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

2: 

3: \bibliographystyle{apj}

4: 

5: \widowpenalty 10000

6: \clubpenalty 10000

7: 

8: \newcommand{\ts}{\thinspace}

9: \newcommand{\simless}{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

10:      {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'074$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}

11: \newcommand{\simgreat}{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

12:      {$\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'076$}}\mathchar"7218$}}}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\about}    {$\sim$\ts}

15: \newcommand{\aboutless}{$\simless$\ts}

16: \newcommand{\aboutmore}{$\simgreat$\ts}

17: 

18: \newcommand{\Spitzer}{{\it Spitzer}}

19: \newcommand{\IRAS}{{\it IRAS}}

20: \newcommand{\ISO}{{\it ISO}}

21: \newcommand{\msun}{\ts M$_\odot$}

22: \newcommand{\lsun}{\ts L$_\odot$}

23: \newcommand{\etal}{\ts et~al.}

24: \newcommand{\RM}{$R_{24/8}$}

25: 

26: \begin{document}

27: 

28: \title{The Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems: 

29:        Description of the Spitzer Legacy Science Database}

30: 

31: \author{John M. Carpenter\altaffilmark{1}}

32: \author{Jeroen Bouwman\altaffilmark{2}}

33: \author{Murray D. Silverstone\altaffilmark{3}}

34: \author{Jinyoung Serena Kim\altaffilmark{4}}

35: \author{John Stauffer\altaffilmark{5}}

36: \author{Martin Cohen\altaffilmark{6}}

37: \author{Dean C. Hines\altaffilmark{7}}

38: \author{Michael R. Meyer\altaffilmark{4}}

39: \author{Nathan Crockett\altaffilmark{8}}

40: 

41: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, 

42:        Mail Code 105-24, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}

43: \altaffiltext{2}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Astronomie, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}

44: \altaffiltext{3}{Eureka Scientific Inc, 113 Castlefern Dr., Cary NC 25713}

45: \altaffiltext{4}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}

46: \altaffiltext{5}{Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 314-6, 1200 East California Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91125}

47: \altaffiltext{6}{Radio Astronomy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720}

48: \altaffiltext{7}{Space Science Institute, 4750 Walnut Street, Suite 205, Boulder, CO 80301}

49: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

50: 

51: \begin{abstract}

52: 

53: We present the science database produced by the Formation and Evolution of

54: Planetary Systems (FEPS) \Spitzer\ Legacy program. Data reduction and

55: validation procedures for the IRAC, MIPS, and IRS instruments are described in

56: detail. We also derive stellar properties for the FEPS sample from available

57: broad-band photometry and spectral types, and present an algorithm to normalize

58: Kurucz synthetic spectra to optical and near-infrared photometry. The final

59: FEPS data products include IRAC and MIPS photometry for each star in the FEPS

60: sample and calibrated IRS spectra.

61: 

62: \end{abstract}

63: 

64: \keywords{circumstellar matter-infrared: stars-planetary systems: formation}

65: 

66: \section{Introduction}

67: 

68: The Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems (FEPS) \Spitzer\ Legacy

69: program \citep{Meyer06} was designed to characterize the evolution of

70: circumstellar gas and dust around solar-type stars between ages of 3~Myr and

71: 3~Gyr. To achieve these goals, FEPS obtained spectro-photometric observations

72: with the \Spitzer\ Space Telescope \citep{Werner04} for a sample of 328 stars

73: \citep[see][for a description of the sample]{Meyer06}. The observing

74: strategy was to measure the spectral energy distribution (SED) between

75: wavelengths of 3.6\micron\ and 70\micron\ with IRAC \citep[InfraRed Array

76: Camera;][]{Fazio04} and MIPS \citep[Multiband Imaging Photometer for

77: Spitzer;][]{Rieke04} photometry, and between 8 and 35\micron\ with 

78: low-resolution IRS \citep[Infrared Spectrograph;][]{Houck04} spectra. In 

79: addition, the FEPS program obtained MIPS~160\micron\ photometry for 80 stars to

80: search for colder dust, and high-resolution IRS spectra for 33 sources to probe

81: for circumstellar gas. 

82: 

83: The FEPS team has produced several studies on the incidence of dusty debris

84: disks around solar type stars, including the discovery of a debris system in

85: the initial \Spitzer\ observations \citep{Meyer04}, a census of warm debris

86: \citep{Stauffer05,Silverstone06,Hines06,Meyer08}, the identification of 

87: Kuiper-belt analogs \citep{Kim05,Hillenbrand08}, and an investigation of debris

88: disks around stars with known planets \citep{Moro07}. The FEPS team has also

89: analyzed the processing of dust in optically thick, primordial disks

90: \citep{Bouwman08}, and has produced a series of papers on the evolution of gas

91: in solar-type stars \citep{Hollenbach05,Pascucci06,Pascucci07}.

92: 

93: This paper describes the data reduction procedures for IRAC (3.6, 4.5, 

94: and 8\micron) and MIPS (24 and 70\micron) images and IRS low resolution

95: spectra obtained by the FEPS program. Data reduction methods for the

96: MIPS~160\micron\ images and IRS high resolution spectra are discussed in Kim

97: \etal~(in preparation) and \citet{Pascucci06}, respectively. The adopted

98: reduction procedures for the IRAC, MIPS~24\micron, MIPS~70\micron, and IRS

99: observations are presented in \S\S\ref{irac}-\ref{irs}. We also investigate 

100: the effects of source confusion on the 24\micron\ and 70\micron\ photometry

101: (\S\ref{confusion}) and the relative calibration accuracy between \Spitzer\ 

102: instruments (\S\ref{crosscal}). The series of FEPS papers frequently utilized

103: synthetic spectra derived from Kurucz model atmospheres to infer the presence

104: of infrared excesses diagnostic of circumstellar dust. In the Appendices,

105: we describe the data and algorithm used to obtain normalized synthetic spectra 

106: for individual stars. The primary data products from the FEPS program are a

107: tabulation of IRAC and MIPS photometry presented in Table~\ref{tbl:phot},

108: and extracted, calibrated spectra which are available electronically.

109: 

110: \section{IRAC}

111: \label{irac}

112: 

113: IRAC produces images in 4 channels at wavelengths of 3.6, 4.5, 5.8,

114: and 8.0\micron\ with bandwidths of

115: 0.75, 1.01, 1.42, and 2.93\micron, respectively \citep{Fazio04}.

116: The FEPS team obtained IRAC observations for 311 of the 328

117: stars in the sample. The remaining 17 objects were observed by other Spitzer

118: programs, including 16 Hyades stars in a Guaranteed Time Observations (GTO)

119: program led by G. Fazio, and one source (ScoPMS~214) in the Upper Sco OB

120: Association by the c2d Legacy Program \citep{Evans03}.

121: 

122: FEPS IRAC observations were conducted in sub-array mode with a four-point

123: dither pattern and the medium dither scale. The locations of the four dither

124: positions on the array are the same for each source to within the pointing

125: accuracy of the spacecraft \citep[$1\sigma$ $< 1$\arcsec\ radial;][]{Werner04}. In sub-array mode, each IRAC band is observed

126: separately where a $32\times32$ pixel section ($39''\times39''$) in a corner of

127: the $256\times256$ pixel full-array ($5.2'\times5.2'$) is read out at

128: frame-times of 0.02, 0.10, or 0.40 seconds. At each dither position, 64 images

129: are taken at the same frame-time for a total of 256 images per band, with the

130: same frame-time for each band and a given source. The total on-source

131: integration time per band is then 5.12, 25.6, and 102.4~sec for frame-times of

132: 0.02, 0.10, and 0.40~sec, respectively. The frame-time was selected on a

133: source-by-source basis to achieve high signal to noise on the stellar

134: photosphere without saturating the detector. Five FEPS source were observed in

135: all four IRAC bands for the initial verification observations. The IRAC

136: 5.8\micron\ observations were dropped for the remaining sources since it had

137: the lowest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the four IRAC bands. The IRAC

138: 5.8\micron\ data are described in \citet{Meyer04} and are not further discussed

139: here.

140: 

141: Four-band IRAC GTO observations of the 16 Hyades stars and c2d observations 

142: of ScoPMS~214 were observed in full-array, high-dynamic-range mode where an 

143: image is obtained with a 0.6~sec frame-time followed by an image with 

144: a 12~sec frame-time. The Hyades stars were observed at three dither positions,

145: and ScoPMS~214 at two positions in this manner. The 12~sec frame-time images 

146: in IRAC 3.6, 4.5, and 5.8\micron\ bands were saturated and not analyzed. 

147: 

148: \subsection{Image Processing}

149: \label{irac:process}

150: 

151: Analysis was performed on Basic Calibrated Data (BCD) products generated 

152: by the data reduction pipeline version S13 developed at the \Spitzer\ Science 

153: Center (SSC). The SSC pipeline removes the electronic bias, subtracts a dark

154: image, applies a flat field correction, and linearizes the pixel response.

155: Additional processing on the BCD images was performed by the FEPS team as now

156: described.

157: 

158: For the sub-array data, cosmic ray hits were identified and flagged by

159: filtering the sequence of 64 frames at each dither position. At a given pixel,

160: the median and standard deviation of the 64 frames values were computed from

161: the median absolute deviation\footnote{The median absolute deviation (MAD) is

162: defined as MAD = median$_i(|x_i - {\rm median}_j(x_j)|)$ \citep{Hampel74}. The

163: standard deviation is estimated from the MAD as $\sigma \approx 1.4826\ {\rm

164: MAD}$.} to reduce sensitivity to outlier pixel values. Any pixels that deviated

165: from the median by more than $n\sigma$ were flagged, where $n$ was calculated

166: to correspond to a probability of 10$^{-4}$ that such an outlier pixel could

167: occur by gaussian noise given $N$ images (nominally, $N$ = 64 and 

168: $n \approx 4.8$). For 26 frames (or 0.03\% of the data), the rejected pixel

169: was within the photometric aperture and the entire frame was discarded. The

170: median and dispersion were recomputed in an iterative fashion until no

171: additional pixels were flagged. For sources HD~77407 and HD~70516, we removed

172: all frames at two dither positions where the FEPS target position overlapped

173: with a latent image. 

174: 

175: For the archival full-array observations, cosmic-ray rejection was performed

176: by the MOPEX\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/postbcd}

177: \citep{Makovoz05} mosaicking package. Images were

178: aligned spatially based on the World Coordinate Systems (WCS) parameters

179: in the image headers. The standard deviation at each pixel position in the

180: stack of aligned images was computed from the median absolute deviation.

181: Pixel values that deviated more than 5$\sigma$ from the median were removed.

182: 

183: After outlier rejection, both the sub- and full-array images were multiplied by

184: the photometric correction images produced by the SSC that account for

185: variations in the pixel solid angle and the effective response of the filters

186: across the IRAC focal plane\footnote{The correction images are available at

187: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/calib.}. These correction

188: images were derived by observing a star at 225 positions across the full-array,

189: and thus link the calibration of sub- and full-array observations. 

190: 

191: \subsection{Photometry}

192: \label{irac:phot}

193: 

194: IRAC photometry was measured with a modified version of

195: IDLPHOT\footnote{http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov}. We measured source flux

196: densities with aperture photometry instead of point-response-function (PRF)

197: fitting photometry since the PRF is undersampled in the IRAC~3.6\micron\ band

198: and the PRF shape depends on the position of the star within a pixel. Aperture

199: photometry was performed on each frame with an aperture radius of 3 pixels.

200: This aperture size was chosen as a compromise between signal-to-noise (which

201: empirically was highest for an aperture radius of 2 pixels), and obtaining

202: accurate calibration between full and subarray observations (which favored

203: larger apertures to reduce the effects of image distortion). The sky background

204: was computed in an annulus on the source centroid with an inner radius of

205: 10~pixels and a width of 10~pixels so that the aperture corrections can be

206: compared directly to values listed in the \Spitzer\ Observing Manual. Pixel 

207: values in the sky-annulus were sigma-clipped in an iterative fashion with a

208: clipping threshold of $3\sigma$, where the dispersion in the sky background was

209: estimated from the median absolute deviation. The sky value was estimated as

210: the mean of the remaining pixels. For several sources, the signal to noise

211: ratio was too low to derive an accurate centroid on individual frames. A subset

212: of frames was then coadded until the formal, internal positional uncertainty

213: was less than 0.1 pixels. 

214: 

215: In the IRAC 3.6\micron\ band, the measured flux density can vary up to 3.6\%

216: depending on the distance of the centroid position from the pixel center

217: \citep{Reach05}, which is defined as the pixel phase ($p$). This dependency may

218: be caused by nonuniform quantum efficiency across a pixel. The best-fit

219: correction factor ($f_{\rm phase}$) derived from the FEPS data is $f_{\rm

220: phase} = 1.0232 - 0.0582p$, which is similar to that obtained by

221: \citet{Reach05}. A correlation of similar magnitude between intensity and

222: pixel phase was found for only one of the four dither positions in the

223: 4.5\micron\ band, and none of the dither positions in the 8\micron\ band.

224: Pixel phase corrections were applied on individual images for the IRAC

225: 3.6\micron\ band only using the above relation.

226: 

227: Aperture corrections are needed to convert the photometry to the fiducial

228: 10-pixel aperture used to calibrate the IRAC instrument \citep{Reach05}. The

229: multiplicative scaling factor for the 3-pixel aperture was measured from the

230: FEPS data by computing the ratio of the flux density in a 10-pixel aperture to

231: that in a 3-pixel aperture. The derived aperture corrections for a 3-pixel wide

232: aperture are 1.109, 1.110, and 1.200 for IRAC bands 3.6, 4.5, and

233: 8\micron, respectively. These aperture corrections agree with the values listed

234: on the SSC IRAC Data Handbook\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/dh}

235: to within 0.3\% for the 3.6 and 4.5\micron\ bands, and 1.5\% for the 8\micron\ 

236: band. The measured aperture corrections for 23

237: sources deviated by more than 3$\sigma$ from the nominal value. Twenty of these

238: sources are known from an adaptive optics survey to be multiple systems with a

239: separation of \aboutless 2\arcsec\ between the primary and secondary components

240: (S.~Metchev, private communication). The other three sources have not been

241: observed at high resolution and the multiplicity status is unknown. For these

242: 23 stars, the measured aperture correction at a four pixel radius is within

243: 1.3\% of the nominal correction for each source, and a four pixel

244: aperture radius was used with aperture corrections of 1.069, 1.079, 

245: and 1.081 for IRAC bands 3.6, 4.5, and 8\micron, respectively. These

246: stars are noted in Table~\ref{tbl:phot}.

247: 

248: Flux densities were computed as the unweighted average of the flux densities

249: measured in $N$ dither positions ($N$=4 nominally). The standard deviation of 

250: the $N$ dither positions ($\equiv \sigma_{\rm RMS}$), normalized by the mean

251: flux density, is plotted versus the mean flux density

252: in Figure~\ref{fig:rms_irac}. For the IRAC 3.6 and 4.5\micron\ bands, the

253: normalized RMS shows no trend with mean flux density, while for IRAC

254: 8\micron, the normalized RMS increases systematically toward fainter

255: sources for a fixed frame-time. This trend is expected if the signal to noise

256: is photon limited and the integration time is constant since fainter sources

257: will have lower signal to noise. The photometric repeatability at a fixed 

258: dither position indicates that the standard deviation of the photometry 

259: computed from the four dither positions should be $< 0.4$\% in each band for 

260: the brighter stars. Given that the repeatability between dithers is poorer,

261: the photometric precision is limited by either our data reduction procedures or

262: instrumental limitations in obtaining dithered data. Internal photometric

263: uncertainties were therefore computed as $\sigma_{\rm RMS}/\sqrt{N}$ but with a

264: minimum uncertainty imposed. For the IRAC 3.6 and 4.5\micron\ bands, we adopt a

265: minimum internal uncertainty of 0.72\% and 1.22\% respectively, which

266: corresponds to the median repeatability from the ensemble data shown in

267: Figure~\ref{fig:rms_irac}. For the IRAC 8\micron\ band, we adopt a minimum

268: uncertainty of 0.66\%, which is the median value for stars with a repeatability

269: less than 1.2\%.

270: 

271: We investigated the relative calibration of IRAC sub- and full-array data

272: since the flux calibrators used by \citet{Reach05} were observed in

273: full-array mode. To compare the sub-array and full-array calibration, we

274: analyzed observations of the star HD~135285 that were obtained by the SSC in

275: full-array mode and in sub-array mode with 0.4~sec integration times. The mean

276: ratio of the flux densities measured in sub-array mode to that in full-array

277: mode is $1.004 \pm 0.004$ for the IRAC 3.6\micron\ band, $1.001 \pm 0.004$ for

278: 4.5\micron, $0.995 \pm 0.002$ for 5.8\micron, and $0.997 \pm 0.001$ for

279: 8\micron. The weighted mean for all four bands is $0.997 \pm 0.001$. We

280: conclude that any calibration offsets between the 0.4~sec sub-array mode and

281: full-array mode is less than 1\%, and no further calibration corrections were

282: applied to the sub-array observations. In \S\ref{crosscal}, we consider the

283: relative sub-array calibration for the different frame-times.

284: 

285: The IRAC photometry and internal uncertainties are presented in

286: Table~\ref{tbl:phot}. The flux density measurements are tied to the calibration

287: described in \citet{Reach05} with calibration factors of 0.0188, 0.1388, and

288: 0.2021 MJy/sr per DN/s for IRAC 3.6, 4.5, and 8\micron\ respectively and a

289: 1$\sigma$ uncertainty of 2\%.

290: 

291: \section{MIPS 24\micron}

292: \label{mips24}

293: 

294: The MIPS instrument obtains images in the 24, 70, and 160\micron\ bands. This

295: section describes the data reduction procedures for the 24\micron\ band. 

296: The 70\micron\ data are discussed in \S\ref{mips70}, and analysis of the

297: 160\micron\ data are presented in Kim \etal~(in preparation). The

298: $128\times128$~pixel MIPS~24\micron\ array images an instantaneous field of 

299: view of \about 5.4\arcmin$\times$5.4\arcmin\ region with a pixel scale of

300: $2.5\arcsec\times2.6\arcsec$. The FEPS team obtained MIPS~24\micron\

301: observations in photometry mode for 323 sources. Data for five stars 

302: (HD~17925, HD~72905, HD~202917, HD~216803, ScoPMS~214) were extracted from the

303: \Spitzer\ archive. The exposure time (either 3 or 10~sec) and the number of

304: dithered images (either 28 or 56) were set to achieve a signal to noise of at

305: least 30 on the expected stellar photosphere brightness.

306: 

307: \subsection{Image Processing}

308: \label{mips24:images}

309: 

310: MIPS 24\micron\ images for all but one source were processed with SSC pipeline 

311: version S13. The star HD~143006 has a flux density of \about 3~Jy at 24\micron,

312: and S13 data products have an error in the linearity correction for such

313: brighter sources. For HD~143006 only, we used S16 data products where the

314: linearity problem was fixed.

315: 

316: Individual BCD images that contain the ``strong'' jailbar effect caused by

317: bright sources or cosmic rays were removed upon visual inspection. Images were

318: also removed if cosmic ray hits were found near the expected source position.

319: These images were identified by performing aperture photometry on individual

320: BCD images, and finding outlier flux densities or centroid coordinates compared

321: to the mean that had less than a 10$^{-4}$ chance to have been caused by random

322: noise.

323: 

324: Once contaminated BCD images were removed, additional processing steps were

325: performed following the recommendations from the SSC MIPS handbook and the

326: MIPS instrument team \citep{Engelbracht07}. First, for a given source, 

327: background levels in individual images were adjusted to a common median 

328: value using an additive constant. Images for a given source were then median

329: combined to derive a flat-field image which removes long term gain changes in

330: the MIPS array. For the median filtering, a 5-pixel radius region centered on

331: the source position was masked. A 3$\sigma$ clipping algorithm was used to

332: remove outliers on a pixel-by-pixel basis through the image stack. The

333: resulting median image was normalized by the median pixel value over the image.

334: Flat field images were derived only for sources that are not surrounded by

335: nebulosity. Affected sources were identified from visual

336: inspection of the image mosaics. If nebulosity is present, a

337: flat-field image from another FEPS source was used that was a) obtained within

338: a time interval $\pm$ 1 day, b) had the same exposure time, and c) had the

339: closest matched background level. If no such image existed, the image nearest

340: in time with the same exposure time was used. The stability of the flats over

341: time were assessed by taking the ratio of flats taken on different days. 

342: Over a $\pm3$~day period, the mean flat field value for the central $5\times5$ 

343: pixel region of the MIPS~24\micron\ array is repeatable to 1.4\% peak-to-peak

344: with a dispersion of 0.2\%.

345: 

346: \subsection{Photometry}

347: \label{mips24:phot}

348: 

349: Photometry was performed with the MOPEX package \citep{Makovoz05}. The BCD

350: images for a given source were aligned spatially based on

351: the WCS information in the image headers. Cosmic ray rejection was performed by

352: removing pixels within the stack that deviated by more than 5$\sigma$ from the

353: mean. Point sources were identified on a mosaic of the BCD images using a

354: 10$\sigma$ detection threshold. The detection list was modified after visual

355: inspection of the mosaics to remove spurious sources and to add any sources

356: missed by the automated detection method. 

357: 

358: PRF fitting photometry was performed with the APEX

359: module in MOPEX. PRF fitting photometry was chosen over aperture photometry

360: since the PRF is critically sampled in the MIPS 24\micron\ images and should

361: provide the optimum signal to noise. The empirical PRF distributed with the

362: APEX package was fitted to the individual BCD images simultaneously (as opposed

363: to the mosaicked image) using a fitting area of 21$\times$21 pixels for

364: most images. A 5$\times$5 pixel fitting area was used for 11 sources that have

365: spatially variable nebulosity near the point source position. From visual

366: inspection of the mosaicked images, the PRF from other 24\micron\ sources 

367: sometimes overlapped with the PRF from the FEPS target. These contaminating 

368: sources were fitted with a PRF simultaneously with the FEPS target. The free

369: parameters in the PRF fit include a spatially-constant sky background level,

370: and the peak flux density and centroid position for each source.

371: 

372: Photometry was measured by integrating the fitted PRF within a 3 pixel radius

373: (1 pixel \about 2.55\arcsec) since the wings of the PRF have lower signal to

374: noise. An aperture correction is then needed to place the PRF photometry on 

375: the zero-point scale adopted by the MIPS instrument team. The aperture 

376: correction was derived by measuring aperture photometry on individual BCD

377: images using a customized version of IDLPHOT. We adopted an aperture radius of

378: 13\arcsec\ and a sky annulus between 20\arcsec\ and 32\arcsec\ since these

379: aperture parameters have been calibrated by the MIPS instrument team to a

380: theoretical PRF. Aperture flux densities were computed as the unweighted

381: mean of the photometry measured on individual BCD images. The average ratio of

382: the flux density measured with 13\arcsec\ aperture photometry compared to

383: 3-pixel (7.65\arcsec) PRF photometry is 1.371 with a dispersion of 0.011 for

384: 108 sources brighter than 20~mJy. From the SSC web

385: pages\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/mips/apercorr}, the aperture

386: correction for a 13\arcsec\ aperture radius and the adopted sky annulus is a

387: 1.167. The final flux densities were obtain by multiplying the PRF flux

388: densities by the product of these factors (1.600).

389: 

390: Internal uncertainties computed by APEX are often much smaller ($\ll 1\%$) 

391: than is assessed from repeated observations of the source. The minimum 

392: internal uncertainty was estimated based on photometric 

393: repeatability from aperture photometry. The normalized RMS of the 

394: MIPS~24\micron\ flux densities measured from {\it aperture} photometry 

395: on individual BCD images is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:rms_mips24}. 

396: For sources brighter than 100~mJy, the mean RMS repeatability is 0.9\% in

397: a 3 pixel aperture radius, which we adopted as the minimum uncertainty for the 

398: PRF photometric uncertainties.

399: 

400: The MIPS~24\micron\ photometry and internal uncertainties are presented in 

401: Table~\ref{tbl:phot}. The S13 images were processed with a calibration factor 

402: of 0.0447~MJy~sr$^{-1}$. Following \citet{Engelbracht07}, we adopt a

403: calibration uncertainty of 4\%.

404: 

405: \section{MIPS 70\micron}

406: \label{mips70}

407: 

408: We obtained MIPS~70\micron\ observations for 323 sources and extracted data 

409: for five stars (HD~17925, HD~72905, HD~202917, HD~216803, ScoPMS~214) 

410: from the \Spitzer\ archive. The FEPS observations were obtained in photometry

411: mode with an exposure time of 10~sec and the small field size dither pattern. A

412: single MIPS~70\micron\ image in this mode contains $32\times32$ pixels with a

413: scale of 9.8\arcsec~pixel$^{-1}$. The FEPS sources were centered on the left

414: half of the array which had the best sensitivity. The number of cycles per

415: source ranged between 2 and 10, where a cycle contains up to 12 dithered

416: images. The number of cycles were set based on the stellar distance and age to

417: reach the expected brightness of the outer Solar System dust level at that

418: stellar age \citep[see][]{Hillenbrand08}.

419: 

420: \subsection{Image Processing}

421: \label{mips70:images}

422: 

423: MIPS~70\micron\ images were processed with SSC pipeline version S13 that

424: removes the bias, subtracts a dark image, applies a flat field correction, and

425: linearizes the pixel response. Individual BCD images were mosaicked with

426: the Germanium Reprocessing Tools (GeRT) software package S14.0 version 1.1

427: developed at the SSC. The GeRT package performs column spatial filtering on 

428: the BCD images and then a time median filter to remove residual pixel response

429: variations. A $40''\times40''$ region centered on the source position, compared

430: to the PRF full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) size of 18\arcsec, was excluded 

431: when computing the column and time filtering such that the filtering process is

432: not biased by the presence of a bright source. Filtered images were formed

433: into mosaics with MOPEX \citep{Makovoz05}. Outlier pixels were rejected using

434: a 3$\sigma$ clipping threshold. 

435: 

436: \subsection{Photometry}

437: \label{mips70:phot}

438: 

439: Aperture photometry was performed on the MIPS~70\micron\ mosaics with a 

440: custom version of IDLPHOT. We adopted aperture photometry over PRF 

441: fitting photometry since most sources were not detected at 70\micron, and 

442: aperture photometry enables a straightforward interpretation of the

443: upper limits.

444: 

445: The adopted aperture radius of 16\arcsec\ (4 pixels on the coadded images), 

446: which corresponds to approximately

447: the FWHM size of the PRF, was chosen to optimize the signal to noise for faint

448: sources \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Naylor98}. The sky-level was computed as the mean

449: pixel value in a sky-annulus that extends from 40$''$ to 60$''$ after

450: performing the iterative clipping procedure described in \S\ref{irac:phot}. The

451: aperture was centered on the expected stellar position computed from the WCS

452: parameters contained in the FITS image headers, and no centroiding was

453: performed. Visual inspection of the 70\micron\ mosaics identified 19 images

454: where a point source was located within the outer sky annulus or the aperture

455: radius, but offset from the stellar position determined from 2MASS astrometry.

456: A PRF was fitted to the contaminating source and

457: subtracted from the image using MOPEX. These 19 sources are identified in

458: Table~\ref{tbl:phot}. Aperture photometry was recomputed on the PRF-subtracted

459: image.

460: 

461: The 70\micron\ photometric uncertainty was computed as

462: \begin{equation}

463: \sigma =

464:        (\eta_{\rm sky}\ \eta_{\rm corr})\

465:        (\Omega\ \Sigma_{\rm sky})\

466:        \sqrt{N_{\rm ap} + N_{\rm ap}^2/N_{\rm sky}}\label{eq:noise},

467: \end{equation}

468: where $\Sigma_{\rm sky}$ is the noise per pixel in units of surface brightness

469: as measured in the sky annulus, $\Omega$ is the solid angle of a pixel, $N_{\rm

470: ap}$ is the number of pixels in the aperture, $N_{\rm sky}$ is the number of

471: pixels in the sky annulus, and $\eta_{\rm sky}$ and $\eta_{\rm corr}$ correct

472: for correlated noise terms as described below. The total uncertainty is the

473: root-mean-square sum of two terms: the term proportional to $\sqrt{N_{\rm ap}}$

474: is the uncertainty from random fluctuations in the pixel noise summed over the

475: aperture, and the term proportional to $\sqrt{N_{\rm ap}^2/N_{\rm sky}}$

476: represents the uncertainty in the mean pixel noise from the sky annulus (often

477: assumed to be zero due to the large area over which one usually measures

478: the mean sky).

479: 

480: Two correction factors are needed to compute accurate uncertainties.

481: Because the 70\micron\ mosaics were sampled at a finer scale than the

482: raw images, the

483: noise between adjacent pixels is correlated. The factor $\eta_{\rm corr}$

484: accounts for the correlated noise, and was estimated as the ratio of the

485: pixel size in the raw images (9.8\arcsec) to that in the mosaics

486: (4\arcsec), or $\eta_{corr} = 2.5$.

487: 

488: The second correction factor, $\eta_{sky}$, accounts for 

489: systematic differences in the pixel noise between the aperture and 

490: sky annulus. Variations in the pixel noise as a function of position

491: across the mosaics were assessed by first scaling all 70\micron\

492: mosaics in the FEPS program to a common median value. The standard

493: deviation of each pixel in the stack of mosaic images was computed

494: after removing 35 images where the FEPS target was clearly detected.

495: The resulting image showed that the mosaic noise was higher along the

496: columns near the source position due to time-variable latent images

497: from the calibration stim flashes.  The pixel noise was estimated

498: to be 40\% higher in the aperture compared to the sky

499: annulus, and we adopt $\eta_{sky}$ = 1.40.

500: 

501: Figure~\ref{fig:mips70_snr} shows a histogram of the signal-to-noise ratio

502: (SNR) for the 70\micron\ photometry. Visual inspection of the mosaicked images

503: indicates that the majority of the FEPS sources have not been detected at

504: 70\micron. The histogram in Figure~\ref{fig:mips70_snr} should then be a

505: gaussian with unit dispersion (solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:mips70_snr}) if

506: Equation~\ref{eq:noise} contains the dominant noise terms. In practice, the

507: observed SNR distribution is broader than the expected gaussian distribution

508: and includes SNR values as low as -4.2. 

509: As shown by the dotted curve in Figure~\ref{fig:mips70_snr}, a gaussian with a

510: dispersion of 1.49 adequately describes the observed distribution. The origin

511: of the apparent excess noise is unknown, but nonetheless, we have scaled the

512: photometric uncertainties for all sources by a factor of 1.49.

513: 

514: MIPS 70\micron\ photometry is calibrated to a theoretical PRF measured computed

515: over a $64'\times64'$ field \citep{Gordon07}. The aperture correction needed to

516: place the background-subtracted flux densities measured in a finite aperture on

517: the same scale as the theoretical PRF depends on the temperature of the

518: underlying source emission. In anticipation that the FEPS MIPS~70\micron\

519: observations did not detect the stellar photosphere in most cases and that

520: debris disks around solar-type stars have temperatures of \about 50-100~K,

521: aperture corrections were measured on a 100~K PRF \citep{Gordon07}. The 

522: aperture correction derived for our adopted aperture radius of 16\arcsec\ and 

523: sky annulus between 40 and 60$''$ is 1.766. By comparison, the SSC web

524: pages indicate that the

525: aperture of correction for a 3000~K and 15~K PRF is 1.741 and 1.884

526: respectively for the same 16\arcsec\ aperture radius and similar, but not

527: identical, background annulus of 39 to 65\arcsec.

528: 

529: The MIPS~70\micron\ photometry and internal uncertainties are presented in 

530: Table~\ref{tbl:phot}. The FEPS sources where the 70\micron\ photometry was

531: measured on PRF-subtracted images are marked in the table. The adopted

532: calibration factor is 702.0~MJy sr$^{-1}$ / (DN s$^{-1}$) with an uncertainty

533: of 7\% as reported on the SSC MIPS calibration web

534: pages\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/mips/calib}.

535: 

536: \section{IRS Low Resolution Spectra}

537: \label{irs}

538: 

539: Low resolution spectra ($\lambda/\delta\lambda$ \about 60--120) of the FEPS 

540: sources were obtained with IRS. Most sources were observed in the short-low 1

541: (SL1, 7.4-14.5\micron), long-low 2 (LL2, 14.0-21.3\micron), and long-low 1

542: (LL1, 19.5-38\micron) orders. A subset of sources were also observed in the

543: short-low 2 (SL2, 5.2-7.7\micron) order. The spectral coverage beyond

544: 35$\mu$m suffers from low signal-to-noise and was discarded for all sources.

545: The source HD~191089 was observed by a GTO program (PID 2, P.I. J. Houck) and

546: was not included in the FEPS IRS observations. Also, HD~72905 and HD~216803

547: were observed in the SL2 order only by FEPS; the longer wavelengths for

548: HD~72905 were observed as part of a GTO program (PID 41, P.I. Rieke). 

549: 

550: Targets were acquired in the spectrograph slit using either high-accuracy 

551: IRS or PCRS peak-up with a 1$\sigma$ radial pointing uncertainty of 

552: 0.4\arcsec\ and 0.14\arcsec\ respectively according to version 8.0 of the

553: \Spitzer\ Observing

554: Manual\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/documents/SOM}. 

555: The reconstructed pointing from the peakup observations differed from the 

556: requesting pointing by $>9$\arcsec\ for 5 sources: HD~80606, HD~139813,

557: HII~2881, HIP~42491, and RX~J1544.0-3311. We assumed that the

558: spectra for these 5 sources are not for the intended target. For HD~13974, the 

559: pointing offset was within the pointing accuracy of the IRS peakup, but the 

560: intensity of the SL1 spectrum is a 2.6$\times$ lower than expected by 

561: extrapolating the IRAC 8\micron\ photometry to 13\micron\ assuming a

562: $\nu^2$ spectrum. For R45, the extracted spectrum had a flux density less than

563: 0~Jy for wavelengths $> 25$\micron. We have excluded the SL and LL spectra

564: for HD~13974 and R45, respectively.

565: 

566: Two nod positions per cycle were obtained for the IRS observations in standard

567: staring mode with a minimum of six cycles per target to allow rejection of bad

568: pixels and cosmic ray hits. Each spectral image comes with a bit-mask image

569: that marks potentially bad pixels. The data conditions identified by each bit

570: in the mask are described in the \Spitzer\ Data

571: Handbook\footnote{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irs/dh}. Pixels marked with

572: bit 9 or higher were replaced with the average pixel value of an 8 pixel box

573: surrounding the bad pixel. This method for finding the mean pixel value

574: resembles Nagao-Matsuyama filtering \citep{Nagao79} and ensured edge

575: preservation in the source region of our spectral images. 

576: 

577: Source spectra were extracted from the droop intermediate data product from the

578: SSC pipeline version S13 for all but two sources. The spectra for MML~18 and 

579: ScoPMS~52 were reobserved since the initial observations had a failed peakup,

580: and the final spectra were extracted from S15 data products.

581: Background emission and stray-light were eliminated

582: by subtracting images of the two slit positions at which a target is observed

583: for each module and order. This resulted in a set of images containing a

584: positive and negative spectrum in each observed order. A straight-sided

585: (boxcar) aperture was used to extract the spectra for each nod-position and

586: cycle. 

587: 

588: We found that the source positioning has the expected 0.4\arcsec\ (1$\sigma$)

589: pointing accuracy, but that the targets are not positioned exactly on the

590: 1/3-2/3 position along the slit.  The width of each aperture was determined by

591: two quantities: the maximum size of the PSF in each order, and the pointing

592: accuracy. The width of each aperture is chosen such that 99\% of the source

593: flux is within the aperture. To estimate the size of a point source we assume a

594: Gaussian PSF with a FWHM = 0.25 * lambda, where lambda is in microns and FWHM

595: in arcsec. Taking also the positioning constraints into account, the apertures

596: are widened an additional 2.4\arcsec\ (6$\sigma$), to ensure that the entire

597: source is always positioned within the aperture. The resulting extraction boxes

598: were 6 pixels (11.1\arcsec) and 5 pixels (25.4\arcsec) along the slit for the

599: short-low and long-low modules, respectively. 

600: Given that the slit width is only 2 pixels, pointing uncertainties in the

601: dispersion direction will dominate the error on the flux density.

602: 

603: Because spectra were extracted with custom apertures that differ from the

604: SSC processing, the spectral response function (SRF) had to be derived. We 

605: used a set of high signal-to-noise observations of bright calibration stars 

606: with model spectra provided by the SSC to derive the relative SRF, and then an 

607: internal calibration to determine the absolute flux calibration. Calibrating 

608: slit spectra suffers from uncertainties in the adopted

609: spectral model and flux losses due to pointing offsets of the slit

610: compared to the target. The FEPS Legacy program provides a unique opportunity 

611: to derive a good flux calibration for solar-type main-sequence stars since 

612: many stars do not exhibit emission from cool dust in the IRS wavelengths 

613: \citep{Carpenter08}. The SRFs

614: were determined for each order separately as the ratio of the observed spectrum

615: to a Kurucz model spectrum using calibration stars identified in the FEPS

616: program. The Kurucz model spectra were derived using the procedure outlined in

617: Appendix~\ref{kurucz}. Calibration stars were selected from the FEPS program by 

618: computing synthetic fluxes from the IRS spectra at wavelengths of 8, 13, 24,

619: and 33\micron\ and applying the following criteria:

620: (1) the flux density ratios of the synthetic photometry points at 8, 13, 24

621: and 33$\mu$m are within one sigma of the colors expected for stellar 

622: photospheres;

623: (2) there were no known peak-up problems during data acquisition;

624: (3) the spectra contains no artifacts from cosmic ray hits, hot or dead 

625: pixels; 

626: and 

627: (4) the spectra have among the best signal-to-noise for the specific order and 

628: ramp time to ensure high quality SRFs. The SRFs were derived from a set of 16

629: calibration stars for the SL1 and LL orders, and from a separate set of 10

630: stars for the SL2 order.

631: 

632: After the extraction of each spectrum and normalization by the SRF, a mean

633: spectrum over all slit positions and cycles was computed for each individual

634: order. The orders were then combined to form a single spectrum. In the regions

635: where the spectra of the individual orders overlap, the flux densities were

636: replaced by the mean flux density at each wavelength point. Internal

637: uncertainties per pixel were estimated as the standard deviation of the mean of

638: the repeated spectral observations. The SRF based on the bright calibration 

639: stars from the IRS instrument team (the spectra were extracted in an identical 

640: way to the FEPS sample) were then scaled to the SRF derived from the internal

641: calibration described above. This procedure ensures that the uncertainties

642: introduced by the adopted spectral model and flux losses due to pointing 

643: offsets of the slit are minimized and that the signal-to-noise ratio on the 

644: relative SRF is much better than that of the spectrum of any individual 

645: target.

646: 

647: The final calibrated spectra, excluding the problem spectra mentioned above,

648: are distributed in the electronic version of this article. Each data file

649: contains a header summarizing the observational parameters and four data

650: columns that list the wavelength in microns, the flux density and internal

651: uncertainty in Janskys, and the spectral order number.

652: 

653: \section{Source Confusion}

654: \label{confusion}

655: 

656: Infrared cirrus and extragalactic sources may contaminate the FEPS photometry

657: and create the appearance of an infrared excess. Since we anticipate that the

658: emission associated with the stellar photosphere or a circumstellar disk will

659: be nearly point-like and centered on the star at the typical distances in the

660: FEPS sample, potential contamination to the 24\micron\ or 70\micron\ photometry

661: can be identified from emission that is extended or offset from the stellar

662: position. 

663: 

664: We used the 2MASS catalog to represent the stellar position since most stars in

665: the FEPS sample do not exhibit an infrared excess in the $JHK_{\rm s}$ bands

666: \citep{Carpenter08}, and any such excess should be unresolved spatially. 

667: 2MASS astrometry was corrected to the epoch of the \Spitzer\ observations based

668: on proper motions in the Tycho-2 \citep{Hog00} or UCAC2 \citep{Zacharias04}

669: astrometric catalogs. MIPS~24\micron\ source coordinates were computed from the

670: PRF centroid position and the WCS astrometric solution in the FITS

671: image headers. 

672: 

673: In Figure~\ref{fig:mips24_coords}, we show the angular

674: separation between the 2MASS and MIPS 24\micron\ astrometry, where solid

675: circles represent sources that exhibit an infrared excesses in the IRS spectra

676: and crosses indicate stars without an excess \citep[see][]{Carpenter08}. Two

677: sources have 24\micron\ positions that are offset by more than 1.8\arcsec\ from

678: the 2MASS coordinates, but neither exhibits an IRS infrared excess. Excluding

679: these two outliers, the dispersion in the right ascension and declination

680: offsets are 0.41\arcsec\ and 0.36\arcsec, respectively, with a radial

681: dispersion of 0.49\arcsec. The dispersion is

682: dominated by uncertainties in the \Spitzer\ astrometry since the typical

683: 1$\sigma$ uncertainty in the 2MASS positions is \about 0.14\arcsec\

684: \citep{Skrutskie06}. Stars with infrared

685: excesses have a larger dispersion in the radial coordinate offsets than stars

686: without infrared excesses (0.30$''$ vs 0.23$''$), which can be attributed to 3

687: excess sources (HD~35850, HD~201219, and HD~209253) that have offsets of \about

688: $1.3$\arcsec. The 24\micron\ excess source with the largest angular offset,

689: which is HD~35850 at 1.35\arcsec, deviates from the 2MASS position by 

690: 2.9$\sigma$ in right ascension and 1.9$\sigma$ in declination. We conclude

691: that for most FEPS sources, the 24\micron\ astrometry offsets relative to 

692: 2MASS is similar for stars with and without an infrared excess. Potentially

693: three excesses sources may be contaminated by cirrus or extragalactic sources

694: to produce an unusually large offset (1.3\arcsec). However, we cannot rule out

695: pointing reconstruction errors since the two largest astrometric offsets 

696: are found around stars without infrared excesses.

697: 

698: The relative MIPS 70\micron\ and 2MASS astrometry was evaluated in a similar

699: manner. We computed the 70\micron\ emission centroid by fitting a

700: two-dimensional gaussian to a 44$\times$44\arcsec\ (11$\times$11 mosaicked

701: pixels) region centered on the expected stellar position. In

702: Figure~\ref{fig:mips70_coords}, we show the difference between the 70\micron\

703: and 2MASS astrometry as a function of the 70\micron\ SNR measured in a

704: 16\arcsec\ aperture. For sources with SNR $\ge$ 3, the positional agreement is

705: better than 3.5\arcsec\ for all but three sources: HD~201219 (5.1\arcsec\

706: offset), HD~104467 (12.8\arcsec), and RX~J1111.7$-$7620 (13.4\arcsec).

707: RX~J1111.7$-$7620 is separated by 24.4\arcsec\ from the classical T~Tauri star

708: XX~Cha; these sources have comparable brightness at 70\micron\ and the gaussian

709: fit converged to a centroid intermediate between the two sources. The

710: 70\micron\ detection toward HD~104467 is a point source clearly offset from the

711: stellar position. Given the large offset, we assume that the detected 

712: 70\micron\ source is unrelated to the star. Finally, the HD~201219 70\micron\ 

713: mosaic contains two point sources separated by 20.9\arcsec\ that distorted the

714: gaussian fit. We fitted gaussians to both sources and determined that the

715: brighter of the two sources is 3.4\arcsec\ from the 2MASS position for

716: HD~201219, which is not unusual given the 70\micron\ SNR (5.9) for this source.

717: However, this source also exhibits one of the larger angular offsets between

718: the MIPS~24\micron\ astrometry and 2MASS.

719: While neither the 24\micron\ nor the 70\micron\ astrometry conclusively 

720: demonstrates that the MIPS photometry for HD~201219 is contaminated, it 

721: suggest that the photometry for this source should be used with caution.

722: 

723: To further search for possible contaminants in the MIPS photometry, we 

724: computed the

725: ratio of the flux measured in a large (10.2$''$ and 30$''$ for MIPS~24 and

726: 70\micron, respectively) to a small (5.2$''$ and 16$''$ for MIPS 24 and

727: 70\micron) aperture radius. A contaminating object or extended emission will

728: create an anomalous ratio between aperture sizes. In

729: Figure~\ref{fig:mips24_cog}, we show the flux ratio measured in a large

730: aperture to that in a small aperture as a function of the signal to noise ratio

731: for the MIPS 24\micron\ photometry. The scatter in the flux ratio is similar

732: for sources with (solid circles) and without (crosses) 24\micron\ excesses. For

733: SNR $>$ 300, the source with the most discrepant flux ratio at 24\micron\

734: relative to the other sources is HD~107146 at SNR=900. Several studies have

735: demonstrated that this source is surrounded by a circumstellar disk

736: \citep{Ardila05,Williams04,Carpenter05} and the observed flux ratio suggests

737: that the source may be extended at 24\micron. Sources with a 24\micron\ SNR

738: ratio less than 100 exhibit a larger scatter in flux ratios. The range

739: of values is similar for sources with and without infrared excesses, and

740: suggests that the scatter can be attributed to lower signal-to-noise in the

741: larger photometric aperture.

742: 

743: In Figure~\ref{fig:mips70_cog}, we show the flux ratio in the two aperture

744: sizes as a function of the signal to noise ratio for the MIPS 70\micron\

745: photometry. Two sources (HD~104467 and RX~J1111.7$-$7620) with SNR $>$ 3 have

746: anomalously large ratios ($>$ 1.8). As discussed above, the initial photometry 

747: for these sources were contaminated by a nearby object, and the nearby source 

748: was PRF-subtracted before performing the final photometry. A third source

749: (HD~216803) has a flux ratio just under 1.8. The 70\micron\ emission for this

750: object is centered on the stellar position to within 3\arcsec, and the observed

751: 70\micron\ emission is consistent with the expected stellar photosphere.

752: 

753: In summary, we conclude that the astrometry and curve-of-growth for most

754: sources are consistent with point source emission centered on the stellar

755: position. No compelling evidence exists that contaminants systematically

756: influence the 24 photometry. At 70\micron, contaminants needed to be removed

757: for a few sources before measuring the final photometry, and the sources are

758: noted in Table~\ref{tbl:phot}. These results do not exclude the possibility

759: that the photometry for some sources may be contaminated, but any such

760: contamination must be present in a minority of sources. 

761: 

762: \section{Cross-Instrument Calibration}

763: \label{crosscal}

764: 

765: In this section, we use the FEPS data to examine the cross-instrument 

766: calibration. We first analyze the 24\micron\ to 8\micron\ flux 

767: density ratio, which plays a prominent role in a companion paper to identify 

768: sources that exhibit excess emission from circumstellar dust 

769: \citep{Carpenter08}. We then compare the IRS and MIPS~24\micron\ calibration.

770: 

771: \subsection{IRAC 8\micron\ vs. MIPS~24\micron}

772: 

773: The observed IRAC 8\micron\ flux density is consistent with photospheric

774: emission for most stars in the FEPS sample \citep{Carpenter08}. The 24\micron\

775: to 8\micron\ flux ratio then is diagnostic of sources that exhibit

776: circumstellar dust emission at 24\micron. The precision to which this ratio can

777: identify excesses depends on the relative calibration stability of the IRAC 

778: and MIPS instruments over time and between the various observing modes. 

779: 

780: The primary difference between observations of different stars is the exposure 

781: time for individual IRAC and MIPS images. We first examine 

782: the relative stability of the MIPS 24\micron\ calibration by selecting stars 

783: in the FEPS program that were observed with the same IRAC frame-time, but 

784: different MIPS exposure times. We selected 48 stars in the FEPS sample that 

785: a) have been observed with IRAC frame-times of 0.10~sec,

786: b) do not show evidence for more than a 2$\sigma$ infrared excesses in 

787:    the FEPS IRS spectra \citep{Carpenter08} to ensure the 24\micron\ emission 

788:    is from the photosphere,

789: c) the variation in the encircled energy with aperture radius in the IRAC

790:    images is consistent with a point source (see \S\ref{irac:phot}),

791: and

792: d) the dereddened $J-K_{\rm s}$ color is less than 0.7~mag to remove the

793:    intrinsically reddest stars in the FEPS sample.

794: We used a 0.10~sec IRAC frame-time to obtain the largest sample of stars

795: observed with different MIPS exposure times. 

796: 

797: In Figure~\ref{fig:mips24_offset}, we plot the 24\micron\ to 8\micron\ flux

798: density ratio ($\equiv$ \RM) for MIPS 3~sec (top panel) and 10~sec (bottom

799: panel) exposure times versus the dereddened 2MASS $J-K_{\rm s}$ color using the

800: extinction estimates derived in \S\ref{stellar:av}. The two sample of stars 

801: span similar ranges of dereddened $J-K_{\rm s}$ colors, and 

802: we assume that the two samples also share the same intrinsic photospheric

803: $[8]-[24]$ color. The Shapiro-Wilk statistic ($\equiv p_{\rm SW}$) indicates 

804: that the distribution of observed data points about the mean is consistent with

805: a normal distribution for each sample ($p_{\rm SW}=0.76$ for the 3-sec MIPS

806: data and $p_{\rm SW}=0.31$ for the 10-sec data). The Student's $t$-test

807: then can be used to compare the mean values of \RM\ for the 3- and 10-sec MIPS

808: data. The probability from the $t$-test that the mean values of \RM\ for the

809: two samples are consistent with each other is 0.009. The ratio of the mean

810: value of \RM\ in a 3~sec MIPS exposure to that in a 10~sec exposure is

811: $0.976\pm0.008$, where the uncertainty was computed as the standard deviation

812: of the mean. These results suggest that the mean \RM\ value is higher for the

813: 10-sec MIPS data on average compared to the 3-sec data.

814: 

815: \citet{Engelbracht07} measured directly any MIPS~24\micron\ calibration offsets

816: by observing a sample of 11 stars with 3, 10, and 30~sec MIPS exposure times.

817: They also found that the measured flux densities were larger on average in

818: 10~sec exposure data compared to 3~sec observations. However, the magnitude of 

819: their offset (1\%) is 2.4 times smaller than the offset derived from the FEPS 

820: data. 

821: While the reduction procedure adopted here attempted to follow that recommended

822: by \citet{Engelbracht07}, our data processing was nonetheless performed using

823: SSC products and custom software that could account for the different

824: results. Also, we adopted PRF-fitting photometry, while \citet{Engelbracht07}

825: used aperture photometry. As a check of our data reduction methods, we 

826: compared our photometry with the results from \citet{Rieke08}, who used the

827: pipeline described in \citet{Engelbracht07} to process data for 31 FEPS sources

828: that were observed with 3~sec exposure times. For these 31 stars, the median

829: difference between the flux densities measured by FEPS and

830: \citet{Rieke08} is 0.0\% with a dispersion of 2.6\%. Therefore our data 

831: reduction procedures for at least the 3~sec exposure data yields photometry

832: consistent with the \citet{Engelbracht07} processing, but no 

833: independent check is available for the 10~sec MIPS data.

834: 

835: We now consider the relative flux calibration for stars with different IRAC

836: exposure times. In Figure~\ref{fig:irac4_offset}, we plot the 24\micron\ to

837: 8\micron\ flux density ratio versus dereddened $J-K_{\rm s}$ color for stars

838: observed with various IRAC frame-times. The MIPS 24\micron\ photometry obtained

839: with 10~sec exposure times have been scaled by a factor of 0.976 based upon the

840: analysis above since the MIPS calibration is tied mainly to data obtained with

841: 3~sec exposure times \citep{Engelbracht07}. As shown in the figure, systematic

842: differences are present in the mean flux density ratio between the various IRAC

843: frame-times. Offsets are present even if the 10~sec MIPS 24\micron\ data

844: are not scaled, but the magnitude of the offset changes. We adopt the 0.4~sec

845: frame-time as the fiducial calibration since the calibration of the 0.4~sec

846: sub-array data and the full-array data are the same to within 1\% (see 

847: \S\ref{irac:phot}). A multiplicative scale factor of $0.971\pm0.005$ must be

848: applied to the 0.02~sec IRAC frame-time data to force agreement with the

849: 0.4~sec data, $1.014\pm0.007$ for the 0.1~sec data, and $0.962\pm0.006$ for the

850: 0.6~sec data, where the uncertainties are the standard deviation of the mean.

851: In Figures~\ref{fig:irac1_offset} and \ref{fig:irac2_offset}, we present a

852: similar analysis for the IRAC 3.6 and 4.5\micron\ bands which demonstrates that

853: offsets are also present in these bands. Since only 5 FEPS stars were observed

854: in the IRAC 5.8\micron\ band, we were unable to derive offsets for that band. 

855: 

856: Table~\ref{tbl:irac_offsets} summarizes the multiplicative factors that must 

857: be applied to the flux ratios as a function of frame-time to scale the 

858: calibration to the 0.4~sec frame-time data. The offsets are similar in the 3

859: bands for a given frame-time, although the offset in the 0.6~sec frame-time

860: data may be larger for IRAC~8\micron\ than in the 3.6 and 4.5\micron\ bands. We

861: consider these correction factors preliminary since they have not yet been

862: verified by observing the same star with different frame-times. No

863: corrections for any integration-dependent calibrations have been applied to the

864: photometry in Table~\ref{tbl:phot}, but the frame-times are listed to enable

865: the corrections to be applied by the reader.

866: 

867: \subsection{IRS vs. MIPS~24\micron}

868: 

869: The IRS spectral coverage encompasses the spectral response of the 

870: MIPS~24\micron\ bandpass. To compare the relative calibration of

871: the two instruments, we computed synthetic 24\micron\ photometry from the

872: IRS spectrum and the MIPS~24\micron\ spectral response using the procedure

873: described in Appendix~\ref{kurucz:synthetic}. 

874: 

875: In Figure~\ref{fig:irs_mips24}, we plot the percent difference between the IRS

876: synthetic photometry and MIPS~24\micron\ photometry as a function of the

877: MIPS~24\micron\ flux density. No exposure-time dependent corrections have been

878: applied to the MIPS~24\micron\ flux densities for this analysis. For sources

879: brighter than 10~mJy, which have the highest signal to noise, the median

880: difference in the 24\micron\ flux densities between the IRS spectra and the

881: MIPS photometry is 2.1\%. The median difference for sources between 3 and

882: 10~mJy is $-1.6$\%. These differences are within the 1$\sigma$ calibration

883: uncertainty for both MIPS \citep[4\%; ][]{Engelbracht07} and IRS ($>5$\%;

884: Infrared Spectrograph Data Handbook Version 3.1). However, for individual

885: sources, the difference between the MIPS and IRS flux densities are larger than

886: expected based on the quantifiable internal uncertainties. One significant

887: discrepancy is ScoPMS~52, where the IRS 24\micron\ flux density is 63\% higher

888: than the MIPS~24\micron\ flux density. Inspection of the MIPS 24\micron\ image

889: shows that there is a source 18\arcsec\ away that is an order of magnitude

890: brighter than ScoPMS~52 \citep[see][]{Bouwman08}, and this source likely

891: contributes flux to the IRS spectrum.

892: 

893: \section{Summary}

894: \label{summary}

895: 

896: The FEPS \Spitzer\ Legacy program was designed to obtain infrared photometry

897: from 3.6 to 160\micron\ and low resolution spectra from 5 to 35\micron\

898: for 328 solar-type stars spanning ages 

899: from 3~Myr to 3~Gyr. The broad goal of FEPS was to determine the 

900: incidence of circumstellar disks and place the results in context with the 

901: expected evolution of our Solar System. An essential component of this study

902: was to construct carefully calibrated spectral energy distributions.

903: Here, we outline the data reduction procedures adopted by the 

904: FEPS team to obtain accurate and well-characterized \Spitzer\ photometry and 

905: spectra.

906: 

907: The adopted image processing steps for the IRAC, MIPS, and IRS data closely 

908: follow the recommended procedures by the \Spitzer\ Science Center and 

909: \Spitzer\ 

910: Instrument Teams. We describe in detail the data reduction methods for each

911: instrument and the procedures used to validate the data products. We present

912: in Table~\ref{tbl:phot} the measured IRAC (3.6, 4.5, and 8\micron\ bands) and 

913: MIPS (24 and 70\micron) flux densities and uncertainties. The extracted, 

914: calibrated IRS spectra are available electronically. 

915: 

916: \acknowledgements

917: 

918: JMC thanks Dave Frayer, Sean Carey, Bill Reach, Jason Surace, and 

919: the staff at the \Spitzer\ Science Center for patiently answering numerous 

920: questions regarding \Spitzer\ data. We are grateful to the anonymous referee 

921: and George Rieke for providing valuable comments. We also thank 

922: Debbie Padgett, Tim Brooke, Dan Watson, Pat Morris, and the rest of the FEPS

923: team for their many contributions throughout this project. This work is 

924: based on observations made with the {\it Spitzer} Space

925: Telescope, which is operated by JPL/Caltech under a contract with NASA. The

926: program made use of data and resources from the FEPS project, which receives

927: support from NASA contracts 1224768, 1224634, and 1224566 administered through

928: JPL. This research made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS,

929: Strasbourg, France, as well as data products from the Two Micron

930: All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the U. Massachusetts and the

931: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/Caltech, funded by NASA and the NSF.

932: 

933: \clearpage

934: 

935: \begin{thebibliography}{}

936: 

937: \bibitem[Ardila \etal(2005)]{Ardila05} Ardila, D. R. \etal~2005, 

938:    \apjl, 617, L147

939: \bibitem[Bouwman \etal(2008)]{Bouwman08} Bouwman, J., \etal~2008, \apj, in press

940: \bibitem[Breger(1986)]{Breger86} Breger, M. 1986, \apj, 309, 311

941: \bibitem[Carpenter \etal(2005)]{Carpenter05} Carpenter, J. M., Wolf, S.,

942:    Schreyer, K., Launhardt, R., \& Henning, T. 2005, \aj, 129, 1049

943: \bibitem[Carpenter \etal(2008)]{Carpenter08} Carpenter, J. M., \etal~2008,

944:    \apj, submitted

945: \bibitem[Chen \etal(1998)]{Chen98} Chen, B., Vergely, J. L., Valette, B.,

946:    \& Carraro, G. 1998, \aap, 336, 137

947: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(1992)]{Cohen92} Cohen, M. Walker, R. G., Barlow, M. J., 

948:    \&  Deacon, J. R. 1992, \aj, 104, 1650

949: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(2003a)]{Cohen03a} Cohen, M., Megeath, S. T., 

950:    Hammersley, P. L., Mart\'in-Luis, F., \& Stauffer, J. 2003a, \aj, 125, 2645

951: \bibitem[Cohen \etal(1999)]{Cohen99} Cohen, M., Walker, R. G., Carter, B., 

952:    Hammersley, P. L., Kidger, M., \& Noguchi, K. 1999, \aj, 117, 1864

953: \bibitem[Cohen, Wheaton, \& Megeath(2003b)]{Cohen03b} Cohen, M., 

954:    Wheaton, W. A., \& Megeath, S. T. 2003b, \aj, 126, 1090

955: \bibitem[Crawford \& Barnes(1974)]{Crawford74} Crawford, D., \& Barnes, J. 

956:    1974, \aj, 79, 687

957: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Mazzitelli(1997)]{DM97} D'Antona, F., \&

958:    Mazzitelli, I. 1997, MmSAI, 68, 807

959: \bibitem[Engelbracht \etal(2007)]{Engelbracht07} Engelbracht \etal~2007,

960:    \pasp, 119, 994

961: \bibitem[Evans \etal(2003)]{Evans03} Evans, N. J., II, \etal~2003, 

962:    \pasp, 115, 965

963: \bibitem[Fazio \etal(2004)]{Fazio04} Fazio, G., Hora, J. L, Allen, L. E.,

964:     \etal~2004, \apjs, 154, 10

965: \bibitem[Gordon \etal(2007)]{Gordon07} Gordon, K. D., \etal~2007, 

966:    \pasp, 119, 1019

967: \bibitem[Gray(1992)]{Gray92} Gray, D. F. 1992, The Observation and Analysis 

968:     of Stellar Photospheres (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)

969: \bibitem[Gray(1998)]{Gray98} Gray, R.O. 1998, \aj, 116, 482

970: \bibitem[Hampel(1974)]{Hampel74} Hampel, F. 1974, J. AM. Statist. Assoc.,

971:    69, 383

972: \bibitem[Hillenbrand \etal(2008)]{Hillenbrand08} Hillenbrand, L. A., 

973:    \etal~2008, \apj, 677, 630

974: \bibitem[Hines \etal(2006)]{Hines06} Hines, D. C., \etal~2006,

975:    \apj, 638, 1070

976: \bibitem[Hollenbach \etal(2005)]{Hollenbach05} Hollenbach, D., \etal~2005,

977:      \apj, 631, 1180

978: \bibitem[H\o g \etal(2000)]{Hog00} H\o g, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V.~V.,

979:      Urban, S., Corbin, T., Wycoff, G., Bastian, U.,  Schwekendiek, P. \&

980: 	 Wicenec, A. 2000, \aap, 355, L27

981: \bibitem[Houck \etal(2004)]{Houck04} Houck, J., \etal~2004, \apjs, 154, 18

982: \bibitem[Houdashelt, Bell, \& Sweigart(2000)]{Houdashelt00} Houdashelt, 

983:      M. L., Bell, R. A., \& Sweigart, A. V. 2000, \aj, 119, 1448

984: \bibitem[Kim \etal(2005)]{Kim05} Kim, J. S., \etal~2005, \apj, 632, 659

985: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{Landolt92} Landolt, A. U. 1992, \aj, 104, 340

986: \bibitem[Makovoz \& Marleau(2005)]{Makovoz05} Makovoz, D., \& Marleau, F. R.

987:      2005, \pasp, 117, 1113

988: \bibitem[Mamajek, Meyer, \& Liebert(2002)]{Mamajek02} Mamajek, E. E.,

989:      Meyer, M. R., \& Liebert, J. 2002, \aj, 124, 1670

990: \bibitem[Mamajek, Meyer, \& Liebert(2006)]{Mamajek06} Mamajek, E. E.,

991:      Meyer, M. R., \& Liebert, J. 2006, \aj, 131, 2360

992: \bibitem[Mathis(1990)]{Mathis90} Mathis, J. S. 1990, \araa, 27, 37

993: \bibitem[Mermilliod, Mermilliod, \& Hauck(1997)]{Mermilliod97}

994:      Mermilliod, J.-C., Mermilliod, M., \& Hauck, B. 1997, \aaps, 124, 349

995: \bibitem[Meyer \etal(2004)]{Meyer04} Meyer, M. R., \etal~2004, \apjs, 154, 422

996: \bibitem[Meyer \etal(2006)]{Meyer06} Meyer, M. R., \etal~2006, \pasp, 118, 1690

997: \bibitem[Meyer \etal(2008)]{Meyer08} Meyer, M. R., \etal~2008, \apjl, 673, L181

998: \bibitem[Moro-Mart\'in \etal(2007)]{Moro07} Moro-Mart\'in, A., \etal~2007,

999:    \apj, 658, 1312

1000: \bibitem[Nagao \& Matsuyama(1979)]{Nagao79} Nagao, M., \& Matsuyama, T.

1001:    1979, Edge Preserving Smoothing, Computer Graphics and Image Processing,

1002:    vol. 9, No. 4, 394

1003: \bibitem[Naylor(1998)]{Naylor98} Naylor, T. 1998, \mnras, 296, 339

1004: \bibitem[Pascucci \etal(2006)]{Pascucci06} Pascucci, I. \etal~2006, \apj, 

1005:      651, 1177

1006: \bibitem[Pascucci \etal(2007)]{Pascucci07} Pascucci, I. \etal~2007, 

1007:    \apj, 663, 383

1008: \bibitem[Paulson, Sneden, \& Cochran(2003)]{Paulson03} Paulson, D. B.,

1009:    Sneden, C., Cochran, W. D. 2003, \aj, 125, 3185

1010: \bibitem[Perryman \etal(1997)]{Perryman97} Perryman, M. A. C., \etal~1997,

1011:    \aap, 323, L49

1012: \bibitem[Pinsonneault \etal(1998)]{Pinsonneault88} Pinsonneault, M. H.,

1013:    Stauffer, J., Soderblom, D. R., King, J. R., \& Hanson, R. B. 1998,

1014:    \apj, 504, 170

1015: \bibitem[Prosser(1994)]{Prosser94} Prosser, C. F. 1994, \aj, 103, 488

1016: \bibitem[Reach \etal(2005)]{Reach05} Reach, W. T., \etal~2005, \pasp, 117, 978

1017: \bibitem[Rieke \etal(2004)]{Rieke04} Rieke, G. \etal~2004, \apjs, 154, 25

1018: \bibitem[Rieke \etal(2008)]{Rieke08} Rieke, G. \etal~2008, \aj, 135, 2245

1019: \bibitem[Sandage(1972)]{Sandage72} Sandage, A. 1972, \apj, 178, 1

1020: \bibitem[Silverstone \etal(2006)]{Silverstone06} Silverstone, M. D., 

1021:    \etal~2006, \apj, 639, 1138

1022: \bibitem[Skrutskie \etal(2006)]{Skrutskie06} Skrutskie, M. F., \etal~2006,

1023:    \aj, 131, 1163

1024: \bibitem[Stauffer \etal(2005)]{Stauffer05} Stauffer, J. R., \etal~2005, 

1025:    \aj, 130, 1834

1026: \bibitem[Taylor(2006)]{Taylor06} Taylor, B. J. 2006, \aj, 132, 2453

1027: \bibitem[Welsh, Crifo, \& Lallement(1998)]{Welsh98} Welsh, B. Y., Crifo, F., 

1028:    \& Lallement, R. 1998, \aap, 333, 101

1029: \bibitem[Werner \etal(2004)]{Werner04} Werner, M., \etal~2004, \apjs, 154, 1

1030: \bibitem[Whiteoak(1961)]{Whiteoak61} Whiteoak, J. B. 1961, \mnras, 123, 245

1031: \bibitem[Williams \etal(2004)]{Williams04} Williams, J. P., Najita, J., 

1032:    Liu, M. C., Bottinelli, S., Carpenter, J. M., Hillenbrand, L. A., 

1033:    Meyer, M. R., \& Soderblom, D. R. 2004, \apj, 604, 414

1034: \bibitem[Wright \etal(2003)]{Wright03} Wright, C. O., Egan, M. P.,

1035:     Kraemer, K. E., \& Price, S. D. 2003, \aj, 125, 349

1036: \bibitem[Zacharias \etal(2004)]{Zacharias04} Zacharias, N., Urban, S. E., 

1037:    Zacharias, M. I., Wycoff, G. L., Hall, D. M., Monet, D. G., \& 

1038:    Rafferty, T. J. 2004, \aj, 127, 3043

1039: \end{thebibliography}{}

1040: 

1041: \appendix

1042: 

1043: \section{Stellar Photometry}

1044: \label{newphot}

1045: 

1046: The FEPS team obtained optical photometry in the $BVRI$ broad-band filters 

1047: for 45 stars. Observations were obtained with the 61$''$ Kuiper Telescope on

1048: 2003 May 8 and 2003 September 29-30, and the CTIO 0.9~m telescope on 2004

1049: March 18-21.

1050: 

1051: The Kuiper observations used a 2048$\times$2048 pixel CCD with a pixel scale of

1052: 0.45$''$~pixel$^{-1}$. Images were processed by subtracting the bias, dividing

1053: by a ``master'' flat field created from sky observations to remove large scale

1054: response variations over the CCD, and dividing by a dome flat to remove

1055: pixel-to-pixel variations. The CTIO observations were performed with a

1056: 2048$\times$2048 CCD and a pixel scale of 0.40$''$~pixel$^{-1}$. The CCD is

1057: read out with different amplifiers for each quadrant. Each quadrant was bias

1058: subtracted and divided by dome flats.

1059: 

1060: Photometry was measured using aperture photometry with a sky annulus that

1061: extended from 20 to 30 pixels, and an aperture radius of 11 and 12 pixels for 

1062: the CTIO and Kuiper images, respectively. Eight FEPS stars had a nearby source 

1063: in projection, and a smaller aperture radius between 2-3 pixels to isolate the

1064: photometry to the FEPS target. The observations were calibrated by observing

1065: multiple standard stars from \citet{Landolt92} to solve for the airmass 

1066: coefficient, the photometric zero point, and color terms to place the 

1067: photometry on the Johnson-Cousins photometric system. Total photometric 

1068: uncertainties were computed as the root-mean-square sum of internal 

1069: photometric uncertainties, the zero point, and the color terms.

1070: The photometry for the 45 sources are presented in Table~\ref{tbl:newphot}.

1071: 

1072: \section{Stellar Properties}

1073: \label{stellar}

1074: 

1075: In this section, we describe the procedure to assign estimates of the

1076: visual extinction, surface gravity, metallicity, and effective temperature

1077: for each star in the FEPS sample. These derived parameters were used in 

1078: several FEPS studies, and served as initial estimates for the Kurucz model 

1079: fitting (see Appendix~\ref{kurucz}).

1080: 

1081: \subsection{Visual Extinction}

1082: \label{stellar:av}

1083: 

1084: Distances to the FEPS targets extend upwards of 343~pc and the extinction from

1085: the interstellar medium may be non-negligible. The visual extinction toward 

1086: individual stars was estimated from one of the following techniques in

1087: priority order:

1088: 1) proximity within the Local Bubble,

1089: 2) as a member of stellar cluster that has been extensively studied previously;

1090: 3) color excess at optical and near-infrared wavelengths;

1091: and

1092: 4) a galactic extinction model.

1093: We now describe each of these techniques.

1094: 

1095: Stars within the Local Bubble are expected to have small extinction at

1096: visual wavelengths. The size of the Local Bubble has been measured by observing

1097: interstellar absorption lines toward stars with known distances, and then

1098: determining the column density as a function of distance. \citet{Welsh98}

1099: present an analysis of Na~I column density measurements toward stars with

1100: Hipparcos distance estimates, and they found that the visual extinction is less

1101: than 0.01~mag out to a distance of $d=75$~pc. We adopted an extinction of 0~mag

1102: for the 169 stars in the FEPS sample where $d + 3\Delta d \le 75$~pc,

1103: where $\Delta d$ is the $1\sigma$ distance uncertainty

1104: \citep[see][for a discussion on the distance determinations]{Meyer06}.

1105: 

1106: The visual extinction toward the clusters in the FEPS sample has been

1107: extensively studied in the literature. For the Hyades, \citet{Taylor06} place 

1108: an upper limit at 95\% confidence of $E(B-V) = 0.001$~mag, and we 

1109: adopt $\rm{A_V} = 0$~mag. \citet{Breger86} compiled spectral types and optical 

1110: photometry for about 120 Pleiades members and derived $E(B-V)$ = 0.04 on 

1111: average, but with lower reddening to the east of the cluster (0.03~mag) 

1112: compared to the west (0.06~mag). Assuming a factor of 3.1 to convert the 

1113: $B-V$ reddening to visual extinction, we adopt a constant value of 0.12 mag 

1114: for the Pleiades stars. Following \citet{Pinsonneault88}, we adopt an

1115: average $E(B-V) = 0.10$ \citep[see][]{Crawford74,Prosser94}, or 

1116: $\rm{A_V} = 0.31$~mag, for Alpha~Per. For IC~2602, we adopt a visual

1117: extinction of 0.12~mag \citep{Whiteoak61}.

1118: 

1119: Many of the FEPS stars are field objects that have distances greater than 

1120: 75~pc. The visual extinction for these stars was computed from the color excess

1121: given the published spectral types \citep[see][]{Meyer06} and 

1122: observed colors. Optical (Johnson $B$ and $V$, Tycho $B_{\rm T}$ and 

1123: $V_{\rm T}$) and near-infrared (2MASS $J$, $H$, and $K_s$) photometry were 

1124: compiled from the literature (see Appendix~\ref{kurucz:phot}) or measured by 

1125: the FEPS team (see Appendix~\ref{newphot}). 

1126: %

1127: The intrinsic colors as a function of spectral type were compiled from the 

1128: literature by cross-correlating the Hipparcos catalog with the Michigan 

1129: Spectral Catalog, Tycho-2, and 2MASS. The positional match between the

1130: Tycho-2 and Michigan spectral atlas from \citet{Wright03} was used as a 

1131: starting point. Only 2MASS sources with a PH\_QUAL flag of AAA and a 

1132: confusion flag of 000 were used. A photometric uncertainty of less

1133: $\le$ 0.072~mag (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio $> 15$) was required in each 

1134: photometric band. The average color was then 

1135: computed as a function of spectral type for stars within 75~pc for $B$ and

1136: $V$ photometry, and within 100~pc for colors involving $J$, $H$, and $K_s$.

1137: In computing the average colors, individual measurements were weighted by the

1138: inverse variance of the measurements, and outliers from poor photometry or 

1139: spectral types were removed in an iterative sigma-clipping procedure.

1140: Table~\ref{tbl:colors} lists the adopted intrinsic colors for the relevant

1141: spectral types in the FEPS sample, the dispersion in the observed colors,

1142: and the number of stars that met the above criteria.

1143: %

1144: Color excesses were computed from the observed $(B-V)_{\rm Johnson}$,

1145: $(B-V)_{\rm Tycho}$, $V_{\rm Tycho}-K_{\rm s}$, and $J-K_{\rm s}$ colors

1146: and the intrinsic colors listed in Table~\ref{tbl:colors}. Intrinsic

1147: $(B-V)_{\rm Johnson}$ colors were computed from the $(B-V)_{\rm Tycho}$

1148: colors and the Tycho-to-Johnson transformation equations in

1149: \citet{Mamajek02,Mamajek06}. The visual extinction was estimated for each

1150: color using the extinction law compiled by \citet{Mathis90}, and the

1151: weighted mean was adopted as the extinction.

1152: 

1153: For 9 stars, the visual extinction could not be estimated with the above

1154: techniques since either a spectral type was not available, or the computed

1155: extinction was unphysical (i.e. $\rm{A_V} < 0$~mag). In the latter case, it is

1156: presumed that the photometry was poor or the spectral type is erroneous.

1157: For these stars, we estimated the extinction using the \citet{Sandage72} 

1158: extinction model assuming an exponential disk \citep[see][]{Chen98}.

1159: The adopted extinction values are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:prop}.

1160: 

1161: \subsection{Stellar Effective Temperature, Surface Gravity, and Metallicity}

1162: \label{stellar:logg}

1163: 

1164: The stellar effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity are needed 

1165: to fit the Kurucz model atmospheres (see Appendix~\ref{kurucz}). This section 

1166: summarizes the procedure to estimate these properties for the FEPS sample. 

1167: The procedure depends on the stellar age, as solar-mass stars younger than 

1168: \about 100~Myr are contracting toward the main sequence and the surface 

1169: gravity varies with age.

1170: 

1171: Stars older than 100~Myr in the FEPS sample were considered to be main-sequence

1172: stars and were assigned a surface gravity of ${\rm log}~g = 4.50$~g~cm$^{-2}$.

1173: Stellar effective temperatures were estimated from the $B-V$ and $V-K$ 

1174: versus temperature relations derived by \citet{Houdashelt00} after

1175: dereddening the observed photometry (see \S\ref{stellar:av}). If the 

1176: temperature uncertainty derived from the 

1177: photometry is larger than 130~K, the temperature was instead computed from a

1178: temperature vs. spectral type relation using the colors listed in 

1179: Table~\ref{tbl:colors}, the Tycho-to-Johnson color transformations from

1180: \citet{Mamajek02,Mamajek06}, and the \citet{Houdashelt00} color-temperature

1181: relations. A limit of 130~K was adopted since that is approximately the

1182: temperature uncertainty associated with $\pm$ 2 spectral subclasses.

1183: 

1184: Solar-type stars younger than 100~Myr will be contracting toward the main

1185: sequence and will generally have lower surface gravities. Derivation of the

1186: surface gravities and effective temperatures need to be solved jointly. First,

1187: the effective temperature was computed assuming the star is on the main

1188: sequence as described above. The surface gravity was then

1189: estimated from the \citet{DM97} pre-main-sequence evolutionary tracks using the

1190: derived temperature and assumed age from Hillenbrand \etal~(in preparation). If

1191: the temperature was estimated from the spectral type, an iterative correction

1192: needs to be applied since the derived temperature depends on both the spectral

1193: type and surface gravity. For the estimated surface gravity, a new temperature

1194: was derived using the effective temperature as a function of spectral type and

1195: surface gravity relation in \citet{Gray92}. With the new temperature, the

1196: surface gravity was re-derived from the \citet{DM97} evolutionary tracks.

1197: 

1198: Finally, the metallicity was fixed to $[$Fe/H$]$=0.13 for the Hyades stars 

1199: following the measurements from \citet{Paulson03}. For all other stars, we

1200: assumed $[$Fe/H$]$=0. The adopted metallicity, effective temperature, and

1201: surface gravity for each star in the FEPS sample are listed in 

1202: Table~\ref{tbl:prop}.

1203: 

1204: \section{Model Photospheres}

1205: \label{kurucz}

1206: 

1207: In several FEPS studies, the observed \Spitzer\ flux densities were compared to

1208: model photospheric flux densities to infer the presence of an infrared excess

1209: diagnostic of a circumstellar disk. Model flux densities were estimated from 

1210: synthetic photosphere spectra computed by R. 

1211: Kurucz\footnote{http://kurucz.harvard.edu} from ATLAS 9 stellar atmospheric 

1212: models with convective overshoot and a microturbulent velocity of 

1213: 1~km~s$^{-1}$. In this section, we describe the procedures used to normalize 

1214: the synthetic spectra to observed photometry and to compute model flux 

1215: densities. 

1216: 

1217: \subsection{Optical and Near-infrared Photometry}

1218: \label{kurucz:phot}

1219: 

1220: Synthetic spectra were normalized to published optical and

1221: near-infrared broad-band photometry. Photometric catalogs incorporated for this

1222: study include Tycho-2 \citep{Hog00}, Hipparcos \citep{Perryman97}, 2MASS

1223: \citep{Skrutskie06}, and the General Catalogue of Photometric Data

1224: \citep[GCPD;][]{Mermilliod97}. The GCPD is a compilation of published ground

1225: based observations that includes, among many others, {\it UBV} Johnson, {\it

1226: RI} Cousins and Kron, and Stromgren {\it uvby}. The GCPD data are of

1227: non-uniform quality compared to these other surveys.

1228: Ground-based infrared photometry from the \ISO\ preparatory observations in

1229: both the ESO and Tenerife photometric

1230: systems\footnote{http://www.iso.vilspa.esa.es/users/expl\_lib/ISO/wwwcal/isoprep/gbpp/photom}

1231: were also included. Finally, the FEPS team obtained $BRVI$ photometry for

1232: several stars that did not have high-quality photometry available in the

1233: literature. The observations, data reduction, and measured photometry for these

1234: sources are presented in Appendix~\ref{newphot}.

1235: 

1236: \subsection{Synthetic Photometry}

1237: \label{kurucz:synthetic}

1238: 

1239: For wavelengths longer than 10$\mu$m, the original Kurucz synthetic spectra are

1240: sampled at 10.02$\mu$m, and then between 20 and 160$\mu$m in steps of 20$\mu$m.

1241: For wavelengths longer than 10$\mu$m, we resampled the Kurucz spectra at finer

1242: wavelengths by interpolating between model data points assuming a $S_\nu

1243: \propto \nu^2$ spectrum.

1244: 

1245: Synthetic fluxes were computed by multiplying a Kurucz synthetic spectrum with

1246: the spectral response of a photometric system. The spectral response,

1247: $T(\lambda)$, includes the detector quantum efficiency, the atmospheric

1248: transmission (if appropriate), the filter transmission, and any other optics

1249: whose characterizations are available (see Cohen \etal~1999 for details). The

1250: product of these three transmission functions are referred to as a FAD (i.e.

1251: filter + atmosphere + detector).     

1252: 

1253: By definition, the bandwidth of the filter in wavelength and frequency units is

1254: \begin{eqnarray}

1255:      \Delta\lambda & = & \int T(\lambda) / T_{\rm max}\ d\lambda \\

1256:      \Delta\nu     & = & \int T(\lambda) / T_{\rm max}\ d\nu,

1257: \end{eqnarray}

1258: where $T_{\rm max}$ is the peak transmission. Uncertainties in the 

1259: bandwidths were computed by assuming a 5\% uncertainty in the transmission 

1260: at any given wavelength. The spectral irradiance, $I$, can be computed by 

1261: integrating the spectrum, $S(\lambda)$, over the FAD as

1262: \begin{equation}

1263:      I = \int S(\lambda)\ T(\lambda)\ d\lambda.\label{eqn:irr}

1264: \end{equation}

1265: The corresponding (isophotal) flux density is then defined as

1266: \begin{eqnarray}

1267:      S_\lambda & = & I / \Delta\lambda \\

1268:      S_\nu     & = & I / \Delta\nu.

1269: \end{eqnarray}

1270: 

1271: Since observed optical and near-infrared flux densities are typically quoted 

1272: in magnitudes, the synthetic measurements were converted to magnitudes based 

1273: on the flux for a zero-magnitude star as

1274: \begin{equation}

1275: \label{eq:zp}

1276:      m = -2.5\log\Big({S_\lambda \over ZP}\Big) + zpo,

1277: \end{equation}

1278: where $ZP$ is the zero point of the photometric system, and $zpo$ is the offset

1279: needed to convert the synthetic photometry to the observed photometric system.

1280: Martin Cohen and collaborators have produced a series of papers in which they

1281: define the zero points and zero point offsets for several photometric systems. 

1282: We adopt the calibration by \citet{Cohen03a} for 2MASS, \citet{Cohen03b} for

1283: Tycho-2, Hipparcos, and Landolt $BVRI$, and \citet{Cohen99} for ESO $HK$ and

1284: Tenerife $HK$. For Stromgren photometry, we adopt the calibration of

1285: \citet{Gray98}, but replace his flux density for Vega at 5556~\AA\ with that 

1286: of \citet{Cohen92} for consistency.

1287: 

1288: \subsection{Fitting Procedure}

1289: \label{kurucz:fit}

1290: 

1291: The $\chi^2$ merit equation to determine the best fit Kurucz model is

1292: \begin{eqnarray}

1293:     \label{eq:fit}

1294:     \chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^N

1295:        \Bigl(

1296:        {[F_{i,\rm obs} - 

1297:          F_{i,\rm model}(T_{\rm eff},{\rm A_V,[Fe/H], log}~g, \Omega)]^2 \over 

1298:            (\Delta F_{i,\rm obs}^2 + \Delta F_{i,{\rm model}}^2)}\Bigr)

1299:      + \ \ \Big({T_{\rm eff} - T_{\rm eff,o} \over 

1300:            \Delta T_{\rm eff,o}}\Big)^2,

1301: \end{eqnarray}

1302: where $F_{i,\rm{obs}}$ is the observed flux density typically expressed in 

1303: magnitudes, $F_{i,{\rm model}}$ is the model flux density that depends on the 

1304: stellar effective temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$), visual extinction (A$_{\rm V}$), 

1305: metallicity ($\rm [Fe/H]$), surface gravity (${\rm log}~g$), and 

1306: solid angle ($\Omega$), and $T_{\rm eff,o}$ is the nominal temperature of 

1307: the star derived from the spectral type (if available).

1308: 

1309: Equation~\ref{eq:fit} was minimized using a modified version of the

1310: Levenberg-Marquardt method as implemented by the LMDIF routine in the MINPACK

1311: library\footnote{http://www.netlib.org/minpack}. The model parameters are the

1312: solid angle of the star, the effective temperature, surface gravity,

1313: metallicity, and visual extinction. In practice, the metallicity and surface

1314: gravity was fixed to the values listed in Table~\ref{tbl:prop}. The constraint

1315: in the fitting procedure is that the visual extinction is non-negative. The

1316: initial values for ${\rm A_V}$ and $T_{\rm eff}$ were set based on the stellar

1317: properties (see Appendix~\ref{stellar}).

1318: 

1319: Fits were constrained using photometry at wavelengths between 0.4 

1320: and 2.5\micron\ for most sources. A few sources have excesses at $K$-band

1321: \citep{Silverstone06} and the model was fitted to photometry between 

1322: 0.4 and 1.2\micron. Shorter wavelength photometry, in particular $U$-band 

1323: observations, were omitted since those data are difficult to calibrate from 

1324: the ground and are sensitive to the stellar metallicity. Longer wavelengths 

1325: were omitted to avoid having infrared excesses bias the model fits. 

1326: 

1327: Uncertainties in the model flux densities were computed using a grid search

1328: around the best-fit model parameters. The size of the grid was $\pm$3 times the

1329: nominal parameter uncertainties computed from the covariance matrix computed

1330: from the least-squares fit. At each point in the model grid, we computed

1331: model flux densities, including the \Spitzer\ IRAC and MIPS photometric bands, 

1332: as well as the $\chi^2$ between that model and the observed flux densities for 

1333: photometric bands between 0.4 and 

1334: 2.5\micron. The relative probability that the model at a given grid point can 

1335: reproduce the observations is $e^{-\chi^2/2}$. The probabilities over all

1336: grid points then yields the probability distribution of model flux densities.

1337: 

1338: It is not feasible to present the full probability distribution for each

1339: \Spitzer\ photometric band and each star. We instead characterized the

1340: probability distribution for a photometric band by the nominal flux density,

1341: $F_{\rm model}$, and the 1$\sigma$ uncertainty $\Delta F_{\rm model}$. The 

1342: nominal flux density is given by the flux density computed from the best fit

1343: model parameters. The 1$\sigma$ flux uncertainty is defined as the smallest

1344: range of model flux densities about $F_{\rm model}$ that encompasses 68\% of 

1345: the total probability. Results from the Kurucz-model fitting have been

1346: used by \citet{Kim05}, \citet{Hines06}, and \citet{Hillenbrand08}.

1347: 

1348: \clearpage

1349: 

1350: \include{tab1}

1351: \include{tab2}

1352: \include{tab3}

1353: \include{tab4}

1354: \include{tab5}

1355: 

1356: \clearpage

1357: 

1358: \begin{figure}

1359: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f1.eps}

1360: \caption{

1361:   \label{fig:rms_irac}

1362:   Normalized RMS of the measured flux densities in the four sub-array dither 

1363:   positions plotted versus the mean flux density for the FEPS IRAC sub-array 

1364:   observations. Stars observed with IRAC frame-times of 0.02, 0.1, and 0.4~sec 

1365:   are represented by crosses (+), open circles, and times symbols ($\times$), 

1366:   respectively.

1367:   We used the repeatability between the dithered observations to assign a 

1368:   minimum photometric uncertainty of 0.72\%, 1.22\%, and 0.66\% for IRAC bands 

1369:   3.6, 4.5, and 8\micron, respectively.

1370: }

1371: \end{figure}

1372: 

1373: \begin{figure}

1374: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{f2.eps}

1375: \caption{

1376:   \label{fig:rms_mips24}

1377:   RMS repeatability of the MIPS~24\micron\ aperture photometry measured 

1378:   in a 3~pixel radius on individual BCD images. Crosses represent sources

1379:   observed with an exposure time of 3~sec, and open circles with 10~sec. We

1380:   adopted a minimum uncertainty of 0.9\% based on the mean repeatability for

1381:   stars brighter than 100~mJy.

1382: }

1383: \end{figure}

1384: 

1385: \begin{figure}

1386: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{f3.eps}

1387: \caption{

1388:   \label{fig:mips70_snr}

1389:   Histogram of the signal-to-noise ratio measured in a 16\arcsec\ radius

1390:   aperture at the expected stellar position in the MIPS~70\micron\ mosaics.

1391:   The solid curve shows the expected signal-to-noise distribution for gaussian

1392:   noise (dispersion = 1.0) scaled to a peak value of N=67. The

1393:   dashed curve shows a gaussian with a dispersion of 1.49. These results suggest

1394:   that the 70\micron\ photometric uncertainties are underestimated by a factor

1395:   of 1.49. The uncertainties in the 70\micron\ flux densities reported in

1396:   Table~\ref{tbl:phot} have been scaled by this factor. 

1397: }

1398: \end{figure}

1399: 

1400: \begin{figure}

1401: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.7]{f4.eps}

1402: \caption{

1403:   \label{fig:mips24_coords}

1404:   Angular offset between the 24\micron\ emission centroid 

1405:   and the 2MASS position after correcting for proper motion and differences

1406:   in epoch of observations. Filled circles represent FEPS stars that exhibit 

1407:   an infrared excess in the IRS spectrum, and crosses represent sources 

1408:   without a detectable IRS excess \citep{Carpenter08}.

1409: }

1410: \end{figure}

1411: 

1412: \begin{figure}

1413: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{f5.eps}

1414: \caption{

1415:   \label{fig:mips70_coords}

1416:   Angular offset between the 70\micron\ coordinates and the 2MASS stellar 

1417:   position as a function of the 70\micron\ signal-to-noise ratio measured in a

1418:   16\arcsec\ radius aperture. The 70\micron\ centroid was computed by fitting 

1419:   a two-dimensional gaussian to a 44\arcsec$\times$44\arcsec\ region centered 

1420:   on the

1421:   stellar position. The vertical dashed line at SNR=3 indicates the minimum

1422:   signal-to-noise ratio that defines a MIPS~70\micron\ detection. 2MASS 

1423:   coordinates have been corrected to the \Spitzer\ epoch of observations 

1424:   using published proper motions. 

1425: } 

1426: \end{figure}

1427: 

1428: \begin{figure}

1429: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{f6.eps}

1430: \caption{

1431:   \label{fig:mips24_cog}

1432:   Ratio of the 24\micron\ flux density measured in a 10.2\arcsec\ radius

1433:   aperture (= 4 pixels) to that in a 5.1\arcsec\ radius aperture (= 2 pixels)

1434:   as a function of the signal-to-noise

1435:   ratio of the 24\micron\ PRF photometry. Filled circles represent sources

1436:   with a $\ge 3\sigma$ 24\micron\ excess confirmed by the IRS spectrum, and 

1437:   crosses indicate sources without detectable 24\micron\ excesses

1438:   \citep{Carpenter08}.

1439: }

1440: \end{figure}

1441: 

1442: \begin{figure}

1443: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{f7.eps}

1444: \caption{

1445:   \label{fig:mips70_cog}

1446:   Ratio of the 70\micron\ flux density measured in a 30\arcsec\ radius aperture

1447:   to that in a 16\arcsec\ radius aperture as a function of the signal to

1448:   noise ratio. The vertical dashed line is drawn at SNR=3. The two sources

1449:   with SNR $>3$ and flux density ratios greater than 1.8 have a nearby

1450:   source that partially overlap the source aperture. These two contaminating

1451:   sources were PRF-subtracted before performing the final photometry.

1452: }

1453: \end{figure}

1454: 

1455: \begin{figure}

1456: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f8.eps}

1457: \caption{

1458:   \label{fig:mips24_offset}

1459:   Ratio of 24\micron\ to 8\micron\ flux densities (\RM) plotted as a function 

1460:   of the $J-K_{\rm s}$ color for stars observed with a 0.10~sec IRAC frame-time

1461:   that do not have a IRS excess (see text for a complete description of the 

1462:   selection criteria). The top panel shows the results for stars observed with

1463:   a MIPS~24\micron\ exposure time of 3~sec, and the bottom panel for 10~sec 

1464:   exposure time. The dashed line shows the mean flux ratios for the 

1465:   3~sec MIPS data. The ratio of the mean value of \RM\ in the 3~sec MIPS data 

1466:   to the 10~sec data is $0.976 \pm 0.008$.

1467: }

1468: \end{figure}

1469: 

1470: \begin{figure}

1471: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f9.eps}

1472: \caption{

1473:   \label{fig:irac4_offset}

1474:   Ratio of 24\micron\ to 8\micron\ flux densities plotted versus dereddened

1475:   $J-K_{\rm s}$ color for IRAC frame-times of 0.02, 0.1, 0.4, and 0.6~sec. 

1476:   The dashed line in each panel shows the mean flux ratio for the 

1477:   0.4~sec IRAC data. These results suggest that the observed

1478:   24\micron\ to 8\micron\ flux ratio varies with IRAC frame-time.

1479: }

1480: \end{figure}

1481: 

1482: \begin{figure}

1483: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f10.eps}

1484: \caption{

1485:   \label{fig:irac1_offset}

1486:   Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:irac4_offset}, but for the IRAC 3.6\micron\ band.

1487: }

1488: \end{figure}

1489: 

1490: \begin{figure}

1491: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f11.eps}

1492: \caption{

1493:   \label{fig:irac2_offset}

1494:   Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:irac4_offset}, but for the IRAC 4.5\micron\ band.

1495: }

1496: \end{figure}

1497: 

1498: \begin{figure}

1499: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.9]{f12.eps}

1500: \caption{

1501:   \label{fig:irs_mips24}

1502:   Percent difference between the synthetic IRS~24\micron\ photometry and

1503:   MIPS~24\micron\ photometry as a function of the MIPS~24\micron\ flux 

1504:   density. The IRS~24\micron\ photometry was computed by integrating the 

1505:   observed IRS spectrum over the MIPS~24\micron\ bandpass. The horizontal

1506:   dashed line is shown for reference.

1507: }

1508: \end{figure}

1509: 

1510: \end{document}

1511: