1: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
2: %%
3: %% Modified 03 Jan 01
4: %%
5: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
6: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
7:
8: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
9: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
10: %% any data that comes before this command.
11:
12: %% The command below calls the preprint style
13: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
14: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
15: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
16:
17: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
18:
19: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
20:
21: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
22:
23: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
24:
25: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
26:
27: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
28: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
29: %% the \begin{document} command.
30: %%
31: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
32: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
33: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
34: %% for information.
35: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
36: \newcommand{\myemail}{barry@ociw.edu}
37:
38: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
39:
40: \slugcomment{Submitted: ApJ, May 2008}
41:
42:
43: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
44: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
45: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
46: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
47: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
48: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
49:
50: \shorttitle{TRGB Method}
51: \shortauthors{Madore et al.}
52:
53: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
54: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
55:
56: \begin{document}
57:
58: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
59: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
60: %% you desire.
61:
62: \title{Sharpening the Tip of the Red Giant Branch}
63:
64:
65: \author{\bf Barry ~F. Madore, Violet Mager \& Wendy L. Freedman}
66: \affil{The Observatories \\ Carnegie Institution of Washington
67: \\ 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA ~~91101\\}
68: \email{barry@ociw.edu, vmager@ociw.edu, wendy@ociw.edu\\}
69:
70: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
71: %% author and affiliation information.
72: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
73: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
74: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
75: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
76:
77: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
78: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
79: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
80: %% affiliation.
81:
82: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
83: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
84: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
85: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
86: %% editorial office after submission.
87:
88:
89: \begin{abstract}
90: We introduce a modified detection method for measuring the luminosity
91: of the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) by introducing the composite
92: magnitude $T \equiv I - \beta [(V-I)_{\circ} - 1.50]$, where $\beta$
93: is the slope of the tip magnitude as a function of color (or
94: metallicity). The method is specifically designed to account for
95: known systematics due to metallicity. In doing so, this simple
96: transformation does away with arbitrary color selections in measuring
97: the tip, and thereby significantly boosts the population of resolved
98: stars that go into defining the TRGB distance. Moreover this method
99: coincidentally reduces the impact of reddening on the true modulus as
100: well as its final uncertainty.
101: \end{abstract}
102:
103: \keywords{Galaxies: Distances and Redshifts, Galaxies: Stellar
104: Content, Stars: Population II}
105:
106: %.
107: %\vfill\eject
108:
109: \section{Introduction}
110: The luminosity of the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) has
111: been profitably used by many groups to determine high-precision
112: distances to nearby galaxies (for example, see the compilation of
113: Ferarrese et al. 2001). And, by all measures this method continues to
114: grow in popularity (e.g., Rizzi et al. 2007 and references therein).
115: Its success is driven, in all probability, by its low cost in observing
116: time, its conceptual simplicity, and its wide range of
117: application (see Madore \& Freedman 1998 for a review).
118:
119: In our earliest paper on quantifying the procedures for measuring the
120: magnitude of the TRGB tip (Lee, Freedman \& Madore 1993) we first
121: recommended the use of a digital (Sobel) filter operating on a binned
122: histogram representation of the RGB luminosity function. Being
123: aware of the slight dependence of the RGB tip on metallicity (as
124: manifest by a monotonic decline of the TRGB I-band magnitude with
125: increasing color) we also outlined (a regretably convoluted) means of
126: correcting the observed tip magnitude back to a fiducial
127: metallicity/color-corrected tip magnitude based largely on
128: theory. With the clarity of hindsight (drawing on better data, with
129: continuing theoretical support) we now correct that shortcoming and
130: suggest a means of measuring a TRGB distance modulus that is
131: explicitly corrected for metallicity at the filtering level.
132:
133: In correcting for metallicity the new methodology introduced below is
134: simple, but its additional utility and power comes from the fact that
135: it allows the use of a much enhanced sample of tip stars (independent
136: of their metallicity) to bolster the statistical certainty of the
137: distance modulus determination. The method outlined below is, at the
138: same time, both systematically and statistically more powerful and
139: robust than previously-used methods.
140:
141:
142: \section{The $T_{RGB}$ Magnitude}
143:
144: We begin by introducing the $T$ magnitude for the red giant branch
145: (RGB). $T_{RGB}$ is the color-corrected $I$-band magnitude
146: specifically designed to be independent of and insensitive to
147: metallicity (see Figure 1). By construction
148:
149: $$ T_{RGB} \equiv I_{\circ} - \beta [(V-I)_{\circ} - \gamma] $$
150:
151: \noindent
152: where the color slope $\beta$ is chosen to track the known, and now
153: calibrated, (metallicity-induced) run of tip magnitude as a function
154: of intrinsic color, and $\gamma$ is the fiducial color (i.e.,
155: metallicity) to which the absolute magnitude of the TRGB distance
156: scale is referred.
157:
158: The value of $\beta$ can be estimated from theory (see Mager et
159: al. 2008 for a recent example) and/or derived from observations. For
160: a restricted range of intrinsic colors, 1.5 $<$ (V-I)$_{\circ} <$ 3.0
161: we provisionally adopt a slope of $\beta = $ 0.20 $\pm$ 0.05, which is
162: consistent with both the value of 0.22 $\pm$ 0.02 given by Rizzi et
163: al. (2008) for a sample 5 galaxies (NGC~0300, NGC~0598, NGC~1313,
164: NGC~4258 and NGC~5128), and the value of 0.15 based on theory
165: (Mager et al.) The fiducial metallicity, [Fe/H] = -1.7~dex,
166: corresponds to the bright, low-metallicity end of the RGB which is
167: marked by stars at the tip having a color of $\gamma$ =
168: (V-I)$_{\circ}$ = 1.5 mag. The range over which the calibration is
169: valid extends from here to (V-I)$_{\circ}$ = 3.0~mag, which, for Pop
170: II stars corresponds to a high metallicity of -0.5 dex. At the
171: fiducial color of (V-I)$_o$ = 1.5~mag our absolute magnitude zero
172: point is set to be M$_{TRGB}$ = -4.05~mag. Thus
173:
174:
175: $$ \mu_{TRGB} \equiv T_{RGB} - M_{TRGB} = T_{RGB} + 4.05$$
176:
177: $$ \mu_{TRGB} = I(RGB)_{\circ} - 0.20[(V-I)_{\circ} - 1.50] + 4.05 $$
178:
179: \noindent
180: and finally, for the observers:
181:
182: $$ \mu_{TRGB} = I(RGB)_{\circ} - 0.20 (V-I)_{\circ} + 4.35 $$
183:
184:
185:
186: We have noted on previous occasions that, on astrophysical grounds, it
187: only makes sense for a halo population to contain at least its most
188: metal-poor stars, given that the low-mass component persists and they
189: (or rather their originally coeval, high-mass counterparts) are
190: responsible for the enriched material that may or may not produce
191: later (higher metallicity) generations. That is, it would be very hard
192: to have a pure population of high-metallicity Population II stars in the halo
193: of a galaxy without its low-metallicity (progenitor) component. Thus
194: one will always have a low-metallicity sample of stars; and they will
195: be the first stars detected by the edge filter, because they are also
196: the brightest TRGB population in any mixture (in the I band).
197:
198: The real-world limitation comes in having enough stars to fill the
199: luminosity function at the tip so as not to (downwardly) bias the
200: detection magnitude. Simulations addressing this very point (Madore
201: \& Freedman 1995) suggested that about 100 stars in the magnitude bin
202: just below the tip are mimimally required to give a credible detection
203: at the $\pm$0.1~ mag level. As we note below, that may be optimistic.
204:
205: If one includes only stars of a given color/metallicity when measuring
206: the tip one then selectively reduces the sample of stars available for
207: the measurement. On the other hand, by using the metallicity-corrected
208: sample as advocated here, one can take full advantage of all stars at
209: the tip, not just those in a narrowly-defined window of color and
210: metallicity space. If one were to simply open the color range admitted
211: to the edge-detector without correcting for the color slope one would
212: certainly increase the sample, but this would clearly be at the
213: expense of blurring the TRGB discontinuity because of the progressive
214: bias/contamination by fainter redder (higher-metallicity tip) stars in
215: the transition region. By seeking a $1/\sqrt{N}$ decrease in the
216: random error, one would not only be blunting the tool, but also
217: implicitly inviting an increased systematic error. The method
218: suggested here corrects for the systematics of metallicity and allows
219: all available tip stars to contribute to the tip detection.
220:
221:
222: \section{The New Filtering Methodology}
223:
224: In this section we discuss details of the application of this
225: suggested method for TRGB detection and distance determination.
226:
227: We first need to apply a reddening correction to the observed colors
228: and apply the appropriate extinction correction to the apparent
229: magnitudes. The halos of most galaxies are reasonably assumed to be
230: dust and extinction free, but any given line of sight may have a
231: Galactic foreground component. This is usually dealt with by adopting
232: a predicted value either from the Burstein \& Heiles (1982) or the
233: Schlegel et al. (1998) Galactic extinction maps.\footnotemark
234:
235: \footnotetext[1]{It would, of course, be desirable not to have to
236: depend on foreground dust modelling to determine reddening
237: corrections, especially if there were some unanticipated dust
238: component in the host galaxy. Indeed, RGB data alone could be used to
239: determine a total line-of-sight reddening. This would require adequate
240: samples of stars below the TRGB to be observed to reasonably good
241: levels of photometric precision. The method proposed here would equate
242: the total line-of-sight reddening with the difference in color between
243: the blue envelope of the observed population of RGB stars compared to
244: the intrinsic color locus of the most metal-poor calibrating RGB
245: population. Again, this first population must logically be in the
246: stellar population mix and it will exclusively populate the blue
247: edge. More metal-rich, intrinsically redder, stars will only fall in
248: one direction, away (to the red) from this envelope and will not blur
249: or bias any reddening determination if the blue envelope is well
250: defined. Few data sets currently go deep enough below the TRGB, at the
251: levels of photometric precision required, for this method to be widely
252: applied to existing observations. That, of course, could change if the
253: reddening correction were deemed to be critical in any given specific
254: case. \ \ \ \ \ An actual implementation of a self-consistent
255: reddening solution would need to be iterative with the distance
256: determination itself. The method would boil down to fitting the RGB in
257: both magnitude and color space by iteratively determining the apparent
258: magnitude of the tip, and fitting the blue envelope until both the
259: true modulus and total reddening are self-consistently solved
260: for. Methods equivalent to the tip detection and its measurement would
261: have to be deployed to detect and quantitatively measure the blue edge
262: of the RGB. We defer that implemenation to a future paper, but note,
263: for the interested reader, that Rizzi et al. (2007) give a detailed
264: discussion of other methods for independently determining the
265: reddening which include the red clump, the lower portion of the RGB
266: and, when available in composite systems, the blue main sequence. }
267:
268:
269: We next adjust all of the I-band magnitudes using their color
270: difference with respect to the fiducial color, mentioned above,
271: $(V-I)_{\circ}$ = 1.50~mag. The fiducial color corresponds to the most
272: metal-poor and brightest population of TRGB stars expected in our
273: galaxies. By differentially boosting the I-band magnitudes of the
274: stars according to their individual colors by -0.20[(V-I)-1.50] mag, we
275: are in effect forcing all tip stars, regardless of their
276: metallicities, to take on the same TRBG magnitude.
277:
278: We can now run the Sobel filter straight down in magnitude space and
279: be confident that it will directly encounter the full TRGB at right
280: angles. This guarantees complete and unbiased participation of all tip
281: stars in the solution; it sharpens the filter output response; and it
282: eliminates the need for subsequent corrections for mean color or mean
283: metallicity of the population as a whole.
284:
285: In practice the data can be binned to a resolution of 0.01~mag without
286: compromising the precision of the method. This is because such a bin
287: size exceeds the photometric precision for all but the very brightest
288: stars in most studies. Typical photometric errors on stars in the data
289: set to be discussed here are at the TRGB are $\pm$0.03~mag. The basic
290: filter used supports a traditional [-1, 0, +1] kernel; however, it can
291: be adjusted to smooth over any number of bins, either to beat down
292: photometric noise or to decrease the shot noise in sparse
293: samples. That is, a 3-bin smoothing would effectively employ a [-1,
294: -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, +1, +1, +1] kernel, smoothing the data and the output
295: over 0.03~mag intervals. Other kernel weighting schemes are clearly
296: possible. But the resolution of the tip will never be any better than
297: the width of the kernel smoothing adopted.
298:
299: It is useful to estimate the statistical uncertainty in the filter
300: response to Poisson noise in the binned star counts. Since the filter
301: response is basically N$_3$ - N$_1$, then the error on that difference
302: is simply $\pm \sqrt{{N_3}^2 + {N_1}^2}$. The ratio of those two
303: quantities, (N$_3$ - N$_1$)/$\sqrt{{N_3}^2 + {N_1}^2}$ is a form of
304: ${\chi}^2$, giving not just the output of the filter, but rather the
305: statistically quantified significance of the output. We plot this
306: ratio in all of the subsequent figures, and use it as a count of the
307: number of ``sigmas of significance'' to be associated with any given
308: response. Furthermore, measuring the semi-width of the response one
309: unit down from the peak will be taken as the one-sigma uncertainty on
310: that detection.
311:
312: We now illustrate the efficacy of this method by examining the various
313: options as applied to actual data for the halo of NGC~4258.
314:
315:
316: \section{\bf Experimenting on Real Data}
317:
318: In the following we make a first pass at illustrating some of the
319: above claims about the reduced statistical and systematic
320: uncertainties expected to be associated with the metallicity-corrected
321: edge detector, as compared to its predecessor(s) which employed standard
322: filtering at fixed metallicity or color.
323:
324: For this demonstration we use the ACS data obtained by us for a TRGB
325: distance determination to the maser galaxy NGC~4258 (Mager et
326: al. 2008). Over 30,000 stars were in the analysis. These data
327: provide a nice test case given that the sample size of RGB stars is
328: large, the photometric errors (at the tip) are small (see below)
329: and this particular population shows a significant, but not atypical,
330: one-magnitude spread in (V-I) color.
331:
332: \subsection{Decreased Sample Size and Bias}
333:
334: In this section we quantify the effects of focussing the tip detection
335: algorithm more and more narrowly on the fiducial metallicity (color)
336: of [Fe/H] = -1.7~dex as represented by stars with colors of (V-I) =
337: 1.5~mag. The filtering algorithm is fixed for all of these runs on the
338: NGC~4258 dataset and only stars with formal errors of less than
339: 0.30~mag are considered. Figures 2 through 5 each show the
340: color-magnitude diagram in the left panel, and the edge-detection
341: ${\chi}^2$ filter output aligned to the right. As stated above the
342: half-width of the filter response one unit down from its maximum will
343: define our one-sigma figure of merit for the fitting.
344:
345: We begin the process with no color selection imposed.
346:
347:
348: In this particular run there were 10,200 stars in the one-mag
349: (fainter) interval leading up to the TRGB. The tip was measured at I =
350: 25.39 $\pm$ 0.11~mag at a 2.6-sigma significance level (Figure
351: 2). Individual stars at this same magnitude level have typical
352: photometric errors of $\pm (0.02-0.03)$ mag. In other words, they are
353: contributing about a third of the quoted variance ($\sigma^2$) for the
354: tip magnitude. The projected (metallicity-spread induced) magnitude
355: extent of the TRGB over the color range of 1.5 $<$ (V-I) $<$ 3.0 is
356: about 0.25~mag, which would have an equivalent sigma of
357: $\pm$0.08. ``Tip tilt'' is clearly the dominant source of uncertainty
358: imposed on this measurement of the TRBG magnitude: blurring (and
359: biasing, see below) the value that would otherwise be obtained at the
360: fiducial [Fe/H] = -1.7 value alone.
361:
362:
363: We now investigate the effect of decreased sample size on the
364: precision and accuracy of the tip detection algorithm. In essence this
365: is the same test that Madore \& Freedman (1995) ran on
366: controlled/simulated data; this test is run on real-world photometry
367: with all of the subtleties and complexities that may or may not be in
368: any given simulation. In any case, the NGC~4258 data were
369: progressively restricted in sample size, holding all other parameters
370: of the tip detection fixed (i.e., maximum error on the photometry of
371: 0.3~mag, and three-bin smoothing of 0.03~mag on the Sobel filter).
372:
373: Two examples are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The first illustrates a high
374: significance (1.9 sigma) detection of the tip for a much reduced
375: sample size, having only about 500 stars in the upper magnitude bin.
376: The second figure illustrates the effect of reducing the sample
377: further and the resulting bias in the most significant tip
378: ``detection'' Only about 200 stars were in the magnitude bin below
379: the (real) tip and the bias is significant.
380:
381:
382: The summary results for these, and 17 other test samples, are shown in
383: Figure 6. The individual tip detections are shown as circled
384: points. The dashed horizontal line shows the asymptotic value of the
385: tip detection for the full sample of 7,500 stars in the one-magnitude
386: bin below the TRGB. For sample sizes in excess of 400-500 stars the
387: solutions agree to within $\pm$0.1~mag (peak-to-peak) which brackets
388: the commonly quoted statistical uncertainty in this method. However,
389: for smaller sample sizes the detected tip magnitude begins to
390: systematically deviate from the fiducial value. The bias should come
391: as no surprise: as stars drop from the sample there is nowhere for the
392: tip detector to go but to fainter magnitudes where there are stars and
393: possibly structure in the RGB luminosity function to trigger on. Of
394: course the significance of these false tips drops too. Indeed, at
395: sample sizes below about 400 stars in the upper magnitude bin below
396: the tip the significance of any ``detection'' starts to drop below the
397: 1.5-sigma level.
398:
399: In light of these experiments on real data we now revise and extend
400: our statement concerning the minimum sample sizes needed for TRGB
401: detection. For samples having more than 400 stars in the magnitude
402: bin just below the TRGB the significance of the tip detection should
403: be expected to be at the 1.5-sigma level or better, with a statistical
404: uncertainty in the measured tip magnitude being less than
405: $\pm$0.1~mag. At this level of sample size there are enough stars to
406: fill the luminsity function up to and including a definition of the
407: discontinuity.
408:
409: For sample sizes below this critical value the filling function pulls
410: away from the discontuity and there is a steep and systematic roll-off
411: of the (false) tip magnitude toward fainter apparent magnitudes, with
412: the bias exceeding 0.5~mag at 200-300 stars. Not surprisingly these
413: false detections will generally be at low ($\sim$one-sigma)
414: significance levels and should be treated with all due
415: suspicion. Alternatively, at low count rates one should seriously
416: consider using maximum-likelihood estimation techniques for measuring
417: the tip, as discussed by Makarov et al. (2006); they demonstrate
418: reliable detections when as few as 50 stars are in the one-magnitude
419: bin below the TRGB.
420:
421: One final cautionary note: The number of stars below the tip in these
422: experiments was the number below the known level of the tip. In
423: practice that value is not known a priori, and so in the regime where
424: bias sets in that number will be artificially high and the a
425: posteriori estimate of the bias will be artificially low.
426:
427: \subsection{Another Form of Bias}
428:
429: What we have not discussed yet, and what is not possible to address
430: with the NGC~4258 data, is an opposite bias (toward incorrectly
431: brighter tip magnitudes). This type of bias may be induced by young
432: RGB and/or bright AGB stars, especially those resulting from a
433: superimposed population of disk stars. Clearly using the $T_{RGB}$
434: magnitude allows one to optimize the population of stars going into
435: the tip definition. In practice this means that for a fixed field of
436: view one can go to fields where the star density is lower than might
437: have been required for a standard (color-restricted) tip
438: detection. Moving further out into the halo will reduce any potential
439: contamination due to disk stars (in those galaxies that have disks),
440: and this may be of importance in planning future TRGB observations of
441: composite population systems where the halo is weak and ``disk''
442: contamination is potentially large. Being able to (radially) distance
443: one's self from the young and/or intermediate-aged populations will
444: fast become important in these cases. False signals from AGB
445: populations in barely resolved galaxies could result in erroneously
446: small distance moduli, as may well be the case of the reported TRBG
447: distance to the Antennae galaxies (Saviane et al. 2004), the data for
448: which were extracted from a Population I rich ``disk'' field
449: (Schweitzer et al., in preparation)
450:
451: \subsection{A Small Bonus}
452:
453: We close out this section with a note about the sensitivity of the
454: $T_{RGB}$ magnitude to reddening. It is a (happy) coincidence that the
455: slope of the relation (magnitude versus color) that we are using to
456: correct TRGB magnitude for metallicity is in the same general
457: direction as the interstellar extinction/reddening trajectory. So
458: when we correct the I-band magnitude by subtracting 0.2~(V-I) we are
459: also implicitly subtracting 0.2E(V-I) from I. This effectively amounts
460: to reducing the impact of reddening on the I-band magnitude from A%_I$
461: = 1.4~E(V-I) to A$_T$ = 1.26~E(V-I), with the same 10\% downward
462: scaling applying to propagating the uncertainty in the extinction.
463: A small gain, but still in the right direction.
464:
465: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
466:
467:
468: As relatively insensitive to metallicity as the I-band tip of the red
469: giant branch is, there is still observed to be a slight dependence of
470: the TRGB magnitude on the metallicity as tracked by the intrinsic
471: color. We have the means to account for it, since that dependence has been
472: found to be extremely stable from galaxy to galaxy and is well
473: calibrated (and indeed well understood). We have incorporated that new
474: information into a very simply modified TRGB edge detector that makes
475: distance determinations using the TRGB explicitly independent of the
476: mean metallicity and/or metallicity distribution of the stars in a
477: given halo population. In the process this new method allows all
478: tip stars to add to the statistical significance of the detection of
479: the core helium ignition discontinuity. As an added bonus the
480: modified method is also slightly less sensitive (by 10\%) to reddening
481: corrections (and/or uncertainties in those same reddening corrections)
482: as compared to the standard (fixed-metallicity) option.
483:
484: The method does, of course, now require that both the V and I
485: magnitudes be obtained for the color-correction to be applied.
486: Previous applications measuring the tip discontiuity from only an
487: I-band luminosity function could not be corrected for metallicity
488: effects, were always met with justifiable skepticism, and are not to be
489: recommended.
490:
491: We thank the referee, Brent Tully, for his careful reading of the
492: paper and his useful suggestions and comments.
493:
494: \begin{references}
495:
496: \reference{}
497: Burstein, D., \& Heiles, C. 1982, AJ, 87, 1165
498:
499: \reference{}
500: Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L., \& Madore, B.F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553
501:
502: \reference{}
503: Madore, B.F., \& Freedman, W.L. 1998, ``Stellar
504: Astrophysics for the Local Group'' VII Canary Islands Winter School,
505: eds. A. Aparicio, A. Herroro \& F. Sanchez, Cambridge University
506: Press, Cambridge, p. 234
507:
508: \reference{}
509: Madore, B.F., \& Freedman, W.L. 1995, ApJ, 109, 1645
510:
511: \reference{}
512: Mager, V., Madore, B.F., \& Freedman, W.L. 2008, ApJ, in press
513:
514: \reference{}
515: Rizzi, L., Tully, R.B., Makarov, D., Makarova, L.,
516: Dolphin, A.E., Sakai, S., \& Shaya, E.J. 2007, ApJ, 661, 816
517:
518: \reference{}
519: Makarov, D., Makarova, L., Rizzi, L., Tully, R.B.,
520: Dolphin, A.E., Sakai, S., \& Shaya, E.J. 2006, ApJ, 132, 2729
521:
522: \reference{}
523: Saviane, I., Hibbard, J.E., \& Rich, R.M. 2004, AJ, 127, 660
524:
525: \reference{}
526: Schlegel, D.J., Finkbinder, D.P., \& Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
527:
528: \end{references}
529: \clearpage
530:
531: \begin{figure}
532: \includegraphics [width=14cm, angle=0] {f1.eps}
533: \caption{
534: Schematic representation of a variety
535: of red giant branches in the I-(V-I) Color-Magnitude Diagram. The
536: terminal points of the RGB are delineated by the downward sloping line
537: marked TRGB. Low-metallicity (high-luminosity) giant branches are
538: shown to the left (blue); high-metallicity giant branches arc up to
539: the right (red). A color-dependent metallicity correction as applied
540: to the I-band lumniosity are shown by vertical arrows. These
541: corrections flatten the TRGB in magnitude space and scale them all to
542: the lowest-metallicity track.}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545:
546: \begin{figure}
547: \includegraphics [width=18cm, angle=270] {f2.eps}
548: \caption{
549: I vs (V-I) Color-Magnitude Diagram
550: (CMD) for NGC~4258 to the left, and the normalized Sobel filter
551: response shown to the right. The tip is measured to be at I = 25.39
552: $\pm$ 0.11~mag at the 2.6-sigma significance level. M and C mark the
553: expected magnitude of the tip based on the maser and Cepheid
554: distances, respectively.}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557: \begin{figure}
558: \includegraphics [width=18cm, angle=270] {f3.eps}
559: \caption{
560: T$_{RGB}$ vs (V-I)
561: Metallicity-Corrected Color-Magnitude Diagram for NGC~4258 (see text)
562: to the left, and the normalized Sobel filter response shown to the
563: right. The response of highest (relative) significance is marked at I
564: $= 25.21$~mag with a reported significance of 4.8 sigma.}
565: \end{figure}
566:
567: \begin{figure}
568: \includegraphics [width=18cm, angle=270] {f4.eps}
569: \caption{
570: Same as Figure 3 except for a reduced
571: sample of NGC~4258 stars. Only one star in 14 was used (amounting to
572: 540 stars in the one-magnitude bin below the tip) for this
573: tip-detection test. The response of highest (relative) significance is
574: marked at I $= 25.18$~mag with a reported significance of 1.9 sigma.}
575: \end{figure}
576:
577: \begin{figure}
578: \includegraphics [width=18cm, angle=270] {f5.eps}
579: \caption{
580: Same as Figure 3 except for a much reduced sample of
581: NGC~4258 stars. Only one star in 40 (amounting to only 192 stars in
582: the one-magnitude bin below the tip) was used for this tip-detection
583: test. The response of highest (relative) significance is marked at I
584: $= 25.74$~mag but its absolute significance is low (1.2 sigma) and a
585: number of other false positives of similar significance are seen
586: throughout the plot.}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: \begin{figure}
590: \includegraphics [width=14cm, angle=270] {f6.eps}
591: \caption{
592: The run of derived TRGB magnitude with the number of
593: stars in the magnitude bin below the tip. The dashed line indicates
594: the true value of the tip magnitude as defined by the largest sample
595: size available to us (around 7,000 stars in the one-magnitude bin
596: below the tip). With Poisson noise rising up to about 0.1~mag at the
597: 400-500 star level the tip detections are relatively unbiased for
598: larger samples. Below that level there is a precipitous fall-off in
599: the apparent magnitude of the tip resulting in a bias exceeding
600: 0.5~mag for sample sizes less than 200-300 stars in the upper
601: magnitude bin. Large filled circles have detections that are at, or
602: above, the 1.5-sigma ($\sim$85\%) confidence level.}
603: \end{figure}
604:
605:
606:
607: \end{document}
608: \bye
609:
610:
611:
612:
613:
614:
615: