1: % -*-LaTeX-*-
2: % latex paper.tex; xdvi paper.dvi; dvips -t letter paper.dvi -o paper.ps; ps2pdf paper.ps paper.pdf
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: \documentclass[11pt,letter]{emulateapj}
5: \slugcomment{{\sc Submitted to ApJL:} September 22, 2008}
6: \usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{lscape}
8:
9: \shortauthors{Fuentes, George \& Holman 2008}
10: \shorttitle{Subaru pencil-beam search for $m_R\sim27$ TNOs}
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \def\kms{{~\rm km\,s^{-1}}}
14: \def\eq#1{\rm Equation (\ref{#1})}
15: \def\Eq#1{\rm Eq.~\ref{#1}}
16: \def\Fig#1{\rm Fig.~\ref{#1}}
17: \def\fig#1{\rm Figure~\ref{#1}}
18: \def\tab#1{\rm Table~\ref{#1}}
19: \def\km{~\rm km}
20: \def\kmhr{~\rm km/hr}
21: \def\kpc{~\rm kpc}
22: \def\au{~\rm AU}
23: \def\yr{~\rm yr}
24: \def\Gyr{~\rm Gyr}
25: \def\hours{{\rm hours}}
26: \def\days{{~\rm days}}
27: \def\msun{M_\odot}
28: \def\rsun{R_\odot}
29: \def\lsun{L_\odot}
30: \def\teff{T_{\rm eff}}
31: \def\ms{{\rm m\,s^{-1}}}
32: \def\ave#1{\left<#1\right>}
33: \def\deg{~\rm deg}
34: \def\sqdeg{~\rm deg^2}
35: \def\aph{~\rm ''~h^{-1}}
36: \def\arcsec{~\rm ''}
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \bibliographystyle{apj}
40:
41: \title{A Subaru pencil-beam Search for $m_R\sim27$ Trans-neptunian bodies\altaffilmark{1}}
42: \author{Cesar I.\,Fuentes\altaffilmark{2}, Matthew R.\,George\altaffilmark{2,3}, Matthew J.\,Holman\altaffilmark{2} }
43: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on data collected at Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.}
44: \altaffiltext{2}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA; cfuentes@cfa.harvard.edu}
45: \altaffiltext{3}{Current Address: Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: We present the results of an archival search for Trans-neptunian
49: objects (TNOs) in an ecliptic field observed with Subaru in
50: 2002. The depth of the search allowed us to find 20 new TNOs with
51: magnitudes between $R=24$ and $27$. We fit a double power law model
52: to the data; the most likely values for the bright and faint power
53: law exponents are $\alpha_1$=$0.73_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$ and
54: $\alpha_2$=$0.20_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$; the differential number density
55: at $R=23$ is $\sigma_{23}$=$1.46_{-0.12}^{+0.14}$ and the break
56: magnitude is $R_{eq}$=$25.0_{-0.6}^{+0.8}$. This is the most
57: precise measurement of the break in the TNO luminosity function to
58: date. The break in the size distribution corresponds to a diameter
59: of $D = 90\pm30$ km assuming a 4\% albedo.
60: \end{abstract}
61: \keywords{Kuiper Belt -- Solar System: formation}
62:
63:
64: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
65: The TNO size distribution is the result of the formation and
66: collisional history of its members. Models of the physical evolution
67: assume the processes at play result in a characteristic power law size
68: distribution. In the model of \citet{Pan.2005} of strengthless TNOs,
69: the collisional evolution of the objects leads to an evolving size
70: distribution that changes slope at the size at which the collisional
71: lifetime of an object equals the age of the system. This analytical
72: result confirms those obtained from numerical
73: simulations~\citep{Kenyon.1999,Davis.1999,Kenyon.2004}. The precise
74: location of the break in the size distribution is an important
75: measurement to link TNO formation and evolution models to the current
76: TNO population (see \citealt{Kenyon.2008} for a review).
77:
78: The TNO luminosity function is defined by the distance, albedo, and
79: size distributions of TNOs, and it is readily observed. The distance
80: distribution exhibits a sharp edge at $50\au$ \citep{Trujillo.2001}
81: that has been observed in other surveys \citep{Gladman.2001,
82: Fuentes.2008}. Though it is customary to use a 4\% albedo,
83: correlations with size have been reported (see
84: \citealt{Stansberry.2008} for a review). After making sensible
85: assumptions for the albedo and distances of the observed TNOs, the
86: size distribution can be derived from the luminosity function. Several
87: searches have been completed (see \citealt{Bernstein.2004,
88: Fuentes.2008} for a review), the deepest being the search by
89: \citet{Bernstein.2004} with the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}
90: (HST). While previous results sampled the size distribution up to
91: magnitude $R=26$ and were consistent with a power law luminosity
92: function, the \citet{Bernstein.2004} survey found a significant
93: underabundance of objects at $R\sim28$, compared to that predicted
94: from extrapolating the luminosity function at brighter
95: magnitudes. They concluded a break in the luminosity function must
96: occur between $R\sim25$ and $28$.
97:
98: Since \citet{Bernstein.2004} announced their results, a number of
99: ground-based surveys for fainter TNOs have been conducted in an effort
100: to bridge the divide between the brighter ($R$$\sim$$23$) TNOs found
101: through wide-field searches such as the Deep Ecliptic
102: Survey~\citep{Elliot.2005} and the Canada-France Ecliptic Plane
103: Survey~\citep{Jones.2006} and those found by \citet{Bernstein.2004}.
104: \citet{Fuentes.2008} discovered 82 TNOs in an archival search of
105: Subaru data. This survey reached a limiting magnitude of $R=25.7$ and
106: successfully detected the break in the luminosity function. In the
107: present work we build upon that earlier work, increasing the limiting
108: magnitude of ground-based surveys to $R\sim27$ and further narrowing
109: the gap between ground-based and space-based TNO surveys. Constraints
110: on even fainter objects have been placed by stellar occultation
111: surveys \citep{Bickerton.2008, Zhang.2008}.
112:
113: We present the details of the data in the next
114: section. \S~\ref{sec:mod} outlines the method used to analyze and
115: search for TNOs in the data. The characterization of the search using
116: a synthetic population is presented in \S~\ref{sec:effic}. In
117: \S~\ref{sec:results} and \S~\ref{sec:conc} we present our results and
118: discuss what they imply for the formation and evolution of the TNO
119: population.
120:
121:
122: \section{Data}\label{sec:data}
123: The apparent motion of solar system bodies limits the useful exposure
124: time to the period required for an object to move a PSF width; longer
125: exposures spread the signal along a trail and, correspondingly,
126: increase the contribution of the sky background. To overcome this, we
127: consider a series of short exposures and shift the successive images
128: to compensate for the motion of the object. In this way the signal
129: from the source can dominate the noise from the background. This
130: ``pencil beam'' or ``digital tracking'' approach has been successfully
131: applied in searches for TNOs and outer planet satellites
132: \citep{Allen.2001, Gladman.2001, Holman.2004, Kavelaars.2004,
133: Fraser.2008}.
134:
135: Using Subaru's electronic archive SMOKA~\citep{Ichikawa.2002}, we
136: identified a data set well suited to such a search, a series of 148
137: consecutive $120~\mathrm{s}$ exposures of a single, ecliptic field
138: observed with Subaru on UT 2002 September 2 over the course of
139: 8~hours. These data were collected with
140: Suprime-Cam~\citep{Miyazaki.2002}, a 10-CCD mosaic camera with a $34'
141: \times 27'$ field of view and an image scale of
142: $0\farcs202~\mathrm{pix}^{-1}$. It is our understanding that these
143: data were originally collected for the Subaru Main Belt Asteroid
144: Survey (see~\citealt{Yoshida.2007}). The field, R.A. 22:41:38, Dec
145: -07:37:35, is less than $1^{\circ}$ from the ecliptic and was observed
146: near opposition using the ``Cousins R'' filter. Although brief
147: intervals of clouds are apparent from the images, the night was mostly
148: photometric, with stable seeing of $\sim0\farcs7$.
149:
150: We trimmed, bias subtracted and flat divided the images with
151: calibrations obtained on the same night and the next one using
152: standard IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National Optical
153: Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of
154: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative
155: agreement with the National Science Foundation.} routines.
156:
157:
158: \section{Moving Object Detection}\label{sec:mod}
159: We determined an astrometric solution for each individual CCD using
160: the 2MASS point source catalog~\citep{Cutri.2003}. The RMS of the
161: solution was $\sim0\farcs2$, comparable to that of the catalog and
162: much smaller than the typical seeing. We then registered every image
163: to the same astrometric reference.
164:
165: Next, we inserted a population of synthetic objects that will be later
166: used to determine the efficiency of our search (the details of this
167: process are given in \S~\ref{sec:effic}).
168:
169: To detect TNOs moving at any physically plausible velocity,
170: we defined a grid of rates, parallel and perpendicular to the
171: ecliptic. A TNO at a typical distance of $42\au$ exhibits a
172: parallactic motion of $\sim3\aph$, moving about 120 pixels over the
173: length of the observations. We searched rates from $0\farcs7$ to
174: $5\farcs1~{\rm h^{-1}}$ for the parallel rate to cover the range
175: between $\sim20$ and 200$\au$, and perpendicular rates in the range
176: $-1\farcs4$ to $1\farcs 4~{\rm h^{-1}}$. Furthermore, we restricted
177: our attention to directions of apparent motion within $15 ^ \circ$ of
178: the ecliptic, which nevertheless permits the detection of highly
179: inclined TNOs. We searched these rates with a resolution of $0\farcs
180: 1~\rm{h^{-1}}$ along both axes (this resolution ensures that the
181: signal in the first image can be aligned with that in the last for any
182: object).
183:
184: Prior to combining the images, we used the ISIS
185: package~\citep{Alard.2000} to PSF match and subtract a template from
186: each individual exposure, thus eliminating any source that is
187: stationary and of constant brightness. For each individual CCD, the
188: template image was the median combination of 10 of the best-seeing
189: images. Saturated stars were masked at this point to avoid spurious
190: detections due to imperfect subtraction.
191:
192: To optimally combine the 148 images we defined a ``weight'' for each
193: image based on both its sky background and seeing: $w_i= \sigma_i^{-2}
194: \theta_i^{-2} (\sum_j \sigma_j^{-2} \theta_j^{-2} )^{-1}$, where
195: $\theta$ is the FWHM and $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the
196: background in counts. We defined a reference time to be the weighted
197: average of the exposure mid-times. For each of the 736 combinations
198: of parallel and perpendicular rates we shifted all subtracted images
199: to the reference time and computed the weighted average of them.
200:
201: We searched each of the ``shifted and added'' images for point sources
202: that corresponded to real or implanted objects moving at the
203: corresponding rate. For this we used a combination of the SExtractor
204: package~\citep{Bertin.1996} and a wavelet source detection routine
205: \citep{Petit.2004}, each with a $3\sigma$ detection threshold. These
206: two approaches rely on very different image properties and, thus, have
207: different noise characteristics. We have found that the intersection
208: of the results from these two routines strongly discriminates against
209: false detections. Nevertheless, we find $\sim300$ detections per
210: coadded CCD at each combination of rates parallel and perpendicular to
211: the ecliptic.
212:
213: We comb through these with an automated search algorithm. The
214: algorithm considers all detections in all of the parallel and
215: perpendicular rate combinations (roughly $2.2\times 10^5$ detections
216: per CCD), projects them on the sky plane, and then searches for
217: clusters of detections. Assuming each cluster corresponds to a moving
218: object detected in one or more of the coadded images for rates close
219: to the real, or synthetic, one, the code selects the single detection
220: from every cluster that has the smallest ellipticity and largest flux.
221: We visually inspect the resulting $\sim300$ candidates per CCD in
222: order to reject any obvious spurious detections; those rejected are
223: typically poorly subtracted stars that were not adequately masked, or
224: cosmic rays that resulted in multiple detections. This inspection
225: process is extremely fast and decreases the number of possible moving
226: objects to $\sim60$ per CCD. We further examine each of these
227: remaining candidates to determine the parallel and perpendicular rates
228: that yield the PSF that best resembles a normal one. In this way we
229: visually found the best rate of motion. In this process another 40\%
230: of the remaining objects were rejected.
231:
232: The novelty in this method is the initial automated search and visual
233: filter for candidates that are later checked by blinking through
234: different rates. The alternatives are a fully automated search
235: algorithm run at a higher detection threshold to eliminate false
236: positives~\citep{Bernstein.2004} or a visual search through the whole
237: field and all possible rates~\citep{Gladman.2001}. We expect that a
238: fully visual search would be more sensitive, leaving aside the issue
239: of human fatigue. To test this we completed a visual search of 20\%
240: of the area (two of the ten CCDs). In this test we visually confirmed
241: or rejected potential candidates identified by the two source
242: detection algorithms, as was done by \citet{Holman.2004}. The
243: comparison showed our approach to be $\sim 10\%$ less sensitive
244: compared to a visual search, roughly independent of magnitude and
245: rate.
246:
247: \section{Control Population and Detection Efficiency}\label{sec:effic}
248: To calibrate our search we used a control population of objects that
249: resemble real TNOs both astrometrically and photometrically. We
250: considered a range of distances ($30-200\au$) and magnitudes
251: ($R=24.5-29.5$), as well as the full range of eccentricities and
252: inclinations to create a population of synthetic TNOs. Ephemerides for
253: this population were created using a modified version of the {\it
254: Orbfit} routines \citep{Bernstein.2000}.
255:
256: For each CCD $\sim10$ bright stars were used to determine a PSF
257: model. These stars are also used to account for changes in the seeing
258: and the atmospheric transparency when implanting objects.
259:
260: We recovered 312 synthetic TNOs and used them to determine the
261: efficiency as a function of $R$ magnitude. The result is shown in
262: Figure~\ref{fig:effofmag}. The detection efficiency is well
263: represented by the following function:
264: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:eff}
265: \eta(R) = \frac{A}{2} \left(1-\tanh{\frac{R-R_{50}}{w}} \right)
266: \end{equation}
267: where the best fit values are $A$=$0.86\pm0.07$,
268: $R_{50}$=$26.76\pm0.06$ and $w$=$0.38\pm0.04$. The maximum efficiency
269: of our search is 86\%, and it reaches half this value at magnitude
270: $R=26.76$.
271:
272:
273: \begin{figure}[ht]
274: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f1.eps}
275: \caption{\label{fig:effofmag} Detection efficiency as a function of
276: magnitude. The solid line corresponds to $\Eq{eqn:eff}$, with best
277: fit values: $A$=$0.86\pm0.07$, $R_{50}$=$26.76\pm0.06$ and
278: $w$=$0.38\pm0.04$. }
279: \end{figure}
280:
281:
282:
283:
284: The USNO-B Catalog was used to tie the photometry of our objects to a
285: standard system. A number of USNO-B stars are unsaturated in our field
286: ($m_R>18$). The photometric uncertainty of the catalog is 0.3 mag
287: \citep{Monet.2003}. Seven isolated stars were selected, and compared
288: to the photometry of an exposure from a photometric portion of the
289: night. The flux $f_5$ for a 5-pixel ($1\farcs01$) aperture over a time
290: $t$ in seconds was found to be:
291: \begin{equation}
292: R = 27.45 - 2.5 \log{f_5 / t} .
293: \end{equation}
294: An aperture correction of 0.076 mag is included in this
295: formula.
296:
297: \section{Results and Analysis}\label{sec:results}
298:
299: Our search resulted in 20 new objects, summarized in Table
300: \ref{tab:objects}. The distances to these objects are estimated using
301: their parallactic motion, assuming circular orbits. To estimate the
302: uncertainty in these distance estimates, we compare the precision of
303: the parallactic rate to that in \citet{Fuentes.2008} and adopt the
304: uncertainty in those distances ($2.5\au$). There are three objects
305: with distances closer than 30 AU; given the poor orbital information
306: we assume these objects are Plutinos and retain them in our sample.
307:
308:
309:
310: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
311: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
312: \tablecaption{\sc TNO properties\tablenotemark{a}}
313: \tablewidth{0pt}
314: \tablehead{
315: \colhead{} & % \colhead{$\mathrm{Name}$} &
316: \colhead{$R_{mag}$} &
317: \colhead{${\rm R.A.}$} &
318: \colhead{${\rm Decl.}$} &
319: \colhead{$d{\rm R.A.}/dt$} &
320: \colhead{$d{\rm Decl.}/dt$} &
321: \colhead{${\rm d_{par}}$}
322: \\
323: \colhead{} &
324: \colhead{} &
325: \colhead{} &
326: \colhead{} &
327: \colhead{${\rm (''~h^{-1})}$} &
328: \colhead{${\rm (''~h^{-1})}$} &
329: \colhead{${\rm(AU)}$}
330: }
331: \startdata
332: sd1 & $26.7$ & 22:40:46.967 & -07:28:56.80 & -3.19 & -1.53 & 35.5 \\
333: sd2 & $24.0$ & 22:40:38.889 & -07:34:33.23 & -2.99 & -1.23 & 39.2 \\
334: sd3 & $24.6$ & 22:40:48.201 & -07:33:30.04 & -2.99 & -1.23 & 39.2 \\
335: sd4 & $26.7$ & 22:42:46.043 & -07:25:05.09 & -4.39 & -1.27 & 26.8 \\
336: sd5 & $26.6$ & 22:42:29.147 & -07:34:07.96 & -2.80 & -1.15 & 42.1 \\
337: sd6 & $25.9$ & 22:42:39.499 & -07:34:09.84 & -3.55 & -1.46 & 32.4 \\
338: sd7 & $25.4$ & 22:42:26.506 & -07:34:58.77 & -2.67 & -1.21 & 43.6 \\
339: sd8 & $25.1$ & 22:42:31.162 & -07:36:21.54 & -2.71 & -1.12 & 43.6 \\
340: sd9 & $25.2$ & 22:42:36.655 & -07:28:27.49 & -2.28 & -0.83 & 53.6 \\
341: sd10 & $25.9$ & 22:42:17.085 & -07:24:26.88 & -3.19 & -1.53 & 35.5 \\
342: sd11 & $24.6$ & 22:42:18.460 & -07:35:09.91 & -2.89 & -1.19 & 40.6 \\
343: sd12 & $26.1$ & 22:41:33.852 & -07:39:08.51 & -2.99 & -1.23 & 39.2 \\
344: sd13 & $26.6$ & 22:41:33.660 & -07:40:31.79 & -4.03 & -1.88 & 27.5 \\
345: sd14 & $26.8$ & 22:40:57.890 & -07:44:53.89 & -2.89 & -1.19 & 40.6 \\
346: sd15 & $26.6$ & 22:41:22.837 & -07:42:07.71 & -4.22 & -1.41 & 27.5 \\
347: sd16 & $25.7$ & 22:41:01.823 & -07:35:49.27 & -2.86 & -1.29 & 40.6 \\
348: sd17 & $26.6$ & 22:41:09.107 & -07:25:13.78 & -2.78 & -0.93 & 43.6 \\
349: sd18 & $24.9$ & 22:41:09.797 & -07:26:31.27 & -2.71 & -1.12 & 43.6 \\
350: sd19 & $26.7$ & 22:41:44.583 & -07:31:58.21 & -4.71 & -1.29 & 24.9 \\
351: sd20 & $26.8$ & 22:42:38.548 & -07:47:45.67 & -2.44 & -1.23 & 47.2
352: \enddata
353: \tablenotetext{a}{ Positions and rates valid for MJD 52519.451992. The
354: uncertainties can be found in the text. }
355: \label{tab:objects}
356: \end{deluxetable}
357:
358:
359:
360: We were able to measure the error in our photometry via comparison of
361: the implanted and recovered magnitudes, plotted in Figure
362: \ref{fig:magerr}. This allowed us to set the aperture correction and
363: include any uncertainty introduced by our method. The net uncertainty
364: is $\sim$0.2 mag, similar to the expected variance given the sky
365: background; we adopted it as the 1-$\sigma$ uncertainty for all our
366: detections. As for the accuracy in the rate of motion parallel and
367: perpendicular to the ecliptic is $\sim0\farcs1~\mathrm{h}^{-1}$. The
368: corresponding uncertainty in the angle to the ecliptic is
369: $\sim3~\mathrm{deg}$.
370:
371:
372:
373: \begin{figure}[ht]
374: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f2.eps}
375: \caption{\label{fig:magerr} Histogram of the magnitude difference
376: between implanted and measured magnitudes $\Delta R$. The dashed
377: line is a Gaussian of width 0.18 mag. }
378: \end{figure}
379:
380:
381:
382:
383: With the standard photometry and efficiency function we construct a
384: luminosity function for the 20 objects in this field. The result for
385: this survey is shown on the left panel of Figure
386: \ref{fig:cumfunc}. The best model for the TNO-number cumulative
387: function is given by the harmonic mean of two power laws, or double
388: power law (DPL), as introduced by \citet{Bernstein.2004} and
389: corroborated by \citet{Fuentes.2008}. The surface number density for
390: the DPL is given by:
391: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:sig2}
392: \sigma(R) & = & C
393: \left[ 10^{-\alpha_1 (R-23)}+10^{(\alpha_2-
394: \alpha_1)(R_{eq}-23)-\alpha_2 (R-23)} \right] ^{-1} \nonumber,\\
395: C & = & \Sigma_{23} (1+10^{(\alpha_2- \alpha_1)(R_{eq}-23)}) ,
396: \end{eqnarray}
397: where $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are the exponents for the bright and
398: faint power law behavior of the model; $\Sigma_{23}$ is the number of
399: objects expected brighter than $R=23$ and $R_{eq}$ corresponds to the
400: magnitude at which both power law behaviors meet. Figure
401: \ref{fig:cumfunc} shows the cumulative surface density
402: $\Sigma(R)=\int_{-\infty}^R\sigma(x)dx$.
403:
404:
405: % w/figure* the figure spans the width of the page
406: \begin{figure*}[ht]
407: \epsscale{1.01} \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
408: \caption{\label{fig:cumfunc} The cumulative number density for the
409: objects in our survey is shown on the left panel. The solid line
410: is the best previous model \citep{Fuentes.2008}. All surveys
411: listed in \citet[Table 2]{Fuentes.2008} plus those included in
412: this work are shown in the right panel. The most likely model is
413: shown as a solid line (see $\Fig{fig:mcmc}$). The function
414: $10^{0.73(R-23.3)}$ is the dot-dashed line. The top axis assumes a
415: 4\% albedo and every object at $42\au$. The apparent steep slope
416: at $R\sim26.7$ is a result of small number statistics and plotting
417: the cumulative, rather thatn differential, luminosity function. }
418: \end{figure*}
419:
420:
421: There are not enough objects in this survey alone to constrain the
422: model; however the data follow the previous best estimate for the
423: model \citep{Fuentes.2008}. The previous best parameters were
424: $\alpha_1$=$0.7_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$, $\alpha_2$=$0.3_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$,
425: $\sigma_{23}$=$2.0_{-0.5}^{+0.5}$ and $R_{eq}$=$24.3_{-0.1}^{+0.8}$,
426: overplotted in Figure \ref{fig:cumfunc}. Furthermore, this model
427: predicts 21 detections for this search, consistent with the 20 that
428: were found.
429:
430:
431: We combined our survey with those listed in \citet[Table
432: 2]{Fuentes.2008}. We only considered objects found at magnitudes at
433: which the search was over 15\% of the maximum efficiency. All the
434: objects in our search fulfill this requirement. The total luminosity
435: function is shown in the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:cumfunc}. The
436: DPL best fit is determined through a Markov Chain Monte Carlo
437: simulation (details in \citealt{Fuentes.2008}) with $10^6$ steps, and
438: an acceptance rate of 25\%. The posterior distribution function (PDF)
439: for each parameter is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:mcmc}; the most
440: likely parameters are given by: $\alpha_1$=$0.73_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$,
441: $\alpha_2$=$0.20_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$,
442: $\sigma_{23}$=$1.46_{-0.12}^{+0.14}$ and
443: $R_{eq}$=$25.0_{-0.6}^{+0.8}$.
444:
445:
446: \begin{figure}[ht]
447: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f4.eps}
448: \caption{\label{fig:mcmc} The PDF for each model's parameter. The
449: most likely value for each parameter and 68\% confidence limits
450: are: $\alpha_1$=$0.73_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$,
451: $\alpha_2$=$0.20_{-0.14}^{+0.12}$,
452: $\sigma_{23}$=$1.46_{-0.12}^{+0.14}$ and
453: $R_{eq}$=$25.0_{-0.6}^{+0.8}$. These are plotted as vertical
454: lines. }
455: \end{figure}
456:
457:
458:
459:
460:
461: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conc}
462: We have performed a pencil-beam search of a single Subaru ecliptic
463: field. The search covered 0.255$\sqdeg$, with a limiting magnitude
464: $R=26.76$. We found 20 new TNOs with magnitudes between $R=24.0$ and
465: $26.8$. As argued by \citet{Bernstein.2004}, it is not surprising
466: that our faintest detection is near our 50\% efficiency threshold,
467: given that the luminosity function is much shallower at $R\sim27$.
468:
469: Including other surveys in the analysis (see \S~\ref{sec:results}) we
470: derive the most likely DPL model for the luminosity function. With
471: only 20 new objects there is an important improvement in the model's
472: PDF from \citet[Figure 13]{Fuentes.2008} to the current result (See
473: Figure \ref{fig:mcmc}); due to the new detections constraining the
474: model between $R=26$ and $27$.
475:
476: The bright end power-law exponent $\alpha_1$=$0.73_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$ is
477: very close to the results of previous shallower surveys
478: \citep{Gladman.2001}. The break magnitude
479: $R_{eq}$=$25.0_{-0.6}^{+0.8}$ is more than 1-$\sigma$ fainter than the
480: initial estimate by \citet{Bernstein.2004}. This is also consistent
481: with earlier surveys reporting excellent fits to a single power model
482: for magnitudes brighter than $R\sim26$~\citep{Gladman.2001}. Further
483: data between the current ground-based detection limit of $R\sim27$ and
484: the HST's at $R\sim28.5$ will determine the break magnitude even more
485: accurately.
486:
487: Assuming that all objects are located at an heliocentric distance of
488: 42$\au$, the break in the luminosity function $R_{eq}$ reflects a
489: break in the size distribution $D$. The corresponding diameter at
490: which the size distribution breaks is $D=90\pm30(p/0.04)^{-0.5}\km$,
491: where $p$ is the albedo. Theories predict the existence of a break
492: \citep{Kenyon.2008}, but at smaller diameters ($D\sim20-40\km$). The
493: difference reflects the uncertainty in the initial conditions for
494: numerical simulations and the observational assumptions regarding
495: physical properties like the albedo.
496:
497: In this survey both classical and excited TNO populations are
498: entangled. With better orbital information the size distribution of
499: each can be studied separately. A comparison with other populations in
500: the solar system can shed light on their origin.
501:
502: %\acknowledgments
503:
504: %\bibliography{ms}
505: \begin{thebibliography}{27}
506: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
507:
508: \bibitem[{{Alard}(2000)}]{Alard.2000}
509: {Alard}, C. 2000, \aaps, 144, 363
510:
511: \bibitem[{{Allen} {et~al.}(2001){Allen}, {Bernstein}, \&
512: {Malhotra}}]{Allen.2001}
513: {Allen}, R.~L., {Bernstein}, G.~M., \& {Malhotra}, R. 2001, \apjl, 549, L241
514:
515: \bibitem[{{Bernstein} \& {Khushalani}(2000)}]{Bernstein.2000}
516: {Bernstein}, G. \& {Khushalani}, B. 2000, \aj, 120, 3323
517:
518: \bibitem[{{Bernstein} {et~al.}(2004){Bernstein}, {Trilling}, {Allen}, {Brown},
519: {Holman}, \& {Malhotra}}]{Bernstein.2004}
520: {Bernstein}, G.~M., {Trilling}, D.~E., {Allen}, R.~L., {Brown}, M.~E.,
521: {Holman}, M., \& {Malhotra}, R. 2004, \aj, 128, 1364
522:
523: \bibitem[{{Bertin} \& {Arnouts}(1996)}]{Bertin.1996}
524: {Bertin}, E. \& {Arnouts}, S. 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
525:
526: \bibitem[{{Bickerton} {et~al.}(2008){Bickerton}, {Kavelaars}, \&
527: {Welch}}]{Bickerton.2008}
528: {Bickerton}, S.~J., {Kavelaars}, J.~J., \& {Welch}, D.~L. 2008, \aj, 135, 1039
529:
530: \bibitem[{{Cutri} {et~al.}(2003){Cutri}, {Skrutskie}, {van Dyk}, {Beichman},
531: {Carpenter}, {Chester}, {Cambresy}, {Evans}, {Fowler}, {Gizis}, {Howard},
532: {Huchra}, {Jarrett}, {Kopan}, {Kirkpatrick}, {Light}, {Marsh}, {McCallon},
533: {Schneider}, {Stiening}, {Sykes}, {Weinberg}, {Wheaton}, {Wheelock}, \&
534: {Zacarias}}]{Cutri.2003}
535: {Cutri}, R.~M., {Skrutskie}, M.~F., {van Dyk}, S., {Beichman}, C.~A.,
536: {Carpenter}, J.~M., {Chester}, T., {Cambresy}, L., {Evans}, T., {Fowler}, J.,
537: {Gizis}, J., {Howard}, E., {Huchra}, J., {Jarrett}, T., {Kopan}, E.~L.,
538: {Kirkpatrick}, J.~D., {Light}, R.~M., {Marsh}, K.~A., {McCallon}, H.,
539: {Schneider}, S., {Stiening}, R., {Sykes}, M., {Weinberg}, M., {Wheaton},
540: W.~A., {Wheelock}, S., \& {Zacarias}, N. 2003, {2MASS All Sky Catalog of
541: point sources.} (The IRSA 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog, NASA/IPAC
542: Infrared Science Archive.~http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Gator/)
543:
544: \bibitem[{{Davis} {et~al.}(1999){Davis}, {Farinella}, \&
545: {Weidenschilling}}]{Davis.1999}
546: {Davis}, D.~R., {Farinella}, P., \& {Weidenschilling}, S.~J. 1999, in Lunar and
547: Planetary Inst. Technical Report, Vol.~30, Lunar and Planetary Institute
548: Conference Abstracts, 1883
549:
550: \bibitem[{{Elliot} {et~al.}(2005){Elliot}, {Kern}, {Clancy}, {Gulbis},
551: {Millis}, {Buie}, {Wasserman}, {Chiang}, {Jordan}, {Trilling}, \&
552: {Meech}}]{Elliot.2005}
553: {Elliot}, J.~L., {Kern}, S.~D., {Clancy}, K.~B., {Gulbis}, A.~A.~S., {Millis},
554: R.~L., {Buie}, M.~W., {Wasserman}, L.~H., {Chiang}, E.~I., {Jordan}, A.~B.,
555: {Trilling}, D.~E., \& {Meech}, K.~J. 2005, \aj, 129, 1117
556:
557: \bibitem[{{Fraser} {et~al.}(2008){Fraser}, {Kavelaars}, {Holman}, {Pritchet},
558: {Gladman}, {Grav}, {Jones}, {MacWilliams}, \& {Petit}}]{Fraser.2008}
559: {Fraser}, W.~C., {Kavelaars}, J., {Holman}, M.~J., {Pritchet}, C.~J.,
560: {Gladman}, B.~J., {Grav}, T., {Jones}, R.~L., {MacWilliams}, J., \& {Petit},
561: J.~. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 802
562:
563: \bibitem[{{Fuentes} \& {Holman}(2008)}]{Fuentes.2008}
564: {Fuentes}, C.~I. \& {Holman}, M.~J. 2008, \aj, 136, 83
565:
566: \bibitem[{{Gladman} {et~al.}(2001){Gladman}, {Kavelaars}, {Petit},
567: {Morbidelli}, {Holman}, \& {Loredo}}]{Gladman.2001}
568: {Gladman}, B., {Kavelaars}, J.~J., {Petit}, J.-M., {Morbidelli}, A., {Holman},
569: M.~J., \& {Loredo}, T. 2001, \aj, 122, 1051
570:
571: \bibitem[{{Holman} {et~al.}(2004){Holman}, {Kavelaars}, {Grav}, {Gladman},
572: {Fraser}, {Milisavljevic}, {Nicholson}, {Burns}, {Carruba}, {Petit},
573: {Rousselot}, {Mousis}, {Marsden}, \& {Jacobson}}]{Holman.2004}
574: {Holman}, M.~J., {Kavelaars}, J.~J., {Grav}, T., {Gladman}, B.~J., {Fraser},
575: W.~C., {Milisavljevic}, D., {Nicholson}, P.~D., {Burns}, J.~A., {Carruba},
576: V., {Petit}, J.-M., {Rousselot}, P., {Mousis}, O., {Marsden}, B.~G., \&
577: {Jacobson}, R.~A. 2004, \nat, 430, 865
578:
579: \bibitem[{{Ichikawa}(2002)}]{Ichikawa.2002}
580: {Ichikawa}, S.-I. 2002, Astronomical Herald, 95, 266
581:
582: \bibitem[{{Jones} {et~al.}(2006){Jones}, {Gladman}, {Petit}, {Rousselot},
583: {Mousis}, {Kavelaars}, {Campo Bagatin}, {Bernabeu}, {Benavidez}, {Parker},
584: {Nicholson}, {Holman}, {Grav}, {Doressoundiram}, {Veillet}, {Scholl}, \&
585: {Mars}}]{Jones.2006}
586: {Jones}, R.~L., {Gladman}, B., {Petit}, J.-M., {Rousselot}, P., {Mousis}, O.,
587: {Kavelaars}, J.~J., {Campo Bagatin}, A., {Bernabeu}, G., {Benavidez}, P.,
588: {Parker}, J.~W., {Nicholson}, P., {Holman}, M., {Grav}, T., {Doressoundiram},
589: A., {Veillet}, C., {Scholl}, H., \& {Mars}, G. 2006, Icarus, 185, 508
590:
591: \bibitem[{{Kavelaars} {et~al.}(2004){Kavelaars}, {Holman}, {Grav},
592: {Milisavljevic}, {Fraser}, {Gladman}, {Petit}, {Rousselot}, {Mousis}, \&
593: {Nicholson}}]{Kavelaars.2004}
594: {Kavelaars}, J.~J., {Holman}, M.~J., {Grav}, T., {Milisavljevic}, D., {Fraser},
595: W., {Gladman}, B.~J., {Petit}, J.-M., {Rousselot}, P., {Mousis}, O., \&
596: {Nicholson}, P.~D. 2004, Icarus, 169, 474
597:
598: \bibitem[{{Kenyon} \& {Bromley}(2004)}]{Kenyon.2004}
599: {Kenyon}, S.~J. \& {Bromley}, B.~C. 2004, \aj, 128, 1916
600:
601: \bibitem[{{Kenyon} {et~al.}(2008){Kenyon}, {Bromley}, {O'Brien}, \&
602: {Davis}}]{Kenyon.2008}
603: {Kenyon}, S.~J., {Bromley}, B.~C., {O'Brien}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, D.~R. 2008,
604: {Formation and Collisional Evolution of Kuiper Belt Objects} (The Solar
605: System Beyond Neptune), 293--313
606:
607: \bibitem[{{Kenyon} \& {Luu}(1999)}]{Kenyon.1999}
608: {Kenyon}, S.~J. \& {Luu}, J.~X. 1999, \aj, 118, 1101
609:
610: \bibitem[{{Miyazaki} {et~al.}(2002){Miyazaki}, {Komiyama}, {Sekiguchi},
611: {Okamura}, {Doi}, {Furusawa}, {Hamabe}, {Imi}, {Kimura}, {Nakata}, {Okada},
612: {Ouchi}, {Shimasaku}, {Yagi}, \& {Yasuda}}]{Miyazaki.2002}
613: {Miyazaki}, S., {Komiyama}, Y., {Sekiguchi}, M., {Okamura}, S., {Doi}, M.,
614: {Furusawa}, H., {Hamabe}, M., {Imi}, K., {Kimura}, M., {Nakata}, F., {Okada},
615: N., {Ouchi}, M., {Shimasaku}, K., {Yagi}, M., \& {Yasuda}, N. 2002, \pasj,
616: 54, 833
617:
618: \bibitem[{{Monet} {et~al.}(2003){Monet}, {Levine}, {Canzian}, {Ables}, {Bird},
619: {Dahn}, {Guetter}, {Harris}, {Henden}, {Leggett}, {Levison}, {Luginbuhl},
620: {Martini}, {Monet}, {Munn}, {Pier}, {Rhodes}, {Riepe}, {Sell}, {Stone},
621: {Vrba}, {Walker}, {Westerhout}, {Brucato}, {Reid}, {Schoening}, {Hartley},
622: {Read}, \& {Tritton}}]{Monet.2003}
623: {Monet}, D.~G., {Levine}, S.~E., {Canzian}, B., {Ables}, H.~D., {Bird}, A.~R.,
624: {Dahn}, C.~C., {Guetter}, H.~H., {Harris}, H.~C., {Henden}, A.~A., {Leggett},
625: S.~K., {Levison}, H.~F., {Luginbuhl}, C.~B., {Martini}, J., {Monet},
626: A.~K.~B., {Munn}, J.~A., {Pier}, J.~R., {Rhodes}, A.~R., {Riepe}, B., {Sell},
627: S., {Stone}, R.~C., {Vrba}, F.~J., {Walker}, R.~L., {Westerhout}, G.,
628: {Brucato}, R.~J., {Reid}, I.~N., {Schoening}, W., {Hartley}, M., {Read},
629: M.~A., \& {Tritton}, S.~B. 2003, \aj, 125, 984
630:
631: \bibitem[{{Pan} \& {Sari}(2005)}]{Pan.2005}
632: {Pan}, M. \& {Sari}, R. 2005, Icarus, 173, 342
633:
634: \bibitem[{{Petit} {et~al.}(2004){Petit}, {Holman}, {Scholl}, {Kavelaars}, \&
635: {Gladman}}]{Petit.2004}
636: {Petit}, J.-M., {Holman}, M., {Scholl}, H., {Kavelaars}, J., \& {Gladman}, B.
637: 2004, \mnras, 347, 471
638:
639: \bibitem[{{Stansberry} {et~al.}(2008){Stansberry}, {Grundy}, {Brown},
640: {Cruikshank}, {Spencer}, {Trilling}, \& {Margot}}]{Stansberry.2008}
641: {Stansberry}, J., {Grundy}, W., {Brown}, M., {Cruikshank}, D., {Spencer}, J.,
642: {Trilling}, D., \& {Margot}, J.-L. 2008, {Physical Properties of Kuiper Belt
643: and Centaur Objects: Constraints from the Spitzer Space Telescope} (The Solar
644: System Beyond Neptune), 161--179
645:
646: \bibitem[{{Trujillo} {et~al.}(2001){Trujillo}, {Jewitt}, \&
647: {Luu}}]{Trujillo.2001}
648: {Trujillo}, C.~A., {Jewitt}, D.~C., \& {Luu}, J.~X. 2001, \aj, 122, 457
649:
650: \bibitem[{{Yoshida} \& {Nakamura}(2007)}]{Yoshida.2007}
651: {Yoshida}, F. \& {Nakamura}, T. 2007, \planss, 55, 1113
652:
653: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(2008){Zhang}, {Bianco}, {Lehner}, {Coehlo}, {Wang},
654: {Mondal}, {Alcock}, {Axelrod}, {Byun}, {Chen}, {Cook}, {Dave}, {de Pater},
655: {Porrata}, {Kim}, {King}, {Lee}, {Lin}, {Lissauer}, {Marshall}, {Protopapas},
656: {Rice}, {Schwamb}, {Wang}, \& {Wen}}]{Zhang.2008}
657: {Zhang}, Z.~., {Bianco}, F.~B., {Lehner}, M.~J., {Coehlo}, N.~K., {Wang}, J.~.,
658: {Mondal}, S., {Alcock}, C., {Axelrod}, T., {Byun}, Y.~., {Chen}, W.~.,
659: {Cook}, K.~H., {Dave}, R., {de Pater}, I., {Porrata}, R., {Kim}, D.~.,
660: {King}, S.~., {Lee}, T., {Lin}, H.~., {Lissauer}, J.~J., {Marshall}, S.~L.,
661: {Protopapas}, P., {Rice}, J.~A., {Schwamb}, M.~E., {Wang}, S.~., \& {Wen},
662: C.~. 2008, \apjl, 685, L157
663:
664: \end{thebibliography}
665:
666:
667:
668:
669: \end{document}
670: