is
1196: instructive, however, to try to single out the influence of the
1197: stellar models on the final error. To this aim,
1198: Fig.~\ref{mibastileo} shows a comparison between the progenitor masses
1199: obtained with two different sets of stellar models and isochrones (BaSTI and
1200: Padua). In both cases we used S00 WD models. When compared with the
1201: error bars on $M_{\rm i}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo},
1202: Fig.~\ref{mibastileo} leads us
1203: to conclude that systematic uncertainties from using
1204: different sets of isochrones and stellar models do not contribute appreciably
1205: to the global error budget on $M_{\rm i}$, as long as the assumptions
1206: concerning the stellar physics are similar.
1207: We emphasize again that
1208: to achieve internal consistency the same set of isochrones and stellar models
1209: must be
1210: used to determine the cluster ages and to obtain progenitor masses from the
1211: progenitor lifetimes.
1212:
1213: We next study the changes in the IFMR from using different WD models.
1214: Figure~\ref{mimfs00aldo} displays our reference IFMR (S00 + BaSTI with
1215: overshooting) and that resulting from using the LPCODE WD models. Although WD
1216: masses derived from both sets of WD models are very
1217: similar, the effect on the progenitor mass is much larger, especially for
1218: progenitor masses above $\sim$5~M$_\odot$. The changes are due to differences
1219: in the WD cooling ages obtained with the different WD models. Both S00
1220: and LPCODE models give WD ages consistent within the observational errors in
1221: \loggs and \teff, however the short lifetime of massive stars
1222: makes the determination of $M_{\rm i}$ very sensitive to small differences in
1223: $t_{\rm cool}$ for higher progenitor masses.
1224:
1225: Figure~\ref{fracsigmas} gives an overview of the relative contributions of
1226: observational and model (cooling tracks, including systematic effects due to
1227: variations of input physics and chemical stratification) uncertainties
1228: to the total error budget for the final WD masses and ages. We display also
1229: the relative contribution of cluster age (due to
1230: isochrones, cluster metallicity, reddening, distance) and WD age
1231: (due to cooling tracks) uncertainties to the
1232: total error budget for the progenitor masses and ages.
1233: These fractional contributions are expressed
1234: in terms of $(\sigma_{\rm i}/\sigma_{\rm tot})^2$ for each WD,
1235: denoted by its number (as in Table~\ref{WDsample}), whilst vertical dashed
1236: lines separate the various clusters. The uncertainty of the WD mass
1237: appears to be completely dominated by the observational errors
1238: in \loggs and \teff, while in case of WD ages
1239: the systematic uncertainties of the cooling tracks dominate for some
1240: clusters (NGC3532 and NGC2099). For the progenitor ages and masses (lower panels
1241: of Fig.~\ref{fracsigmas})
1242: cluster ages are the largest contributors to the total error, except mainly for
1243: NGC2099.
1244:
1245:
1246: In closing this section, we comment on the possibility that systematic
1247: uncertainties (to be added to the quoted errors) may be present in the empirical determination of WDs \teff\
1248: and \logg \citep[see, e.g.,][]{ngs99}. We have not included this source of
1249: uncertainty in our global error assessment simply because it is not quantified
1250: in the literature. We have performed, however, a simple test to understand how
1251: such hypothetical uncertainties may influence the determinations of WD masses
1252: and
1253: cooling ages. We have considered that \teff\ determinations have systematic
1254: uncertainties amounting up to $\pm1000$~K, that we represent by means of a
1255: uniform distribution. Analogously, in the case of \logg\ we have assumed an
1256: additional systematic uncertainty of $\pm0.15$~dex.
1257: Note that these are probably very
1258: generous systematic errors, because we assume all WDs are similarly affected.
1259: Our results show that uncertainties in \logg\ have a more noticeable effect
1260: than those on \teff. This is because WD masses are more robustly predicted by
1261: WD models than cooling ages, and consequently the error budget is
1262: dominated by observational uncertainties (as already shown in
1263: Fig.~\ref{fracsigmas}). For about 40\% of our sample, uncertainties in WD
1264: masses are about a factor of 2 larger when systematic uncertainties as
1265: described above are included; these are the stars that show the smallest
1266: observational uncertainties in Table~\ref{WDsample}. For the rest of the
1267: stars in our sample, uncertainties are increased by not more than a
1268: factor of 1.5. Cooling
1269: ages, on the other hand, are much less affected by systematic
1270: uncertainties, because the total error budget here is heavily influenced by
1271: input physics and systematics in WD models. As a consequence, initial mass
1272: determinations are only very mildly affected. Indeed, the largest increase in
1273: positive uncertainties for $M_i$ is only 50\%, with only 4 objects having
1274: changes
1275: above 40\%. There are 40 objects for which positive uncertainties increase by
1276: less than 25\%. Negative uncertainties, which are always smaller, are less
1277: affected, and for 49 objects, increases are smaller than 25\%. We thus
1278: conclude
1279: that adding systematic uncertainties to WD observational parameters would only
1280: have a very modest influence on the inferred IFMR. Based on these results and
1281: also considering that any attempt to quantify systematic uncertainties remains,
1282: at this point, arbitrary, we have chosen not to include these effects neither
1283: in our reference IFMR nor in the discussion of our results.
1284:
1285: %The WD ages uncertainty plays a minor role
1286: %for the determination of the initial masses in most cases, except for the
1287: %higher
1288: %values, as discussed above. $M_{\rm i}$ depends primarily on the cluster age
1289: %determinations.
1290:
1291: \subsection{Comparison between predicted and derived IFMRs}
1292:
1293: Figure~\ref{mimfbastisoo} compares the inferred IFMR with that predicted by
1294: the same BaSTI models (we chose to display the BaSTI results for [Fe/H]=0.06)
1295: used in the determination of $t_{prog}$ and $M_{\rm i}$. We display results
1296: obtained from progenitor models and isochrones with and without MS
1297: core overshooting.
1298:
1299: Cluster ages determined from models without
1300: overshooting are smaller (see
1301: Table~\ref{Ages}), hence $t_{\rm prog}$ is decreased, resulting in larger
1302: progenitor masses.
1303:
1304: As a consequence,
1305: although the associated error bars are large,
1306: models without overshooting predict for some stars
1307: progenitors masses well above the maximum possible values allowed
1308: by theory. Examples are the WD in the Pleiades and two of the WDs in
1309: NGC2516 (see Table~\ref{MiMftab}),
1310: for which the
1311: estimated progenitor masses are between $\sim 12$ and $\sim 16\,M_{\odot}$.
1312: Theoretical stellar evolution models predict an upper limit
1313: to the progenitors of carbon/oxygen white dwarfs in the range
1314: between $\sim$ 6 and $\sim$ 8 $M_{\odot}$, the exact values depending on the
1315: chemical
1316: composition of the models and on the treatment of mixing in the cores;
1317: lower upper limits are obtained when core overshooting during the central
1318: H-burning
1319: phase is included. In several other cases in Table~\ref{MiMftab} even negative
1320: progenitor ages were obtained.
1321:
1322: The relationship between $M_{\rm i}$ and the core mass at the onset of the
1323: thermal
1324: pulses ($M_{\rm c1TP}$) is also displayed in Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo}.
1325: For models without core overshooting,
1326: the theoretical IFMR lies
1327: largely above the semi-empirical determination, especially for $M_{\rm i} <
1328: 5\,M_\odot$,
1329: while the theoretical $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ relationship
1330: is in better agreement with the data. This would imply that the progenitor
1331: stars
1332: did not experience any thermal pulses at all.
1333:
1334: On the other hand, for
1335: core overshooting models the theoretical IFMR follows much better the
1336: semi-empirical
1337: results, and no very high initial masses are typically derived in this case.
1338: The theoretical $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ relation constitutes a lower envelope to the
1339: data, consistent with general expectations about AGB evolution.
1340: This would lead us to conclude that core overshooting during the
1341: MS results in a better agreement with the derived IFMR,
1342: because of the internal consistency about the end-product of
1343: stars with inferred $M_{\rm i}$.
1344:
1345: Before moving forward in our comparison with theory, we wish to comment
1346: briefly on NGC2099, that represents an interesting case and a warning about
1347: the role played by the cluster [Fe/H] and E(B-V) estimates. As already
1348: mentioned, we have considered two possible values for its metallicity and
1349: reddening. Results for both choices are given in Table~\ref{MiMftab} and
1350: are also plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:m37}. It becomes apparent from the
1351: figure that data points fall systematically below even the theoretical
1352: $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ (models and IFMR with overshooting) relation for
1353: [Fe/H]= 0.09. The same result is obtained if models without core
1354: overshooting are used instead. This inconsistency is strongly alleviated
1355: if the alternative [Fe/H] and E(B-V) used by \citet[][see
1356: Table~\ref{Ages}]{kal05} are
1357: adopted. While the aim
1358: of this paper is not to use the IFMR to improve cluster properties, this
1359: example demonstrates how informative it can be, when systematic effects
1360: are well controlled.
1361:
1362: Focusing again on the core overshooting IFMR (Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo},
1363: top panel) we can finally try to obtain some constraints on TP-AGB evolution
1364: by comparing the inferred IFMR with that resulting from sequences with
1365: different TP-AGB modelling. To do this, we first compare in
1366: Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo} the
1367: $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ relations from BaSTI and LPCODE stellar models (thick
1368: dotted and thin dashed lines respectively). Both relations are very similar,
1369: regardless of differences in the treatment of convective and additional
1370: mixing episodes. We recall that in BaSTI instantaneous mixing in the
1371: overshooting region beyond the Schwarzschild boundary of the H-burning
1372: convective core is assumed, as well as semiconvective mixing during He-core
1373: burning, which is briefly described in \citet{pietr04}, where also the
1374: appropriate references are given. On the other hand, no extra mixing is
1375: taken into account at the bottom of convective envelopes.
1376: LPCODE models include diffusive mixing due to overshooting at all
1377: convective boundaries. We also point out that evolutionary timescales until
1378: the onset of the TPs are very similar in BaSTI models with overshooting and
1379: the LPCODE models. Since TP-AGB lifetimes are very short and their
1380: contribution to
1381: the the total progenitor age can be neglected, we can safely use
1382: semi-empirical data
1383: obtained from BaSTI models for comparisons with the LPCODE theoretical IFMR.
1384:
1385: Having assessed the similarity of the $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$
1386: relations, differences in the IFMRs predicted by BaSTI and LPCODE models
1387: can be traced to differences during the TP-AGB phase. While
1388: BaSTI models do not include extra mixing during the thermal pulses, LPCODE
1389: includes, as mentioned above, diffusive overshooting at all convective
1390: boundaries. The theoretical IFMRs are also shown in
1391: Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo} with thick (BaSTI) and thin (LPCODE) solid lines
1392: and do indeed differ. This is unrelated to the choice of mass loss during
1393: the AGB phase, and it is mainly due to the presence of very strong third
1394: dredge-up episodes in LPCODE sequences, which inhibit the growth of the
1395: H-free core for models with $M_{\rm i} \gtsim 3 {\rm M_\odot}$. These
1396: strong third dredge-up episodes can be traced back mainly to the
1397: presence of overshooting at the base of the thermal pulse driven
1398: convective zone. This was demonstrated by \cite{Herwig2000} and confirmed
1399: by us running test models where convective overshooting was included only
1400: at separately selected convective boundaries during the AGB evolution. Due
1401: to strong third dredge-up events, the final mass of LPCODE sequences with
1402: $M_{\rm i} \gtsim 3 M_\odot$ is very similar to $M_{\rm c1TP}$, the
1403: core mass at the first thermal pulse (Fig.~\ref{mimfbastisoo}, top panel).
1404: On the other hand in BaSTI sequences the final mass is mainly set by the
1405: length of the TP-AGB phase and, thus, by the adopted mass loss rate. The
1406: apparent failure of the theoretical LPCODE IFMR to match the final masses
1407: in the range $2.75 M_\odot \lessim M_{\rm i}\lessim 3.5 M_\odot$ is an
1408: indication that such strong dredge-up episodes do not take
1409: place in real stars, and therefore the adopted exponentially decaying
1410: overshooting at the base of the thermal pulse driven convective zone in
1411: the LPCODE models is too strong. This allows us to conclude that the
1412: overshooting parameter $f$ \citep[see][for a definition of
1413: $f$]{Herwig1997} must be significantly smaller than $f=0.016$ employed at
1414: the convective core of upper MS stars. This is in line with
1415: recent hydrodynamical simulations of AGB thermal pulses which point to a
1416: value of $f\lessim 0.01$ at the bottom of the pulse driven convective zone
1417: \citep{Herwig2007}. On the other hand, given the large error bars of the
1418: data points, the existence of strong third dredge-up episodes for stars
1419: with $M_{\rm i}\gtsim 5 M_\odot$ cannot be excluded by the same
1420: arguments. The IFMR may therefore teach us that overshooting varies a lot
1421: between different convective layers and may also depend on stellar mass.
1422:
1423:
1424: \section{Summary and conclusions}
1425:
1426: Since its earliest determination, the semi-empirical IFMR has
1427: indicated a monotonic rise of the final WD mass with the initial mass
1428: of the progenitor. It is also strong evidence that single stars of
1429: intermediate mass do not develop degenerate cores close to the
1430: Chandrasekhar limit, most likely due to the effect of strong mass loss
1431: on the AGB. These qualitative results have remained unchanged
1432: in spite of the significant improvement both in the amount and
1433: accuracy of observational data and in the theoretical
1434: models. Nevertheless there are still many open questions, such as a
1435: dependence on metallicity, the slope of the IFMR at the upper
1436: (initial) mass end, changes in slope, and spread around a mean
1437: relation. To answer these questions, not only increasingly
1438: accurate observations are needed, but also the systematic
1439: uncertainties coming from the theoretical input -- which is
1440: necessary to establish the semi-empirical IFMR -- have to be
1441: controlled. These are related to
1442: evolutionary tracks and isochrones that determine the total age of the
1443: observed WDs and cooling tracks used for deriving the WD
1444: age. Our paper was intended to investigate the influence of such
1445: systematic uncertainties and to derive robust features of the IFMR. We
1446: also investigated what uncertainties in the theory of stellar
1447: evolution would lead to inconsistent results, and therefore could be
1448: restricted or excluded.
1449:
1450: From the available WD data we selected a total of 52 objects in 10 open
1451: clusters, plus Sirius B. There are, in fact, even more objects
1452: available, but we disregarded those for which our cluster distance
1453: determination (Sect.~2) would not be possible because of the lack of
1454: calibrating field stars at that metallicity (NGC6791 at ${\rm [Fe/H]}
1455: = 0.45$). We also did not take into account the objects from
1456: \citet{cata07}, because of the more indirect way to obtain the age
1457: of the mostly unevolved binary companion. Inclusion of
1458: such objects would weaken our aim of highest possible
1459: self-consistency.
1460:
1461: For the determination of mass and cooling age of the WDs we
1462: used different sets of cooling track, from \citet{sala00}
1463: and the LPCODE \citep{alt03} to evaluate the influence of
1464: different codes, input physics and chemical stratification
1465: (Sect.~3.1). We estimated the error ranges quite
1466: conservatively and to evaluate the global error budget
1467: we used Monte Carlo simulations (Sect.~3.3), for
1468: which we assumed either a normal or uniform distribution of the
1469: different error sources. We included the effect of observational errors, too.
1470:
1471: Results concerning cooling ages and final masses are quite
1472: robust: the accuracy of the WD masses depend completely on the
1473: observational uncertainties, while their ages is influenced in most
1474: cases (in terms of number of clusters) by the
1475: uncertainties of the cooling tracks, mostly systematic differences between
1476: different sets of cooling tracks and changes in the neutrino emission rates.
1477:
1478:
1479: This result implies that any spread in $M_{\rm f}$, as seen in
1480: Fig.~\ref{fig:ref_ifmr}, which is outside the error bar is real, in the
1481: sense that $M_{\rm f}$ does vary at the same (within the errors in $M_{\rm
1482: i}$) initial mass. Whether this spread is consistent with theoretical
1483: expectations, related to a steep increase of $M_{\rm f}$ with $M_{\rm i}$
1484: in that mass range, or whether it is due to star-to-star variations in the
1485: total mass lost, cannot be decided yet, as the error bars in $M_{\rm i}$
1486: are too large even in the case of the Praesepe WDs, which we discussed in
1487: detail in Sect.~2.4.
1488:
1489:
1490: Figure~\ref{mimfs00aldo} demonstrates that uncertainties due
1491: to different WD codes
1492: with similar, but not identical physics and model details are essentially
1493: irrelevant for the estimate of $M_{\rm f}$. However, differences in the
1494: cooling ages
1495: have a significant influence on $M_{\rm i}$, since they affect directly
1496: progenitor lifetimes, and the more massive progenitors evolve on
1497: very short timescales. Therefore the two different sets of cooling
1498: tracks lead to quite different values for $M_{\rm i}$, particularly for
1499: initial masses above 5~M$_\odot$.
1500: In this regime, $M_{\rm i}$ differences are between $\sim$ 0.5 and 2.0
1501: $M_{\odot}$.
1502:
1503: The determination of $M_{\rm i}$ is more complex, as it involves several
1504: steps. The age determination of the cluster or binary system requires
1505: metallicity, reddening and distance. We have used literature values for the
1506: former two, and our own homogenous determination for the
1507: latter. Uncertainties from both steps have been taken into
1508: account. Using appropriate isochrones the age is then
1509: obtained, which, together with the WD cooling age, results in the
1510: pre-WD lifetime. As this is, to an accuracy of 1\% or slightly more,
1511: identical to the lifetime from the MS to the end of the central He-burning
1512: phase,
1513: all uncertainties concerning the AGB evolution are
1514: irrelevant. We employed different sets of stellar models
1515: \citep{pietr04,gir00}, which differ slightly in the detailed treatment
1516: of the input physics (but both include core overshooting during the MS)
1517: as well as additional models from the
1518: former source (BaSTI), which do not consider convective
1519: overshooting. The first effect -- different tracks -- has a very minor
1520: effect on $M_{\rm i}$, as we showed in Fig.~\ref{mibastileo}. Note that this
1521: includes both the cluster age determination and the relation between
1522: progenitor age and mass. The neglect of overshooting, however, leads
1523: to internal inconsistencies in the semi-empirical IFMR: at the high
1524: end, initial masses are predicted, for which the models themselves
1525: predict that no electron degenerate CO-WD would result from the evolution.
1526: By discriminating
1527: between the different error sources (but omitting the overshooting
1528: effect), Fig.~\ref{fracsigmas} demonstrates that the cluster age
1529: uncertainties (due to uncertainties in the cluster [Fe/H] and reddening
1530: estimates)
1531: dominate the error on $M_{\rm i}$, although the above-mentioned WD age
1532: can be significant for the more massive progenitors, too.
1533:
1534: The case of NGC2099 illustrates the importance of
1535: accurate metallicities and reddenings:
1536: Figure~\ref{fig:m37} shows how drastically the semi-empirical IFMR
1537: changes, two different estimates of [Fe/H] and $E(B-V)$ are assumed.
1538: If one accepts this uncertainty as being real, NGC2099
1539: cannot be used at all to learn about the IFMR.
1540:
1541: After we had determined the full extent of the uncertainty associated
1542: to our semi-empirical IFMR, we compared it with the predictions from the
1543: theoretical calculations, both from BaSTI and LPCODE. Both differ in
1544: their treatment of convective overshooting during the AGB phase. One
1545: should recall that the BaSTI models treat that phase with synthetic
1546: models, while LPCODE follows the evolution in full
1547: detail. Figure~\ref{mimfbastisoo} shows them in comparison with the
1548: semi-empirical IFMR and the relation between $M_{\rm i}$ and the mass of the
1549: CO-core at the first thermal pulse, $M_{\rm c1TP}$. As long as stars
1550: do not avoid the AGB phase, $M_{\rm f} \geq M_{\rm c1TP}$ should be
1551: fulfilled. Therefore, this relation is a strong lower limit to the
1552: semi-empirical IFMR. The agreement between the $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$
1553: relations from both codes is excellent;
1554: there are no
1555: significant systematic uncertainties in its prediction. This again
1556: emphasizes the need for convective overshooting during the
1557: MS phase: without it a significantly larger numbers of
1558: objects falls below this limiting line.
1559:
1560: On the other hand, the theoretical IFMR from the LPCODE tracks is
1561: not consistent with the data: In these models overshooting during
1562: the AGB, mainly from the lower boundary of the pulse-driven convective
1563: zone, limits the growth of the CO-core such that the final core size
1564: is almost identical to that at the first pulse. However, most objects
1565: have final masses clearly above this line, such that we concluded that
1566: the extent of overshooting during the AGB phase must be significantly
1567: smaller than on the MS. This is in agreement with
1568: hydrodynamical simulations.
1569:
1570: The theoretical IFMRs displayed in Figure~\ref{mimfbastisoo}, and in
1571: particular those
1572: resulting from the BaSTI models display the largest gradient in the same mass
1573: range where a significant spread in $M_{\rm f}$ is observed. We demonstrated
1574: that indeed that spread could arise solely from this local steep gradient, such
1575: that no other explanation would be needed. If it is not, one would have to
1576: invoke a spread in the total mass lost in a given, small mass range. This is not
1577: exceptional, as the morphology of horizontal branches
1578: in Galactic globular cluster shows, but the reasons for
1579: such a star-to-star variation are unclear. In other mass ranges the total error
1580: budget is too large to discuss the reality and reason for apparent spreads in
1581: $M_{\rm f}$.
1582:
1583: Figure~\ref{fig:ref_ifmr} presents our reference semi-empirical IFMR, obtained
1584: using BaSTI isochrones and tracks with overshooting and
1585: S00 cooling models. The error bars include all errors we have
1586: investigated. Compared to \citet{fer05} our error bars are necessarily larger
1587: (we consider more sources of error), but
1588: on average only by less than a factor of two, and mostly for $M_{\rm i}$. We
1589: also present a
1590: simple linear fit through all the data
1591: as well as a piecewise fit, which reflects the
1592: properties of the theoretical IFMR based on the BaSTI models.
1593:
1594: In summary, our most important results are
1595: \begin{enumerate}
1596: \item None of the WDs employed in current IFMR determinations is close to the
1597: Chandrasekhar mass, not even the progeny of the more massive
1598: intermediate mass stars;
1599: \item stellar models without convective overshooting during core hydrogen
1600: burning lead to internal inconsistencies in the semi-empirical IFMR;
1601: \item overshooting from convective boundaries during the AGB phase must be
1602: significantly reduced (compared to the case of convective cores along the MS)
1603: to reproduce the observed $M_{\rm f}$ values;
1604: \item the uncertainty in $M_{\rm f}$ is dominated by observational errors;
1605: \item the uncertainty in $M_{\rm i}$ has several reasons: both cluster
1606: parameters and
1607: isochrone details influence the cluster age and thus the progenitor mass; the
1608: uncertainty on the WD cooling age can sometimes also be the dominant factor;
1609: \item the observed dispersion in $M_{\rm f}$ at approximately constant $M_{\rm
1610: i}$ (3.0--3.5 $M_{\odot}$),
1611: in particular for the Praesepe objects, appears to be real. It
1612: may follow from the steep increase of $M_{\rm f}$ with $M_{\rm i}$ predicted
1613: by theoretical IFMRs
1614: in that $M_{\rm i}$ range, rather than being caused by a spread in
1615: mass loss among cluster AGB stars;
1616: \item from the general agreement between the theoretical IFMRs and the
1617: semiempirical data,
1618: we find no evidence that the mass loss prescriptions used in the
1619: stellar evolution calculations grossly disagree with the total mass
1620: actually lost by low- and intermediate- mass stars;
1621: \item the case of NGC2099 illustrates the necessity for accurate cluster
1622: parameters;
1623: reliable composition data and reddening are required;
1624: \item as long as up-to-date input physics is used for the stellar models,
1625: systematic uncertainties do not change the overall appearance of the
1626: semi-empirical IFMR as determined recently by several groups.
1627: \end{enumerate}
1628:
1629: An extension of this analysis to a larger range of [Fe/H] is needed,
1630: to investigate a possible metallicity dependence of the IFMR, given
1631: the small [Fe/H] range spanned by the systems analyzed in this study
1632: (see Table~\ref{Ages}). In addition to the relevant observational
1633: data, this requires also a careful study of how to extend to a wider
1634: [Fe/H] range the empirical MS fitting technique adopted
1635: here to determine cluster distances, if we wish to maintain the same
1636: degree of homogeneity in the derivation of the cluster ages.
1637: An extension to
1638: lower metallicities seems
1639: to be preferable, as both calibrating objects and suitable clusters
1640: should exist, contrary to the case of an extension to higher, that is
1641: super-solar clusters.
1642:
1643:
1644: As most of the clusters used for deriving the IFMR have nearly solar
1645: metallicities, the question arises, what the true solar chemical
1646: composition is? \citet{ags:2005} have presented new determinations of
1647: the solar heavy element abundance, drastically lower than the standard
1648: composition assumed here and in the stellar evolution tracks
1649: employed. Both BaSTI and LPCODE progenitor models consider
1650: a standard solar mixture with $Z/X \sim$0.0245, whereas
1651: \citet{ags:2005} redetermination gives $Z/X \sim$0.0165.
1652: Assuming that the differential abundance analyses for
1653: our open cluster sample provides the true abundances relative to the sun, also
1654: the clusters should be less metal-rich than thought. It would be
1655: interesting to see how this will affect the semi-empirical IFMR and
1656: its agreement with theoretical predictions. An extension of this
1657: investigation by using in the computation of progenitor models the new solar
1658: abundances is currently under way.
1659:
1660:
1661: \acknowledgments
1662:
1663: We wish to thank our referee, K. Williams, for several suggestions that helped
1664: improving this work. We are grateful to J.~Kalirai for pointing out his new
1665: results to us and for continuing interest in our project.
1666: AMS was supported by the IAS through a John Bahcall Fellowship and the NSF
1667: through the grant PHY-0503584. M3B is supported by CONICET through a doctoral
1668: fellowship.
1669:
1670:
1671: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1672: \bibliography{bib_MiMf}
1673:
1674:
1675: \clearpage
1676:
1677: \begin{deluxetable}{llccccl}
1678: \tablewidth{0pt}
1679: \tablecaption{Adopted data for our WD sample, taken from the
1680: literature (see Sect.~2.1).\label{WDsample}}
1681: \tablehead{
1682: \colhead{System} & \colhead{WD name} & \colhead{\teff\ [K]} &
1683: \colhead{$\sigma(T_{\rm eff})$} & \colhead{$\log(g)$ [${\rm cm \ s^{-2}}$]} &
1684: \colhead{$\sigma(\log(g))$} & \colhead{ID}}
1685: \startdata
1686: \tableline\tableline
1687: Pleiades & LB1497 &32841 & 170 & 8.630 & 0.040 & 1\\
1688: \tableline
1689: Hyades & 0352+098 &16630 & 350 & 8.160 & 0.050 & 2\\
1690: & 0406+169& 15180 & 350 & 8.300 & 0.050 & 3\\
1691: & 0421+162& 19570 & 350 & 8.090 & 0.050 & 4\\
1692: & 0425+168& 24420 & 350 & 8.110 & 0.050 & 5\\
1693: & 0431+125& 21340 & 350 & 8.040 & 0.050 & 6\\
1694: & 0438+108& 27390 & 350 & 8.070 & 0.050 & 7\\
1695: & 0437+138& 15340 & 350 & 8.260 & 0.050 & 8\\
1696: \tableline
1697: Praesepe & 0836+197&21950 & 350 & 8.450 & 0.050 & 9\\
1698: & 0836+201& 16630 & 350 & 8.010 & 0.050 & 10\\
1699: & 0836+199& 14060 & 630 & 8.340 & 0.060 & 11\\
1700: & 0837+199& 17100 & 350 & 8.320 & 0.050 & 12\\
1701: & 0837+218& 16833 & 250 & 8.390 & 0.030 & 13\\
1702: & 0837+185& 14748 & 400 & 8.240 & 0.050 & 14\\
1703: & 0840+200& 14180 & 350 & 8.230 & 0.050 & 15\\
1704: & 0833+194& 14999 & 250 & 8.180 & 0.040 & 16\\
1705: & 0840+190& 14765 & 270 & 8.210 & 0.030 & 17\\
1706: & 0840+205& 14527 & 390 & 8.240 & 0.040 & 18\\
1707: & 0843+184& 14498 & 200 & 8.220 & 0.040 & 19\\
1708: \tableline
1709: NGC2516 & 2516-1 & 28170 & 310 & 8.480 & 0.170 & 20\\
1710: & 2516-2& 34200 & 610 & 8.600 & 0.110 & 21\\
1711: & 2516-3& 26870 & 330 & 8.550 & 0.070 & 22\\
1712: & 2516-5& 30760 & 420 & 8.700 & 0.120 & 23\\
1713: \tableline
1714: NGC3532 & 3532-8& 23370 & 1065 & 7.713 & 0.148 & 24\\
1715: & 3532-9& 29800 & 616 & 7.827 & 0.229 & 25\\
1716: & 3532-10& 19270 & 974 & 8.143 & 0.266 & 26\\
1717: \tableline
1718: NGC2099 (M37) & 2099-WD2& 19900 & 900 & 8.110 & 0.160 & 27\\
1719: & 2099-WD3& 18300 & 900 & 8.230 & 0.210 & 28\\
1720: & 2099-WD4& 16900 & 1100 & 8.400 & 0.260 & 29\\
1721: & 2099-WD5& 18300 & 1000 & 8.330 & 0.220 & 30\\
1722: & 2099-WD7& 17800 & 1400 & 8.420 & 0.320 & 31\\
1723: & 2099-WD9& 15300 & 400 & 8.000 & 0.080 & 32\\
1724: & 2099-WD10& 19300 & 400 & 8.200 & 0.070 & 33\\
1725: & 2099-WD11& 23000 & 600 & 8.540 & 0.100 & 34\\
1726: & 2099-WD12& 13300 & 1000 & 7.910 & 0.120 & 35\\
1727: & 2099-WD13& 18200 & 400 & 8.270 & 0.080 & 36\\
1728: & 2099-WD14& 11400 & 200 & 7.730 & 0.160 & 37\\
1729: & 2099-WD16& 13100 & 500 & 8.340 & 0.100 & 38\\
1730: \tableline
1731: NGC2168 (M35) & NGC2168 LAWDS1& 32400 & 512 & 8.400 & 0.125 & 39\\
1732: & NGC2168 LAWDS 2& 32700 & 603 & 8.340 & 0.080 & 40\\
1733: & NGC2168 LAWDS 5&52600 & 1160 & 8.240 & 0.095 & 41\\
1734: & NGC2168 LAWDS 6&55200 & 897 & 8.280 & 0.065 & 42\\
1735: & NGC2168 LAWDS 15&29900 & 318 & 8.480 & 0.060 & 43\\
1736: & NGC2168 LAWDS 27&30500 & 397 & 8.520 & 0.061 & 44\\
1737: \tableline
1738: Sirius & Sirius B & 25193 & 37 & 8.566 & 0.010 & 45\\
1739: \tableline
1740: NGC7789 & NGC 7789-5 & 31213 & 238 & 7.904 & 0.054 & 46\\
1741: & NGC 7789-8 & 24319 & 447 & 8.004 & 0.066 & 47\\
1742: & NGC 7789-9 & 20939 & 727 & 7.838 & 0.115 & 48\\
1743: \tableline
1744: NGC6819 & NGC 6819-6& 21094 & 252 & 7.832 & 0.036 & 49\\
1745: & NGC 6819-7& 15971 & 197 & 7.908 & 0.038 & 50\\
1746: \tableline
1747: NGC 1039 & NGC1039 LAWDS 15& 25900 & 1100 & 8.380 & 0.120 & 51 \\
1748: & NGC1039 LAWDS 17& 24700 & 1100 & 8.440 & 0.120 & 52 \\
1749: & NGC1039 LAWDS S2& 31200 & 1100 & 8.320 & 0.120 & 53 \\
1750: \tableline
1751: \enddata
1752: \end{deluxetable}
1753:
1754: \clearpage
1755:
1756:
1757: \begin{deluxetable}{llll}
1758: \tablewidth{0pt}
1759: \tablecaption{Sources of the data used for determining the
1760: cluster ages.\label{clsource}}
1761: \tablehead{
1762: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} &
1763: \colhead{E(B-V)} & \colhead{CMD}}
1764: \startdata
1765: \tableline\tableline
1766: Pleiades & \citet{grat00} & \citet{per03a}& \citet{j58}\\
1767: Hyades & \citet{grat00} & & \citet{j55}\\
1768: Praesepe & \citet{grat00} & & \citet{j52}\\
1769: NGC2516 & \citet{grat00} & \citet{lot01} & \citet{sung02}\\
1770: NGC3532 & \citet{grat00} & \citet{lot01} & \citet{fern80}\\
1771: NGC2099 (M37)& \citet{chen03} & \citet{lot01} & \citet{sag02}\\
1772: NGC2168 (M35)& \citet{grat00} & \citet{lot01} & \citet{sung99}\\
1773: NGC7789 & \citet{grat00} & \citet{per03b}& \citet{mk99}\\
1774: NGC6819 & \citet{brag01} & \citet{brag01}& \citet{kalir01}\\
1775: NGC1039 & \citet{schul03}& \citet{lot01} & \citet{jonpros96} \\
1776: \tableline
1777: \enddata
1778: \end{deluxetable}
1779:
1780: \clearpage
1781:
1782: \begin{deluxetable}{lrlrlll}
1783: \tablewidth{0pt}
1784: \tablecaption{Cluster ages determined from the adopted metallicities, reddening values and derived distance moduli,
1785: using three different
1786: sets of isochrones.\label{Ages}}
1787: \tablehead{
1788: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{[Fe/H]} &
1789: \colhead{\ebv} & \colhead{$(m-M)_V$} &
1790: \colhead{Age[Myr]\tablenotemark{a}} &
1791: \colhead{Age[Myr]\tablenotemark{b}} &
1792: \colhead{Age[Myr]\tablenotemark{c}}}
1793: \startdata
1794: \tableline\tableline
1795: Pleiades & $-0.03\pm0.06$& 0.04 & 5.74$\pm$0.05 &
1796: 50$\pm$10 & 85$\pm$10 & 95$\pm$10\\
1797: Hyades & $ 0.13\pm0.06$& 0.0 & 3.33$\pm$0.01 &
1798: 440$\pm$40 & 640$\pm$40 & 630$\pm$40\\
1799: Praesepe & $ 0.04\pm0.06$& 0.0 & 6.24$\pm$0.04 &
1800: 450$\pm$40 & 650$\pm$50 & 640$\pm$40\\
1801: NGC2516 & $-0.16\pm0.11$& 0.10 & 8.27$\pm$0.07 &
1802: 85$\pm$45 & 130$\pm$50 & 140$\pm$50\\
1803: NGC3532 & $ 0.02\pm0.06$& 0.04 & 8.40$\pm$0.25 &
1804: 300$\pm$100& 400$\pm$100& 400$\pm$100\\
1805: NGC2099 (M37) \tablenotemark{d}& $ 0.09\pm0.15$& 0.30
1806: &12.00$\pm$0.12 & 220$\pm$30 & 320$\pm$30 & 320$\pm$30\\
1807: & $-$0.20 & 0.23 &11.40$\pm$0.12 &
1808: 350$\pm$40 & 550$\pm$50 & 540$\pm$50\\
1809: NGC2168 (M35) & $-0.19\pm0.15$& 0.26 &10.50$\pm$0.12 &
1810: 85$\pm$25 & 120$\pm$30 & 130$\pm$30\\
1811: NGC7789 & $-0.13\pm0.08$& 0.29 &12.12$\pm$0.12 &
1812: 1100$\pm$100&1500$\pm$100 &1600$\pm$100\\
1813: NGC6819 & $ 0.09\pm0.03$& $0.14\pm0.04$&12.60$\pm$0.20 &
1814: 1500$\pm$200&2000$\pm$200 &2000$\pm$200\\
1815: NGC1039 & $0.07\pm0.04$ & 0.07 & 8.80$\pm$0.15 &
1816: 150$\pm30$ & 250$\pm25$ & 250$\pm25$ \\
1817: \tableline
1818: \tableline
1819: Sirius~A & $0.0$ & ----- & 181$\pm$30 & 170$\pm$50 & 170$\pm$25 \\
1820: \tableline
1821: \enddata
1822: \tablenotetext{a}{Ages from BaSTI isochrones without overshooting}
1823: \tablenotetext{b}{Ages from BaSTI isochrones with overshooting}
1824: \tablenotetext{c}{Ages from Padua isochrones with overshooting}
1825: \tablenotetext{d}{For NGC2099 a second alternative [Fe/H] value was
1826: tested (see text for details)}
1827: \end{deluxetable}
1828:
1829:
1830: \clearpage
1831:
1832: \begin{deluxetable}{clccccclcccccc}
1833: \tablewidth{0pt}
1834: \tablecaption{Fractional $1-\sigma$ uncertainties in WD mass and cooling age
1835: for relevant WD input physics, as functions of effective temperature and
1836: surface gravity. \label{tab:uncert}}
1837: \tablehead{
1838: \colhead{} &
1839: \colhead{} &
1840: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Fract. uncert. for WD mass} &
1841: \colhead{} &
1842: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Fract. uncert. for WD cooling age} \\
1843: \cline{1-1} \cline{3-7} \cline{9-13}
1844: \colhead{$\log(g)$~[${\rm cm \ s^{-2}}$] = } &
1845: \colhead{} &
1846: \colhead{8.6} &
1847: \colhead{8.4} &
1848: \colhead{8.2} &
1849: \colhead{8.0} &
1850: \colhead{7.8} &
1851: \colhead{} &
1852: \colhead{8.6} &
1853: \colhead{8.4} &
1854: \colhead{8.2} &
1855: \colhead{8.0} &
1856: \colhead{7.8} \\
1857: \cline{1-1}
1858: \colhead{$\log(T_{\rm eff})$~[K]}
1859: }
1860: \startdata
1861: & & \multicolumn{11}{c}{Cooling tracks} \\
1862: 4.60 & & 0.017 & 0.015 & 0.016 & 0.016 & 0.003 & & 0.826 & 0.564 & 0.287
1863: & 0.335 & 0.377 \\
1864: 4.45 & & 0.016 & 0.015 & 0.014 & 0.010 & 0.011 & & 0.036 & 0.262 & 0.291
1865: & 0.174 & 0.006 \\
1866: 4.30 & & 0.015 & 0.014 & 0.013 & 0.007 & 0.017 & & 0.072 & 0.064 & 0.012
1867: & 0.057 & 0.159 \\
1868: 4.15 & & 0.012 & 0.012 & 0.011 & 0.003 & 0.037 & & 0.035 & 0.114 & 0.080
1869: & 0.029 & 0.100 \\
1870: 4.00 & & 0.009 & 0.006 & 0.010 & 0.000 & 0.061 & & 0.368 & 0.020 & 0.073
1871: & 0.064 & 0.122 \\
1872: \tableline
1873: & & \multicolumn{11}{c}{Neutrino cooling} \\
1874: 4.60 & & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.003 & & 0.700 & 0.396 & 0.320
1875: & 0.269 & 0.217 \\
1876: 4.45 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.001 & & 0.147 & 0.349 & 0.474
1877: & 0.374 & 0.305 \\
1878: 4.30 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & & 0.042 & 0.075 & 0.137
1879: & 0.250 & 0.326 \\
1880: 4.15 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & & 0.017 & 0.027 & 0.044
1881: & 0.072 & 0.098 \\
1882: 4.00 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & & 0.007 & 0.011 & 0.018
1883: & 0.027 & 0.037 \\
1884: \tableline
1885: & & \multicolumn{11}{c}{Conductive opacity} \\
1886: 4.60 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 &
1887: 0.001 & 0.001 & & 0.391 & 0.095 & 0.040 & 0.022 & 0.020 \\
1888: 4.45 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & & 0.056 &
1889: 0.197 & 0.200 & 0.089 & 0.046 \\
1890: 4.30 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 &
1891: 0.001 & 0.002 & & 0.033 & 0.009 & 0.028 & 0.083 & 0.090 \\
1892: 4.15 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000
1893: & 0.001 & & 0.056 & 0.049 & 0.040 & 0.024 & 0.035 \\
1894: 4.00 & & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & & 0.067 & 0.058 & 0.054 &
1895: 0.053 & 0.083 \\
1896: \tableline
1897: & & \multicolumn{11}{c}{Core composition} \\
1898: 4.60 & & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & & 0.058 & 0.046 & 0.043
1899: & 0.046 & 0.066 \\
1900: 4.45 & & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & 0.002 & & 0.013 & 0.042 & 0.040
1901: & 0.043 & 0.047 \\
1902: 4.30 & & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & 0.002 & & 0.003 & 0.028 & 0.036
1903: & 0.040 & 0.043 \\
1904: 4.15 & & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & & 0.005 & 0.013 & 0.033
1905: & 0.037 & 0.039 \\
1906: 4.00 & & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.002 & & 0.001 & 0.007 & 0.029
1907: & 0.037 & 0.039 \\
1908: \tableline
1909: & & \multicolumn{11}{c}{H-envelope thickness} \\
1910: 4.60 & & 0.006 & 0.008 & 0.012 & 0.014 & 0.020 & & 0.035 & 0.003 & 0.011
1911: & 0.001 & 0.024 \\
1912: 4.45 & & 0.005 & 0.007 & 0.010 & 0.013 & 0.021 & & 0.029 & 0.015 & 0.007
1913: & 0.004 & 0.014 \\
1914: 4.30 & & 0.005 & 0.006 & 0.009 & 0.012 & 0.024 & & 0.033 & 0.011 & 0.005
1915: & 0.013 & 0.006 \\
1916: 4.15 & & 0.004 & 0.006 & 0.008 & 0.011 & 0.027 & & 0.028 & 0.027 & 0.007
1917: & 0.008 & 0.015 \\
1918: 4.00 & & 0.003 & 0.005 & 0.007 & 0.010 & 0.028 & & 0.070 & 0.057 & 0.044
1919: & 0.025 & 0.016 \\
1920: \tableline
1921: \enddata
1922: \tablenotetext{a}{Columns and rows are labeled according to $\log{(g)}$
1923: and $\log{(T_{\rm eff})}$ respectively. Definitions of how the
1924: uncertainties were computed
1925: are given in Eqs.~\ref{eq:wdsys}-\ref{eq:wdenv}. Note, however, that
1926: for the sake of readability, uncertainties given here are linear (not
1927: logarithmic) in mass and
1928: cooling age and have been assumed symmetric. Fractional
1929: uncertainties smaller than 0.001 are shown as null values.}
1930: \end{deluxetable}
1931:
1932: \clearpage
1933:
1934: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
1935: \tablewidth{0pt}
1936: \tablecaption{White dwarf cooling ages and associated mass (in solar
1937: mass units) determined
1938: with the S00 cooling tracks. The bolometric luminosity is obtained
1939: using the derived cluster distances. \label{WDage1}}
1940: \tablehead{
1941: \colhead{ID}&
1942: \colhead{$\log{t_{\rm cool}}$}[yr]&
1943: \colhead{$\sigma_{-}(\log{t_{\rm cool}})$} &
1944: \colhead{$\sigma_{+}(\log{t_{\rm cool}})$} &
1945: \colhead{$M_{\rm f} [M_{\odot}]$} &
1946: \colhead{$\sigma_{-}{(M_{\rm f})}$} &
1947: \colhead{$\sigma_{+}{(M_{\rm f})}$} &
1948: \colhead{$\log(L/L_{\odot})$}
1949: }
1950: \startdata
1951: \tableline\tableline
1952: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pleiades} \\
1953: 1 & 7.667 & $-$0.185 & 0.162 & 1.028 & $-$0.031 & 0.031 & $-$1.162 \\
1954: \tableline
1955: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Hyades} \\
1956: 2 & 8.262 & $-$0.063 & 0.056 & 0.713 & $-$0.031 & 0.031 & $-$2.032 \\
1957: 3 & 8.466 & $-$0.066 & 0.064 & 0.798 & $-$0.032 & 0.033 & $-$2.282 \\
1958: 4 & 7.981 & $-$0.105 & 0.086 & 0.679 & $-$0.031 & 0.031 & $-$1.701 \\
1959: 5 & 7.585 & $-$0.185 & 0.174 & 0.699 & $-$0.031 & 0.031 & $-$1.324 \\
1960: 6 & 7.783 & $-$0.146 & 0.130 & 0.652 & $-$0.032 & 0.032 & $-$1.518 \\
1961: 7 & 7.274 & $-$0.186 & 0.184 & 0.684 & $-$0.032 & 0.031 & $-$1.094 \\
1962: 8 & 8.425 & $-$0.063 & 0.061 & 0.773 & $-$0.032 & 0.033 & $-$2.237 \\
1963: \tableline
1964: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Praesepe} \\
1965: 9 & 8.113 & $-$0.072 & 0.065 & 0.901 & $-$0.034 & 0.034 & $-$1.739 \\
1966: 10& 8.159 & $-$0.076 & 0.066 & 0.622 & $-$0.028 & 0.032 & $-$1.942 \\
1967: 11& 8.584 & $-$0.086 & 0.085 & 0.820 & $-$0.040 & 0.039 & $-$2.443 \\
1968: 12& 8.338 & $-$0.064 & 0.062 & 0.812 & $-$0.034 & 0.034 & $-$2.087 \\
1969: 13& 8.408 & $-$0.058 & 0.057 & 0.857 & $-$0.023 & 0.022 & $-$2.161 \\
1970: 14& 8.459 & $-$0.064 & 0.063 & 0.759 & $-$0.032 & 0.033 & $-$2.294 \\
1971: 15& 8.498 & $-$0.062 & 0.062 & 0.751 & $-$0.033 & 0.033 & $-$2.357 \\
1972: 16& 8.402 & $-$0.053 & 0.051 & 0.722 & $-$0.026 & 0.027 & $-$2.226 \\
1973: 17& 8.439 & $-$0.052 & 0.051 & 0.740 & $-$0.021 & 0.021 & $-$2.273 \\
1974: 18& 8.476 & $-$0.061 & 0.061 & 0.759 & $-$0.027 & 0.027 & $-$2.320 \\
1975: 19& 8.467 & $-$0.054 & 0.053 & 0.746 & $-$0.027 & 0.027 & $-$2.311 \\
1976: \tableline
1977: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC2516} \\
1978: 20& 7.746 & $-$0.298 & 0.192 & 0.926 & $-$0.106 & 0.105 & $-$1.323 \\
1979: 21& 7.543 & $-$0.364 & 0.297 & 1.008 & $-$0.071 & 0.070 & $-$1.069 \\
1980: 22& 7.888 & $-$0.116 & 0.087 & 0.970 & $-$0.045 & 0.045 & $-$1.455 \\
1981: 23& 7.858 & $-$0.202 & 0.154 & 1.075 & $-$0.078 & 0.078 & $-$1.326 \\
1982: \tableline
1983: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC3532} \\
1984: 24& 7.373 & $-$0.216 & 0.219 & 0.482 & $-$0.085 & 0.076 & $-$1.164 \\
1985: 25& 7.064 & $-$0.303 & 0.161 & 0.563 & $-$0.169 & 0.145 & $-$0.789 \\
1986: 26& 8.047 & $-$0.284 & 0.213 & 0.708 & $-$0.150 & 0.164 & $-$1.762 \\
1987: \tableline
1988: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC2099 (M37)} \\
1989: 27 & 7.971 & $-$0.215 & 0.150 & 0.690 & $-$0.093 & 0.096 & $-$1.685 \\
1990: 28 & 8.185 & $-$0.193 & 0.167 & 0.759 & $-$0.128 & 0.133 & $-$1.909 \\
1991: 29 & 8.411 & $-$0.214 & 0.245 & 0.864 & $-$0.163 & 0.164 & $-$2.161 \\
1992: 30 & 8.260 & $-$0.190 & 0.194 & 0.821 & $-$0.135 & 0.139 & $-$1.975 \\
1993: 31 & 8.366 & $-$0.268 & 0.305 & 0.877 & $-$0.198 & 0.203 & $-$2.085 \\
1994: 32 & 8.264 & $-$0.083 & 0.072 & 0.614 & $-$0.044 & 0.051 & $-$2.082 \\
1995: 33 & 8.090 & $-$0.094 & 0.074 & 0.742 & $-$0.044 & 0.044 & $-$1.796 \\
1996: 34 & 8.111 & $-$0.108 & 0.097 & 0.959 & $-$0.065 & 0.064 & $-$1.720 \\
1997: 35 & 8.380 & $-$0.133 & 0.120 & 0.561 & $-$0.080 & 0.067 & $-$2.275 \\
1998: 36 & 8.222 & $-$0.082 & 0.075 & 0.783 & $-$0.050 & 0.052 & $-$1.945 \\
1999: 37 & 8.455 & $-$0.125 & 0.121 & 0.448 & $-$0.129 & 0.123 & $-$2.461 \\
2000: 38 & 8.667 & $-$0.097 & 0.103 & 0.818 & $-$0.064 & 0.066 & $-$2.567 \\
2001: \tableline
2002: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC2168 (M35)} \\
2003: 39 & 7.343 & $-$0.339 & 0.355 & 0.884 & $-$0.078 & 0.079 & $-$1.021 \\
2004: 40 & 7.223 & $-$0.310 & 0.327 & 0.849 & $-$0.051 & 0.050 & $-$0.962 \\
2005: 41 & 6.351 & $-$0.213 & 0.208 & 0.820 & $-$0.055 & 0.056 & $-$0.052 \\
2006: 42 & 6.292 & $-$0.218 & 0.217 & 0.845 & $-$0.041 & 0.040 & $+$0.006 \\
2007: 43 & 7.634 & $-$0.219 & 0.200 & 0.928 & $-$0.040 & 0.040 & $-$1.219 \\
2008: 44 & 7.644 & $-$0.215 & 0.186 & 0.955 & $-$0.041 & 0.041 & $-$1.212 \\
2009: \tableline
2010: \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sirius B} \\
2011: 45 & 7.996 & $-$0.063 & 0.062 & 0.978 & $-$0.016 & 0.016 & $-$1.580 \\
2012: \tableline
2013: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC7789} \\
2014: 46 & 6.998 & $-$0.137 & 0.135 & 0.601 & $-$0.028 & 0.029 & $-$0.757 \\
2015: 47 & 7.480 & $-$0.181 & 0.179 & 0.637 & $-$0.037 & 0.039 & $-$1.265 \\
2016: 48 & 7.627 & $-$0.205 & 0.192 & 0.543 & $-$0.059 & 0.058 & $-$1.428 \\
2017: \tableline
2018: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC6819} \\
2019: 49 & 7.609 & $-$0.153 & 0.150 & 0.540 & $-$0.021 & 0.019 & $-$1.412 \\
2020: 50 & 8.141 & $-$0.071 & 0.063 & 0.566 & $-$0.023 & 0.021 & $-$1.951 \\
2021: \tableline
2022: \multicolumn{2}{l}{NGC1039} \\
2023: 51 & 7.801 & $-$0.239 & 0.161 & 0.863 & $-$0.075 & 0.075 & $-$1.443 \\
2024: 52 & 7.934 & $-$0.179 & 0.126 & 0.899 & $-$0.076 & 0.076 & $-$1.533 \\
2025: 53 & 7.308 & $-$0.312 & 0.339 & 0.834 & $-$0.072 & 0.076 & $-$1.144 \\
2026: \tableline
2027:
2028:
2029: \enddata
2030: \end{deluxetable}
2031:
2032:
2033: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccc}
2034: %\tabletypesize{\small}
2035: %\rotate
2036: \tablewidth{0pt}
2037: \tablecaption{Initial--final--mass-relation obtained by combining BaSTI
2038: progenitor models with and without
2039: overshooting (indicated by OV resp.\ non-OV) with S00 WD tracks
2040: \tablenotemark{a}.
2041: \label{MiMftab}}
2042: \tablehead{
2043: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{OV models} & \colhead{} &
2044: \multicolumn{3}{c}{non-OV models} \\
2045: \cline{5-7} \cline{9-11}
2046: \colhead{ID} &
2047: \colhead{$M_{\rm f} [M_{\odot}]$} &
2048: \colhead{$\sigma(M_{\rm f})$} &
2049: \colhead{} &
2050: \colhead{$M_{\rm i} [M_{\odot}]$} &
2051: \colhead{$\sigma_-(M_{\rm i})$} &
2052: \colhead{$\sigma_+(M_{\rm i})$} &
2053: \colhead{} &
2054: \colhead{$M_{\rm i} [M_{\odot}]$} &
2055: \colhead{$\sigma_-(M_{\rm i})$} &
2056: \colhead{$\sigma_+(M_{\rm i})$}
2057: }
2058: \startdata
2059: \tableline\tableline
2060: \multicolumn{11}{l}{Pleiades} \\
2061: 1 & 1.028 & 0.031 && 7.847 & $-$1.257 & 3.069 && 15.52 & $-$3.986 & 99.90 \\
2062: \tableline
2063: \multicolumn{11}{l}{Hyades} \\
2064: 2 & 0.713 & 0.031 && 3.067 & $-$0.100 & 0.107 && 3.690 & $-$0.192 & 0.224 \\
2065: 3 & 0.798 & 0.032 && 3.383 & $-$0.174 & 0.208 && 4.438 & $-$0.454 & 0.813 \\
2066: 4 & 0.679 & 0.031 && 2.887 & $-$0.076 & 0.079 && 3.385 & $-$0.128 & 0.142 \\
2067: 5 & 0.699 & 0.031 && 2.771 & $-$0.067 & 0.066 && 3.184 & $-$0.108 & 0.111 \\
2068: 6 & 0.652 & 0.032 && 2.815 & $-$0.071 & 0.071 && 3.261 & $-$0.116 & 0.122 \\
2069: 7 & 0.684 & 0.031 && 2.746 & $-$0.063 & 0.064 && 3.144 & $-$0.097 & 0.105 \\
2070: 8 & 0.773 & 0.032 && 3.284 & $-$0.151 & 0.172 && 4.240 & $-$0.349 & 0.549 \\
2071: \tableline
2072: \multicolumn{11}{l}{Praesepe} \\
2073: 9 & 0.901 & 0.034 && 2.799 & $-$0.094 & 0.106 && 3.292 & $-$0.138 & 0.161 \\
2074: 10 & 0.622 & 0.030 && 2.827 & $-$0.099 & 0.112 && 3.341 & $-$0.149 & 0.179 \\
2075: 11 & 0.820 & 0.039 && 3.543 & $-$0.337 & 0.548 && 5.953 & $-$1.223 & 8.634 \\
2076: 12 & 0.812 & 0.034 && 2.972 & $-$0.130 & 0.148 && 3.655 & $-$0.230 & 0.287 \\
2077: 13 & 0.857 & 0.023 && 3.058 & $-$0.153 & 0.174 && 3.926 & $-$0.290 & 0.421 \\
2078: 14 & 0.759 & 0.032 && 3.179 & $-$0.183 & 0.221 && 4.151 & $-$0.400 & 0.696 \\
2079: 15 & 0.751 & 0.034 && 3.282 & $-$0.206 & 0.260 && 4.457 & $-$0.524 & 1.048 \\
2080: 16 & 0.722 & 0.027 && 3.045 & $-$0.146 & 0.167 && 3.901 & $-$0.272 & 0.386 \\
2081: 17 & 0.740 & 0.021 && 3.130 & $-$0.160 & 0.188 && 4.060 & $-$0.328 & 0.502 \\
2082: 18 & 0.759 & 0.027 && 3.223 & $-$0.189 & 0.232 && 4.233 & $-$0.447 & 0.801 \\
2083: 19 & 0.746 & 0.027 && 3.200 & $-$0.175 & 0.210 && 4.190 & $-$0.397 & 0.654 \\
2084: \tableline
2085: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC2516} \\
2086: 20 & 0.926 & 0.106 && 5.856 & $-$1.133 & 3.679 && 8.672 & $-$2.774 & 99.90 \\
2087: 21 & 1.008 & 0.071 && 5.269 & $-$0.837 & 1.899 && 6.732 & $-$1.511 & 5.739 \\
2088: 22 & 0.970 & 0.045 && 6.766 & $-$1.541 & 7.174 && 13.99 & $-$5.870 & 99.90 \\
2089: 23 & 1.075 & 0.078 && 6.492 & $-$1.415 & 5.640 && 12.35 & $-$4.929 & 99.90 \\
2090: \tableline
2091: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC3532} \\
2092: 24 & 0.482 & 0.081 && 3.132 & $-$0.252 & 0.369 && 3.450 & $-$0.340 & 0.563 \\
2093: 25 & 0.563 & 0.157 && 3.085 & $-$0.243 & 0.348 && 3.409 & $-$0.321 & 0.523 \\
2094: 26 & 0.708 & 0.157 && 3.466 & $-$0.399 & 0.620 && 3.975 & $-$0.560 & 1.316 \\
2095: \tableline
2096: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC2099 (M37); ${\rm [Fe/H]}=0.09$} \\
2097: 27 & 0.690 & 0.095 && 3.934 & $-$0.248 & 0.326 && 4.746 & $-$0.491 & 0.868 \\
2098: 28 & 0.759 & 0.131 && 4.372 & $-$0.436 & 0.940 && 6.009 & $-$1.110 & 6.012 \\
2099: 29 & 0.864 & 0.164 && 6.307 & $-$1.557 & 99.90 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 \\
2100: 30 & 0.821 & 0.137 && 4.666 & $-$0.567 & 1.891 && 7.628 & $-$2.020 & 99.90 \\
2101: 31 & 0.877 & 0.200 && 5.497 & $-$1.099 & 99.90 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 \\
2102: 32 & 0.614 & 0.048 && 4.689 & $-$0.437 & 0.693 && 7.806 & $-$1.834 & 8.624 \\
2103: 33 & 0.742 & 0.044 && 4.153 & $-$0.238 & 0.305 && 5.187 & $-$0.593 & 1.015 \\
2104: 34 & 0.959 & 0.065 && 4.198 & $-$0.274 & 0.382 && 5.323 & $-$0.691 & 1.433 \\
2105: 35 & 0.561 & 0.074 && 5.680 & $-$1.022 & 4.981 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 \\
2106: 36 & 0.783 & 0.051 && 4.471 & $-$0.364 & 0.519 && 6.574 & $-$1.206 & 3.976 \\
2107: 37 & 0.448 & 0.126 && 8.210 & $-$2.545 & 99.90 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 \\
2108: 38 & 0.818 & 0.065 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 \\
2109: \tableline
2110: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC2168 (M35)} \\
2111: 39 & 0.884 & 0.079 && 5.209 & $-$0.595 & 0.928 && 6.119 & $-$0.915 & 1.695 \\
2112: 40 & 0.849 & 0.050 && 5.111 & $-$0.522 & 0.796 && 5.936 & $-$0.784 & 1.330 \\
2113: 41 & 0.820 & 0.055 && 4.903 & $-$0.387 & 0.605 && 5.468 & $-$0.550 & 0.890 \\
2114: 42 & 0.845 & 0.040 && 4.899 & $-$0.385 & 0.602 && 5.461 & $-$0.549 & 0.885 \\
2115: 43 & 0.928 & 0.040 && 5.767 & $-$0.862 & 1.670 && 7.312 & $-$1.527 & 4.464 \\
2116: 44 & 0.955 & 0.041 && 5.804 & $-$0.869 & 1.669 && 7.383 & $-$1.558 & 4.441 \\
2117: \tableline
2118: \multicolumn{11}{l}{Sirius B} \\
2119: 45 & 0.978 & 0.016 && 5.934 & $-$1.139 & 3.904 && 5.426 & $-$0.777 & 1.198 \\
2120: \tableline
2121: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC7789} \\
2122: 46 & 0.601 & 0.029 && 1.853 & $-$0.096 & 0.128 && 1.954 & $-$0.072 & 0.105 \\
2123: 47 & 0.637 & 0.038 && 1.864 & $-$0.100 & 0.132 && 1.971 & $-$0.078 & 0.116 \\
2124: 48 & 0.543 & 0.059 && 1.871 & $-$0.101 & 0.134 && 1.983 & $-$0.083 & 0.125 \\
2125: \tableline
2126: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC6819} \\
2127: 49 & 0.540 & 0.020 && 1.736 & $-$0.090 & 0.117 && 1.852 & $-$0.073 & 0.077 \\
2128: 50 & 0.566 & 0.022 && 1.770 & $-$0.097 & 0.130 && 1.887 & $-$0.072 & 0.096 \\
2129: \tableline
2130: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC1039} \\
2131: 51 & 0.863 & 0.075 && 4.124 & $-$0.364 & 0.514 && 5.382 & $-$0.717 & 1.369 \\
2132: 52 & 0.899 & 0.076 && 4.319 & $-$0.435 & 0.659 && 6.069 & $-$1.006 & 2.652 \\
2133: 53 & 0.834 & 0.074 && 3.835 & $-$0.279 & 0.348 && 4.607 & $-$0.386 & 0.511 \\
2134: \tableline
2135: \tableline
2136: \multicolumn{11}{l}{NGC2099 (M37); ${\rm [Fe/H]}=-0.20$} \\
2137: 27 & 0.690 & 0.095 && 2.994 & $-$0.133 & 0.145 && 3.643 & $-$0.269 & 0.349 \\
2138: 28 & 0.759 & 0.131 && 3.123 & $-$0.196 & 0.259 && 4.029 & $-$0.443 & 0.947 \\
2139: 29 & 0.864 & 0.163 && 3.522 & $-$0.355 & 1.056 && 5.248 & $-$1.460 & 99.90 \\
2140: 30 & 0.821 & 0.137 && 3.232 & $-$0.233 & 0.374 && 4.226 & $-$0.570 & 1.727 \\
2141: 31 & 0.877 & 0.201 && 3.424 & $-$0.325 & 1.085 && 4.814 & $-$1.064 & 99.90 \\
2142: 32 & 0.614 & 0.047 && 3.239 & $-$0.173 & 0.200 && 4.238 & $-$0.486 & 0.844 \\
2143: 33 & 0.742 & 0.043 && 3.055 & $-$0.128 & 0.144 && 3.823 & $-$0.273 & 0.382 \\
2144: 34 & 0.959 & 0.065 && 3.068 & $-$0.139 & 0.156 && 3.865 & $-$0.306 & 0.443 \\
2145: 35 & 0.561 & 0.074 && 3.454 & $-$0.282 & 0.412 && 4.923 & $-$1.010 & 4.628 \\
2146: 36 & 0.783 & 0.051 && 3.174 & $-$0.162 & 0.181 && 4.121 & $-$0.408 & 0.645 \\
2147: 37 & 0.448 & 0.125 && 3.628 & $-$0.361 & 0.628 && 6.066 & $-$2.242 & 99.90 \\
2148: 38 & 0.818 & 0.066 && 5.529 & $-$1.125 & 9.156 && 99.90 & 99.90 & 99.90 \\
2149: \tableline
2150: \enddata
2151: \tablenotetext{a}{Values for initial masses equal to $99.90\,M_{\odot}$ flag those cases
2152: where the central value of the progenitor age $t_{\rm prog}$, is
2153: negative. Similarly, error values of $99.90$ indicate that progenitor ages
2154: deviating 1-$\sigma$ from the central value $t_{\rm prog}$ are negative and
2155: as a consequence 1-$\sigma$ values for $M_{\rm i}$ cannot be
2156: obtained.}
2157: \end{deluxetable}
2158:
2159:
2160: \clearpage
2161: \begin{figure}
2162: \epsscale{1.00}
2163: \plotone{f1.eps}
2164: \caption{Comparison of the cluster ages determined with
2165: the BaSTI overshooting isochrones, with the ages adopted from
2166: the literature by \citet{fer05}, for the clusters in common. The dashed line
2167: displays the 1:1
2168: relation, and the errors are those given by \citet{fer05} or as listed
2169: from Table~\ref{Ages}. The open circle shows the results for Sirius~A.
2170: \label{clustagecomp}}
2171: \end{figure}
2172:
2173: \clearpage
2174: \begin{figure}
2175: \epsscale{1.00}
2176: \plotone{f2.eps}
2177: \caption{Reference IFMR obtained employing BaSTI isochrones and progenitor
2178: models with core overshooting together with S00 WD tracks. Lines show fits to
2179: the data: the solid line is a linear fit, the dashed line a piecewise linear fit.
2180: The pivot point at 4~M$_\odot$ has been chosen
2181: following theoretical predictions from BaSTI models, that show changes in the
2182: slope of the IFMR around those mass values.
2183: \label{fig:ref_ifmr} }
2184: \end{figure}
2185:
2186: \clearpage
2187: \begin{figure}
2188: \epsscale{0.9}
2189: \plotone{f3_color.eps}
2190: %\plotone{ifmr_all_symb.eps}
2191: \caption{Inferred and theoretical IFMRs. Top panel: results for models and
2192: isochrones with core overshooting. Solid lines correspond to theoretical
2193: IFMRs derived from BaSTI models (thick lines -- for [Fe/H]=0.06) and LPCODE
2194: models
2195: (thin line -- for [Fe/H]= 0.06). The dotted thick line shows the
2196: $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ relation for BaSTI
2197: models and the dashed thin line shows the counterpart from LPCODE models.
2198: Bottom panel: results corresponding to models and isochrones without core
2199: overshooting. In this case only theoretical results for BaSTI models are
2200: shown. \label{mimfbastisoo}}
2201: \end{figure}
2202:
2203: \clearpage
2204: \begin{figure}
2205: \epsscale{1.00}
2206: \plotone{f4.eps}
2207: \caption{Difference between initial masses obtained employing
2208: the Padua and
2209: BaSTI isochrones and models versus initial masses obtained with BaSTI
2210: isochrones and models. Both sets
2211: include overshooting treated with different formulations, but giving
2212: similar mass extensions of the core overshooting regions at fixed total
2213: stellar mass. S00 WD tracks have been used in both
2214: cases. \label{mibastileo}}
2215: \end{figure}
2216:
2217:
2218: \clearpage
2219: \begin{figure}
2220: \epsscale{1.00}
2221: \plotone{f5.eps}
2222: \caption{Comparison between IFMRs obtained using the S00 (dots) and the
2223: LPCODE (triangles) WD tracks. BaSTI isochrones and progenitor models with
2224: core overshooting have been used in both cases. Each pair connected by a line
2225: represents the same star.
2226: \label{mimfs00aldo}}
2227: \end{figure}
2228:
2229: \clearpage
2230: \begin{figure}
2231: \epsscale{1.00}
2232: \plotone{f6.eps}
2233: \caption{Contribution of uncertainty sources to the total error budget
2234: for WD mass (upper left), WD age (upper right), progenitor mass
2235: (lower left), and progenitor age (lower right panel). The fractional
2236: contribution to total sigma
2237: $\sigma$ due to various error sources is given for each WD. Vertical
2238: lines separate clusters. For the WDs we show the importance of
2239: observational vs.\ input physics and systematics (different codes, variation
2240: of physics inputs,
2241: chemical stratification, envelope thickness) for the
2242: progenitors that of cluster and WD age. \label{fracsigmas}}
2243: \end{figure}
2244:
2245: \clearpage
2246: \begin{figure}
2247: \epsscale{1.00}
2248: %\plotone{Mi-Mf-OV-NOV-M37-2.eps}
2249: \plotone{f7.eps}
2250: \caption{IFMR for NGC 2099, for the two [Fe/H] and E(B-V) pairs
2251: given in Table~\ref{Ages}. Filled circles refer to [Fe/H]= 0.09 and empty circles to [Fe/H]=
2252: $-$0.20. The solid line shows the theoretical IFMR from BaSTI models with core
2253: overshooting, the dotted line displays the $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ relation for
2254: the same models. Data points lie systematically below the
2255: theoretical $M_{\rm i}-M_{\rm c1TP}$ values when [Fe/H]= 0.09 is adopted. \label{fig:m37}}
2256: \end{figure}
2257:
2258:
2259: \end{document}
2260:
2261: