1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

3: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

4: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

5: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

6: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

7: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

8: %% use the longabstract style option.

9: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

10: 

11: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

12: 

13: %\slugcomment{To be submitted to ApJ}

14: 

15: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

16: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

17: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

18: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

19: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

20: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

21: \shorttitle{Are red halos made of low-mass stars?}

22: \shortauthors{Zackrisson \& Flynn}

23: 

24: % -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

25: 

26: \begin{document}

27: 

28: \title{Are the red halos of galaxies made of low-mass stars?\\Constraints from subdwarf star counts in the Milky Way halo}

29: \author{Erik Zackrisson\altaffilmark{1,2,3}$^*$, \& Chris Flynn\altaffilmark{1}}

30: \altaffiltext{*}{E-mail: ez@astro.su.se}

31: \altaffiltext{1}{Tuorla Observatory, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, V\"ais\"al\"antie 20, FI-21500 Piikki\"o, Finland}

32: \altaffiltext{2}{Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova University Center, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden}

33: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Space Physics, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden}

34: 

35: 

36: \begin{abstract}

37: 

38: Surface photometry detections of red and exceedingly faint halos around

39: galaxies have resurrected the old question of whether some non-negligible fraction

40: of the missing baryons of the Universe could be hiding in the form of faint,

41: hydrogen-burning stars. The optical/near-infrared colours of these red halos

42: have proved very difficult to reconcile with any normal type of stellar

43: population, but can in principle be explained by advocating a bottom-heavy

44: stellar initial mass function. This implies a high stellar mass-to-light

45: ratio and hence a substantial baryonic mass locked up in such halos. Here, we explore

46: the constraints imposed by current observations of ordinary stellar halo

47: subdwarfs on a putative red halo of low-mass stars around the Milky

48: Way. Assuming structural parameters similar to those of the red halo recently

49: detected in stacked images of external disk galaxies, we find that a smooth

50: halo component with a bottom-heavy initial mass function is completely ruled out by current star

51: count data for the Milky Way. All viable smooth red halo models with a density

52: slope even remotely similar to that of the stacked halo moreover contain far

53: too little mass to have any bearing on the missing-baryon problem. However, we

54: note that these constraints can be sidestepped if the red halo stars are locked

55: up in star clusters, and discuss potential observations of other nearby

56: galaxies that may be able to put such scenarios to the test.

57: 

58: \end{abstract}

59: 

60: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

61: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

62: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

63: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

64: 

65: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

66: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the

67: %% subject header.  Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"

68: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the

69: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each

70: %% individual object, not exceed six.  The \objectname{} macro, and its

71: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object.  The macro takes the object

72: %% name as its primary argument.  This name will appear in the paper

73: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name

74: %% is recognized by the data centers.  The macro also takes an optional

75: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification

76: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.

77: 

78: \keywords{Galaxy: halo -- galaxies: halos -- galaxies: stellar content -- dark

79: matter -- stars: subdwarfs}

80: 

81: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

82: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

83: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

84: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

85: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

86: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

87: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

88: %% each reference.

89: 

90: \section{Introduction} 

91: The quest to unravel the nature of dark matter, estimated to make up around

92: 90\% of the total matter content \citep[e.g.][]{Komatsu et al.}, remains one of

93: the most important tasks of modern cosmology. Dark matter appears to exist

94: in at least two separate forms: one baryonic, and one non-baryonic. While the

95: non-baryonic component is the dominant one, a substantial fraction of the

96: baryons in the low-redshift Universe \citep[$\approx

97: 1/3$--2/3;][]{Fukugita,Fukugita & Peebles a,Nicastro et al.,Prochaska & Tumlinson} are also at

98: large. 

99: 

100: These missing baryons could in principle be hiding in a variety of

101: different forms: as faint/failed stars or stellar remnants \citep[so-called

102: Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects or MACHOs;][]{Griest}, as cold gas

103: clouds \citep{Pfenniger et al.,Pfenniger & Combes}, as a warm/hot intergalactic

104: medium \citep{Cen & Ostriker,Davé et al.} or as hot gaseous halos around

105: galaxies \citep{Maller & Bullock,Fukugita & Peebles b,Sommer-Larsen}. While

106: current simulations seem to favour the latter two alternatives as the main

107: reservoirs, observations are still unable to confirm this hypothesis

108: \citep[see][for a review]{Bregman}.

109: 

110: The old idea of baryonic dark matter in the form of faint, low-mass stars has

111: recently gained new momentum through surface photometry detections of very red

112: and exceedingly faint structures -- ``red halos'' -- around galaxies of

113: different types. The history of this topic goes back to the mid-90s, when deep

114: optical and near-IR images indicated the presence of a faint halo around the

115: edge-on disk galaxy NGC 5907 \citep[e.g.][]{Sackett et al.,Lequeux et al. a,Rudy

116: et al.,James & Casali}. The colours of this structure were much too red

117: to be reconciled with any normal type of stellar population, and indicative of

118: a halo population with an abnormally high fraction of low-mass stars. At around

119: the same time, \citet{Molinari et al.} also announced the detection of a red

120: halo around the cD galaxy at the centre of the galaxy cluster Abell

121: 3284. Skepticism grew with the discovery of what appeared to be the remnants of

122: a disrupted dwarf galaxy close to NGC 5907 \citep{Shang et al.}, leading to

123: suggestions that this feature, in combination with other effects, could have

124: resulted in a spurious halo detection \citep{Zheng et al.}. While follow-up

125: observations with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) took some of the edge out of

126: this criticism \citep{Zepf et al.}, the field fell into disrepute. Deeper images have later revealed a wealth of tidal streams in the halo of NGC 5907 \citep{Martinez-Delgado et al.}, but this does not by itself explain the red excess originally detected.

127: 

128: The red halos would not die quietly though, and new reports started to surface

129: a few years later. First, \citet{Bergvall & Östlin} and \citet{Bergvall et al.}

130: presented deep optical/near-IR images of faint and abnormally red structures

131: around blue compact galaxies. \citet*{Zibetti et al.} then stacked images

132: of 1047 edge-on disk galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and

133: detected a halo population with a strong red excess and optical colours

134: curiously similar to those previously derived for NGC 5907 -- again very

135: difficult to reconcile with standard halo populations. The halo detected

136: around an edge-on disk galaxy at redshift $z=0.322$ in the Hubble Ultra Deep

137: Field shows similarly red colours \citep{Zibetti & Ferguson}, and \citet{Tamm

138: et al.} argue that even the halo of Andromeda displays a pronounced red excess.

139: 

140: \citet{Zackrisson et al. a} analyzed the colours of some of these new

141: detections and found that the halos of both blue compact galaxies and stacked edge-on

142: disks could be explained by a stellar population with a very bottom-heavy

143: initial mass function ($dN/dM\propto M^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\approx

144: 4.50$). The high mass-to-light ratio of such a population makes it a potential

145: reservoir for at least part of the baryons missing from current

146: inventories. While the stellar initial mass function (IMF) is often assumed to

147: be universal, recent observational studies suggest that it may vary both as a

148: function of environment \citep{Hoversten & Glazebrook}, and as a function of

149: cosmic time \citep{van Dokkum}. Corroborating evidence for an IMF as extreme as

150: that advocated by \citet{Zackrisson et al. a} also comes from star counts in

151: the field population of the LMC, where a slope of $\alpha\approx 5$--6 was

152: derived for masses $\geq 1 \ M_\odot$ \citep{Massey,Gouliermis et al.}.

153: 

154: Taking the red halo detections at face value, one may ask whether the Milky Way

155: itself could be surrounded by a hitherto undetected red halo of low-mass,

156: hydrogen-burning stars, with photometric properties similar to the halo

157: detected around stacked edge-on disks. The known baryonic components

158: (thin disc, thick disk, bulge and standard stellar halo) of the Milky Way

159: contribute around 5--$6\times 10^{10}\ M_\odot$ \citep[e.g.][]{Sommer-Larsen &

160: Dolgov,Klypin et al.,Flynn et al.} to the Milky Way's virial mass of $\approx

161: 1\times 10^{12} \ M_\odot$ \citep[][]{Klypin et al.}. A cosmic baryon fraction

162: of $\Omega_\mathrm{baryons}/\Omega_\mathrm{M}\approx 0.17$ \citep{Komatsu et

163: al.}, combined with the theoretical prediction that the baryon fraction should

164: be $\approx 90\%$ of the cosmic average for a Milky Way-sized halo \citep{Crain

165: et al.}, on the other hand suggests the presence of some $\approx 1.5\times

166: 10^{11}\ M_\odot$ of baryonic material within its virial radius, leaving at

167: least $60\%$ of its baryons to be found.

168: 

169: Low-mass stars would in principle be detectable through microlensing effects,

170: and such putative MACHOs may already have been discovered in the halos of both

171: the Milky Way and M31 \citep[e.g.][]{Alcock et al.,Calchi Novati et

172: al. a,Riffeser et al.}. Their masses (0.1--1 $M_\odot$) and inferred contribution to the mass

173: of the dark matter of galaxies ($\approx 20 \%$) are, however, very difficult

174: to reconcile with any kind of stellar MACHO candidate

175: \citep[e.g.][]{Freese}. This result, coupled to the fact that competing teams

176: have failed to confirm these detections \citep[][]{Tisserand et al.,de Jong et

177: al.} have led to the suspicion that the observations must have been

178: misinterpreted \citep[e.g.][]{Belokurov et al.} or that the compact objects

179: detected through this technique may be of non-baryonic origin (e.g. primordial

180: black holes, mirror matter objects, preon stars or scalar dark matter

181: miniclusters -- see \citealt{Zackrisson & Riehm} for a more thorough

182: discussion).

183: 

184: If some of the missing baryons of the Milky Way are locked up in the form of

185: hydrogen-burning stars in a red halo, such a structure must also have evaded

186: the faint star counts aimed to constrain the luminosity function of halo

187: subdwarfs \citep[e.g.][]{Gould et al., Gould,Digby et al.,Brandner}, since no

188: significant excess of low-mass stars has yet been detected with this method. In

189: fact, direct observations of this kind are expected to impose much stronger constraints on

190: main sequence stars in the halo than what current

191: microlensing surveys can achieve.

192: 

193: In this paper, we explore to what extent a smooth red halo of low-mass stars

194: similar to that detected by \cite{Zibetti et al.} might already be ruled out by

195: these observations of halo subdwarfs in the Milky Way. In section 2, we

196: describe the observational data used. Section 3 outlines the method used to

197: test red halo models against these observations. The resulting constraints on

198: red halo models are presented in section 4. Section 5 discusses the robustness

199: of these constraints and section 6 summarizes our findings.

200: 

201: \section{Observational data}

202: \subsection{Surface photometry}

203: Using stacked SDSS images of 1047 edge-on galaxies, \citet[][hereafter

204: Z04]{Zibetti et al.} derived the colours of a diffuse halo in a

205: wedge-shaped region located at a projected distance of $R_\mathrm{proj}=2\times

206: r_\mathrm{exp}$ from the centre of the stacked disk, where $r_\mathrm{exp}$

207: corresponds to the exponential scale length of the disk. While the $g-r$ colour

208: of this region ($g-r=0.65\pm 0.1$) is similar to those of old stellar

209: populations like globular clusters or elliptical galaxies, $r-i$ is

210: anomalously red ($r-i=0.60\pm0.1$) and difficult to reconcile with any known

211: type of stellar population. These colours can, however, be explained in the

212: framework of a stellar population with an IMF slope of $\alpha=4.50$ \citep{Zackrisson et al. a}, i.e. a stellar halo overly abundant in low-mass stars. One the other hand, the wavelength-dependence of the far wings of the point-spread function (PSF) may introduce spurious colours in the outskirts of extended objects \citep[e.g.][]{Michard,Sirianni et al.}. Recently, \citet{de Jong} has argued that Z04 may have underestimated the effects of the SDSS PSF, and that the reported $r-i$ halo colour therefore suffers from artificial reddening due to scattered light. At the current time, it is very difficult to assess whether this accounts for all of the red excess, or just some part thereof. With this in mind, the IMF slope of $\alpha=4.50$ derived by \citet{Zackrisson et al. a} is likely to represent an upper limit, barring systematic uncertainties in the fit due to lingering problems with current models for low-mass stars \citep[e.g.][]{Casagrande et al.}. In what follows, we will use the $i$-band data of Z04, but allow for the possibility that both the overall surface brightness level of the halo and the colour may have been overestimated. 

213: 

214: When comparing this average halo to the Milky Way, we have adopted a scale

215: length for the Milky Way's disk of $r_\mathrm{exp}=2.5$ kpc, in agreement with

216: recent estimates based on both optical and near-infrared data \citep{Gardner et al.}. The measured $i$-band surface brightness level

217: of the wedge in the stacked frame is $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}\approx 26.7$ mag

218: arcsec$^{-2}$, but we also explore the consequences of putative red halos with

219: surface brightness levels both brighter and fainter than this. There are

220: several reasons for this strategy. Firstly, part of the light measured at this

221: distance is likely to come from the disk and the far wings of the SDSS

222: PSF, implying that the red halo should be somewhat {\it

223: fainter} at this distance than suggested by the surface brightness level

224: actually measured. Secondly, the analysis presented by Z04 indicates that the

225: surface brightness of the halo scales with the luminosity of the disk, which

226: would suggest a red halo {\it brighter} than $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}\approx

227: 26.7$ at $R_\mathrm{proj}=2\times r_\mathrm{exp}$ for a relatively luminous galaxy

228: like the Milky Way. On the other hand, it is not clear what the distribution of

229: red halo properties within the stacked sample is, and individual differences

230: between galaxies may possibly compensate for such a trend. Here, we therefore

231: consider the possibility that a hypothetical red halo surrounding the Milky Way

232: could be substantially different than the cosmic average as derived by Z04.

233: 

234: While Z04 derive a halo flattening of $q\approx 0.6$ and a density profile with

235: power-law slope $\beta\approx 3$ for the $i$-band, we here explore the

236: consequences of red halos with $q=0.5$--1.5 and power $\beta=0$--10. This very

237: generous range of parameter values ensure that the constraints derived are

238: conservative, in the sense that they allow any hypothetical red halo maximal

239: leverage.

240: \begin{figure}[t]

241: \centering

242: \plotone{f1.eps}

243: \caption{Schematic illustration of the relevant data situation. The volumes

244: probed by the subdwarf observations of \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et

245: al.} are indicated by the gray sphere marked A and the cone marked B, respectively. $R_0$ represents the distance from the Galactic centre to the

246: position of the Sun. The sightline along which the red halo colours have been

247: measured through surface photometry around stacked SDSS disks is indicated by

248: the gray cylinder, located at a projected distance of $R_\mathrm{proj}$ above

249: the plane of the disk.

250: \label{schematic}}

251: \end{figure}

252: 

253: \subsection{Star counts}

254: Subdwarfs are main sequence stars in the mass range $\approx 0.08$--$1 \

255: M_\odot$ that because of their low metallicities have lower $V$-band

256: luminosities than disk stars of the same colour. These objects make up the bulk

257: of stars in the hitherto detected stellar halo of the Milky Way, and have been

258: used in numerous studies to constrain the characteristics of this

259: structure. Since adopting a bottom-heavy IMF of the \citet{Zackrisson et al. a}

260: type would boost the fraction of subdwarfs in a population, it makes sense to

261: use the observed number densities of these objects to constrain such scenarios.

262: 

263: Large samples of halo subdwarfs can be collected using two different

264: techniques: proper-motion selection and colour-magnitude selection in deep

265: fields.

266: 

267: The first method exploits the high heliocentric velocities statistically

268: expected from stars belonging to the halo and selects candidate halo stars by

269: imposing a minimum proper motion limit on the sample \citep[e.g.][]{Gould,Digby

270: et al.}. A kinematical model is then used to correct the resulting statistics

271: for incompleteness and contamination by thin and thick disk stars. This method

272: is currently limited to halo stars within a few kpc from the position of the

273: Sun.

274: 

275: The second method is based on identification of stars in long exposures (``deep

276: fields'') of the sky at high Galactic latitudes \citep{Gould et al.,Brandner}

277: and the use of colour-magnitude criteria to reject objects in the disk. While

278: this technique probes subdwarfs at much fainter magnitude limits (and thereby

279: larger distances) than the former, the selection criteria prevent it from

280: probing subdwarfs within a few kpc of the Sun.

281: 

282: The volumes probed by these two methods are complementary, with almost no

283: overlap. Curiously enough, the scaling of the luminosity function of halo

284: subdwarfs derived by these two techniques differ somewhat \citep[by a factor of

285: 2--3; see][for a comparison]{Digby et al.}. The exact reason for this

286: discrepancy is not well-understood, but could possibly be due to a difference

287: in the characteristics of the inner and outer halo. Indeed, \citet{Carollo et

288: al.} recently found strong evidence for two separate structural components in

289: the Galactic halo, with the inner halo being substantially more flattened than

290: the outer.

291: 

292: Here we make no attempt to reconcile the measurements resulting from these

293: different techniques. Instead, we assume that the subdwarf luminosity

294: functions and the halo parameters derived by the two techniques are correct in

295: the mutually exclusive volumes for which they are relevant. In what follows, we

296: therefore consider two sets of constraints, A and B, based on the

297: proper-motion samples of by \citet{Digby et al.} and the deep-field samples of

298: \citet{Gould et al.}, respectively. Even though there are many large studies

299: based on the first technique, the differences between these and those of

300: \citet{Digby et al.} are minor and will not have any significant impact on the

301: current study. While there are slight differences between the assumptions made

302: in \citet{Gould et al.} and \citet{Digby et al.} about the functional form of

303: density profile of the stellar halo, both studies are able to produce good fits

304: to the number of subdwarfs observed in the volumes probed, and this is what

305: matters for the current study.

306: 

307: \citet{Digby et al.} assume a density profile for the stellar halo of the

308: form\footnote{Here, we have corrected an obvious misprint in \citet{Digby et

309: al.}, related to the definition of $\beta$.}:

310: 

311: \begin{equation}

312: n_\mathrm{A}(x,y,z)=n_\mathrm{A,\odot}\left( \frac{x^2+y^2+(z/q)^2 +

313: R_\mathrm{c}^2}{R_0^2+ R_\mathrm{c}^2} \right)^{-\beta/2},

314: \end{equation} 

315: where $x$, $y$, $z$ are galactocentric coordinates. $n_\mathrm{\odot}$ is the number density of subdwarfs in the vicinity of

316: the Sun, $q$ is the halo flattening parameter, $R_0$ is the distance from the

317: Sun to the centre of the Milky Way (throughout this paper assumed to be 8.0

318: kpc), $R_\mathrm{c}$ is a core radius (assumed to be $R_\mathrm{c}=1.0$ kpc)

319: and $\beta$ is the exponent of the density power-law. While \citet{Digby et al.} are unable to

320: impose useful constraints on $q$, they find a best-fitting $\beta=3.15$ and

321: adopt $q=0.55$ in their plots. In what follows, these values will be adopted by

322: us as well.

323: 

324: \citet{Gould et al.} instead assume that the subdwarfs of the stellar halo are

325: distributed according to a density profile of the form:

326: 

327: \begin{equation}

328: n_\mathrm{B}(x,y,z)=n_\mathrm{B,\odot}\left( \frac{x^2+y^2+(z/q)^2}{R_0^2} \right)^{-\beta/2}. 

329: \end{equation} 

330: where $x$, $y$, $z$ are galactocentric coordinates. With this assumption, they derive best fitting values of $\beta=3.13$ and $q=0.82$.

331: 

332: To derive $n_\mathrm{A,\odot}$ and $n_\mathrm{B,\odot}$, we need to adopt

333: a luminosity range for subdwarfs. For simplicity, we consider all main sequence

334: stars that fall in the luminosity range probed by {\it both} \citet{Digby et

335: al.} and \citet{Gould et al.} to be subdwarfs, i.e. objects with $V$-band

336: luminosities $7.5\lesssim M_V\lesssim 12.4$. This then implies

337: $n_\mathrm{A,\odot}\approx 1.7\times 10^5$ kpc$^{-3}$ and

338: $n_\mathrm{B,\odot}\approx 6.4\times 10^4$ kpc$^{-3}$.

339: 

340: \section{Star counts confront surface photometry}

341: Here we use the best-fitting halo parameters derived by \citet{Digby et

342: al.} and \citet{Gould et al.} to compute the mean number densities of subdwarfs

343: $\overline{n_\mathrm{A}}$ and $\overline{n_\mathrm{B}}$ within the relevant

344: volumes $V_\mathrm{A}$ and $V_\mathrm{B}$:

345: \begin{equation}

346: \overline{n_\mathrm{A/B}}=\frac{1}{V_\mathrm{A/B}}\int n_\mathrm{A/B}(x,y,z) \;

347: \mathrm{d}V_\mathrm{A/B}.

348: \end{equation} 

349: 

350: Any additional, smooth halo population that involves higher subdwarf densities

351: than $\overline{n_\mathrm{A}}$ or $\overline{n_\mathrm{B}}$ in these volumes

352: should already have been detected in either the \citet{Digby et al.} or

353: \citet{Gould et al.} surveys and can therefore be ruled out. By simply checking

354: $\overline{n_\mathrm{A}}$ and $\overline{n_\mathrm{B}}$ against the predictions

355: of various red halo models, we can therefore place conservative -- yet very

356: strong -- constraints on any hitherto undetected, smooth red halo of low-mass

357: stars around the Milky Way.

358: 

359: The volumes A and B considered relevant for the studies by

360: \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et al.}  are illustrated in

361: Fig.~\ref{schematic}. For simplicity, we take the volume covered by

362: \citet{Digby et al.} to be a sphere with radius 2.8 kpc centered on the

363: position of the Sun. In the case of \citet{Gould et al.}, the actual volumes

364: probed correspond to an ensemble of many very narrow cones of different length

365: (given by the flux limits of the HST fields used), with their tips removed to

366: avoid contamination from stars belonging to the disk. Here, we approximate

367: these volumes by a single, wide cone with opening angle 60$^\circ$ and height

368: 40 kpc, with the tip (within 2.3 kpc of the plane) removed. In

369: Fig.~\ref{schematic}, we have only depicted one cone, whereas in reality, stars

370: were selected from both directions away from the Milky Way disk. Since we are

371: only considering halo models that are symmetric with respect to the disk, this

372: has no impact on our results.  Using $V_\mathrm{A}\approx 92$ kpc$^3$ and

373: $V_\mathrm{B}\approx1.8\times 10^4$ kpc$^3$, and the density profiles described

374: in section 2.2, we find $\overline{n_\mathrm{A}}\approx 1.7\times 10^5$

375: subdwarfs kpc$^{-3}$ and $\overline{n_\mathrm{B}}\approx 1.2\times 10^3$

376: subdwarfs kpc$^{-3}$.

377: 

378: Also plotted in Fig.~\ref{schematic} is the line of sight (for simplicity

379: depicted as a cylinder) for which surface photometry indicates anomalously red

380: colours in the stacked halo data of Z04. This region is located at a projected

381: distance of $R_\mathrm{proj}=2\times r_\mathrm{exp}$ from the midplane of the

382: disk, which -- when rescaled to a galaxy with the dimensions adopted for the

383: Milky Way -- corresponds to $R_\mathrm{proj}=5$ kpc. This sightline may or may

384: not directly intersect the volume B probed by deep-field star counts,

385: depending on the (undetermined) orientation of the Sun with respect to the surface

386: brightness sightline. However, in the axisymmetric halo models considered here,

387: this is of no consequence. The important point is instead that, because of the

388: projected nature of the surface photometry data, contributions from the light

389: measured along the depicted sightline can come from regions outside (i.e. in

390: front of, or behind) the \citet{Gould et al.} cone. Therefore, the available

391: star counts do not necessarily dictate what would be observed along the surface

392: photometry sightline, although they do set a lower limit on the total surface

393: brightness.

394: 

395: 

396: \subsection{Rejection criteria}

397: When testing red halo models against the observational constraints, we assume

398: that the red halo is smooth and can be described by a density profile of the

399: form:

400: 

401: \begin{equation}

402: n_\mathrm{red}(x,y,z)=n_\mathrm{red,\odot}\left(

403: \frac{x^2+y^2+(z/q_\mathrm{red})^2}{R_0^2} \right)^{-\beta_\mathrm{red}/2}

404: \label{n_red}

405: \end{equation}

406: 

407: where $x$, $y$, $z$ are Galactocentric coordinates. $n_\mathrm{red}$ is the number density of subdwarfs, $q_\mathrm{red}$ the

408: flattening parameter for the red halo and $\beta_\mathrm{red}$ the exponent of

409: the red halo density power-law. This matches the assumptions used in the work

410: of \citet{Gould et al.}.

411: 

412: For each combination of red halo model parameters considered, we calculate the

413: expected mean number densities of red halo subdwarfs in volumes A and B:

414: 

415: \begin{equation}

416: \overline{n_\mathrm{red,\: A/B}}=\frac{ }{V_\mathrm{A/B}}\int

417: n_\mathrm{red}(x,y,z) \; \mathrm{d}V_\mathrm{A/B}.

418: \end{equation}

419: 

420: All red halo models that give either $\overline{n_\mathrm{red,\:

421: A}}>\overline{n_\mathrm{A}}$ or $\overline{n_\mathrm{red,\:

422: B}}>\overline{n_\mathrm{B}}$ are then considered rejected. Given the red halo

423: density profile parameters $q_\mathrm{red}$ and $\beta_\mathrm{red}$, the

424: normalization parameter $n_\mathrm{red,\odot}$ is computed from the requirement

425: that surface brightness of the red halo, at a projected distance from the Milky

426: Way disk of $2\times r_\mathrm{exp}$ is equal to the observed

427: $I_{\mathrm{red},\; i}$, i.e. $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}$ converted from mag

428: arcsec$^{-2}$ to $L_\mathrm{AB}$ kpc$^{-2}$:

429: 

430: \begin{equation}

431: I_{\mathrm{red},\; i} = \frac{2 n_\mathrm{red,\odot}}{N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i}

432: \int_0^{y_\mathrm{max}} \left(

433: \frac{y^2+(\frac{2r_\mathrm{exp}}{q_\mathrm{red}})^2}{R_0^2}

434: \right)^{-\frac{\beta_\mathrm{red}}{2}} \; \mathrm{d}y.

435: \label{Ieq}

436: \end{equation}

437: 

438: Here $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ describes the number of subdwarfs per luminosity (in

439: units of $L_{\mathrm{AB},i}$, i.e. the $i$-band luminosity of the flat-spectrum

440: source used to define the zero point of the SDSS AB system) in the red halo

441: population. The upper integration limit is given by

442: $y_\mathrm{max}=\sqrt{r_\mathrm{max}^2-4r_\mathrm{exp}^2}$, where

443: $r_\mathrm{max}$ is the outer truncation radius of the red halo. To allow any

444: putative red halo maximum leverage, we set $r_\mathrm{max}$ equal to the virial

445: radius of the dark matter halo, which we here take to be 258 kpc \citep{Klypin

446: et al.}.

447: 

448: This leads to four free parameters for the red halo model: $q_\mathrm{red}$,

449: $\beta_\mathrm{red}$, $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}$.

450: 

451: For red halo models that remain viable after constraints A and B

452: have been imposed, we compute the mass contained in such structures using:

453: 

454: \begin{equation}

455: M_\mathrm{red}=\left(\frac{M}{N_\mathrm{sub}}\right)\int_{0}^{2\pi} \!\!\!

456: \int_{0}^{\pi} \!\!\! \int_{r_\mathrm{min}}^{r_\mathrm{max}} n(r,\theta,\phi)

457: r^2\sin(\theta) \; \mathrm{d}r \mathrm{d}\theta \mathrm{d}\phi,

458: \label{Meq}

459: \end{equation}

460: 

461: where $M/N_\mathrm{sub}$ represents the ratio of total mass of the red halo

462: stellar population (in the 0.08--120 $M_\odot$ mass range) to the number of

463: such stars considered subdwarfs, and $n(r,\theta,\phi)$ is simply equation

464: (\ref{n_red}) converted into spherical coordinates. Since we have assumed a

465: core-free, power-law density for the red halo (eq. \ref{n_red}), a non-zero

466: lower radial integration limit $r_\mathrm{min}$ is required to prevent

467: $M_\mathrm{red}$ from diverging for $\beta_\mathrm{red}>0$. Here, we have

468: adopted $r_\mathrm{min}=1$ kpc. Allowing a smaller $r_\mathrm{min}$ would only have

469: a significant impact on $M_\mathrm{red}$ for very steep density profiles

470: (i.e. profiles with high $\beta_\mathrm{red}$), since these attain very high

471: central densities. However, such populations are of little interest for the

472: missing-baryon problem, since models that attempt to hide a substantial

473: baryonic mass in the form of stars within $\sim 1$ kpc from the Milky Way

474: centre are subject to very strong constraints by microlensing observations

475: towards the bulge \citep{Calchi Novati et al. b}.

476: \begin{deluxetable}{lll}

477: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

478: %\rotate

479: \tablecaption{$N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ and $M/N_\mathrm{sub}$ as a function of IMF

480: slope $\alpha$.}

481: \tablewidth{0pt}

482: \tablehead{

483: \colhead{$\alpha$} & \colhead{$N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$} & $M/N_\mathrm{sub}$ }

484: \startdata

485: 0.75/2.35\tablenotemark{a} & 67 & 1.7\\

486: 2.35 & 300 & 0.59 \\

487: 3.00 & 650 & 0.60 \\

488: 3.50 & 1100 & 0.70 \\

489: 4.00 & 1800 & 0.86\\

490: 4.50 & 2400 & 1.1\\

491: 5.00 & 2700 & 1.4\\

492: \enddata

493: \tablenotetext{a}{This entry represents the two-component power-law IMF

494: considered representative for the standard stellar halo of the Milky Way.}

495: \label{NL_table}

496: \end{deluxetable}

497: 

498: \subsection{Spectral synthesis}

499: To determine reasonable values for the parameter $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ in

500: equation (\ref{Ieq}), spectral synthesis modelling is required. The

501: constraints presented in Section 4 are based on the assumption that the red

502: halo has an age of 10 Gyr, a metallicity of $Z=0.001$, and a power-law IMF with

503: exponent $\alpha$ ($\mathrm{d}N/\mathrm{d}M \propto M^{-\alpha}$) throughout

504: the mass range 0.08--120 $M_\odot$. The star formation rate (SFR) is assumed to

505: have been exponentially declining over cosmological time scales

506: ($\mathrm{SFR}\propto \exp(-t/\tau)$), with $\tau=1$ Gyr (suitable for an

507: early-type system). Since the resulting constraints are somewhat sensitive to

508: the parameter values adopted, the effects of relaxing these assumptions are

509: carefully explored in Section 5.

510: 

511: To derive $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$, we also need to identify the subset of stars in

512: the red halo population that qualify as subdwarfs. The luminosity criteria

513: described in section 2.2 convert into a stellar mass range of $0.15 \lesssim M

514: (M_\odot)\lesssim 0.7$ \citep[e.g.][]{Marigo et al.}.  The number of subdwarfs

515: $N_\mathrm{sub}$ within a population can then straightforwardly be derived from

516: the IMF, whereas the integrated $i$-band luminosity and the stellar population

517: mass $M$ can be derived using a spectral synthesis code. Here, we use the

518: population synthesis model PEGASE.2 \citep{Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange} to derive

519: these quantities.

520: 

521: The constraints on red halo models derived in section 4 will be computed for the

522: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ values (in units of dwarfs $L_{\mathrm{AB},i}^{-1}$)

523: listed in Table.~\ref{NL_table}. These correspond to the predictions for IMF

524: slopes $\alpha = 2.35$ (i.e. the Salpeter IMF), 3.00, 3.50, 4.00, 4.50

525: \citep[the value favoured by][]{Zackrisson et al. a} and 5.00. For comparison,

526: we also list $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ for an IMF that more closely resembles that

527: of the hitherto detected stellar halo: a broken power-law IMF with

528: $\alpha=0.75$ in the 0.08--0.7 $M_\odot$ mass range and $\alpha=2.35$ for 0.7--120

529: $M_\odot$. This choice (labeled 0.75/2.35 in Table 1) is in fair agreement with

530: the mass function derived by \citet{Gould et al.}, and produces results similar

531: to other parameterizations of the halo IMF \citep[e.g.][]{Chabrier}. The

532: $M/N_\mathrm{sub}$ ratios, required to compute the stellar population masses of

533: viable red halo models using equation (\ref{Meq}), are also listed for these

534: IMFs.

535: 

536: These IMFs cover the range from perfectly normal to extremely bottom-heavy, and therefore account for the possibility that the $r-i$ colour (the primary reason for advocating a steep IMF slope) reported by Z04 may have been artificially reddened by PSF effects \citep{de Jong}.  

537: 

538: \begin{figure}[t]

539: \plotone{f2.eps}

540: \caption{The regions in the ($\beta_\mathrm{red}$,$q_\mathrm{red}$) parameter

541: space allowed for different red halo IMFs (shades of gray) in the case of

542: $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}=26.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The constraints are based on the \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et al.} surveys combined -- i.e. red halos are considered rejected if either $\overline{n_\mathrm{red,\:

543: A}}>\overline{n_\mathrm{A}}$ (conflict with \citealt{Digby et al.}) or $\overline{n_\mathrm{red,\:B}}>\overline{n_\mathrm{B}}$ (conflict with \citealt{Gould et al.}). The ``Standard IMF'' refers to the broken power-law IMF considered representative of the hitherto detected stellar halo of the Milky Way. Darker areas (corresponding to more bottom-heavy IMFs) are here plotted on top of brighter ones, so that the region marked by the darkest shade of gray indicates the boundaries inside which halos of {\it any} IMF (ranging from the standard IMF to the $\alpha=5.00$ IMF) are allowed to lie. Halo models with the standard IMF are on the other hand only constrained to lie within the union of all the differently shaded areas. The ($q_\mathrm{red}$, $\beta_\mathrm{red}$) constraints on halo models with less extreme IMFs (lighter shades of gray) are consequently much weaker than those of the most bottom-heavy ones (darker shades of gray). White regions represent regions of the parameter space where no red halo models are allowed.}

544: \label{paramspace}

545: \end{figure}

546: \begin{figure*}[t]

547: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}

548: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{paramspace}, but showing the regions of the ($\beta_\mathrm{red}$,$q_\mathrm{red}$) red halo parameter space allowed by the data sets of ({\bf a}) \citet{Digby et al.} and ({\bf b}) \citet{Gould et al.}, separately.}

549: \label{paramspace2}

550: \end{figure*}

551:  

552: \section{Constraints on red halo models}

553: By simply adopting the best-fitting structural parameters derived by Z04

554: ($q_\mathrm{red}\approx 0.6$, $\beta_\mathrm{red}\approx 3$) and assuming a

555: bottom-heavy IMF population with $\alpha=4.50$ for the red halo colours, we

556: would arrive at a red halo mass of $M_\mathrm{red}\approx 2\times 10^{10}\

557: M_\odot$. While this is in the right ballpark for accounting for a significant

558: fraction of the missing baryons in the Milky Way, this parameter combination --

559: along with all similar ones -- are completely ruled out by the star

560: counts. This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{paramspace}, where we apply the combined constraints imposed by the \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et al.} surveys to red halo models with parameters in the

561: range $\beta_\mathrm{red}=0$--10 (where $\beta_\mathrm{red}=0$ corresponds to a

562: constant-density halo) and $q_\mathrm{red}=0.5$--1.5. For these constraints, we

563: have assumed a scaling given by a halo surface brightness level of

564: $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}=26.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ (in direct correspondence to

565: the stacked halo by Z04). 

566: 

567: A wide range of different model parameters are allowed in the case of the

568: standard halo IMF (lightest shade of gray), including the $\beta=3$--3.5,

569: $q=0.5$--1.0 range in which the hitherto detected stellar halo is known to

570: lie. Of course, this IMF cannot account for the anomalously red colours of the

571: Z04 halo, and the mass of such structure is only about $1\times 10^9 \ M_\odot$, in fair agreement with estimated total mass of the ordinary stellar halo of the Milky Way \citep[e.g.][]{Bell et al.}. 

572: 

573: As the IMF becomes more bottom-heavy, the allowed region of the

574: parameter space is progressively pushed into the upper right corner of this

575: diagram. The most bottom-heavy IMFs considered (darkest shades of gray) are

576: only allowed at $q_\mathrm{red}>1$ (i.e. halos elongated in the polar

577: direction) and $\beta_\mathrm{red}>5$ (i.e. halos where the density drops much

578: faster as a function of distance from the centre than the standard halo with

579: $\beta\approx 3$). Because of their high central densities, such models more

580: closely resemble elongated bulges than normal halos.

581: 

582: The range of density profile slopes ($\beta_\mathrm{red}=2.5$--3.5) and flattenings

583: ($q_\mathrm{red}=0.5$--0.7) favoured by Z04 are {\it completely ruled out} for

584: the Milky Way in the case of the more bottom-heavy IMF slopes. While there are

585: indeed red halo models ($\beta_\mathrm{red}>5$) with very bottom-heavy IMFs that would be able to

586: explain the $i$-band surface brightness while evading the constraints set by

587: current star counts, {\it the mass contained in such structures is very

588: low}. In the case of $\alpha=4.0$--5.0 \citep[i.e. an IMF similar to that advocated by][]{Zackrisson et al. a}, the maximum

589: red halo mass among the acceptable models is only $\approx 5\times 10^8\

590: M_\odot$, insufficient to be of any relevance for the missing-baryon problem.

591: 

592: Due to the different volumes probed by \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et al.}, these two data sets constrain slightly different regions of the ($\beta_\mathrm{red}$,$q_\mathrm{red}$) parameter space. This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{paramspace2}, where the constraints imposed by \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et al.} are plotted separately. While both sets of star counts are equally effective in ruling out the red halo models directly favoured by Z04 (i.e. $\beta_\mathrm{red}=2.5$--3.5 and $q_\mathrm{red}=0.5$--0.7), there are notable differences in the constraints imposed on more extreme models. Due to the smaller volume covered by \citet{Digby et al.}, their data are unable to rule out red halo models with close-to-constant densities (i.e. $\beta_\mathrm{red}\approx 0$). While such models imply relatively few subdwarfs in the vicinity of the Sun, the fact that these densities are retained far into the halo -- where the relevant volumes elements become huge -- result in very large red halo masses ($\sim 10^{12}\ M_\odot$). Since the \citet{Gould et al.} star counts are sensitive to subdwarfs at much greater distances from the Galactic centre, all $\beta_\mathrm{red}\approx 0$ models are rejected in Fig.~\ref{paramspace2}b. On the other hand, the position of the Digby et al. volume in the plane of the Milky Way imply that the these star counts are more sensitive than the the Gould et al. ones to red halo models which are flattened towards the disk (i.e. $q_\mathrm{red}<1.0$), and this is also the main contribution of Digby et al. to the combined constraints presented in Fig.~\ref{paramspace}.

593: \begin{figure}[t]

594: \plotone{f4.eps}

595: \caption{Maximum allowed red halo mass vs. the adopted surface

596: brightness level $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}$ at $r_\mathrm{proj}$ for a halo

597: population with IMF slope $\alpha=4.50$ and different constraints on the slope

598: of the red halo density profile: $\beta_\mathrm{red}\geq 0$ (thick solid line),

599: $\beta_\mathrm{red}\geq 2$ (thin solid), and $\beta_\mathrm{red}\geq 5$ (thin

600: dashed).}

601: \label{Mmax}

602: \end{figure}

603: 

604: \subsection{Varying the brightness of the halo}

605: In Fig.~\ref{Mmax}, we explore the maximum red halo mass allowed as a function

606: of the adopted $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}$ in the case of the $\alpha=4.50$

607: IMF. Allowing any putative red halo around the Milky Way an $i$-band surface

608: brightness level brighter than $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}=26.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$

609: has the effect of pushing the allowed parameter space for the bottom-heavy

610: models farther into the upper right corner of Fig.~\ref{paramspace}, i.e. to

611: higher $\beta_\mathrm{red}$ and $q_\mathrm{red}$. As a result, the largest red

612: halo masses among models with IMF slopes of $\alpha=4.0$--5.0 also become

613: somewhat smaller than those in the case of $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}=26.7$ mag

614: arcsec$^{-2}$. This means that, if the red halo component is brighter in the

615: Milky Way than in the stacked halo, the red excess can only be attributed to a

616: stellar population with a bottom-heavy IMF if its density profile is much

617: steeper than that of both the Galactic stellar halo and the stacked halo of

618: external disk galaxies. Even if this were the case, the mass contained in this

619: structure would be orders of magnitude below that required to have any

620: relevance for the missing-baryon problem in the Milky Way.

621: 

622: As previously discussed, the $i$-band surface brightness of the halo may be contaminated by both a contribution from the disk and by the far wings of the PSF. Allowing a surface brightness level fainter than

623: $\mu_i=26.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ increases the allowed parameter space for

624: bottom-heavy IMFs. At $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}=29.2$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ (i.e. a

625: factor of 10 fainter than the stacked halo), red halos with $\alpha=4.50$ and

626: structural parameters similar to the standard halo are allowed

627: (e.g. $\beta_\mathrm{red}=3.5$, $q_\mathrm{red}=0.75$). However, since this has

628: been made been possible at the expense of a low overall density scaling, the

629: maximum mass in such red halo models do not exceed $\sim 10^9\ M_\odot$, which is insufficient to explain the missing baryons. 

630: 

631: 

632: With a red halo as faint as $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}=31.7$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$

633: (i.e. 100 times fainter than the stacked halo), the entire parameter space

634: depicted in Fig.~\ref{paramspace} becomes viable for all IMFs considered. As a

635: result, red halos models with $\alpha=4$--5 and masses in the range that would

636: indeed be relevant for the missing-baryon problem (several times $10^{10}\

637: M_\odot$) evade the observational constraints considered here. However, as

638: shown in Fig.~\ref{Mmax} these high masses are produced exclusively by models

639: with $2>\beta_\mathrm{red}\geq 0$. Density profile slopes like these are too shallow to be consistent with

640: the slopes of $\beta_\mathrm{red}=2.5$--3.5 favoured by Z04. Since Z04 made no

641: attempt to correct their surface brightness profiles for PSF effects, it is

642: moreover likely that their estimate of $\beta_\mathrm{red}$ is an underestimate

643: rather than an overestimate.

644:  

645: As is evident from Fig.~\ref{Mmax}, the maximum red halo mass reaches a peak at

646: some $\mu_{\mathrm{red},i}$ and then declines for fainter models, since the

647: allowed region of the $(\beta_\mathrm{red}$, $q_\mathrm{red})$ plane initially

648: grows as fainter halos are considered. However, once the entire plane becomes

649: permitted, the only effect of going fainter is to lower the overall density

650: scaling of the red halos, thereby giving smaller total masses.

651: 

652: Hence, while a red halo of low-mass stars can in principle evade the current

653: constraints on halo subdwarfs and at the same time account for some

654: non-negligible fraction of the missing baryons, this would require that {\it both}

655: the scaling and slope of its surface brightness profile would be very different

656: from that of the halo seen around stacked external galaxies. Since the variance

657: of red halo properties among disk galaxies cannot easily be assessed from the

658: Z04 study, this possibility cannot be ruled out. However, advocating a solution

659: of that type would relieve the stacked halo of all predictive power concerning

660: the Milky Way, and we do not consider this possibility any further.

661: 

662: Allowing for the fact that the $r-i$ colour of the halo may have been overestimated (thereby implying a 

663: less extreme halo IMF) does not significantly alter these conclusions. All halo models with $\beta_\mathrm{red}\geq 2$ that evade the star counts constraints have $M_\mathrm{max}\leq 10^{10}\ M_\odot$ at all $\mu_i$ considered in Fig.~\ref{Mmax}, regardless of which of the IMFs in Table 1 we adopt. 

664: 

665: \section{Discussion}

666: Our results indicate that a smooth halo with a bottom-heavy IMF and structural parameters similar to those of the stacked halo is completely ruled out in the Milky Way by current star count data. A halo component with a bottom-heavy IMF

667: would have to have an overall scaling or density profile that differs

668: substantially from that of the stacked halo to remain viable. Moreover, all

669: permitted smooth red halo models with a density slope {\it even remotely similar} to

670: that of the stacked halo contain far too little mass to have any bearing on the

671: missing-baryon problem in the Milky Way.

672: 

673: These conclusions are admittedly based on a large number of assumptions

674: regarding the properties of the red halo. Since one can in principle consider

675: many formation scenarios for a halo-like structure dominated by low-mass stars

676: -- for example in situ formation, population III stars, dynamical mass segregation

677: \citep[see][for a more details discussion]{Zackrisson et al. b} -- the

678: properties of the red halo population may be very different from those thus far

679: adopted. Here, we therefore investigate the robustness of our conclusions in

680: light of the most important assumptions made.

681: 

682: \subsection{Age, star formation history and metallicity of the halo}

683: \begin{figure*}

684: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}

685: \caption{$N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ as a function of age for stellar populations with

686: different IMF slopes $\alpha$ (indicated by labels).  {\bf a)} Populations with

687: $Z=0.001$ and $\tau=1$ Gyr. {\bf b)} Populations with $\tau=1$ Gyr at

688: metallicities of $Z=0.0001$ (thin dashed), $Z=0.001$ (thick solid) and $Z=0.008$

689: (thin solid). To avoid cluttering, only a subset of IMF slopes are

690: included. \label{N/L}}

691: \end{figure*}

692: In deriving the constraints presented in section 4, fixed $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$

693: ratios have been adopted for every IMF slope considered, based on the assumed

694: age, prior star formation history and metallicity of the red halo. In reality,

695: of course, we have but very poor constraints on these properties. For a halo

696: population, one naively expects a relatively high age and a low metallicity,

697: and we therefore restrict the discussion to ages $t\geq 1$ Gyr and

698: metallicities $Z\leq 0.008$. In Fig.~\ref{N/L}a and b, we demonstrate the

699: dependence of $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ on age and $Z$ in the case of a stellar

700: population with $\tau=1$ Gyr. The $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ ratio generally increases as a

701: function of age.

702: 

703: However, for the more bottom-heavy IMFs (i.e. high IMF slope $\alpha$), the age

704: dependence is weak, and an age lower than the 10 Gyr assumed in section 4 would

705: allow $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ to be lowered by no more than $\approx 25\%$

706: (for $\alpha\geq 4$). Allowing a metallicity higher than the assumed value of

707: $Z=0.001$ would just increase $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ and hence strengthen the

708: constraints. A metallicity as low as $Z=0.0001$ would decrease

709: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$, but by no more than $\approx 30\%$. The maximum decrease is

710: moreover attained at the highest ages, which means that this drop in

711: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ does not add to the age effect -- you cannot have both at

712: the same time. Hence, the combined effect of age and metallicity is no more

713: than $\approx 30\%$ for IMFs with $\alpha\geq 4$.

714: 

715: Alterations in the star formation history affect the $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ ratio

716: in a way that is very similar to age variations. The maximised

717: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ are attained in the case of an instantaneous burst of star

718: formation (i.e. a single-age population). While the perfectly coeval onset and

719: quenching of star formation associated with this scenario seems unrealistic

720: given the huge spatial scales involved in the halo, an instantaneous burst

721: would just make the constraints on the red halo stronger. Allowing a

722: more prolonged star formation history than the $\tau=1$ Gyr adopted in section

723: 4 on the other hand lowers $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$. In the extreme case of having

724: a star formation that increases as a function of time, the

725: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ ratio stays almost constant at the value attained at the lowest

726: ages. Hence, such scenarios do not provide the means for lowering

727: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ more than the age effects already discussed.

728: 

729: In summary, $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ for these alternative scenarios may be

730: somewhat lower ($\approx 30\%$) than the values listed in Table \ref{NL_table}

731: and used in the constraints presented in section 4. A detailed inspection of

732: the entries in Table \ref{NL_table} reveals that this may shift the constraint

733: levels by at most one level, in the sense that the constraints given for an IMF

734: with slope $\alpha$ may relaxed to mimic those for an IMF with a slope one step

735: lower among those tested. As an example, changing the age from 10 to 1 Gyr

736: for an $\alpha=4.00$ model would lower $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ from

737: $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i\approx 1800$ to $\approx 1300$ (see Fig.~\ref{N/L}a),

738: i.e. a decrease by $\approx 30\%$. This $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ ratio is

739: intermediate between those listed for $\alpha=3.50$ and 4.00. Hence,

740: the relaxed constraints on the allowed structural parameters for a

741: $\alpha=4.00$ halo would fall between those of the $\alpha=3.50$ and

742: 4.00 contours in Fig.~\ref{paramspace}. This shift is too small to

743: allow a halo population with $\alpha=4.0$--5.0 into regions of the

744: ($q_\mathrm{red}$, $\beta_\mathrm{red}$) parameter space where it would

745: contribute significantly to the missing-baryon problem.  Other spectral

746: synthesis codes may produce slightly different values for $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$,

747: but the qualitative impact of such variations on the final constraints is easy

748: to assess from Table~\ref{NL_table} and Fig.~\ref{N/L}.

749: 

750: Once the constraints on $q_\mathrm{red}$ and $\beta_\mathrm{red}$ have been

751: determined, the mass of the viable red halo models are computed using equation (\ref{Meq}), based on the $M/N_\mathrm{sub}$ ratio. This ratio also has a

752: slight dependence on age and star formation history, but varies by no more than

753: $\approx 30\%$ for IMFs with slopes $\alpha\geq 3$. The inferred red halo

754: masses change insignificantly because of such effects.

755: 

756: Hence, we argue that our conclusions are robust with respect to the assumptions

757: made about the age, metallicity and star formation history of the red halo.

758: 

759: \subsection{Disk scale length}

760: The constraints presented in section 4 have been derived using a scale length

761: for the Milky Way of $r_\mathrm{exp}=2.5$ kpc. The effect of changing

762: $r_\mathrm{exp}$ is to spatially shift the projected distance

763: $r_\mathrm{proj}=2\times r_\mathrm{exp}$ between the plane of the disk and the

764: region where the density scale of the red halo models are set by the

765: assumed $\mu_{\mathrm{red},\; i}$. Adopting a smaller value of $r_\mathrm{exp}$ weakens the

766: constraints imposed on red halo models by star counts in volumes A and B, whereas a larger $r_\mathrm{exp}$ would make the

767: constraints stronger. Allowing $r_\mathrm{exp}=2.0$ kpc \citep[at the lower

768: limit of what is allowed by the constraints set by][]{Juric et al.} only allows

769: an increase of the overall mass of red halos with IMFs with

770: $\alpha=4.0$--5.0 by a factor of $\approx 2$, which still places the red halo

771: mass substantially below the range relevant for the missing-baryon problem in

772: the Milky Way. Therefore, our conclusions seem very robust with respect to

773: uncertainties in the scale length of the Milky Way disk.

774: 

775: \subsection{Halo IMF}

776: So far, we have only considered power-law IMFs with single-valued slopes

777: $\alpha$ for the red halo population. In principle, far more complicated IMFs

778: (e.g. broken power laws, lognormal IMFs, IMFs with mass spikes) could be

779: considered. While this is not warranted given the large observational

780: uncertainties associated with current red halo data, improved measurements may

781: indeed require modifications of the assumed IMF. The revised constraints can be

782: assessed by comparing $N_\mathrm{sub}/L_i$ and $M/N_\mathrm{sub}$ of

783: populations with more complicated IMFs to the values listed in

784: Table~\ref{NL_table}. However, as long as the IMF is not tweaked to move a very large fraction of the overall population mass outside the stellar mass range to which the current subdwarf star counts are sensitive ($\approx 0.15-0.7 \ M_\odot$), the

785: conclusions presented here will not be qualitatively altered.

786: 

787: \subsection{Halo density profile}

788: 

789: The constraints presented are based on the reasonable assumption that the

790: volume density of red halo stars decreases monotonically with distance from the

791: Galactic centre. Shells and tidal tails are sometimes seen in the outskirts of

792: galaxies, and represent overdensities of matter that formally violate this

793: assumption. If one entertained the notion that the abnormal colours of the red

794: halo come from low-mass stars in a shell-like structure, then the constraints

795: presented here can in principle be completely sidestepped by pushing the radius

796: of this shell to distances outside the volume probed by the \citet{Gould et

797: al.} star counts (volume B in Fig.~\ref{schematic}). However, while the

798: density of such a structure can be chosen freely to correspond to the measured

799: surface brightness level at any single projected radius, the decrease in

800: surface brightness as a function of projected distance from the centre would be

801: far slower than that reported by Z04.

802: 

803: So far, we have assumed the red halo density profile to be a single-valued

804: power law, whereas more complicated density profiles can of course be

805: considered. A broken power-law profile with a shallow slope (or a constant

806: density core) close to the centre ($R_\mathrm{c}< R_\mathrm{proj}$) would

807: result in constraints on the outer slope and flattening identical to those

808: presented here, except that the overall red halo mass would become even lower

809: than implied by current constraints for the allowed parameter combinations. The

810: situation becomes more complicated if the power-law density profile changes

811: slope inside (or even outside) the volumes A and B. However, a break of this

812: type would be imprinted in the red halo surface brightness profiles at some

813: level, and there is no compelling evidence for such features at the current

814: time.

815: 

816: \subsection{Subdwarf detectability as a function of distance}

817: 

818: The luminosity functions of \citet{Digby et al.} and \citet{Gould et al.} have

819: for simplicity been adopted throughout volumes A and B for all subdwarfs in

820: the luminosity range $7.5\lesssim M_V\lesssim 12.4$. In reality, the luminosity

821: function is not sampled equally well at all distances, since the faintest

822: (i.e. least massive) subdwarfs typically cannot be detected out to as large

823: distances as the brightest ones. In fact, $M_V\approx 12.4$ stars are detected

824: only out to a distances of order 5 kpc from the Sun in volume B,

825: i.e. substantially smaller than the 40 kpc adopted for its outer boundary. The

826: constraints imposed by these volumes may therefore be too strict for red halo

827: populations composed almost entirely of the subdwarfs at the lowest

828: masses. However, even if we completely disregard all constraints based on

829: volume B, thereby restricting ourselves to very small distances from the Sun

830: ($\leq 2.8$ kpc), we are still left with reasonably strong constraints imposed by volume A (as depicted in Fig.~\ref{paramspace2}a). All

831: $\alpha=4.50$ populations with $\beta_\mathrm{red}\geq 2.75$ are constrained to

832: contribute less than $10^{10}\ M_\odot$ to the baryon budget for all $\mu_i$

833: normalizations considered. Shallower density profiles $\beta_\mathrm{red}<

834: 2.75$ do allow red halo masses in excess of $10^{10}\ M_\odot$, but these would

835: be in poor agreement with the values derived by Z04.

836: 

837: 

838: \subsection{Halo smoothness}

839: 

840: One way of sidestepping the Milky Way star counts would be to assume that

841: the red halo stars are not smoothly distributed, but clustered. Scenarios of

842: this type have been carefully investigated by \citet{Kerins a,Kerins b}, and

843: remain a viable way of hiding the red halo population from detection in the

844: Milky Way. The volumes A and B in which the star counts have

845: assumed to be valid (Fig.~\ref{schematic}), are crude representations of the

846: actual volumes probed. In reality, the subdwarf samples used in the studies by

847: \citet{Gould et al.} and \citet{Digby et al.} have been obtained in a limited

848: number of fields, which would more accurately be represented by a large number

849: of narrow cones probing the volume. If red halo stars were clustered, we may

850: have missed them simply because they have so far happened to fall between the

851: cones.

852: 

853: Such clusters of low-mass stars in the Milky Way halo might already be

854: detectable as faint, extended objects in a wide-angle survey such as the SDSS

855: (provided that a sufficient number of such clusters is located at sufficiently

856: small distances from us), or in external galaxies, using a combination of

857: surface photometry and star counts.

858: 

859: As an example, consider a star cluster of mass $4\times 10^4 \ M_\odot$

860: \citep[the mass favoured by][]{Kerins a,Kerins b} with $Z=0.004$ and IMF slope

861: $\alpha=4.50$ \citep[i.e. the values favoured by][]{Zackrisson et al. a}. The

862: cluster would have an absolute magnitude of $M_I\approx -3.3$ in the Cousins

863: $I$-band, which is $\approx 0.5$ mag below the tip of the red giant branch

864: (RGB) in a 10 Gyr old population. Objects this bright are readily detectable

865: with the HST at distances out to at least $\approx 10$ Mpc. However, objects of

866: this type could possibly -- depending on their compactness and exact distance --

867: be mistaken for single stars when observed in the commonly used $V$ and $I$

868: filters alone, since the $V-I$ colour of such a population is predicted to be

869: $V-I\approx 1.7$ (assuming $\tau=1$ Gyr and an age of 10 Gyr), similar to that

870: of RGB stars. Multicolour data should nonetheless be able to reveal their

871: exotic nature, since the spectra of integrated stellar populations typically differ

872: substantially from those of individual stars.

873: 

874: The idea of red halo star clusters at these luminosities is very interesting in

875: the light of recent work by \citet{Yan et al.}, who in the halo of the nearby

876: galaxy M60 (distance $\approx 16$ Mpc) may have detected a population of halo

877: objects with luminosities of giants, but $izJHK$ colours that are

878: difficult to reconcile with current models of such stars. Yan et al. argue that

879: these objects, whatever their nature, may be responsible for the anomalous

880: colours of red halos. It remains to be investigated, however, whether the

881: colours of these objects may be consistent with the expectations for

882: star clusters with bottom-heavy IMFs.

883: 

884: \subsection{The typicality of the Milky Way}

885: 

886: Since the analysis by Z04 does not directly reveal what the variance of halo

887: properties within the stacked sample is, we do not know what fraction of the

888: stacked galaxies have a red halo. Perhaps some do not, and the Milky Way is

889: just one such case. If so, we are confronted with red halos possibly

890: contributing significantly to the baryonic mass in some disk galaxies -- but

891: not in others. In disks at least, the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation

892: (i.e. the relation between the total inferred stellar and gas masses vs. the

893: rotational velocity) can be tuned via the stellar population mass-to-light

894: ratio to show very small scatter \citep[][]{McGaugh et al.,McGaugh}, which has

895: been used as an argument that most of the baryons of disk galaxies have already been

896: identified. Having considerable baryonic reservoirs in red halos

897: for some disk galaxies, but not for others, would supposedly increase the scatter, but the magnitude of this effect is unclear. Moreover, there are observational indications that the Milky Way may be offset from the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation \citep{Flynn et al.}. If this is the case, constraints based on the Milky Way may not be able to say anything

898: definitive on the red halo masses of disk galaxies in general.

899: 

900: \section{Summary}

901: By comparing the photometric properties of the red halo detected in stacked

902: SDSS data by Z04 to the available subdwarf star counts in the Milky Way halo,

903: we have tested the viability of models that aim to explain the colours of red

904: halos as due to stellar populations with abnormally high fractions of low-mass

905: stars. We find, that a smooth halo with a bottom-heavy IMF and structural

906: parameters similar to those of the stacked halo is completely ruled out in the

907: Milky Way by current star count data. A halo component with a bottom-heavy IMF

908: would have to have an overall scaling or density profile that differs

909: substantially from that of the stacked halo to remain viable. Moreover, all

910: permitted smooth red halo models with a density slope even remotely similar to

911: that of the stacked halo contain far too little mass to have any bearing on the

912: missing-baryon problem in the Milky Way. These conclusions could possibly be

913: avoided if the red halo stars are locked up in small star clusters. We argue

914: that such scenarios can be tested through combined star counts and deep surface

915: photometry of the halos of nearby galaxies.

916: 

917: \acknowledgments

918: EZ acknowledges research grants from the Academy of

919: Finland, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Royal Academy of

920: Sciences. The anonymous referee is thanked for useful comments which helped improve the quality of the paper.

921: 

922: %% In a manner similar to \objectname authors can provide links to dataset

923: %% hosted at participating data centers via the \dataset{} command.  The

924: %% second curly bracket argument is printed in the text while the first

925: %% parentheses argument serves as the valid data set identifier.  Large

926: %% lists of data set are best provided in a table (see Table 3 for an example).

927: %% Valid data set identifiers should be obtained from the data center that

928: %% is currently hosting the data.

929: %% In this section, we use  the \subsection command to set off

930: %% a subsection.  \footnote is used to insert a footnote to the text.

931: 

932: %% Observe the use of the LaTeX \label

933: %% command after the \subsection to give a symbolic KEY to the

934: %% subsection for cross-referencing in a \ref command.

935: %% You can use LaTeX's \ref and \label commands to keep track of

936: %% cross-references to sections, equations, tables, and figures.

937: %% That way, if you change the order of any elements, LaTeX will

938: %% automatically renumber them.

939: 

940: %% This section also includes several of the displayed math environments

941: %% mentioned in the Author Guide.

942: 

943: 

944: %% The \notetoeditor{TEXT} command allows the author to communicate

945: %% information to the copy editor.  This information will appear as a

946: %% footnote on the printed copy for the manuscript style file.  Nothing will

947: %% appear on the printed copy if the preprint or

948: %% preprint2 style files are used.

949: 

950: %% The eqnarray environment produces multi-line display math. The end of

951: %% each line is marked with a \\. Lines will be numbered unless the \\

952: %% is preceded by a \nonumber command.

953: %% Alignment points are marked by ampersands (&). There should be two

954: %% ampersands (&) per line.

955: 

956: 

957: %% Putting eqnarrays or equations inside the mathletters environment groups

958: %% the enclosed equations by letter. For instance, the eqnarray below, instead

959: %% of being numbered, say, (4) and (5), would be numbered (4a) and (4b).

960: %% LaTeX the paper and look at the output to see the results.

961: 

962: %% This section contains more display math examples, including unnumbered

963: %% equations (displaymath environment). The last paragraph includes some

964: %% examples of in-line math featuring a couple of the AASTeX symbol macros.

965: 

966: %% The displaymath environment will produce the same sort of equation as

967: %% the equation environment, except that the equation will not be numbered

968: %% by LaTeX.

969: 

970: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,

971: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments

972: %% command.

973: 

974: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the

975: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]

976: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,

977: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the

978: %% text to be printed in the second.

979: 

980: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their

981: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope

982: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches

983: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be

984: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes

985: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.

986: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX

987: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.

988: 

989: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the

990: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research

991: %% for the paper.  Each keyword will be checked against the master list during

992: %% copy editing.  Individual instruments can be provided in parentheses,

993: %% after the keyword, but they will not be verified.

994: 

995: %Facilities: \facility{???}.

996: 

997: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.

998: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix

999: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.

1000: 

1001: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.

1002: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix

1003: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.

1004: 

1005: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.

1006: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.

1007: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of

1008: %% curly braces.  If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error

1009: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".

1010: %%

1011: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite

1012: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a

1013: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds

1014: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).

1015: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the

1016: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain

1017: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in

1018: %% place of the \cite commands.

1019: 

1020: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.

1021: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.

1022: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.

1023: 

1024: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly

1025: %% different from previous examples.  The natbib system solves a host

1026: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly

1027: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.

1028: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.

1029: 

1030: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1031: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{Alcock et al.}

1032: Alcock, C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 542, 281

1033: \bibitem[Belokurov et al.(2004)Belokurov, Evans \& Le Du]{Belokurov et al.}

1034: Belokurov, V., Evans, N. W., \& Le Du, Y. 2004, MNRAS 352, 233 

1035:  \bibitem[Bell et al.(2008)]{Bell et al.}

1036: Bell, E. F., Zucker, D. B., Belokurov, V., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 295 

1037: \bibitem[Bergvall \& \"Ostlin(2002)]{Bergvall & Östlin}

1038: Bergvall, N., \& \"Ostlin, G. 2002, A\&A, 390, 891

1039: \bibitem[Bergvall et al.(2005)]{Bergvall et al.}

1040: Bergvall, N., Marquart, T., Persson, C., Zackrisson, E., \& \"Ostlin, G. 2005, in Multiwavelength Mapping of Galaxy Formation and Evolution, ed. A. Renzini, \& R. Bender, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), p.355

1041: \bibitem[Brandner(2005)]{Brandner}

1042: Brandner, W. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library Volume 327, The Initial Mass Function 50 years later, ed. E. Corbelli, F. Palle, \& H. Zinnecker (Dordrecht: Springer), p.101 

1043: \bibitem[Bregman(2007)]{Bregman}

1044: Bregman, J. N. 2007, ARA\&A, 45, 221 

1045: \bibitem[Calchi Novati et al.(2005)]{Calchi Novati et al. a}

1046: Calchi Novati, S., et al. 2005, A\&A, 443, 911

1047: \bibitem[Calchi Novati et al.(2008)]{Calchi Novati et al. b} 

1048: Calchi Novati, S., de Luca, F., Jetzer, Ph., Mancini, L., \& Scarpetta, G. 2008, A\&A, 480 723

1049: \bibitem[Carollo et al.(2007)]{Carollo et al.}

1050: Carollo, D., et al. 2007, Nature, 450, 1020

1051: \bibitem[Casagrande et al.(2008)]{Casagrande et al.}

1052: Casagrande, L., Flynn, C., \& Bessel, M., 2008, MNRAS, in press (preprint: arXiv0806.2471)

1053: \bibitem[Cen \& Ostriker(1999)]{Cen & Ostriker}

1054: Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 1

1055: \bibitem[Chabrier(2003)]{Chabrier}

1056: Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

1057: \bibitem[Crain et al.(2007)]{Crain et al.} 

1058: Crain, R. A., Eke, V. R., Frenk, C. S., Jenkins, A., McCarthy, I. G., Navarro, J. F., \& Pearce, F. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 41

1059: \bibitem[Dav\'e et al.(2001)]{Davé et al.} 

1060: Dav\'e, R., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 473 

1061: \bibitem[de Jong et al.(2006)]{de Jong et al.}

1062: de Jong, J. T. A., et al. 2006, A\&A, 446, 855

1063: \bibitem[de Jong(2008)]{de Jong}

1064: de Jong, R. S. 2008, MNRA, 388, 1521

1065: \bibitem[Digby et al.(2003)]{Digby et al.}

1066: Digby, A. P., Hambly, N. C., Cooke, J. A., Reid, I. N., \& Cannon, R. D. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 583

1067: \bibitem[Fioc \& Rocca-Volmerange(1999)]{Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange}

1068: Fioc, M., \& Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1999, preprint (astro-ph/9912179)

1069: \bibitem[Flynn et al.(2006)]{Flynn et al.}

1070: Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., \& Jahrei\ss{}, H. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1149

1071: \bibitem[Freese(2000)]{Freese}

1072: Freese, K., 2000, Physics Reports, 333, 183

1073: \bibitem[Fukugita(2004)]{Fukugita}

1074: Fukugita, M. 2004, in International Astronomical Union Symposium no. 220, ed. S. D. Ryder, D. J. Pisano, M. A. Walker, \& K. C. Freeman (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific) p.227

1075: \bibitem[Fukugita \& Peebles(2004)]{Fukugita & Peebles a}

1076: Fukugita, M., \& Peebles, P. J. E. 2004, ApJ, 616, 643

1077: \bibitem[Fukugita \& Peebles(2006)]{Fukugita & Peebles b}

1078: Fukugita, M., \& Peebles, P. J. E. 2006, ApJ, 639, 590

1079: \bibitem[Gardner et al.(2008)]{Gardner et al.}

1080: Gardner, E, Innanen, K.~A., \& Flynn, C. 2008, to appear in The Galactic Disk in Cosmological Context, International Astronomical Union Symposium no. 254, ed. J. Andersen, J. Bland-Hawthorn, \& B. Nordstr\"om (preprint: arXiv0808.0498) 

1081: \bibitem[Gould et al.(1998)]{Gould et al.}

1082: Gould, A., Flynn, C., \& Bahcall, J. N. 1998, ApJ, 503, 798

1083: \bibitem[Gould(2003)]{Gould}

1084: Gould, A. 2003, ApJ, 583, 765 

1085: \bibitem[Gouliermis et al.(2006)]{Gouliermis et al.}

1086: Gouliermis, D., Brandner, W., \& Henning, T., 2006, ApJ, 641, 838

1087: \bibitem[Griest(1991)]{Griest}

1088: Griest, K. 1991, ApJ, 366, 412

1089: \bibitem[Hoversten \& Glazebrook(2008)]{Hoversten & Glazebrook}

1090: Hoversten, E. A., \& Glazebrook, K. 2008, ApJ, 675, 163 

1091: \bibitem[James \& Casali(1998)]{James & Casali}

1092: James, P. A., \& Casali, M. M. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 280

1093: \bibitem[Juric et al.(2008)]{Juric et al.}

1094: Juric, M., Ivezic, \v{Z}., Brooks, A., et al. 2008 ApJ, 673, 864   

1095: \bibitem[Kerins(1997a)]{Kerins a}

1096: Kerins, E. J. 1997a, A\&A 322, 709

1097: \bibitem[Kerins(1997b)]{Kerins b}

1098: Kerins, E. J. 1997b, A\&A 328, 5

1099: \bibitem[Klypin et al.(2002)Klypin, Zhao \& Sommerville]{Klypin et al.}

1100: Klypin, A., Zhao, H., \& Somerville, R. S. 2002, ApJ, 573, 597

1101: \bibitem[Komatsu et al.(2008)]{Komatsu et al.}

1102: Komatsu E., et al. 2008, ApJS, submitted (preprint: arXiv0803.0547)

1103: \bibitem[Lequeux et al.(1996)]{Lequeux et al. a}

1104: Lequeux, J., Fort, B., Dantel-Fort, M., Cuillandre, J.-C., \& Mellier, Y. 1996, A\&A, 312, L1

1105: \bibitem[Maller \& Bullock(2004)]{Maller & Bullock}

1106: Maller, A. H., \& Bullock, J. S. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 694

1107: \bibitem[Marigo et al.(2007)]{Marigo et al.}

1108: Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., \& Groenewegen, M. A. T., Silva, L., Granato G. L. 2007, A\&A, submitted (preprint arXiv:0711.4922)

1109: \bibitem[Mart\'inez-Delgado et al.(2008)]{Martinez-Delgado et al.}

1110: Mart\'inez-Delgado, D., Penarrubia, J., Gabany, R. J.,Trujillo, I., Majewski, S. R., \& Pohlen, M. 2008, ApJ, submitted (preprint: arXiv0805.1137)

1111: \bibitem[Massey(2002)]{Massey}

1112: Massey, P. 2002, ApJS, 141, 81

1113: \bibitem[McGaugh et al.(2000)]{McGaugh et al.} 

1114: McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M., Bothun, G. D., \& de Blok, W. J. G. 2000, ApJ, 533, L99 

1115: \bibitem[McGaugh(2005)]{McGaugh}

1116: McGaugh, S. S. 2005, ApJ, 632, 859

1117: \bibitem[Michard(2002)]{Michard}

1118: Michard, R. 2002, A\&A, 384, 763

1119: \bibitem[Molinari et al.(1994)]{Molinari et al.}

1120: Molinari, E., Buzzoni, A., Chincarini, G., \& Pedrana, M.D. 1994, A\&A 292, 54

1121: \bibitem[Nicastro et al.(2005)]{Nicastro et al.}

1122: Nicastro, F., et al. 2005, Nature 433, 495L

1123: \bibitem[Pfenniger et al.(1994)Pfenniger, Combes\& Martinet]{Pfenniger et al.} 

1124: Pfenniger, D., Combes, F., \& Martinet, L. 1994, A\&A 285, 79

1125: \bibitem[Pfenniger \& Combes(1994)]{Pfenniger & Combes}

1126: Pfenniger, D., \& Combes, F. 1994, A\&A 285, 94 

1127: \bibitem[Prochaska \& Tumlinson(2008)]{Prochaska & Tumlinson}

1128: Prochaska, J. X., \& Tumlinson, J. 2008, to appear in Astrophysics in the Next Decade: JWST and Concurrent Facilities, ed. X. Tielens (preprint: arXiv:0805.4635)

1129: \bibitem[Riffeser et al.(2008)]{Riffeser et al.}

1130: Riffeser, A., Seitz, S., \& Bender, R. 2008, ApJ, in press (preprint: arXiv0805.0137)

1131: \bibitem[Rudy et al.(1997)]{Rudy et al.}

1132: Rudy, R. J., Woodward, C. E., Hodge, T., Fairfield, S. W., \& Harker, D. 1997, Nature, 387, 159

1133: \bibitem[Sackett et al.(1994)]{Sackett et al.}

1134: Sackett, P. D., Morrison, H. L. Harding, P., \& Boroson, T. A. 1994, Nature, 370, 441

1135: \bibitem[Shang et al.(1998)]{Shang et al.}

1136: Shang, Z., et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, 23

1137: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{Sirianni et al.}

1138: Sirianni, M., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049

1139: \bibitem[Sommer-Larsen \& Dolgov(2001)]{Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov}

1140: Sommer-Larsen, J., \& Dolgov, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, 608

1141: \bibitem[Sommer-Larsen(2006)]{Sommer-Larsen}

1142: Sommer-Larsen, J. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1

1143: \bibitem[Tamm et al.(2007)]{Tamm et al.}

1144: Tamm, A., Tempel, E., \& Tenjes, P. 2007, preprint (arXiv:0707.4375)

1145: \bibitem[Tisserand et al.(2007)]{Tisserand et al.}

1146: Tisserand, P., et al. 2007, A\&A, 469, 387

1147: \bibitem[van Dokkum(2008)]{van Dokkum}

1148: van Dokkum, P. G. 2008, ApJ, 674, 29 

1149: \bibitem[Yan et al.(2008)]{Yan et al.}

1150: Yan, H., Hathi, N. P., \& Windhorst, R. A. 2008, ApJ, 675, 136

1151: \bibitem[Zackrisson et al.(2006)]{Zackrisson et al. a}

1152: Zackrisson, E., Bergvall, N., \"Ostlin, G., Micheva, G., \& Leksell, M. 2006, ApJ, 650, 812

1153: \bibitem[Zackrisson et al.(2007)]{Zackrisson et al. b}

1154: Zackrisson, E., Bergvall, N., Flynn, C., \"Ostlin, G., Micheva, G., \& Caldwell, B. 2007, in International Astronomical Union Symposium no. 244, ed.  J. I. Davies, \& M. J. Disney, p.17 

1155: \bibitem[Zackrisson \& Riehm(2007)]{Zackrisson & Riehm}

1156: Zackrisson, E., \& Riehm, T. 2007, A\&A 475, 453

1157: \bibitem[Zepf et al.(2000)]{Zepf et al.}

1158: Zepf, S. E., Liu, M. C., Marleau, F. R., Sackett, P. D., \& Graham, J. R. 2000, AJ, 119, 1701

1159: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(1999)]{Zheng et al.}

1160: Zheng, Z., et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 2757

1161: \bibitem[Zibetti et al.(2004)Zibetti, White, \& Brinkmann]{Zibetti et al.}

1162: Zibetti, S., White, S. D. M., \& Brinkmann, J. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 556 (Z04)

1163: \bibitem[Zibetti \& Ferguson(2004)]{Zibetti & Ferguson}

1164: Zibetti, S., \& Ferguson, A. M. N. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 6

1165: \end{thebibliography}

1166: 

1167: 

1168: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

1169: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

1170: %% To embed the sample graphics in

1171: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and

1172: %% \includegraphics commands

1173: %%

1174: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or

1175: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the

1176: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,

1177: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the

1178: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,

1179: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.

1180: %%

1181: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of

1182: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check

1183: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to

1184: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from

1185: %% journal to journal.

1186: 

1187: 

1188: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to

1189: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption

1190: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be

1191: %% available in the electronic journal.

1192: 

1193: 

1194: %% Here we use \plottwo to present two versions of the same figure,

1195: %% one in black and white for print the other in RGB color

1196: %% for online presentation. Note that the caption indicates

1197: %% that a color version of the figure will be available online.

1198: %%

1199: 

1200: %\begin{figure}

1201: %%\plottwo{f2.eps}{f2_color.eps}

1202: %\caption{A panel taken from Figure 2 of \citet{rudnick03}. See the electronic edition of the Journal for a color version of this figure.\label{fig2}}

1203: %\end{figure}

1204: 

1205: %% This figure uses \includegraphics to scale and rotate the still frame

1206: %% for an mpeg animation.

1207: 

1208: %% If you are not including electonic art with your submission, you may

1209: %% mark up your captions using the \figcaption command. See the

1210: %% User Guide for details.

1211: %%

1212: %% No more than seven \figcaption commands are allowed per page,

1213: %% so if you have more than seven captions, insert a \clearpage

1214: %% after every seventh one.

1215: 

1216: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before

1217: %% each one.

1218: 

1219: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables:  the

1220: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX

1221: %% table environment.  Use of deluxetable is preferred.

1222: %%

1223: 

1224: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,

1225: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.

1226: 

1227: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}

1228: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.

1229: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to

1230: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the

1231: %% reduced font size.

1232: %%

1233: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed

1234: %% inside the \tablecaption.

1235: 

1236: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full

1237: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic

1238: %% edition.

1239: %%

1240: 

1241: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before

1242: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark

1243: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.

1244: 

1245: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using

1246: %% \tableline, not \hline.

1247: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.

1248: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.

1249: 

1250: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.

1251: 

1252: %% If the table is more than one page long, the width of the table can vary

1253: %% from page to page when the default \tablewidth is used, as below.  The

1254: %% individual table widths for each page will be written to the log file; a

1255: %% maximum tablewidth for the table can be computed from these values.

1256: %% The \tablewidth argument can then be reset and the file reprocessed, so

1257: %% that the table is of uniform width throughout. Try getting the widths

1258: %% from the log file and changing the \tablewidth parameter to see how

1259: %% adjusting this value affects table formatting.

1260: 

1261: %% The \dataset macro has also been applied to a few of the objects to

1262: %% show how many observations can be tagged in a table.

1263: 

1264: %% You can append references to a table using the \tablerefs command.

1265: 

1266: %% Tables may also be prepared as separate files. See the accompanying

1267: %% sample file table.tex for an example of an external table file.

1268: %% To include an external file in your main document, use the \input

1269: %% command. Uncomment the line below to include table.tex in this

1270: %% sample file. (Note that you will need to comment out the \documentclass,

1271: %% \begin{document}, and \end{document} commands from table.tex if you want

1272: %% to include it in this document.)

1273: 

1274: %% \input{table}

1275: 

1276: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text

1277: %% that appears after it.

1278: 

1279: \end{document}

1280: 

1281: %%%% End of file `sample.tex'.

1282: 

1283: