1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{txfonts}
3: \DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathpzc}{OT1}{pzc}{m}{it}
4: \font\sc=cmcsc10
5: \input epsf
6:
7: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\noi}{\noindent}
10: \newcommand{\bneq}{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\eneq}{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\bet}{\begin{table}}
13: \newcommand{\et}{\end{table}}
14: \newcommand{\btab}{\begin{tabular}}
15: \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabular}}
16: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}
17: \newcommand{\ml}{\multline}
18:
19: \voffset-.6in
20:
21: \title[Kinematic sub-populations in dwarf spheroidal galaxies]{Kinematic sub-populations in dwarf spheroidal galaxies}
22:
23: \author[U. Ural, et al.]
24: {U\v gur Ural$^1$, Mark I. Wilkinson$^1$,
25: Andreas Koch$^2$,
26: Gerard Gilmore$^3$,\newauthor
27: Timothy C. Beers$^4$,
28: Vasily Belokurov$^3$,
29: N. Wyn Evans$^3$,
30: Eva K. Grebel$^5$,\newauthor
31: Simon Vidrih$^5$\thanks{Humboldt Research Fellow},
32: Daniel B. Zucker$^3$\\\\
33: $^1$Department of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom\\
34: $^2$UCLA, Department of Physics and Astronomy,430 Portola Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547, USA\\
35: $^3$Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 OHA, UK\\
36: $^4$Department of Physics \& Astronomy, CSCE: Center for the Study of Cosmic Evolution, and JINA: Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics,\\ Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA\\
37: $^5$Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum f\"{u}r Astronomie der Universit\"{a}t Heidelberg, M\"{o}nchhofstr. 12-14, D-69120
38: Heidelberg, Germany\\
39: }
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: \maketitle
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We present new spectroscopic data for twenty six stars in the
45: recently-discovered Canes Venatici~I (CVnI) dwarf spheroidal
46: galaxy. We use these data to investigate the recent claim of the
47: presence of two dynamically inconsistent stellar populations in this
48: system~\citep{Ibata2006}. We do not find evidence for kinematically
49: distinct populations in our sample and we are able to obtain a mass
50: estimate for CVnI that is consistent with all available data,
51: including previously published data. We discuss possible differences
52: between our sample and the earlier data set and study the general
53: detectability of sub-populations in small kinematic samples. We
54: conclude that in the absence of supporting observational evidence (for
55: example, metallicity gradients), sub-populations in small kinematic
56: samples (typically fewer than 100 stars) should be treated with
57: extreme caution, as their detection depends on multiple parameters and
58: rarely produces a signal at the 3$\sigma$ confidence level. It is
59: therefore essential to determine explicitly the statistical
60: significance of any suggested sub-population.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \begin{keywords}
64: dark matter---galaxies: individual (CVnI dSph)---galaxies: kinematics
65: and dynamics---Local Group---stellar dynamics
66: \end{keywords}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69: \label{sec:intro}
70:
71: It is now widely accepted that the dwarf spheroidal (dSph) satellite
72: galaxies of the Milky Way and Andromeda are the most dark matter
73: dominated stellar systems known in the
74: Universe~\citep[e.g.][]{Mateo1998}. Over the past two decades, a
75: significant amount of observational work has focussed on quantifying
76: both the amount of dark matter in these systems, and its spatial
77: distribution~\citep[e.g.][]{Gilmore2007,Walker2007}. Although recent
78: numerical simulations have shown that many of the dSphs may not be
79: immune to tidal disturbance by the Milky
80: Way~\citep[e.g.][]{Munoz2008,Lokas2008}, their observed properties
81: still require the presence of massive dark matter haloes which protect
82: them against complete tidal disruption. The dSphs thus provide us with
83: nearby laboratories in which to test dark matter theories.
84:
85: Given that dSphs occupy the low luminosity end of the galaxy
86: luminosity function, their star formation histories provide useful
87: insights into the star formation process. Analyses of spatial
88: variations in colour-magnitude diagram morphology provided early
89: evidence of population gradients in a number of
90: dSphs~\citep[e.g.][]{Harbeck2001}. More recently, evidence of
91: metallicity gradients has been found using spectroscopic estimates of
92: [Fe/H]~\citep[e.g.][]{Tolstoy2004,Koch2006,Battaglia2006}. In at least
93: one case, that of the Sculptor dSph, the metal-rich and metal-poor
94: populations have significantly different spatial distributions and
95: kinematics~\citep{Tolstoy2004,Battaglia2008}. Although little evidence
96: of similar features has been found in other
97: dSphs~\citep[e.g.][]{Koch2006, Koch2007a, Koch2007b}, the presence of
98: dynamically distinct stellar populations within dSphs, as well as the
99: complex interplay between the dynamical, spatial and chemical
100: properties of their stars, is of great interest as it has implications
101: for star formation and galaxy evolution.
102:
103: It is, however, important to note that although the hierarchical
104: build-up of structure in the standard $\Lambda$-Cold Dark Matter
105: ($\rm{\Lambda\,CDM}$) paradigm implies that satellite galaxies
106: contribute significantly to the stellar haloes of their hosts,
107: detailed abundance studies of stars in the more luminous dSphs have
108: demonstrated that their properties are significantly different from
109: those of the Milky Way
110: halo~\citep[e.g.][]{Shetrone2001,Helmi2006}. Among the significant
111: differences between the halo and the dSphs, the more important
112: chemical differences are in the
113: alpha-elements~\citep{Unavane1996,Venn2004}. The observed gradients in
114: the heavy element distributions are reproduced by the models of
115: supernova feedback in dSphs developed by~\cite{Marcolini2008}. Thus, it
116: appears that the primordial dwarf satellites, which were disrupted to
117: form the Milky Way halo, had stellar populations distinct from those
118: seen in the present-day dSphs~\citep{Robertson2005, Font2006}.
119:
120: Given their high estimated mass-to-light ratios, the observed dSphs
121: are usually identified with the large population of sub-haloes which
122: are observed to surround Milky Way-sized haloes in cosmological
123: simulations assuming a standard $\rm{\Lambda\,CDM}$ universe. However,
124: it was noted early on that the number of dSphs around the Milky Way
125: was much lower than the expected number of satellite dark matter
126: haloes~\citep[e.g.][]{Moore1999}. A number of possible explanations
127: for the apparent lack of Milky Way satellites have been presented in
128: the literature~\citep[e.g.][]{Stoehr2002, Diemand2005, Moore2006,
129: Strigari2007, Simon2007, Bovill2008}. All these models are based on
130: the reasonable postulate that out of the full population of
131: substructures around the Milky Way, the observed dSphs are merely the
132: particular subset which (for reasons of mass, orbit, formation epoch,
133: re-ionisation, etc.) were able to capture gas, form stars and survive
134: any subsequent tidal interactions with the Milky Way.
135:
136: In addition, the ratio between the predicted and observed
137: numbers of dwarf galaxies has decreased significantly in the past few years
138: due to the
139: discovery of nine new Milky Way dSph
140: satellites~\citep{Willman2005,Zucker2006a,Zucker2006b,Belokurov2006,Belokurov2007,Walsh2007}
141: in the data from the Sloan Digital Sky
142: Survey~\citep[SDSS;][]{York2000}. Since the SDSS covers only about
143: one fifth of the sky, it is thus likely that the total number of
144: satellites surrounding the Milky Way may be at least a factor of five
145: larger than previously thought, although the extrapolation from the
146: SDSS survey to the whole sky requires careful analysis~\citep[see
147: e.g.][]{Tollerud2008} . In order to compare the properties of the newly
148: discovered satellites with those of sub-haloes in cosmological
149: simulations, as well as to confirm their nature as true satellite
150: galaxies of the Milky Way, as opposed to star clusters or disrupted
151: remnants, spectroscopic observations of their member stars are
152: essential in order to estimate dynamical masses from the observed
153: stellar kinematics. The extremely low luminosities of these objects
154: ~\citep[in some cases as low as $10^3$L$_\odot$: ][]{Martin2008b},
155: present significant observational challenges as the kinematic data
156: sets are small, making it difficult to obtain statistically
157: significant results.
158:
159: The Canes Venatici~I (CVnI) dSph is the brightest of the newly
160: discovered population of very faint SDSS
161: dSphs~\citep{Zucker2006a}. ~\cite{Ibata2006} presented spectra for a
162: sample of CVnI member stars obtained using the DEIMOS spectrograph
163: mounted on the Keck telescope. They identified two kinematically
164: distinct stellar populations in this data set: an extended metal-poor
165: population with high velocity dispersion and a centrally-concentrated
166: metal-rich population with a dispersion of almost zero. Their analysis
167: of the mass of CVnI suggested that the two populations might not be in
168: equilibrium as the mass profiles obtained based on the individual
169: populations were inconsistent with each other. However, a subsequent
170: study of CVnI by ~\cite{Simon2007}, using a larger sample of Keck
171: spectra, did not reproduce this bimodality.
172:
173: An important outstanding question is whether the ultra-faint dSphs
174: represent the low-luminosity tail of the dSph population, or are
175: instead the brightest members of a population of hitherto unknown
176: faint stellar systems, distinct from both dSphs and star clusters.
177: The presence of multiple, distinct kinematic populations in a
178: low-luminosity dSph would set it apart from the majority of
179: low-luminosity star clusters. In addition, the presence of a spread in
180: the stellar abundances would suggest an association with the brighter
181: dwarf galaxies and would also be interesting in terms of its
182: implications for star formation. It is thus important to determine
183: whether the sub-population identified by ~\cite{Ibata2006} in CVnI is
184: real. One goal of our study was to shed some light on this issue by
185: using spectra obtained with a different spectrograph to those in the
186: previous two studies of CVnI. In addition, we wanted to investigate
187: the extent to which sub-populations can be reliably detected in the
188: very small kinematic data sets which are observable for the
189: ultra-faint dSphs.
190:
191: In addition to their potential importance for probing the star
192: formation histories of dSphs, kinematic substructures can be used to
193: test another key feature of the hierarchical structure formation
194: paradigm. The fact that dark matter clustering occurs on all scales
195: means that the dSph satellites of the Milky Way are likely to be in
196: the process of accreting their own population of smaller
197: satellites. Although these substructures may not have been able to
198: form their own stars, they may be able to acquire stars from their
199: host dSph. They would then be detectable as localised populations with
200: mean velocity and/or velocity dispersion distinct from that of the
201: dSph. Populations with these properties have, in fact, been detected
202: in the Ursa Minor and Sextans
203: dSphs~\citep{Kleyna2003,Walker2006}. Once a dSph halo begins to fall
204: into the Milky Way, it will cease to accrete new satellites as any
205: nearby substructures will rapidly be removed by the tidal field of the
206: Milky Way and the high relative velocities in the Milky Way halo will
207: preclude the capture of new satellites. Due to the short internal
208: dynamical timescales in dSphs (typically a few hundred Myr), any
209: remaining internal substructures will subsequently be destroyed on
210: timescales of at most a few Gyrs if dSph haloes are cusped, although
211: they can survive much longer if their haloes are
212: cored~\citep{Kleyna2003}. In the standard cusped-halo picture, only
213: those satellites which have been interacting with the Milky Way for
214: less than a few internal dynamical times, either because they are
215: currently passing the Milky Way for the first time as may be the case
216: for the Leo~I dSph~\citep[]{Mateo2008} or the Magellanic Clouds
217: ~\citep[]{Kallivayalil2006, Besla2007,Piatek2008} or because their
218: crossing times are larger~\citep[e.g. the Magellanic
219: Clouds:][]{vanderMarel2002}, would be expected to exhibit localised
220: kinematic substructure. If localised substructures were found to be
221: common in dSphs, this could be difficult to reconcile with a picture
222: in which dSphs occupy cusped haloes. Given that the level of
223: substructure above a given mass fraction is a function of halo mass
224: \citep{Gao2004}, the expected numbers of sub-haloes per dSph requires
225: further investigation by means of cosmological simulations. However,
226: the importance of comparing the level of substructure in dSphs with
227: the results of numerical simulations adds further motivation to our
228: goal of establishing the level of confidence with which
229: sub-populations can be detected in small data sets.
230:
231: The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:cvn}, we
232: present a new kinematic data set for stars in CVnI, based on spectra
233: obtained with the Gemini telescope, and calculate a mass estimate for
234: the galaxy from these data. In Section~\ref{sec:pop}, we look for
235: kinematic sub-populations in our data, and compare our findings with
236: those of ~\cite{Ibata2006}. Section~\ref{sec:det} discusses the
237: general detectability of sub-populations in small kinematic data sets.
238: Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:conc} we draw some general conclusions
239: and suggest possible differences between the two data sets for CVnI
240: that we have compared.
241:
242: \section{Canes Venatici I}
243: \label{sec:cvn}
244:
245: \subsection{Data Reduction}
246: \label{sec:reduction}
247:
248: Twenty eight stars in the CVnI dSph were observed on 2007 March 26 and
249: 2007 April 7 and 8 using the GMOS-N spectrograph mounted on the Gemini
250: North telescope. Our targets were chosen by cross-matching of GMOS-N
251: pre-images (taken in the i-band) with existing SDSS photometry. As
252: Figure~\ref{fig:fcmd1} shows, all the selected stars lie in the red
253: giant branch (RGB) region of the CVnI colour-magnitude diagram
254: (CMD). A total of three GMOS slit-masks were observed, with the
255: spectra centred on the spectral region containing the Ca triplet
256: region (around $860$nm). Our masks covered three distinct fields in
257: CVnI. Figure~\ref{fig:fields} shows the locations of the fields
258: relative to the spatial distribution of stars in CVnI. The masks were
259: cut with slitlets of width 0.75 arcsec.
260:
261: \begin{figure}
262: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
263: \caption{SDSS ($g-i,i$) color-magnitude diagram for stars in a field of radius
264: 15 arcmin centred on CVnI. Our likely CVnI members are indicated as
265: solid triangles. Two velocity outliers are shown as open circles.}
266: \label{fig:fcmd1}
267: \end{figure}
268:
269: \begin{figure}
270: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig2.eps}
271: \caption{Distribution of our GMOS target fields in CVnI. The data
272: points show the positions of stars satisfying our CMD selection
273: cut. The slight excess of stars in the region $-10 < X < 10$ and $-5 <
274: Y < 5$ indicates the location of the main body of CVnI. The ellipse
275: shows the half-light radius of the system, with semi-major axis $8.9$
276: arcmin
277: \protect\citep{Martin2008b}.}
278: \label{fig:fields}
279: \end{figure}
280: The GMOS detector consists of three adjacent CCDs. As the dispersion
281: axis of the slits is perpendicular to the spaces between the CCDs, the
282: spectra contain gaps corresponding to the inter-CCD gaps. In order to
283: achieve continuous wavelength coverage throughout the spectral region
284: of interest, each mask was observed in two configurations with
285: different central wavelengths ($855$nm and $860$nm). All observations
286: were taken using the R831+\_G5302 grating and CaT\_G0309 filter, with
287: 2$\times$4 spectral and spatial binning, respectively. The spectra
288: thus obtained have a nominal resolution of 3600. The three fields were
289: observed for a total of 10,800s, 9,000s and 12,600s, respectively,
290: with the observations divided into individual exposures of 1800s to
291: facilitate cosmic ray removal.
292:
293: The raw data were reduced using the standard {\tt gemini} reduction
294: package which is run within the Image Reduction and Analysis Facility
295: (IRAF)\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
296: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
297: for Research in Astronomy Inc. (AURA), under cooperative agreement
298: with the National Science Foundation.} environment. All data were
299: first bias subtracted and flat-field corrected. The individual
300: spectral traces were identified from flat field images (obtained using
301: Quartz halogen continuum lamp exposures). The wavelength calibration
302: of the spectra was performed using CuAr lamp exposures adjacent in
303: time to the science exposures as calibration frames. The typical
304: r.m.s. uncertainty in the wavelength calibration, obtained by fitting
305: a polynomial to the line positions in the CuAr spectra, was $0.01$\AA,
306: which corresponds to a velocity error of $\sim0.4$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ at a
307: wavelength of $860$nm. This wavelength solution was then applied to
308: the reduced science spectra. Sky subtraction was performed by using
309: the sky flux in the regions of the slit not dominated by light from
310: the target to estimate the sky spectrum. Finally, the object spectra
311: were extracted from the CCD images using a fifth order Chebyshev
312: polynomial fit. Figure~\ref{fig:spectrum} shows examples of a good
313: quality spectrum (top panel), a low quality spectrum (middle panel),
314: and typical quality spectrum (bottom).
315:
316: \begin{figure}
317: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3.eps}
318: \caption{Three sample spectra for stars of magnitude i$=19.7$ (top),
319: i$=20.6$ (middle) and i$=20.1$ (bottom). The quality of the spectrum in the bottom
320: panel is typical of the majority of our stars.}
321: \label{fig:spectrum}
322: \end{figure}
323:
324: \subsection{Velocities}
325: The velocities of the stars were calculated using the {\tt fxcor} task
326: in IRAF to cross-correlate the stellar spectral lines with the lines
327: in a template Ca triplet spectrum. The synthetic template consisted of
328: three Gaussian lines at the wavelengths of the Ca triplet lines, whose
329: widths were chosen to match those typical of RGB stars. We first
330: cross-correlated the individual science exposures as a preliminary
331: diagnostic of whether any spectra were obviously anomalous and should
332: be excluded. As none of the spectra seemed to have serious problems,
333: all frames were used in the velocity calculations and we combined all
334: heliocentric-corrected exposures of the same mask together in order to
335: increase the signal-to-noise.
336:
337: The {\tt fxcor} task returns estimated velocity uncertainties which
338: are based on the Tonry-Davis Ratio for the fitted cross-correlation
339: peak. These errors are often found not to be an accurate reflection of
340: the true uncertainties~\citep[see e.g.][]{Kleyna2002,Munoz2005}. In
341: order to estimate the actual uncertainty in our velocity
342: determinations, we measured separately the velocities $v_1$ and $v_2$
343: for the spectra with central wavelengths 855nm and 860nm,
344: respectively. We combined these estimates to obtain the mean velocity
345: for each star $\overline{v} = 0.5(v_1 + v_2)$ and defined a $\chi^2$
346: statistic via
347: \beq
348: \chi^{2}=\frac{(v_{1}-\overline{v})^{2}}{(dv_{1})^{2}}+\frac{(v_{2}-\overline{v})^{2}}{(dv_{2})^{2}} ,
349: \label{eq:echisq}
350: \eeq
351: where $dv_1$ and $dv_2$ are the formal errors returned by {\tt
352: fxcor}. We then rescaled the velocity errors in our sample by a factor
353: $f$ so that the sum of equation~\ref{eq:echisq} over all stars was
354: $2N$, where $N$ is the size of the velocity sample. Finally, using the
355: rescaled errors, we calculated $P(\chi^2)$ for each star, using the
356: routine {\tt gammq} from Numerical Recipes~\citep{Press1991}. The
357: final velocities and errors are given in
358: Table~\ref{tab:tres}. Following the error rescaling, only one star was
359: found to have an extremely low value of $P(\chi^2)$ ($<10^{-4}$). As
360: Table~\ref{tab:tres} shows, this star also has the largest velocity in
361: the sample and a relatively large estimated velocity error, possibly
362: due its low signal-to-noise ratio, and we therefore excluded it from
363: our final sample. We also excluded one star which has very different
364: radial velocity $v_R=-39.1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ compared to mean velocity of
365: the rest of our target stars ($25.8\pm 0.3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$; see
366: Section~\ref{sec:mass}). Figure~\ref{fig:fv1} shows the velocity
367: histogram for our final sample consisting of $26$ stars. We note that
368: our sample includes 10 stars from the \cite{Ibata2006} and
369: \cite{Martin2007} sample and Figure~\ref{fig:fv2} is a histogram
370: representing the difference between the velocities of these stars from
371: both studies in terms of their $1\sigma$ measurement
372: uncertainties. Thus, we calculate $\Delta \rm v /
373: \langle\sigma\rangle$ as
374: $(v_{Keck}-v_{GMOS})/\sqrt{dv^{2}_{Keck}+dv^{2}_{GMOS}}$, after
375: applying a velocity shift of -3.4 km\,s$^{-1}$ to our estimates in
376: order to bring the median of the two data sets together. The plot
377: shows that apart from the two outliers, at 8.6 and 4.6$\sigma$, with
378: very different velocities in the two sets, the differences are
379: normally distributed. The outliers are possibly stars in binary
380: systems which have changed their velocity between the two
381: observations. The
382: \cite{Ibata2006} data were taken in May 2006, i.e. around ten months
383: earlier than our data. The observed velocity differences of
384: $8-10$km\,s$^{-1}$ over this baseline are consistent with tight binary
385: orbits.
386:
387: \subsection{Metallicities}
388: It is now well-established that the line strength of the near-infrared
389: Ca triplet lines in the spectrum of an RGB star can be used to
390: estimate the [Fe/H] of the star~\citep[e.g.][]{Armandroff1988,
391: Armandroff1991, Carrera2007, Bosler2007}. We note that the accuracy of
392: this method may be less reliable when extrapolating below
393: metallicities of $\sim-2.2$ where globular cluster calibrators are
394: missing~\citep{Koch2008}, although comparisons of high-vs-low
395: resolution data by \cite{Battaglia2008} have shown that CaT-based
396: estimates may be correct down to [Fe/H] $\sim -3$. In practice, we
397: normalized the spectra using a seventh order Legendre polynomial,
398: fitted each of the triplet lines using a Penny
399: function~\citep[see][]{Cole2004}, and integrated the profile over the
400: standard band passes of~\cite{Armandroff1988}. The final [Fe/H]
401: metallicities, on the scale of~\cite{Carretta1997}, were calculated
402: using the calibration of ~\citeauthor{Rutledge1997a}
403: (\citeyear{Rutledge1997a,Rutledge1997b}), namely
404: \beq
405: {\rm[Fe/H]}=-2.66+0.42[\Sigma W+0.64({\rm V}-{\rm V}_{\rm HB})] ,
406: \label{eq:eeqcalib}
407: \eeq
408: where we parameterised the line strength of the Ca triplet as
409: \beq
410: \Sigma W=0.5*w_{1}+w_{2}+0.6*w_{3} ,
411: \label{eq:eeqwidth}
412: \eeq
413: where $w_{1}$, $w_{2}$ and $w_{3}$ are the widths of the individual
414: lines. In Eq.~\ref{eq:eeqcalib}, V is the V-band magnitude of the
415: star, and V$_{\rm HB}$ is the magnitude of the horizontal branch of
416: the system. For the latter, we used a value of $\rm V_{HB}=22.4$,
417: obtained by visual inspection of the (V-I,V) colour-magnitude diagram
418: of CVnI. We note that this is very similar to the value of $\rm V_{HB}=22.5$ used by
419: \cite{Martin2008a}. The uncertainty of $\sim 0.1$ magnitudes in V$_{\rm HB}$
420: gives rise to a negligible additional uncertainty in our [Fe/H]
421: estimates. The random errors on the [Fe/H] metallicities were
422: calculated using the formalism of \cite{Cayrel1988} for the errors on
423: the single line widths and are based on the spectral signal-to-noise
424: ratio. These were then propagated through the calibration equations,
425: accounting for photometric errors. The final metallicity estimates
426: are given in Table~\ref{tab:tres}. Figure~\ref{fig:fres1} shows the
427: distribution of velocity versus [Fe/H] for our CVnI sample. The
428: error-weighted mean [Fe/H] is $-1.9\pm 0.02$ compared to the value of
429: $-2.09\pm 0.02$ found by ~\cite{Simon2007}. We note that all previous
430: studies of CVnI have found a significant spread in [Fe/H], of order
431: 0.5 dex~\citep{Ibata2006,Simon2007,Kirby2008}, and our value thus lies
432: within the range of previous estimates. As the figure shows, there
433: appear to be no obvious correlations between velocity and [Fe/H] in
434: our sample.
435:
436: \begin{figure}
437: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4.eps}
438: \caption{Velocity histogram for our data set of 26 likely members of CVnI.
439: Two obvious velocity outliers (at $44$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and
440: $-39.1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) have been excluded in from the figure.}
441: \label{fig:fv1}
442: \end{figure}
443:
444: \begin{figure}
445: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5.eps}
446: \caption{Histogram of the normalised differences in estimated
447: velocity for the ten stars observed both by us and
448: \protect\cite{Ibata2006}. Differences have been normalised by the
449: combined error from the two estimates (see text for details). Apart
450: from the two significant outliers, the distribution is close to the
451: overplotted Gaussian.}
452: \label{fig:fv2}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: \begin{figure}
456: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig6.eps}
457: \caption{Line of sight velocity versus [Fe/H] for our sample of likely CVnI members.
458: The two obvious velocity outliers have been excluded. }
459: \label{fig:fres1}
460: \end{figure}
461:
462: \begin{table*}
463: \begin{center}
464: \begin{tabular} {l l c c c c c c c c c r}
465: \hline
466: $\alpha$ (J2000) & $\delta$ (J2000) & V & I & g & i& $v_{\rm r}$ (km\,s$^{-1}$) & $dv_{\rm r}$ & $\sum$W & d$\sum$W & [Fe/H] & $d$[Fe/H] \\\hline
467: $13\,28\,10.07$ & $+33\,33\,41.6$ & $ 20.2$ & $ 19.2 $ & $ 20.7 $ & $ 19.7$ & $29.2$ & $1.7$ & $ 3.12 $ & $ 0.07 $ & $ -1.93 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
468: $13\,28\,10.31$ & $+33\,33\,06.0$ & $ 19.8$ & $ 18.6 $ & $ 20.3 $ & $ 19.1$ & $39.9$ & $1.6$ & $ 3.02 $ & $ 0.05 $ & $ -2.09 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
469: $13\,28\,16.78$ & $+33\,32\,54.0$ & $ 20.6$ & $ 19.6 $ & $ 21.1 $ & $ 20.0$ & $21.9$ & $2.4$ & $ 2.83 $ & $ 0.08 $ & $ -1.95 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
470: $13\,28\,15.00$ & $+33\,32\,01.6$ & $ 20.8$ & $ 19.9 $ & $ 21.3 $ & $ 20.3$ & $30.4$ & $2.1$ & $ 2.72 $ & $ 0.14 $ & $ -1.93 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
471: $13\,28\,18.31$ & $+33\,33\,17.3$ & $ 20.8$ & $ 19.9 $ & $ 21.2 $ & $ 20.4$ & $14.5$ & $1.9$ & $ 2.96 $ & $ 0.11 $ & $ -1.84 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
472: $13\,28\,08.49$ & $+33\,33\,29.4$ & $ 21.2$ & $ 20.2 $ & $ 21.5 $ & $ 20.6$ & $35.2$ & $2.4$ & $ 2.94 $ & $ 0.19 $ & $ -1.76 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
473: $13\,28\,08.82$ & $+33\,34\,41.2$ & $ 19.9$ & $ 18.8 $ & $ 20.4 $ & $ 19.2$ & $25.9$ & $1.5$ & $ 3.22 $ & $ 0.05 $ & $ -1.97 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
474: $13\,28\,10.35$ & $+33\,34\,27.7$ & $ 20.2$ & $ 19.1 $ & $ 20.7 $ & $ 19.5$ & $24.4$ & $1.5$ & $ 3.55 $ & $ 0.06 $ & $ -1.76 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
475: $13\,28\,16.23$ & $+33\,34\,09.9$ & $ 20.2$ & $ 19.0 $ & $ 20.7 $ & $ 19.5$ & $24.8$ & $1.6$ & $ 3.81 $ & $ 0.10 $ & $ -1.66 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
476: $13\,28\,11.31$ & $+33\,35\,06.1$ & $ 20.8$ & $ 19.7 $ & $ 21.3 $ & $ 20.2$ & $21.9$ & $1.8$ & $ 3.77 $ & $ 0.15 $ & $ -1.51 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
477: $13\,28\,07.19$ & $+33\,36\,05.4$ & $ 20.2$ & $ 19.1 $ & $ 20.7 $ & $ 19.5$ & $23.8$ & $1.0$ & $ 2.51 $ & $ 0.08 $ & $ -2.19 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
478: $13\,28\,13.74$ & $+33\,35\,55.6$ & $ 19.7$ & $ 18.5 $ & $ 20.2 $ & $ 18.9$ & $21.3$ & $1.3$ & $ 3.19 $ & $ 0.06 $ & $ -2.05 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
479: $13\,28\,24.02$ & $+33\,35\,32.7$ & $ 21.0$ & $ 20.1 $ & $ 21.4 $ & $ 20.5$ & $44.0$ & $3.2$ & $ 2.23 $ & $ 0.18 $ & $ -2.09 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
480: $13\,27\,38.76$ & $+33\,32\,55.3$ & $ 20.0$ & $ 18.8 $ & $ 20.5 $ & $ 19.3$ & $12.3$ & $1.4$ & $ 2.65 $ & $ 0.05 $ & $ -2.19 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
481: $13\,27\,33.80$ & $+33\,32\,57.3$ & $ 20.8$ & $ 19.7 $ & $ 21.2 $ & $ 20.1$ & $31.9$ & $1.4$ & $ 3.20 $ & $ 0.09 $ & $ -1.75 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
482: $13\,27\,28.41$ & $+33\,33\,26.3$ & $ 20.8$ & $ 19.7 $ & $ 21.3 $ & $ 20.2$ & $-39.1$ & $2.0$ & $ 4.26 $ & $ 0.13 $ & $ -1.29 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
483: $13\,27\,28.29$ & $+33\,32\,10.6$ & $ 19.6$ & $ 18.3 $ & $ 20.2 $ & $ 18.8$ & $26.9$ & $1.6$ & $ 4.06 $ & $ 0.13 $ & $ -1.70 $ & $ 0.13 $ \\
484: $13\,27\,30.35$ & $+33\,32\,04.3$ & $ 21.1$ & $ 20.1 $ & $ 21.5 $ & $ 20.6$ & $15.6$ & $2.1$ & $ 3.01 $ & $ 0.13 $ & $ -1.73 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
485: $13\,27\,30.78$ & $+33\,29\,38.9$ & $ 20.6$ & $ 19.6 $ & $ 21.1 $ & $ 20.1$ & $19.8$ & $1.8$ & $ 4.12 $ & $ 0.14 $ & $ -1.41 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
486: $13\,27\,31.21$ & $+33\,29\,59.2$ & $ 19.3$ & $ 17.9 $ & $ 19.9 $ & $ 18.4$ & $14.8$ & $1.1$ & $ 4.01 $ & $ 0.05 $ & $ -1.81 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
487: $13\,27\,16.19$ & $+33\,32\,22.2$ & $ 20.1$ & $ 18.9 $ & $ 20.6 $ & $ 19.4$ & $21.0$ & $1.2$ & $ 2.98 $ & $ 0.05 $ & $ -2.02 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
488: $13\,28\,52.91$ & $+33\,29\,26.0$ & $ 19.8$ & $ 18.5 $ & $ 20.3 $ & $ 19.0$ & $31.3$ & $1.7$ & $ 3.11 $ & $ 0.06 $ & $ -2.07 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
489: $13\,28\,46.21$ & $+33\,30\,49.7$ & $ 21.1$ & $ 20.1 $ & $ 21.4 $ & $ 20.5$ & $35.9$ & $1.9$ & $ 3.29 $ & $ 0.18 $ & $ -1.67 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
490: $13\,28\,50.64$ & $+33\,31\,20.9$ & $ 20.0$ & $ 18.8 $ & $ 20.5 $ & $ 19.3$ & $42.1$ & $1.6$ & $ 2.93 $ & $ 0.11 $ & $ -2.07 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
491: $13\,28\,50.29$ & $+33\,32\,31.6$ & $ 19.7$ & $ 18.4 $ & $ 20.3 $ & $ 18.9$ & $37.0$ & $1.3$ & $ 4.24 $ & $ 0.13 $ & $ -1.60 $ & $ 0.13 $ \\
492: $13\,28\,45.29$ & $+33\,31\,35.1$ & $ 21.0$ & $ 20.0 $ & $ 21.4 $ & $ 20.4$ & $37.1$ & $2.1$ & $ 3.05 $ & $ 0.15 $ & $ -1.76 $ & $ 0.11 $ \\
493: $13\,28\,53.47$ & $+33\,33\,22.5$ & $ 20.7$ & $ 19.7 $ & $ 21.1 $ & $ 20.1$ & $22.1$ & $1.9$ & $ 2.12 $ & $ 0.14 $ & $ -2.21 $ & $ 0.10 $ \\
494: $13\,28\,44.26$ & $+33\,34\,11.8$ & $ 19.5$ & $ 18.3 $ & $ 20.0 $ & $ 18.7$ & $31.0$ & $1.7$ & $ 2.47 $ & $ 0.08 $ & $ -2.40 $ & $ 0.12 $ \\
495: \hline
496: \end{tabular}
497: \caption{Summary of properties of our CVnI data. Columns give:
498: (1) Right ascension; (2) Declination; (3,4) V and I magnitudes,
499: calculated from SDSS photometry using the transformations of Lupton
500: (2005:
501: http://www.sdss.org/dr4/algorithms/sdssUBVRITransform.html\#Lupton). Lupton
502: derived these equations by matching photometry from SDSS Data Release
503: 4 to Stetson's published photometry; (5,6) SDSS g, i magnitudes; (7,8)
504: radial velocity and error, in km\,s$^{-1}$; (9,10) combined equivalent
505: width of Ca triplet lines, with error, obtained using
506: equation~\ref{eq:eeqwidth}; (11,12) estimated metallicity [Fe/H], with
507: error, obtained using equation~\ref{eq:eeqcalib}. Note that one star
508: ($v = -39.1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) is a clear outlier from the mean velocity
509: of $v = 25.8\pm 0.3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. A second outlier has $v =
510: 44$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and also a relatively large error of $dv =
511: 3.2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for our sample. We therefore exclude these two
512: stars from our analysis.}
513: \label{tab:tres}
514: \end{center}
515: \end{table*}
516:
517: \subsection{Mass Calculation}
518: \label{sec:mass}
519:
520: In order to estimate the mass of CVnI, we calculate the velocity
521: dispersion of the system using the new velocity set that we obtained
522: in the previous section. We use a maximum likelihood method
523: ~\citep[e.g. ][]{Kleyna2004} to calculate the velocity dispersion and
524: the mean velocity of our data. We apply an iterative $3\sigma$ cut in
525: velocity - however, we note that this did not remove any stars (ie. it
526: converged after a single iteration). Based on the CMD in
527: Figure~\ref{fig:fcmd1}, we do not expect significant foreground
528: contamination in our velocity sample, and we therefore use all 26 of
529: our stars when estimating the dispersion. We find a dispersion of
530: $\sigma = 7.9^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and a mean velocity of $v=
531: 25.8\pm 0.3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The latter is somewhat smaller than the
532: value of $v =30.9\pm 0.6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ found by
533: \cite{Simon2007}. \cite{Ibata2006} found dispersions of
534: $13.9$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $0.5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for the two populations
535: they identified. As we discuss below, we do not find evidence of
536: multiple populations in our data and we therefore quote only a single
537: value for the dispersion.
538:
539: Following ~\cite{Ibata2006} we use our dispersion measurement to
540: constrain the mass of CVnI. In order to proceed we need to
541: parameterise the spatial distribution of our data. We assume that our
542: tracer population is drawn from a Plummer distribution and we find the
543: scalelength for which the likelihood of the positions of our tracer
544: data set is maximised. Based on the positions of our tracer stars
545: only, we find a Plummer scalelength of $a=4.62$~arcmin, which is
546: smaller than the value of $8.5\pm 0.5$~arcmin found by
547: ~\cite{Zucker2006a} and $8.9\pm0.4$~arcmin found by ~\cite{Martin2008b}
548: for the full stellar distribution. The mass is then calculated
549: using the isotropic Jeans equation ~\citep[][eq. 4.56]{Binney1987},
550: under the additional assumption of spherical symmetry.
551:
552: We find a mass of $4.4^{+1.6}_{-1.1} \times10^7 M_\odot$ within the
553: volume probed by our data (i.e. out to a radius of $11$~arcmin). The
554: mass-to-light ratio is calculated assuming a luminosity of $\mbox{L}=
555: (2.3\pm0.3)\times10^5$ L$_\odot$ ~\citep[]{Martin2008b}. Assuming
556: symmetric errors we find $\mbox{M/L}=192\pm76\,$M$_\odot$/L$_\odot$.
557: If we take the value of the scalelength reported by \cite{Zucker2006a}
558: to be that of our tracers, we obtain a mass of
559: $3.3^{+1}_{-2}\times10^7 M_\odot$. We note that both these estimates
560: are larger than the mass of M$=(2.7\pm 0.4)\times10^7 M_\odot $
561: reported by ~\cite{Simon2007} using their larger data set. The
562: difference is probably due to our assumption of a constant velocity
563: dispersion profile, while the assumption of mass-follows-light was
564: implicitly made by those authors. ~\cite{Ibata2006} obtained two very
565: different mass estimates using the distinct populations which they
566: identified in their data. An important point to keep in mind while
567: dealing with small data sets is that the Jeans equations remain valid
568: for density-weighted averages of the spatial distributions, velocity
569: dispersion profiles and velocity anisotropy profiles of multiple
570: tracer populations~\citep[]{Strigari2007}. Thus, it is legitimate to
571: use a data set which may contain multiple sub-populations when
572: estimating the mass of the system. As long as all sub-populations
573: are in dynamical equilibrium, this estimate will be more reliable than
574: the noisier estimates based on the smaller, individual populations.
575:
576: \section{Sub-populations}
577: \label{sec:pop}
578:
579: \subsection{Canes Venatici I}
580:
581: As we noted above, ~\cite{Ibata2006} identified two kinematically
582: distinct populations in CVnI. Given the potential importance of
583: sub-populations in dSphs discussed in the introduction, we now
584: investigate whether our data exhibit any evidence of multiple
585: populations. Although Fig.\ref{fig:fres1} shows a wide scatter in the
586: abundances that might be due to an extended star formation period, no
587: clear signature of distinct sub-populations is seen. In order to
588: confirm this visual impression more quantitatively, we fitted our
589: velocity distribution with multiple Gaussians and tested the
590: significance of the fits using Monte Carlo realisations of our
591: data. Our approach, which is essentially a likelihood ratio test, is
592: similar to the KMM test ~\citep[]{Ashman1994} which is designed to
593: detect multiple Gaussian populations with different means and
594: dispersions within a single data set, although unlike the KMM test we
595: do not include a determination of which sub-population the individual
596: stars belong to.
597:
598:
599: The first step of this process was to fit a single Gaussian to our
600: velocity data. We then repeated the fit for a two-Gaussian model in
601: which a fraction $f$ of the data belonged to a population with mean
602: $\overline{v_{1}}$ and dispersion $\sigma_{1}$, and the remaining data
603: had mean $\overline {v_{2}}$ and dispersion $\sigma_{2}$. As
604: expected, the two-Gaussian model yielded higher likelihoods. In order
605: to determine whether this was only due to the increased number of
606: fitting parameters or was a real detection, we tested the significance
607: of the results with artificial data. To do this, we generated 1000
608: data sets of 26 stars drawn from a single Gaussian and calculated the
609: improvement of the fit with a two-Gaussian model. The distribution of
610: probability ratios $\Delta P$ is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:frealtest1}.
611: The value we obtained for our CVnI data is shown as the single dot in
612: the Figure (upper panel). As this point coincides with the peak
613: obtained by fitting two Gaussians to artificial data consisting of a
614: single population, we conclude that we do not see evidence for a
615: second population in our data. The panel on the bottom of
616: figure~\ref{fig:frealtest1} shows the equivalent test for the
617: ~\cite{Ibata2006} data \citep[where we have taken the data for their
618: 26 stars with S/N $>15$ as listed in Table~2 of ][]{Martin2007}. In
619: this case the improvement is larger than would be expected to arise by
620: chance in a single-Gaussian data set. We note that a similar result is
621: obtained when the two data sets are combined. Therefore we conclude
622: that there is evidence of a second population containing $40$ per cent
623: of the total number of stars, in the \cite{Ibata2006} data set, at
624: almost the $3\sigma$ confidence level. We find that the dispersions of
625: these populations are $0.6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $13.6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$,
626: respectively. Although these values are similar to those found by
627: \cite{Ibata2006}, we note that the populations we have identified may
628: be different to those in that paper, as in that case the separation of the
629: populations included an explicit velocity cut.
630:
631: \begin{figure}
632: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig7a.eps}
633: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig7b.eps}
634: \caption{Distribution of likelihood ratios $\Delta P = \log P_2-\log P_1$
635: between a single-Gaussian fit ($P_1$) and a two-Gaussian fit ($P_2$)
636: to 1000 Monte Carlo realisations of 26 stars drawn from a single
637: Gaussian distribution. The single dots indicate the values obtained
638: for our GMOS-N data (upper panel) and the Keck data of
639: \protect\cite{Ibata2006} (bottom panel). Although there is no
640: evidence of multiple populations in our data, a sub-population
641: containing a fraction of $40$ per cent of the stars is detected in the
642: \protect\cite{Ibata2006} data. See text for a detailed discussion.}
643: \label{fig:frealtest1}
644: \end{figure}
645:
646: \subsection{Detectability}
647: \label{sec:det}
648: \begin{figure*}
649: \begin{minipage}[hl]{0.3\linewidth}
650: \centering
651: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig8a.eps}
652: \end{minipage}
653: \hspace{0.5cm}
654: \begin{minipage}[h]{0.3\linewidth}
655: \centering
656: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig8b.eps}
657: \end{minipage}
658: \hspace{0.5cm}
659: \begin{minipage}[h]{0.3\linewidth}
660: \centering
661: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig8c.eps}
662: \end{minipage}\caption{Histograms illustrating the detectability of
663: sub-populations as a function of sample size. The two histograms in
664: each panel show the distribution of likelihood differences $\Delta P =
665: \log P_2-\log P_1$ between a single-Gaussian fit ($P_1$) and a two-Gaussian fit
666: ($P_2$) for data sets having either a single population (dashed
667: histogram) or two equal-sized populations (solid histogram). The
668: velocity error is constant: $dv=2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The total number of
669: stars is 120 in the left panel, 60 in the middle panel and 30 in the
670: right panel. As expected, the histograms merge together as the number
671: of stars decreases and the detection of a sub-population becomes more
672: difficult.}
673: \label{fig:fnumber}
674: \end{figure*}
675:
676: Having considered our CVnI data set, in this section we investigate
677: the more general question of when sub-populations can be reliably
678: detected in small kinematic data sets. A limitation of our study is
679: that, for simplicity, we are working entirely with Gaussian
680: populations. However, our results will be conservative in the sense
681: that mixtures of non-Gaussian populations are likely to be more
682: difficult to disentangle.
683:
684: The detectability of a sub-population depends on i) the total number of
685: stars in the data set; ii) the fraction of stars in the sub-population;
686: iii) the difference in velocity dispersion between the populations;
687: iv) the observational errors on the velocities. We investigate the
688: importance of each of these in turn.
689:
690: The total number of the stars is crucial for the detection of multiple
691: populations. Figure~\ref{fig:fnumber} shows three tests done with
692: data sets of $N=120$,~$60$ and $30$ stars. In each panel a comparison
693: is made between data sets that have either a single population or two
694: populations containing equal numbers ($N/2$) of stars. Motivated by
695: the case of CVnI, we consider data sets having two sub-populations
696: with $\sigma=13$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $\sigma=1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The two
697: populations are thus clearly distinct and we are thus isolating the
698: effect of the sample size in the result. In Figure~\ref{fig:fnumber},
699: we plot the improvement in probability obtained using a two-Gaussian
700: fit to the single and double populations as dashed and solid
701: histograms, respectively. We determine the $1\sigma$ and $3\sigma$
702: range of the distribution of values obtained from the single
703: population (control) sample , and define a ($1\sigma$) $3\sigma$
704: detection of a sub-population to be one in which $\Delta P$ is larger
705: than the $1\sigma$ ($3\sigma$) limits of the control sample. Although
706: the difference between the dispersions is large, as we reduce the
707: sample size, the significance of the detection of multiple populations
708: decreases, as would be expected. Nevertheless, even for $N=30$ stars,
709: in 34.8 per cent (97.5 per cent) of cases, the subpopulation is
710: detected at the $3\sigma$ ($1\sigma$) confidence level.
711:
712:
713:
714: The next parameter that we study is the fractional size of the
715: sub-populations. This is important for the CVnI populations, since it
716: is possible that a cold population in the centre could have been
717: missed in our sample if it contained a smaller number of stars. Our
718: preliminary tests showed that a cold population could not be detected
719: even in a large sample if it only made up $\sim 0.1$ of the total
720: number of stars. Figure~\ref{fig:ffraction} shows results for cold
721: populations with fractional sizes $f=0.3$ , $f=0.5$ and $f=0.7$. In
722: this test, the dispersions of the sub-populations are
723: $13$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and the velocity error is
724: $2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. For $120$ stars, a $3\sigma$ detection was made for
725: all the samples with a cold population of fractional size $f=0.5$ and
726: $f=0.7$. We found (see Figure~\ref{fig:ffraction}) that when the cold
727: population has a smaller fractional size in the sample i.e. $f=0.3$,
728: it was detected in 75.1 per cent (99.8 per cent) of cases at the
729: $3\sigma$ ($1\sigma$) level. It is thus easier to detect a
730: sub-population if its dispersion is larger than that of the main
731: population, rather than a cold sub-population.
732:
733:
734:
735: We next consider the impact of velocity errors on our ability to
736: detect multiple populations with similar velocity dispersions. The
737: sub-populations in this case have $\sigma_1=7$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and
738: $\sigma_2=4$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. As Figure~\ref{fig:fdv} shows, decreasing
739: the errors from $dv=2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to $dv=1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ gives
740: rise to a small change in the distribution of $\Delta P$
741: values. However, this does not lead to a significant increase in the
742: probability of detecting the multiple populations. We therefore
743: conclude that velocity errors at the $1-2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (similar to
744: the CVnI data) do not affect our ability to identify sub-populations.
745:
746: Finally, to see the effect of the difference between the velocity
747: dispersions of the populations we investigate samples in which the
748: main population has a dispersion of $15$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ while the cold
749: sub-populations have dispersions ranging from $\sigma=1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$
750: to $14$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. We consider two sample sizes, with a total
751: number of either $120$ or $60$ stars. We find that even for a
752: relatively large sample of stars ($N=120$), a $3\sigma$ detection is
753: possible for all the samples only when
754: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})\leq1.1$, i.e. when the velocity
755: dispersions of the individual populations are
756: $\sigma_{1}=15$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $\sigma_{2}=1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. A
757: $1\sigma$ level detection is possible for all 1000 samples for
758: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})\leq1.3$, in which case the
759: sub-populations' dispersions are $\sigma_{1}=15$\,km\,s$^{-1}$,
760: $\sigma_{2}=3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. However populations with
761: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})\leq1.4$ and
762: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})\leq1.9$ can be detected at
763: $3\sigma$ and $1\sigma$ levels for 68 per cent of the 1000
764: samples. For a smaller sample ($N=60$), a $3\sigma$ detection for all
765: samples is not possible for even the largest ratios of of
766: $\sigma_{1}/\sigma_{2}$. In this case $3\sigma$ and $1\sigma$
767: detections for 68 per cent of the samples require
768: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})\leq1.3$ and
769: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})\leq1.7$ respectively. We note
770: that the claimed CVnI populations in ~\cite{Ibata2006} have an even
771: more extreme dispersion difference
772: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})=1.04$. A Monte Carlo experiment
773: with 26 stars and this dispersion ratio shows that in this case
774: populations can be identified with $3\sigma$ confidence in 90.5 per
775: cent of the samples. Table~\ref{tab:tdet} summarises our results for
776: the full range of dispersions ratios we have considered.
777:
778: \begin{figure}
779: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig9.eps}
780: \caption{Histograms illustrating the effect of the relative
781: sizes of the populations. As in previous figures, the histograms show
782: the distribution of likelihood differences $\Delta P = \log P_2-\log
783: P_1$ between a single-Gaussian fit ($P_1$) and a two-Gaussian fit
784: ($P_2$) to the data sets. The histograms are plotted for a single
785: population (dot-dashed line), and for double populations including a
786: cold sub-population consisting of 30 per cent (dotted), 50 per cent
787: (dashed line) and 70 per cent (solid line) of the total sample of 120
788: stars. See text for a discussion.}
789: \label{fig:ffraction}
790: \end{figure}∑
791:
792: \begin{figure}
793: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig10a.eps}
794: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig10b.eps}
795: \caption{Histograms illustrating the effect of velocity errors on the detection of
796: sub-populations with similar velocity dispersions. The total number of
797: stars is 120 and the sub-populations contain equal numbers of
798: stars. In each case, the double-populated sample with $\sigma_1 =
799: 7$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and $\sigma_2 = 4$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ is shown by the
800: solid-line histogram and compared to a single population system with
801: $\sigma= 7$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, shown as a dotted histogram. In the top
802: panel, the velocity errors for both histograms are $dv =
803: 2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. As this error is relatively large compared to the
804: difference in the dispersion, in the bottom panel we repeat the same
805: experiment with $dv = 1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.}
806: \label{fig:fdv}
807: \end{figure}
808: \begin{table}
809: \begin{center}
810: \begin{tabular} {l c c r}
811: \hline
812: $\sigma_{1}/(\sigma_{1}-\sigma_{2})$ & N & $N> \sigma$ & $ \rm N > 3 \sigma$ \\\hline
813: & $120$ stars &$1000$& $1000$ \\ [-1ex]
814: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.1$} & $60$ stars &$1000$ & $984$ \\ [1ex]
815: & $120$ stars &$1000$& $999$ \\ [-1ex]
816: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.2$} & $60$ stars &$999$ & $895$ \\ [1ex]
817: & $120$ stars &$1000$& $963$ \\ [-1ex]
818: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.3$} & 60 stars &$989$ & $685$ \\ [1ex]
819: & $120$ stars &$997$ & $782$ \\ [-1ex]
820: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.4$} & 60 stars & $946$ & $397$ \\ [1ex]
821: & $120$ stars &$966$ & $480$ \\ [-1ex]
822: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.5$} & 60 stars & $851$ & $189$ \\ [1ex]
823: & $120$ stars &$874$ & $203$ \\ [-1ex]
824: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.7$} & 60 stars & $711$ & $82$ \\ [1ex]
825: & $120$ stars &$738$ & $72$ \\ [-1ex]
826: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$1.9$} & 60stars & $572$ & $31$ \\ [1ex]
827: & $120$ stars &$562$ & $28$ \\ [-1ex]
828: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$2.1$} & 60 stars & $451$ & $12$ \\ [1ex]
829: & $120$ stars &$424$ & $5$ \\ [-1ex]
830: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$2.5$} & 60 stars & $347$ & $4$ \\ [1ex]
831: & $120$ stars &$313$ & $4$ \\ [-1ex]
832: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$3.$} & 60 stars & $276$ & $2$ \\ [1ex]
833: & $120$ stars &$227$ & $1$ \\ [-1ex]
834: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$3.8$} & 60 stars & $228$ & $2$ \\ [1ex]
835: & $120$ stars &$193$ & $0$ \\ [-1ex]
836: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$5$} & 60 stars & $195$ & $1$ \\ [1ex]
837: & $120$ stars &$160$ & $0$ \\ [-1ex]
838: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$7.5.$} & 60 stars & $174$ & $1$ \\ [1ex]
839: & $120$ stars &$145$ & $0$ \\ [-1ex]
840: \raisebox{1.5ex}{$15$} & 60 stars & $154$ & $1$ \\ [1ex]
841: \end{tabular}
842: \caption{Confidence limits for the detection of sub-populations with
843: different kinematics. Columns are: (1) Ratio of main velocity
844: dispersion $\sigma_1$ to the difference between the populations
845: $\sigma_1-\sigma_2$; (2) total number of stars in the data set; (3)
846: Number of two-population samples for which $\Delta P$ is greater than
847: the $1\sigma$ upper limit of $\Delta P$ obtained from
848: single-population samples; (4) Number of two-population samples for
849: which $\Delta P$ is greater than the $3\sigma$ upper limit of $\Delta
850: P$ obtained from single-population samples. We compare populations of
851: 60 and 120 stars containing two sub-populations. In each case
852: $\sigma_1=15$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ while $\sigma_2$ lies in the range
853: $1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ to $14$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Each dispersion ratio has been
854: tested for 1000 data sets.}
855: \label{tab:tdet}
856: \end{center}
857: \end{table}
858:
859: \section{Conclusions}
860: \label{sec:conc}
861:
862: In this paper, we have presented a new data set of velocities and
863: metallicities for the Canes Venatici I (CVnI) dSph based on spectra
864: taken with the GMOS-North spectrograph. A maximum likelihood fit to
865: the velocity distribution yields a mean velocity of $v=
866: 25.8\pm0.3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and a dispersion of $\sigma
867: =7.9^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Assuming a constant, isotropic
868: velocity dispersion and a Plummer profile for the mass distribution,
869: we find a mass of $4.4^{+1.6}_{-1.1}\times10^7 M_\odot$ in the volume
870: where our tracer stars are located. Although this value is larger than
871: the value $2.7\pm 0.4\times 10^7 M_\odot$ calculated by
872: ~\cite{Simon2007},this is most likely due to the assumptions made for
873: our models and the distribution of our particular subsets of stars.
874:
875:
876: One of the original aims of our study was to investigate the claimed
877: multiple stellar populations in CVnI. As we discussed above, the two
878: previous studies by ~\cite{Ibata2006} and ~\cite{Simon2007} did not
879: agree on the existence of a cold sub-population in CVnI. The two
880: populations found in the former study were puzzling as they led to two
881: different mass estimates. The authors suggested that this might
882: indicate that the system had recently accreted a younger population
883: and was not yet in equilibrium.
884:
885: In this paper we looked for evidence of multiple populations in our
886: data under the assumption that each population was Gaussian. Based on
887: this analysis, we concluded that there was no reason to suspect the
888: presence of a second population in our data. We also applied our
889: analysis to the \cite{Ibata2006} data where we found evidence of a
890: statistically significant sub-population with a dispersion of $\sigma
891: =0.6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (compared to $\sigma =13.6$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for
892: the main population).
893:
894: Our analysis suggests that there is a qualitative difference between
895: our data and those of \cite{Ibata2006}. Although further data would be
896: necessary to resolve this issue, we note that the spatial
897: distributions of these two data sets are different, which could
898: potentially account for the differences in the detected populations.
899: However, our central field is centred close to the blue/young star population which
900: \cite{Martin2008a} find in their photometry from the Large Binocular
901: Telescope, and which they identify with the cold population of
902: \cite{Ibata2006}. The exact fraction of stars in each population found by
903: \cite{Martin2008a} is currently unclear, however, and so it is possible that
904: we have not picked up any stars associated with the cold population.
905:
906: We have also carried out a study of the detectability of
907: sub-populations in small kinematic data sets. Under the assumption of
908: Gaussian populations, we studied the effects of four parameters. We
909: obtained confidence limits for the detection of sub-populations in
910: samples with different numbers of stars, different population ratios
911: and velocity dispersions. We found that reasonable errors on the
912: observed velocities do not affect the detectability of the
913: sub-populations. For a given sample size, our ability to detect two
914: populations increased as the ratio of their dispersions
915: $\sigma_{1}/\sigma_{2}$ increased. However, even for large
916: $\sigma_{1}/\sigma_{2}$ and equal population size, a sample of 30
917: stars yielded a $3\sigma$ detection in only $\sim35$ per cent of
918: cases. As expected, for larger sample sizes, this detection rate was
919: significantly higher. We also showed that a cold population needs to
920: constitute a larger fraction of the total sample than is required to
921: detect a hot sub-population. This suggests that the robust detection
922: of the sub-populations associated with any surviving sub-haloes within
923: a dSph would require samples of many hundreds of velocities. In this
924: case, localised substructures could be detected by windowing the data,
925: provided that a window whose spatial size coincided with plausible
926: sub-halo scales would contain a sample of at least 100 stars. As such
927: data sets are now becoming available for many of the larger dSphs,
928: this test may soon be feasible. We note that the claim of multiple
929: global populations in Sculptor~\citep[]{Tolstoy2004} was based on a
930: large data set and is therefore still robust.
931:
932: Finally, we note that all our significance tests were based on the
933: assumption of Gaussian populations, which was the case for all our
934: Monte Carlo samples. However, for real data, the true distributions
935: will not be known, and are not necessarily well-approximated by
936: Gaussians. It is therefore difficult in a real case to assign a robust
937: statistical significance to a particular detection of a
938: sub-population.
939:
940: As we have shown, for small data sets, many Monte Carlo realisations
941: do not yield significant detections of the sub-populations. In the
942: absence of a robust estimate of the confidence level of a particular
943: detection, or additional, independent evidence of the presence of
944: multiple populations, we conclude that one should exercise great
945: caution in decomposing data sets of fewer than $100$ stars into
946: multiple populations.
947:
948: \section*{Acknowledgments}
949: UU acknowledges funding from the European Commission under the Marie
950: Curie Host Fellowship for Early Stage Research Training SPARTAN,
951: Contract No MEST-CT-2004-007512, University of Leicester, UK. MIW
952: acknowledges support from a Royal Society University Research
953: Fellowship. T.C.B. acknowledges partial funding of this work
954: from grants AST 07-07776 and PHY 02-16783: Physics Frontiers Center / Joint
955: Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics (JINA), awarded by the U.S. National
956: Science Foundation.
957:
958: Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by
959: the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a
960: cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the
961: National Science Foundation (United States), the Science and Technology
962: Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada),
963: CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil)
964: and CONICET (Argentina). Program ID: GN-2007A-Q-66.
965:
966: \begin{thebibliography}{}
967:
968: \bibitem[Armandroff(1991)]{Armandroff1991} Armandroff T.~E., Da Costa
969: G.~S., 1991, AJ, 101, 1329
970:
971: \bibitem[Armandroff \& Zinn(1988)]{Armandroff1988} Armandroff,
972: T.~A., Zinn, R., 1988, AJ, 96, 92
973:
974: \bibitem[Ashman, Bird,
975: \& Zepf(1994)]{Ashman1994} Ashman K.~M., Bird C.~M., Zepf S.~E., 1994, AJ, 108, 2348
976:
977: \bibitem[Battaglia et al.(2006)]{Battaglia2006} Battaglia G., et al.,
978: 2006, A\&A, 459, 423
979:
980: \bibitem[Battaglia et al.(2008)]{Battaglia2008} Battaglia G., Helmi A.,
981: Tolstoy E., Irwin M., Hill V., Jablonka P., 2008, Apj, 681, 13
982:
983: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2006)]{Belokurov2006} Belokurov V., et al.,
984: 2006, ApJ, 647, 111
985:
986: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2007)]{Belokurov2007} Belokurov V., et al.,
987: 2007, ApJ, 654, 897
988:
989: \bibitem[Besla et al.(2007)]{Besla2007}Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist,
990: L., Robertson, B., Cox, T.~J., van der Marel, R.~P., Alcock, C., 2007, ApJ,
991: 668, 949.
992:
993: \bibitem[Binney
994: \& Tremaine(1987)]{Binney1987} Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, ``Galactic
995: Dynamics'', Princeton University Press.
996:
997:
998: \bibitem[Bosler et al.(2007)]{Bosler2007}Bosler, T.~L.,
999: Smecker-Hane, T.~A., Stetson, P.~B., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 318.
1000:
1001:
1002: \bibitem[Bovill \& Ricotti (2008)]{Bovill2008} Bovill, M.~S., Ricotti, M.,
1003: 2008, arXiv:0806.2340
1004:
1005:
1006: \bibitem[Carrera et al.(2007)]{Carrera2007}Carrera, R.,
1007: Gallart, C., Pancino, E., Zinn, R., 2007, AJ, 134, 1298.
1008:
1009:
1010: \bibitem[Carretta \& Gratton(1997)]{Carretta1997}
1011: Carretta, E.; Gratton, R. G., A\&AS, 121,95.
1012:
1013:
1014: \bibitem[Cayrel(1988)]{Cayrel1988}Cayrel, R., 1988, IAUS, 132, 345
1015:
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Cole et al.(2004)]{Cole2004} Cole A.~A., Smecker-Hane T.~A.,
1018: Tolstoy E., Bosler T.~L., Gallagher J.~S., 2004, MNRAS, 347, 367
1019:
1020:
1021: \bibitem[Diemand, Madau \& Moore(2005)]{Diemand2005} Diemand J., Madau P., Moore B., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 367
1022:
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Font et al.(2006)]{Font2006} Font, A.~S., Johnston,
1025: K.~V., Bullock, J.~S., Robertson, B.~E., 2006, 2006, ApJ, 646, 886.
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Gao(2004)]{Gao2004} Gao L., White S.~D.~M., Jenkins A., Stoehr
1028: F., Springel V., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 819
1029:
1030:
1031: \bibitem[Gilmore et al.(2007)]{Gilmore2007} Gilmore G., Wilkinson M.~I.,
1032: Wyse R.~F.~G., Kleyna J.~T., Koch A., Evans N.~W., Grebel E.~K., 2007,
1033: ApJ, 663, 948
1034:
1035:
1036: \bibitem[Harbeck et al.(2001)]{Harbeck2001} Harbeck D., et al., 2001, AJ,
1037: 122, 3092
1038:
1039:
1040: \bibitem[Helmi et al.(2006)]{Helmi2006} Helmi A., et al., 2006, ApJ,
1041: 651, L121
1042:
1043:
1044: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2006)]{Ibata2006} Ibata R., Chapman S., Irwin M.,
1045: Lewis G., Martin N., 2006, MNRAS, 373, L70
1046:
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Kallivayalil et al.(2006)]{Kallivayalil2006}Kallivayalil, N., van der
1049: Marel, R.~P., Alcock, C., Axelrod, T., Cook, K.~H., Drake, A.~J., Geha, M.,
1050: 2006, ApJ, 638,772.
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Kirby(2008)]{Kirby2008} Kirby E.~N., Simon J.~D., Geha M.,
1053: Guhathakurta P., Frebel A., 2008, ApJ, 807, arXiv:0807.1925
1054:
1055: \bibitem[Kleyna et al.(2002)]{Kleyna2002} Kleyna J., Wilkinson M.~I., Evans
1056: N.~W., Gilmore G., Frayn C., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 792
1057:
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Kleyna(2003)]{Kleyna2003} Kleyna J.~T., Wilkinson M.~I., Gilmore G.,
1060: Evans N.~W., 2003, ApJ, 588, L21
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Kleyna et al.(2004)]{Kleyna2004} Kleyna J.~T., Wilkinson M.~I.,
1063: Evans N.~W., Gilmore G., 2004, MNRAS, 354, L66
1064:
1065:
1066: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2006)]{Koch2006} Koch A., Grebel E.~K., Wyse R.~F.~G.,
1067: Kleyna J.~T., Wilkinson M.~I., Harbeck D.~R., Gilmore G.~F., Evans N.~W.,
1068: 2006, AJ, 131, 895
1069:
1070: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2007a)]{Koch2007a} Koch, A., Wilkinson, M.~I., Kleyna,
1071: J.~T., Gilmore, G.~F., Grebel, E~K., Mackey, A.~D., Evans, N.Wyn., Wyse, R.~F.~G.,
1072: 2007a, ApJ, 657, 241.
1073:
1074: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2007b)]{Koch2007b} Koch, A., Grebel, E.~K., Kleyna,
1075: J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Harbeck, D.~R., Gilmore, G.~F., Wyse, R.~F.~G., Evans, N.~W.,
1076: 2007b, AJ, 133, 270.
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Koch et al.(2008)]{Koch2008} Koch, A., Grebel, E.~K., Gilmore, G.~F.,
1079: Wyse,R~.F.~G., Kleyna,J.~T., Harbeck,D.~R., Wilkinson, M.~I., Evans, N.~W.,
1080: 2008, Aj, 135,1580.
1081:
1082: \bibitem[{\L}okas et al.(2008)]{Lokas2008} {\L}okas E.~L., Klimentowski J.,
1083: Kazantzidis S., Mayer L., 2008, arXiv, 804, arXiv:0804.0204v2
1084:
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Marcolini et al.(2008)]{Marcolini2008} Marcolini, A., D'Ercole, A.,
1087: Battaglia, G., Gibson, B.~K., 2008, MNRAS,386, 2173
1088:
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2007)]{Martin2007} Martin, N.~F, Ibata, R.~A., Chapman,
1091: S.~C., Irwin, M., Lewis, G.~F., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 281
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2008a)]{Martin2008a} Martin, N.~F., et al., 2008a, ApJ, 672, 13.
1094:
1095: \bibitem[Martin et al.(2008b)]{Martin2008b} Martin, N.~F, de Jong, J. T. A.,
1096: Rix, H.-W, 2008b arXiv:0805.2945v2
1097:
1098: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{Mateo1998} Mateo M.~L., 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 435
1099:
1100:
1101: \bibitem[Mateo(2008)]{Mateo2008} Mateo M., Olszewski E.~W., Walker M.~G.,
1102: 2008, ApJ, 675, 201
1103:
1104: \bibitem[Moore et al.(2006)]{Moore2006} Moore B., Diemand J., Madau P.,
1105: Zemp M., Stadel J., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 563
1106:
1107:
1108: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{Moore1999} Moore B., Ghigna S., Governato F.,
1109: Lake G., Quinn T., Stadel J., Tozzi P., 1999, ApJ, 524, L19
1110:
1111:
1112: \bibitem[Mu{\~n}oz et al.(2005)]{Munoz2005} Mu{\~n}oz R.~R., et al., 2005,
1113: ApJ, 631, L137
1114:
1115:
1116: \bibitem[Mu{\~n}oz, Majewski,
1117: \& Johnston(2008)]{Munoz2008} Mu{\~n}oz R.~R., Majewski S.~R., Johnston K.~V., 2008, ApJ, 679, 346
1118:
1119:
1120: \bibitem[Piatek et al.(2008)]{Piatek2008} Piatek, S., Pryor, C., Olszewski,
1121: E.~W., 2008, AJ, 135.1024.
1122:
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Press et al.(1991)]{Press1991} Press, W.~H., Flannery, B.~P. Teukolsky,
1125: S.~A, Vetterling, W.~T., 1991, ``Numerical Recipes in C'', Cambridge
1126: University Press
1127:
1128:
1129: \bibitem[Robertson et al.(2005)]{Robertson2005} Robertson, B., Bullock, J.~S., Font, A.~S., Johnston, K.~V., Hernquist, L., 2005, ApJ, 632, 872.
1130:
1131:
1132: \bibitem[Rutledge et al.(1997a)]{Rutledge1997a} Rutledge G.~A., Hesser J.~E.,
1133: Stetson P.~B., Mateo M., Simard L., Bolte M., Friel E.~D., Copin Y., 1997a,
1134: PASP, 109, 883
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Rutledge, Hesser, \& Stetson(1997b)]{Rutledge1997b} Rutledge G.~A., Hesser J.~E., Stetson P.~B., 1997b, PASP, 109, 907
1137:
1138:
1139: \bibitem[Simon
1140: \& Geha(2007)]{Simon2007} Simon J.~D., Geha M., 2007, ApJ, 670, 313
1141:
1142:
1143: \bibitem[Shetrone et al.(2001)]{Shetrone2001} Shetrone, M.~D., Côté, P.,
1144: Sargent, W.~L.~W., 2001, ApJ, 548, 592.
1145:
1146:
1147: \bibitem[Stoehr et al.(2002)]{Stoehr2002} Stoehr F., White S.~D.~M., Tormen
1148: G., Springel V., 2002, MNRAS, 335, L84
1149:
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Strigari et al.(2007)]{Strigari2007} Strigari L.~E., Bullock
1152: J.~S., Kaplinghat M., Diemand J., Kuhlen M., Madau P., 2007, ApJ, 669,
1153: 676
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Tollerud et al.(2008)]{Tollerud2008} Tollerud, E.~J., Bullock,
1156: J.~S., Strigari, L.~E, Willman, B., 2008, arXiv:0806.4381
1157:
1158:
1159: \bibitem[Tolstoy et al.(2004)]{Tolstoy2004} Tolstoy E., et al., 2004,
1160: ApJ, 617, L119
1161:
1162:
1163: \bibitem[Unavane, Wyse \& Gilmore(1996)]{Unavane1996} Unavane M.,
1164: Wyse R.~F.~G., Gilmore G., 1996, MNRAS, 278, 727
1165:
1166:
1167: \bibitem[van der Marel(2002)]{vanderMarel2002} van der Marel R.~P., Alves D.~R.,
1168: Hardy E., Suntzeff N.~B., 2002, AJ, 124, 2639
1169:
1170: \bibitem[Venn et al.(2004)]{Venn2004} Venn, K.~A., Irwin, M., Shetrone, M.~D.;
1171: Tout, C.~A.; Hill, V; Tolstoy, E., 2004, AJ, 128, 1177.
1172:
1173: \bibitem[Walker(2006)]{Walker2006} Walker M.~G., Mateo M., Olszewski E.~W.,
1174: Pal J.~K., Sen B., Woodroofe M., 2006, ApJ, 642, L41
1175:
1176: \bibitem[Walker et al.(2007)]{Walker2007} Walker M.~G., Mateo M., Olszewski
1177: E.~W., Gnedin O.~Y., Wang X., Sen B., Woodroofe M., 2007, ApJ, 667,
1178: L53
1179:
1180:
1181: \bibitem[Walsh, Jerjen,
1182: \& Willman(2007)]{Walsh2007} Walsh S.~M., Jerjen H., Willman B., 2007, ApJ, 662, L83
1183:
1184:
1185: \bibitem[Willman et al.(2005)]{Willman2005} Willman B., et al., 2005,
1186: ApJ, 626, L85
1187:
1188:
1189: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{York2000} York D.~G., et al., 2000, AJ, 120,
1190: 1579
1191:
1192:
1193: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2006a)]{Zucker2006a} Zucker D.~B., et al., 2006a,
1194: ApJ, 643, L103
1195:
1196: \bibitem[Zucker et al.(2006b)]{Zucker2006b} Zucker D.~B., et al., 2006b,
1197: ApJ, 650, L41
1198:
1199: \end{thebibliography}
1200:
1201: \end{document}
1202: {\mnras},
1203:
1204: