1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \newcommand{\E}{\times 10^}
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Color Bimodality in M87 Globular Clusters}
6: \author{Christopher Z. Waters and Stephen E. Zepf}
7: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, 3246
8: Biomedical Physical Sciences, East Lansing, MI 48824}
9: \email{watersc1@pa.msu.edu,zepf@pa.msu.edu}
10: \author{Tod R. Lauer}
11: \affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatory, P. O. Box 26732,
12: Tucson, AZ 85726}
13: \email{lauer@noao.edu}
14: \author{Edward A. Baltz}
15: \affil{KIPAC, Stanford University, P. O. Box 20450, MS 29, Stanford, CA 94309}
16: \email{eabaltz@slac.stanford.edu}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We present an analysis of a 50 orbit HST ACS observation of the M87
20: globular cluster system. We use the extraordinary depth of this
21: dataset to test whether the colors and magnitudes show evidence for a
22: mass-metallicity relation in globular cluster populations. We find
23: only a weak or absent relation between the colors and magnitudes of
24: the metal poor subpopulation of globular clusters. The weakness or
25: absence of a color-magnitude relation is established over a wide range
26: in luminosity from $M_V=-11$ to $M_V=-6$, encompassing most of the M87
27: globular clusters. The constancy of the colors of the metal-poor
28: subpopulation seen in our 50 orbit observation is in contrast to
29: suggestions from single orbit ACS data that the metal-poor globular
30: clusters in M87 and several other galaxies show a ``blue tilt.'' The
31: formal best fit for the mass-metallicity relation for the metal-poor
32: subpopulation in our much deeper data is $Z\propto M^{0.08\pm0.05}$.
33: Our analysis of these data also shows a possible small ``red tilt'' in
34: the metal-rich globular cluster subpopulation. While either of these
35: small tilts may be real, they may also illustrate the limit to which
36: mass-metallicity relations can be determined, even in such
37: extraordinarily deep data. We specifically test for a wide range of
38: systematic effects and find that while small tilts cannot be confirmed
39: or rejected, the data place a strong upper limit to any tilt of
40: $\left|0.20\right|\pm0.05$. This upper limit is much smaller than some
41: earlier claims from single orbit data, and strongly limits
42: self-enrichment within globular clusters. This mass-metallicity
43: relation for globular clusters is also shallower than the relation for
44: galaxies, suggesting that the formation mechanisms for these two types
45: of objects are different.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{galaxies: star clusters -- galaxies: individual (M87) --
49: globular clusters: general}
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: The color distribution of globular clusters in most galaxies has long
54: been known to be bimodal \citep[e.g.][]{Kundu01,Larsen01}. The
55: standard understanding of this feature is that the red and blue
56: subpopulations for a given galaxy represent a difference in
57: metallicity, with the blue clusters being on average more metal poor
58: than the red clusters. The correspondence of the blue clusters with
59: lower metallicity and red clusters with higher metallicity follows
60: directly from studies of the Milky Way globular cluster system
61: \citep[e.g.][]{AZ98,Harris91}, and has been confirmed in a number of
62: extragalactic globular cluster systems
63: \citep[e.g.][]{CBC03,SBB07,KZ07}.
64:
65: Recently, several studies of the globular cluster systems of early
66: type galaxies have suggested a relation between the color and
67: luminosity of the blue metal-poor clusters, with brighter clusters
68: appearing more red \citep{Harris06,Strader,Mieske}. This ``blue
69: tilt'' has been taken as evidence of a relation between the mass and
70: metallicity of these clusters. If such a trend were real, it would
71: suggest an important role for self-enrichment in luminous globular
72: clusters \citep{StraderSmith08}. It might also suggest that globular
73: clusters are surrounded by more massive halos when they form, in order
74: to allow them to retain metals from multiple generations of stars.
75: Alternatively, the absence of a mass-metallicity relation would
76: strongly limit the degree to which self-enrichment is a factor in the
77: observed cluster metallicities. Such an absence also emphasizes the
78: differences between the formation histories of globular clusters and
79: galaxies, which are known to have a strong mass-metallicity relation.
80:
81: Firmly establishing any such relation requires determining the color
82: and luminosities of the globular clusters over a large range in
83: brightness to detect any effect over a significant luminosity and mass
84: scale. Unfortunately, many of the results that show evidence of this
85: blue tilt do so using fairly shallow single orbit ACS data, with
86: comparably low signal to noise for the remaining more distant
87: galaxies. In this paper, we present the results of an extraordinarily
88: deep 50 orbit ACS study of the central region of M87. This deep data
89: allows clusters to be detected over the entire range of cluster
90: magnitudes, providing a sample that is effectively complete. No trend
91: between the mass and metallicity is observed for the blue globular
92: cluster population, suggesting that the previously published results
93: are influenced strongly by the much lower signal to noise in that
94: data. Section \ref{sec: obs} discusses the data and the photometric
95: reduction used to ensure accurate cluster measurements. Section
96: \ref{sec: kmm} reviews the KMM algorithm used to determine the peaks
97: of the color distributions, and the sensitivity of the results to
98: changes in the binning methods. Finally, section \ref{sec: results}
99: presents the results for our sample of clusters, and section \ref{sec:
100: discussion} discusses these results in the context of the formation
101: history of the globular cluster system.
102:
103: \section{Observations and Reductions}
104: \label{sec: obs}
105:
106: The data for this project come from a 50 orbit observation program
107: with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) aboard HST (PI: Baltz,
108: Proposal ID: 10543). The images are of the central region of the
109: giant elliptical galaxy M87, extending out to a projected radius of 8
110: kpc (taking $m - M = 31.021$ \citet{Macri}). The data were
111: taken over the course of three months, as part of a search for
112: microlensing events, which require repeat visits to find changes in
113: brightness. These multiple images of the same field yield data that
114: can be combined into very deep exposures. On each observing day, four
115: exposures in F814W were taken with dithered pointing along with a
116: single matching exposure in F606W. The four F814W images provide a
117: fully dithered image for each day, with the F606W yielding full
118: coverage over the entire set of observations. The images were
119: combined using Multidrizzle \citep{FH} to a resolution of
120: $0\farcs05$ pixel$^{-1}$, the nominal resolution of ACS. Although the
121: dither pattern for this dataset is more than sufficient to allow
122: higher resolution final images to be constructed, this is not
123: necessary for the identification and photometry of the globular
124: clusters. At the resolution used, the globular clusters are
125: significantly broader than the ACS PSF, so retaining the nominal ACS
126: resolution provides the highest possible signal to noise. In all, 49
127: F606W and 205 F814W images were combined to yield final images with
128: exposure times of $t_V = 24500$ s and $t_I = 73800$ s, making these
129: some of the deepest images ever taken with HST. In addition to the
130: exposures used, 8 F606W and 13 F814W were taken but excluded from
131: analysis due to a loss in the guide star tracking.
132:
133: The final drizzled image contains the strongly varying galaxy light.
134: As the main source of noise in the final image is due to the
135: variations in this galaxy light from pixel to pixel, constructing an
136: accurate model of the galaxy is essential to estimating the detection
137: efficiency across the image. We use a model of the galaxy determined
138: from isophote fitting, but to optimize this fit, it is advantageous to
139: remove sources other than the galaxy light. In addition to the rich
140: globular cluster population, these sources include background galaxies
141: and the optically bright jet emanating from the galaxy core. In order
142: to identify these sources, we first create a model of the galaxy by
143: median filtering the image, with a box size chosen to be larger than
144: the expected size of any features on the image (taken to be $100
145: \times 100$ pixels for this resolution). This galaxy model does a
146: poor job near the galaxy center, where the filtering box is unable to
147: deal with the steep light profile. In addition, bright globular
148: clusters tend to bias the model, leading to oversubtraction around
149: such objects. Despite these issues, the model subtracted data image
150: is significantly smoother than the initial image. This image is then
151: used to construct a mask to remove the effect of the globular clusters
152: and jet. All pixels that are $3\sigma$ above the local mean
153: (calculated again in a $100 \times 100$ pixel box) are added to the
154: mask image. This method does an excellent job of cleaning the image
155: of the contribution from sources other than the galaxy light. The
156: STSDAS ELLIPSE and BMODEL tasks were then used to create a smooth
157: model of the galaxy, based on the original and mask images. The mask
158: ensures that bright clusters do not bias the ELLIPSE fitting, and that
159: the galaxy core profile is not influenced by the jet. ELLIPSE only
160: runs for annuli which are more that 50\% complete (not masked or off
161: the frame). To rectify this, additional C code was written to
162: calculate a continuation of the ELLIPSE model into the image corners,
163: under the assumption that the position angle and ellipticity are fixed
164: at the last value found by ELLIPSE. This final model was then
165: subtracted from the original drizzled image, along with a constant
166: background level, calculated to be the mode of the galaxy subtracted
167: image histogram.
168:
169: Source Extractor \citep{Bertin} was used to generate a database of
170: objects detected on the images. To ensure that the detection
171: efficiency was similar across the image, the light from the galaxy was
172: subtracted and used to weight the detection process. As the noise on
173: the final data image is highly dependent on the galaxy flux, a
174: constant detection threshold would miss many objects near the center
175: of the galaxy. This weighting scales the detection threshold to more
176: accurately reflect the local image noise. A detection threshold of
177: $3\sigma$ was used for this project, with a minimum area for objects of
178: 2 pixels. This area criterion helps limit small noise spikes from
179: being detected as potential clusters. To resolve this issue further,
180: we also set the requirement that an object must be detected on both
181: the F606W and F814W images to be considered for further analysis.
182:
183: All objects that were detected in our images were measured in ten
184: apertures from $r = 1$ pixel to $r = 10$ pixels. As the clusters are
185: resolved in our images, the differences in the sizes of clusters
186: of equal brightness can greatly change the light detected within a
187: fixed aperture. Therefore, a size dependent aperture correction was
188: constructed to accurately measure the total cluster flux. To
189: calibrate such a correction, we created simulated globular cluster
190: images by convolving two dimensional \citet{King66} models with the
191: instrumental PSF, calculated using the empirical ACS PSFs of
192: \citet{AKpsfs}. These simulated clusters were generated with a fixed
193: concentration $c = 1.03$ over a grid of apparent instrumental
194: magnitudes and tidal radii. At each grid point, 200 simulated
195: clusters were randomly added to the galaxy subtracted images, and then
196: processed through the same detection and measurement process as for
197: the data images.
198:
199: Based on this large sample of simulated clusters, we adopted a radius
200: of 4 pixels to measure the cluster light, and then determine an
201: aperture correction from this radius to infinity. This correction was
202: parameterized by an estimate of the size of the object, defined to be
203: the difference in the measured magnitudes within two radii:
204: $\mathcal{R} \equiv m_{\mathrm 4 pxl} - m_{\mathrm 2 pxl}$. The logic
205: behind this parameter is that a very small object (with a radius
206: smaller than 2 pixels) will have approximately the same magnitude in
207: both apertures, yielding a value of $\mathcal{R} \sim 0$. As an
208: object increases in size, more light is measured in the large aperture
209: compared to the smaller, which pushes $\mathcal{R}$ to more negative
210: values.
211:
212: The grid of simulated clusters allows for the easy construction of an
213: aperture correction. For each grid point in $(m, r_t)_{simulated}$,
214: the median $m_{4 pixel}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ are found among the set of
215: simulated clusters detected by Source Extractor. These values are
216: used as samples of the aperture correction:
217: \begin{equation}
218: \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{R},m_{4 pixel}) = m_{simulated} - m_{4
219: pixel}
220: \end{equation}
221: The upper end of this correction is fixed, such that
222: $\mathcal{A}(0,m_{4 pixel}) = 0$. For each real object detected in
223: the galaxy subtracted data image, the correct aperture correction is
224: found by interpolating on the grid of $(\mathcal{R},m_{4 pixel})$.
225: This aperture correction is mainly a function of $\mathcal{R}$, with
226: very little dependence on the cluster magnitude. This is exactly what
227: is expected, as any magnitude dependence would suggest that the
228: photometry is not uniform. The median aperture corrections in our two
229: filters are $-0.61$ and $-0.71$ for F606W and F814W respectively, and
230: vary directly with the size of the cluster.
231:
232: The accuracy of these aperture corrections can be checked for the data
233: clusters by fitting the images with PSF convolved King models
234: \citep{King66}. Each of the clusters in this sample had such King
235: models fit to their F814W image, which has higher signal to noise than
236: the F606W data. The exact details of this procedure will be presented
237: in a future paper \citep{WZ08c}. The aperture correction correlates
238: well with the best fitting tidal radius of the clusters
239: \begin{eqnarray}
240: \mathcal{A}_{F606W} = -0.60 - 0.0013 \times r_t \nonumber \\
241: \mathcal{A}_{F814W} = -0.70 - 0.0014 \times r_t \nonumber
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: which illustrates the importance of including these size effects. The
244: magnitudes of the best fitting King models provide a more detailed
245: measurement of a given cluster's total flux. Over the range of
246: magnitudes where this fitting is able to faithfully fit the cluster
247: images ($I \lesssim 25$), the aperture magnitudes and the King model
248: magnitudes agree well, with $m_{aperture} - m_{King} = -0.02 \pm
249: 0.12$. This scatter is consistent with our expected photometric
250: uncertainties, and illustrates that this aperture correction strategy
251: is a robust way to measure the light from the clusters with a wide
252: range of sizes.
253:
254: The PSFs used in the generation of the simulated clusters extend out
255: to $0\farcs5$ from their core \citep{AKpsfs}. The ACS detector is
256: known to have large angle scattering beyond this limit, which will not
257: be accounted for, even with this radius dependent aperture correction.
258: Because of this scattering, additional $-0.088$ and $-0.087$ magnitude
259: corrections were applied to the F606W and F814W instrumental
260: magnitudes, respectively, to correct them to an infinite aperture
261: \citep{Sirianni}. To compare this data to previous studies of
262: globular clusters, we converted the instrumental F606W and F814W
263: magnitudes to standard V and I. This was done using the color
264: correction formulas presented by \citet{Sirianni}. The final
265: magnitudes were then corrected for extinction ($-0.074$ and $-0.043$
266: for V and I), using the extinction maps of \citet{Schlegel}.
267:
268: This ACS pointing contains the majority of the clusters imaged by the
269: \citet{Kundu99} and \citet{Waters06} WFPC/2 studies, allowing us to
270: test our photometric consistency by comparing to those previously
271: published. For the \citet{Kundu99} sample, there are 968 clusters
272: matched between the two samples with magnitude differences
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: V - V_{Kundu} &=& -0.048 \pm 0.127 \nonumber \\
275: I - I_{Kundu} &=& 0.030 \pm 0.115 \nonumber \\
276: (V - I) - (V - I)_{Kundu} &=& -0.022 \pm 0.116 \nonumber
277: \end{eqnarray}
278: This comparison uses a reanalysis of the \citet{Kundu99} sample that
279: incorporates the most recent official WFPC/2 zeropoints. For the
280: \citet{Waters06} sample, there are 886 clusters in common, with
281: differences
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: V - V_{Waters} &=& 0.073 \pm 0.098 \nonumber \\
284: I - I_{Waters} &=& 0.082 \pm 0.084 \nonumber \\
285: (V - I) - (V - I)_{Waters} &=& -0.000 \pm 0.118 \nonumber
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: The original published \citet{Waters06} measurements included a $0.1$
288: magnitude offset in the final V magnitudes due to an inadequate PSF
289: used in the aperture correction. The differences presented here
290: correct this error, and shows that this sample is generally consistent
291: with these new measurements. For both of these samples, all bright
292: clusters that fall within the ACS field of view are detected.
293:
294: Although this data is extraordinarily deep, and the detection
295: threshold has been set at a fairly liberal level, we still expect that
296: we are not 100\% efficient at detecting clusters. Conveniently, the
297: simulated clusters used to construct the aperture correction also
298: sample the completeness of objects in both filters. The fraction of
299: clusters detected at each grid point in apparent instrumental
300: magnitude and tidal radius was used to generate the expected
301: completeness of the data objects. Although the detectability of an
302: object is a function of the object's surface brightness, there is
303: little dependence on the simulated cluster size, so for all further
304: analysis of the completeness, we consider it only as a function of the
305: apparent magnitude. As expected from our simple noise model of the
306: galaxy, the detection efficiency, and hence the completeness, is a
307: function of projected radius from the center of the galaxy. Due to
308: the scaling of the detection threshold, clusters with low $R_{gal}$
309: must have a larger flux peak to be detected at the same threshold as a
310: cluster with larger $R_{gal}$. To minimize the effect this has on our
311: calculated completeness values, we divide the total sample into two
312: radius bins, separated at the median cluster radius, $68\farcs95$.
313: The completeness is calculated independently for the two bins, which
314: allows the completeness in the outer bin to extend to slightly fainter
315: levels. Due to the requirement that objects be found on both the
316: F606W and the F814W images, the final completeness levels are color
317: dependent. For the range of colors we consider for our globular
318: cluster sample, the median 50\% completeness limit follows the trend
319: $V_{50\%} \sim 25.4 + 0.8 (V - I)$. For the following analysis of the
320: cluster bimodality, we use a stricter I band 90\% limit, which follows
321: $I_{90\%} \sim 24.5 - 0.1 (V - I)$.
322:
323: The cluster detection method used was designed to detect as many
324: objects as possible. Unfortunately, this also means that some
325: fraction of the objects found are not true globular clusters. The two
326: main sources of contaminating objects are background galaxies and
327: noise fluctuations from the galaxy light due to random local
328: overdensities in the stars that make up the galaxy. We have chosen to
329: make a series of cuts in the measured parameters that serve to exclude
330: as many of these contaminating objects as possible, while retaining
331: the real globular clusters. In addition to the requirement that
332: objects be detected in both filters, we also apply a color cut such
333: that only objects with $0.5 < V - I < 1.7$ are considered to be
334: globular clusters. These limits are based on the observed colors of
335: globular cluster systems and bracket the obvious feature in the color
336: magnitude diagram of the sample of all detected objects. Next, we
337: only wish to consider objects that have a final completeness value
338: greater than 50\%. Due to the fact that this completeness limit is so
339: faint, we expect that only a few real clusters will be excluded by
340: this cut. Since globular clusters are known to be round, we can place
341: a cut on the ellipticity of the clusters in both filters, such that
342: $\left.\epsilon\right|_{V,I} < \frac{1}{3}$. This cut serves as an
343: excellent way to exclude the many background spiral galaxies that are
344: seen edge on. Finally, we exclude objects where the average surface
345: brightness is brighter than the peak surface brightness. Visual
346: inspection of the objects excluded by this cut show them to be
347: entirely high spikes in the galaxy noise.
348:
349: As a check of how well these cuts function to clean our catalog of
350: objects that are not globular clusters, we can apply these same cuts
351: to catalogs of objects that contain no globular clusters, and only
352: contaminating objects. If the variations in the galaxy noise were
353: purely Gaussian, then the number of expected noise maxima on the data
354: image should match the number of minima. By multiplying the galaxy
355: subtracted image by $-1$, and searching for objects on that image, we
356: should be able to estimate the noise contribution. Unfortunately, the
357: asymmetry of the image histograms for these images suggest that the
358: fluctuations may not be Gaussian distributed, but are rather biased
359: towards the positive fluctuations, as might be expected from the
360: incipient detection of the brightest individual stars in M87.
361:
362: The contamination by background galaxies obviously contributes to the
363: number of objects found. A quick look at the galaxy subtracted image
364: shows a large number of background spiral galaxies that are easy to
365: identify. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field \citep{UDF} provides a
366: dataset containing only background galaxies, and as such, gives a
367: straightforward way to estimate the contribution we expect to find
368: from these galaxies. The only complication is ensuring that the data
369: quality matches between the two datasets. We first rebinned the UDF
370: images from a pixel scale of $0\farcs030$ to the pixel scale of our
371: data ($0\farcs05$). Next, the UDF was overlaid on our image
372: footprint, and trimmed to match the field of view. With the geometry
373: matched, we considered the image noise. The UDF count rate was
374: scaled to match the exposure time of the M87 data. The M87 galaxy
375: model was then used to generate a noise model, which assumes that each
376: pixel is drawn from a Gaussian distribution with mean zero and
377: variance equal to the galaxy model value. This noise was then scaled
378: such that when added to the UDF image, the final image variance equaled
379: that of the galaxy subtracted image. This method makes it certain
380: that objects in the UDF frame that fall ``near the center of the
381: galaxy'' have more noise than objects ``at the edge.'' The reduction
382: for objects detected in the UDF images is identical to the M87 images,
383: with the only exception being that the UDF filters are F606W and
384: F775W. Since these filters can be converted to the same standard V
385: and I system, the effect of this difference is minimal.
386:
387: The numbers of objects detected with each of the various cuts in the
388: M87 data, the inverse images, and the UDF sample are given in table
389: \ref{tab: cuts}. It is clear that the various restrictions on the
390: data remove the majority of the contaminating objects, and yield a
391: final number of clusters consistent with what is expected based on
392: earlier surveys. The one object that is manually excluded from the
393: sample is the HST-1 knot of the jet, which due to its brightness and
394: compact size, successfully eludes these cuts.
395:
396: \placetable{tab: cuts}
397:
398:
399: \section{Cluster Bimodality}
400: \label{sec: kmm}
401:
402: The color distribution of our extremely deep sample of globular
403: clusters is shown in figure \ref{fig: histograms}. This distribution
404: is clearly bimodal, as has been observed before for M87 and appears to
405: be a common feature of globular cluster populations
406: \citep[e.g.][]{Kundu01,Larsen01}. The degree of bimodality is
407: generally quantified using the KMM test, as presented by
408: \citet{ABZ94}. Briefly, this test determines the best fitting mixture
409: of Gaussian distributions to a set of data points. For each Gaussian
410: component included in the mixture model, the best fitting mean and
411: variance are found, along with the number of points that belong to
412: each component. This algorithm works quickly, using a maximum
413: likelihood method to estimate the best fitting parameters based on
414: only simple initial values. In addition, as the data are not binned
415: in any way before the analysis, there is no uncertainty due to the
416: choice of bin size. Closely separated groups, such as from a sample
417: that does not appear bimodal visually, can often be disentangled given
418: a sufficient number of data points (see \citealp{ABZ94} for details).
419:
420: The KMM test can fit any number of Gaussian components, under the
421: assumption that all variances are the same (homoscedasticity) or that
422: the variances are possibly different (heteroscedasticity). For our
423: analysis of the M87 globular cluster system, we consider a maximum of
424: two components, based on the obvious visual bimodality. However, we
425: compare against a single component model to check the possibility that
426: the data is better fit by this more simple model. This check is done
427: using the likelihood ratio test which is defined as
428: \begin{equation}
429: \lambda = \frac{L(\theta|x)_{simple}}{L(\theta|x)_{complex}}
430: \end{equation}
431: This provides a quantity between zero and one that tells how likely
432: the simpler model fits the data better. By comparing $-2 \ln \lambda$
433: to a $\chi^2$ distribution with a number of degrees of freedom equal
434: to twice the difference in the number of free parameters between the
435: two models, we can determine the point at which the more complicated
436: model is a sufficient improvement over the simple model to justify the
437: additional free parameters. Therefore, using this test, we can check
438: that our data is truly fit better by the two component model by
439: checking that the p-value for the unimodal model is small.
440:
441: One limitation of the KMM method is that outliers in the
442: distribution can significantly bias the results, especially for the
443: heteroscedastic fits \citep{ABZ94}. These models are biased the most
444: as they can adjust the individual dispersions to larger values that
445: better accommodate the outliers. This in turn will tend to increase
446: the separation of the means of the two modes. As the dispersions of
447: the homoscedastic models are coupled, the weight of an individual
448: outlier is significantly decreased, so many more outliers are needed
449: to create such an effect.
450:
451: Given that heteroscedastic fits are more influenced by outliers, it is
452: preferred to fit any population that does not obviously have different
453: dispersions with homoscedastic models. The KMM test does not clearly
454: state whether the input data is better fit by a homo- or
455: heteroscedastic model. Bootstrapping the sample can provide an
456: answer, as the value of $-2 \ln \lambda$ (as given above, using the
457: likelihood of the homoscedastic and heteroscedastic models for the
458: simple and complex cases, respectively) calculated for each
459: bootstrapped sample approximates the underlying $\chi^2$ distribution
460: \citep{Lo08}. Therefore, the fraction of bootstrap samples with $-2
461: \ln \lambda$ more extreme than that calculated from the observed
462: data is an estimate of the p-value that the data is truly better fit
463: by a heteroscedastic model.
464:
465: To determine whether our data are better described by a homo- or
466: heteroscedastic model, we fit the cluster sample using both models and
467: bootstrapped as described above to estimate $p_{heteroscedastic}$.
468: The sample used in this fit and subsequent analysis is restricted to
469: those clusters with color between $0.7 < V - I < 1.5$ to limit the
470: effect of the largest outliers. This sample of clusters was then fit
471: using both models and bootstrapped as described above to determine the
472: probability that the data is more accurately described by a
473: heteroscedastic model. The resulting dispersion for the homoscedastic
474: model is $\sigma_{homoscedastic} = 0.105$ and for the heteroscedastic
475: model $\sigma_{blue} = 0.126$ and $\sigma_{red} = 0.090$. The
476: similarity of these dispersions is supported by the our statistical
477: test, which gives $p_{heteroscedastic} = 0.03$, excluding the
478: heteroscedastic fit for the entire sample at the 95\% confidence
479: level. This does not mean that the underlying color dispersions of
480: the red and blue subpopulations are necessarily identical, only that
481: there is no statistical support for fitting the distributions with
482: different dispersions. Therefore, the remainder of this paper focuses
483: on the results for the homoscedastic models, which we again note are
484: much more robust against the influence of outliers.
485:
486: As we wish to investigate any trends in bimodality with cluster mass,
487: we need to divide the clusters into luminosity bins. Following
488: previous studies \citep{Strader,Harris06}, we use the I magnitude as a
489: tracer of cluster mass. Two types of magnitude bins were used for
490: this study. The first method uses fixed width bins from $I = 19.5$ to
491: $I = 24.5$, using bin widths of 0.5 and 1.0 magnitudes. The mean
492: value of I is calculated for each bin, which due to the shape of the
493: globular cluster luminosity function, does not fall exactly at the
494: center of the bin range. Unfortunately, the KMM test as originally
495: stated does not directly yield uncertainties for the parameters
496: calculated. Since the algorithm converges quickly, it is reasonable
497: to estimate these uncertainties by bootstrapping the sample
498: \citep{Basford97}. Therefore, the best fitting means, variances, and
499: population ratios were calculated with their associated uncertainties
500: from 100 bootstrapped samples in each magnitude bin. These values are
501: listed in \ref{tab: fixed bin 0.5m} and \ref{tab: fixed bin 1.0m},
502: with the results for the 0.5 magnitude bins plotted in figure
503: \ref{fig: fixed bin 0.5m}.
504:
505: The second binning method uses running samples of 100 clusters. The
506: clusters are sorted in I magnitude, and the KMM test run on the first
507: 100 points. For the next bin, the brightest cluster in the sample is
508: removed and the next cluster from the sorted list of magnitudes is
509: included, and the process repeated. As these bins contain on average
510: fewer clusters than any of the fixed width bins, the number of
511: outlying points in any of the running bins should also be small. The
512: effect of these outliers can be somewhat mitigated by bootstrapping,
513: as not all samples will retain the discrepant points. However, taking
514: the average values from these bootstrap results allows the outlying
515: points to continue to influence the results. One solution to remove
516: this influence is to use the bootstrap ``bumping'' procedure of
517: \citet{TK99}. For each set of bootstrapped results, the fit with the
518: largest likelihood is retained and the rest discarded. This makes the
519: fitting resistant to outliers, as the small probability of finding
520: such a point given the model ensures that any sample that contains the
521: outlying point will naturally have a much lower likelihood than a
522: sample that has excluded that point. Each bin was bootstrapped in
523: this way with 200 samples, which should allow the fitting to be
524: resistant to the influence of up to 5 outliers \citep{TK99}.
525:
526: The best fitting models for the fixed width bins are shown in tables
527: \ref{tab: fixed bin 0.5m} and \ref{tab: fixed bin 1.0m}. We can
528: see that based on these models, the unimodal description
529: of the cluster colors is strongly ruled out over most of the range in
530: magnitude considered. The only deviations from this trend occur at
531: the very brightest and faintest bins. These deviations are not
532: surprising, as these bins have a smaller number of
533: clusters. Simulations by \citet{ABZ94} showed for cases like these,
534: with a small number of objects ($N \sim 50)$ and a modest ratio of
535: component mean separation to component variance ($\Delta \mu =
536: \frac{\mu_2 - \mu_1}{\sigma} \sim 2$), there is a high probability of
537: a truly bimodal distribution being unrecognized by the KKM algorithm
538:
539: Based on these fits, we can see that as we look at bins containing
540: fainter clusters, the variances in the best fitting models increase.
541: This is true for both subpopulations, and shows the effect the
542: decrease in signal to noise has on the scatter in the measured colors.
543: The population fractions for the red and blue fits show that as the
544: bins move to fainter magnitudes, the blue population fraction falls.
545: This is a result of the differences in the luminosity functions of the
546: red and blue clusters and will be discussed in a future paper on the
547: globular cluster luminosity function of this very deep data (Waters et
548: al. 2008).
549:
550: \section{Color-Metallicity and Mass-Metallicity Relations}
551: \label{sec: results}
552:
553: We use the means determined by KMM for the red and blue clusters as a
554: function of I magnitude to investigate the existence of any
555: color-magnitude trends in both populations. For each binning method,
556: the best fitting trend is calculated for both the red and blue
557: subpopulations. For the fixed width bins that have errors from
558: bootstrapping, these errors are used to weight the fits. This helps
559: limit the influence from the brightest and faintest bins, which tend
560: to have large errors due to the low number of clusters. The running
561: bins constrain the fit with equal weight, as the large number of these
562: bins reduces the relative influence of any individual bin.
563:
564: These fits yield the best trend $(V - I) = a + b \cdot I$, which can
565: be converted to a mass metallicity relation of the form
566: $\left[\mathrm{Fe} / \mathrm{H}\right] = k + \alpha \log_{10}
567: \frac{M}{M_\odot}$. We follow \citet{Harris96} in creating a relation
568: \begin{equation}
569: \left[\mathrm{Fe} / \mathrm{H}\right] = 5.2267 (V - I) - 6.2613
570: \end{equation}
571: based on observations of Milky Way globular clusters, and use a
572: constant mass to light ratio of $M / L = 3$ for all clusters. Table
573: \ref{tab: best fit trends} shows the best fitting values for these
574: trends for each of the binning methods. It is clear that for the blue
575: subpopulation, all three binning methods yield similar best fits. To
576: determine our formal best fit models, we average the three binning
577: methods, and take the scatter in these values as our expected
578: uncertainty in the fit due to the binning. Over the full range of
579: clusters, we find an average best fit for the blue clusters of $Z
580: \propto M^{0.08 \pm 0.05}$. To offer a more direct comparison with
581: the tilts measured in previous studies, we have also fit only those
582: clusters brighter than the turnover ($I \sim 22.5$). These fits are
583: given in table \ref{tab: best fit trends to}. We find a similarly
584: small $Z \propto M^{0.01 \pm 0.07}$ relation with these limits, and as
585: they are only marginally different than the fits over the full
586: magnitude range, we do not plot these trends separately.
587:
588: It is essential to characterize how well the formal uncertainties in
589: the fit reflect the true uncertainty in the slope of the
590: mass-metallicity relation. In order to test the accuracy of the
591: calculated fits, we constructed simulated color-magnitude diagrams
592: with a known tilt in the blue clusters. Each cluster in our data
593: sample was checked against the 0.5 magnitude homoscedastic fixed
594: width bins to determine if it was a likely member of the blue
595: subpopulation. All of these blue clusters then had their color
596: shifted, such that
597: \begin{equation}
598: (V - I)_{new} = (V - I)_{old} + (a_{trend} - a_{blue}) +
599: I (b_{trend} - b_{blue})
600: \end{equation}
601: where $a_{blue}$ and $b_{blue}$ are the best fitting trend in the blue
602: clusters, and $a_{trend}$ and $b_{trend}$ define the trend we are
603: adding. This method therefore preserves the cluster I magnitude, as
604: well as the distribution of points around the best fit trend. These
605: simulated color magnitude diagrams are then run through the KMM test,
606: and the best calculated trend found. By comparing the difference in
607: the input and output slope, we can estimate how large we can expect
608: the errors to be in our mass-metallicity fits.
609:
610: Two simulated trends were used for this test, representing both
611: extremes in the blue tilt. First, a strong tilt of $Z\propto
612: M^{0.55}$ like that claimed in some analyses of shallower data was
613: added, the results of which are shown in figure \ref{fig: simulated}.
614: The best fitting trend for this simulation is $Z \propto M^{0.58 \pm
615: 0.05}$ ($Z \propto M^{0.44 \pm 0.05}$ including only those clusters
616: brighter than the turnover), suggesting that the small formal errors
617: calculated are not significant underestimates. As we recover this
618: large input trend with high accuracy, it is clear that were such a
619: trend truly present in our data, we would have no difficulty in
620: detecting it. The main reason that such a large trend is so easy to
621: recover is that it must have a large separation between the means of
622: the red and blue subpopulations at faint magnitudes. This separation
623: is much larger than the color dispersion of the clusters in our
624: sample, which creates a gap between the two groups. Such a gap allows
625: the KMM test to easily group the clusters, providing an excellent fit.
626:
627: The creation of a large gap is not an issue for the second simulation,
628: in which the slight blue trend is completely removed, with a simulated
629: trend of $Z \propto M^{0.00}$. As there is only a slight shift in the
630: cluster colors, the degree of blending between the red and blue
631: clusters should be nearly identical to the real cluster data. The
632: calculated trend for this simulation is $Z \propto M^{-0.06 \pm 0.06}$
633: ($Z \propto M^{0.07 \pm 0.06}$ including only those clusters brighter
634: than the turnover). These tests on simulated data indicate that our
635: fits to the color magnitude trends in the globular cluster
636: subpopulations accurately reflect the underlying trend in the data with
637: small well-understood uncertainties. The specific fitting
638: uncertainties in the fit to the slope have a maximum of $0.06$, which
639: occurs for small real slopes. This uncertainty decreases to even
640: smaller values when the input slope is large. However, our method
641: does not directly address any possible systematic issues in the
642: measurement of the colors and magnitudes. While our measurements are
643: based on a careful analysis of this extraordinarily deep data, it is
644: important to consider all possible systematic effects in the
645: measurement.
646:
647: Our tests with artificial datasets indicate that we accurately recover
648: the simulated slopes with a maximum uncertainty of $0.06$. These
649: tests provide an excellent way to assess the uncertainties in the fits
650: to the data. However, this approach does not directly address
651: potential systematic biases in the measurements of the colors and
652: magnitudes. The most likely source of any systematic error in these
653: is due to the aperture corrections. The extraordinary depth of our
654: data allows a much more accurate determination of the sizes of the
655: globular clusters, which directly leads to a much more accurate
656: determination of the total magnitude of the globular clusters. These
657: sizes are influenced by the choice of PSF used, and we simulated the
658: effects of different PSFs on the resulting aperture corrections. Our
659: simulations show that in this well sampled data, in which the globular
660: clusters are spatially resolved, large differences in the magnitudes
661: (of up to $0.1$ magnitude) only occurred with PSFs that were
662: inconsistent with our \citet{AKpsfs} PSFs and were not good fits to
663: the single unsaturated star in the image. Using such poor PSFs can
664: create tilts of up to $\pm 0.2$ in the final mass metallicity relation
665: for both subpopulations on top of the modest tilts seen in our
666: fitting. This extreme allows us to note that any possible systematic
667: effect due to the aperture correction must be smaller than this level,
668: and that both of the slopes found in our data fall within this range
669: of $\alpha < \left|0.2\right| \pm 0.06$.
670:
671: \section{Discussion}
672: \label{sec: discussion}
673:
674: Our 50 orbit ACS observation of M87 shows no significant relation
675: between the colors of the blue metal poor clusters and their
676: luminosity, with a formal best fit of $Z \propto M^{0.08}$ from $19.5
677: < I < 24.5$, and a conservative upper limit on the slope of any
678: relation in the M87 globular cluster population of $\alpha <
679: \left|0.20\right| \pm 0.06$ including systematic effects. A similarly
680: small trend is found when the fitting is restricted to only the bright
681: clusters above the luminosity function turnover ($19.5 < I < 22.5$).
682: This absence of any significant mass-metallicity relation rules out
683: some earlier claims of such a trend from much shallower data. Some
684: earlier work investigated the mass metallicity relation of metal poor
685: globular cluster populations in much shallower images of nearly
686: ellipticals, including single orbit data for M87 and several other
687: bright Virgo ellipticals \citep{Strader,Mieske}, single orbit
688: pointings of NGC 4594 \citep{Spitler}, and several distant ellipticals
689: with longer exposures and thus similar signal to noise as the nearby
690: single orbit observations \citep{Harris06}. These shallower studies
691: suggested that the metal poor globular cluster populations of some of
692: these galaxies, including M87, had a blue tilt and inferred a mass
693: metallicity relation of about $Z \propto M^{0.55}$. These results are
694: clearly not confirmed in our 50 orbit data, which places an upper
695: limit on any mass-metallicity relation that is much smaller than this
696: strong trend. There are also several ground based studies of the
697: color-magnitude trends in globular cluster systems that find a variety
698: of results, including both blue tilts \citep{FFG,Wehner} as well as
699: red tilts \citep{Bassino,Lee}. \citet{FFG} examined M87, and found
700: evidence for mass-metallicity relation of $Z \propto M^{0.44}$, which
701: although smaller than the claims from space-based studies, is still
702: inconsistent with the lack of a tilt in our much deeper data. This
703: emphasizes the difficulty in accurately determining color tilts from
704: data with low signal to noise and poor spatial resolution.
705:
706: The clear absence of a significant mass metallicity effect in our data
707: contrary to the very strong effect in single orbit data for galaxies
708: like M87 and in data with similar signal to noise at larger distance,
709: highlights the need for very deep observations to address this
710: question. \citet{Kundu08} has investigated this question in detail.
711: We do not reproduce this extensive work here, but note that
712: \citet{Kundu08} identifies two major issues that arise in single orbit
713: data or data with similar signal to noise for the bulk of the
714: clusters. First, such data lacks the depth necessary to accurately
715: follow the sizes of globular clusters with magnitude. This lack of
716: size discrimination will cause size dependent photometric errors.
717: Secondly, the error bars for detections are not symmetric in color and
718: magnitude. These two effects are shown to be able to produce apparent
719: color magnitude trends of the level seen in the lower signal to noise
720: data from an underlying distribution with no trend at all
721: \citep{Kundu08}.
722:
723: The absence of a significant mass-metallicity relation for globular
724: clusters also suggests a fundamental difference between globular
725: clusters and galaxies, as galaxies have a well-known mass metallicity
726: relation. Specifically, using SDSS data, \citet{Tremonti} found a
727: mass metallicity relation of $Z \propto M^{0.3}$ for a very large
728: sample of galaxies. This was extended to nearby dwarf irregular
729: galaxies by \citet{Lee06}, who found a mass-metallicity relation
730: consistent with that for the more massive galaxies. This dwarf galaxy
731: sample extends down to $M\sim 10^6 - 10^7$, the range where the most
732: massive globular clusters are found, and thus is suggestive of a
733: fundamental difference between globular clusters and galaxies in their
734: mass-metallicity relations. Such a difference likely reflects
735: differences in the formation histories of galaxies and globular
736: clusters. If globular clusters experience significant
737: self-enrichment, then the more massive clusters will appear more
738: metal-rich, since their greater mass will enable them to retain more
739: metals from earlier generations of stars. Any self-enrichment of
740: metals that affect the broad-band colors will make the more massive
741: clusters redder, and produce color-luminosity and mass-metallicity
742: relations within a globular cluster system. Therefore, the weakness
743: or absence of the observed color-luminosity and mass-metallicity
744: relations for globular clusters thus sets a limit on the role of
745: self-enrichment, and is a key target for future models of globular
746: cluster formation.
747:
748: A natural explanation for the difference between the mass-metallicity
749: relations of globular clusters and galaxies is that globular clusters
750: form without extensive mass distributions or dark matter halos.
751: Without such halos, globular clusters are unable to retain the
752: material produced by their massive stars, preventing the formation of
753: subsequent generations of metal-enriched stars. Such a picture is
754: consistent with the compact, dense nature of globular clusters which
755: implies short formation timescales, and with models in which globular
756: cluster formation is a rapid, dynamic process in a high pressure
757: starburst environment as suggested by observations of globular cluster
758: formation in the local universe \citep{AZ01,EE}. In contrast then,
759: galaxies tend to form over time within larger dark-matter dominated
760: structures that help retain metals to be incorporated in subsequent
761: generations to produce the observed galaxy mass-metallicity relation.
762:
763: \acknowledgements
764:
765: CZW and SEZ acknowledge support for this work from HST grant number
766: HST-10543 and NSF award AST-0406891. We also acknowledge useful
767: conversations with Arunav Kundu on possible sources of photometric
768: error.
769:
770: \begin{thebibliography}{}
771: \bibitem[Anderson \& King(2006)]{AKpsfs} Anderson, J., King, I. R. 2006,
772: ACS Instrument Sci. Rep. 2006-01 (Baltimore: STSci)
773: \bibitem[Ashman et al.(1994)]{ABZ94} Ashman, K.~M.,
774: Bird,
775: C.~M., \& Zepf, S.~E.\ 1994, \aj, 108, 2348
776: \bibitem[Ashman \& Zepf(1998)]{AZ98} Ashman, K.~M., \&
777: Zepf, S.~E.\ 1998, Globular Cluster Systems, (Cambridge: Cambridge
778: Univ. Press)
779: \bibitem[Ashman \& Zepf(2001)]{AZ01} Ashman, K.~M., \& Zepf, S.~E.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1888
780: \bibitem[Basford et al(1997)]{Basford97} Basford K. E., Greenway D. R., McLachlan G. J., \& Peel D. 1997, Computational Statistics, 12, 1
781: \bibitem[Bassino et al.(2008)]{Bassino} Bassino, L.~P.,
782: Richtler, T., \& Dirsch, B.\ 2008, \mnras, 386, 1145
783: \bibitem[Beckwith et al.(2006)]{UDF} Beckwith, S.~V.~W., et
784: al.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 1729
785: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{Bertin} Bertin, E., \&
786: Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
787: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2003)]{CBC03} Cohen, J.~G., Blakeslee,
788: J.~P., \& C{\^o}t{\'e}, P.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 866
789: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Efremov(1997)]{EE} Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Efremov, Y.~N.\ 1997, \apj, 480, 235
790: \bibitem[Fall \& Zhang(2001)]{FZ} Fall, S.~M., \& Zhang,
791: Q.\ 2001, ApJ, 561, 751
792: \bibitem[Forte et al.(2007)]{FFG} Forte, J.~C., Faifer, F.,
793: \& Geisler, D.\ 2007, \mnras, 382, 1947
794: \bibitem[Fruchter \& Hook(2002)]{FH} Fruchter, A.~S., \& Hook, R.~N.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 144
795: \bibitem[Harris(1991)]{Harris91} Harris, W.~E.\ 1991, \araa, 29, 543
796: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{Harris96} Harris, W.~E.\ 1996, \aj, 112,
797: 1487
798: \bibitem[Harris et al.(2006)]{Harris06} Harris, W.~E.,
799: Whitmore, B.~C., Karakla, D., Oko{\'n}, W., Baum, W.~A., Hanes, D.~A., \&
800: Kavelaars, J.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 90
801: \bibitem[King(1966)]{King66} King, I.~R.\ 1966, \aj, 71, 64
802: \bibitem[Koekemoer et al.(2002)]{Koekemoer} Koekemoer, A. M.,
803: Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R., Hack, W., 2002, HST Calibration
804: Workshop, 337
805: \bibitem[Kundu et al.(1999)]{Kundu99} Kundu, A., Whitmore,
806: B.~C., Sparks, W.~B., Macchetto, F.~D., Zepf, S.~E., \& Ashman, K.~M.\
807: 1999, \apj, 513, 733
808: \bibitem[Kundu \& Whitmore(2001)]{Kundu01} Kundu, A., \& Whitmore, B.~C.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2950
809: \bibitem[Kundu \& Zepf(2007)]{KZ07} Kundu, A., \& Zepf, S.~E.\ 2007, \apjl, 660, L109
810: \bibitem[Kundu(2008)]{Kundu08} Kundu, A.\ 2008, \aj, 136, 1013
811: \bibitem[Lamers et
812: al.(2006)]{Lamers} Lamers, H.~J.~G.~L.~M., Anders, P., \&
813: de Grijs, R.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 131
814: \bibitem[Larsen et al.(2001)]{Larsen01} Larsen, S.~S., Brodie,
815: J.~P., Huchra, J.~P., Forbes, D.~A., \& Grillmair, C.~J.\ 2001, AJ, 121, 2974
816: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2006)]{Lee06} Lee, H., Skillman, E.~D.,
817: Cannon, J.~M., Jackson, D.~C., Gehrz, R.~D., Polomski, E.~F.,
818: \& Woodward, C.~E.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 970
819: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2008)]{Lee} Lee, M.~G., Park, H.~S.,
820: Kim, E., Hwang, H.~S., Kim, S.~C., \& Geisler, D.\ 2008, \apj, 682, 135
821: \bibitem[Lo(2008)]{Lo08} Lo, Y. 2008, Statistics and Computing, 8, 233
822: \bibitem[Macri et al. (1999)]{Macri} Macri, L. M., et al., 1999,
823: \apj, 521, 155
824: \bibitem[Mieske et al.(2006)]{Mieske} Mieske, S., et al.\
825: 2006, \apj, 653, 193
826: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{Schlegel} Schlegel, D.~J.,
827: Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
828: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{Sirianni} Sirianni, M., et al.\
829: 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
830: \bibitem[Spitler et al.(2006)]{Spitler} Spitler, L.~R., Larsen, S.~S., Strader, J., Brodie, J.~P., Forbes, D.~A., \& Beasley, M.~A., 2006, AJ, 132, 1593
831: \bibitem[Strader et al.(2006)]{Strader} Strader, J.,
832: Brodie, J.~P., Spitler, L., \& Beasley, M.~A.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 2333
833: \bibitem[Strader et al.(2007)]{SBB07} Strader, J., Beasley,
834: M.~A., \& Brodie, J.~P.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 2015
835: \bibitem[Strader \& Smith(2008)]{StraderSmith08} Strader, J., \& Smith, G., ArXiv e-prints, 808, arXiv:0808.1889
836: \bibitem[Tibshirani \& Knight(1999)]{TK99} Tibshirani, R., \& Knight, K. 1999, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 8, 671
837: \bibitem[Tremonti et al.(2004)]{Tremonti} Tremonti, C.~A., et
838: al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 898
839: \bibitem[Vesperini(1997)]{Vesperini97} Vesperini, E. 1997, \mnras, 287, 915
840: \bibitem[Waters et al.(2006)]{Waters06} Waters, C.~Z.,
841: Zepf, S.~E., Lauer, T.~R., Baltz, E.~A., \& Silk, J.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 885
842: \bibitem[Waters et al.(2008)]{WZ08c} Waters, C.~Z., Zepf, S.~E., Lauer, T.~R., Baltz, E.~A.\ 2008, in prep.
843: \bibitem[Wehner et al.(2008)]{Wehner} Wehner, E.~M.~H.,
844: Harris, W.~E., Whitmore, B.~C., Rothberg, B.,
845: \& Woodley, K.~A.\ 2008, \apj, 681, 1233
846:
847: \end{thebibliography}
848:
849: \clearpage
850:
851: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c c}
852: \tabletypesize{\small}
853: \tablewidth{0pc}
854: %\tablenum{1}
855: \tablecaption{Number of Detected Objects
856: \label{tab: cuts}}
857: \tablehead{\colhead{Cut} & \colhead{$N_{clusters}$} &
858: \colhead{$N_{inverse}$} & \colhead{$N_{UDF}$}}
859: \startdata
860: Matched & 5392 & 136 & 242 \\
861: Completeness $>$ 50\% & 3996 & 45 & 231 \\
862: $0.5 < V - I < 1.7$ & 2832 & 13 & 110 \\
863: Ellipticity & 2168 & 4 & 31 \\
864: Surface Brightness & 2090 & 2 & 31 \\
865: \hline
866: Final & 2089 & 2 & 31
867: \enddata
868: \end{deluxetable}
869:
870:
871: \begin{deluxetable}{c cc cc cc cc}
872: \rotate
873: \tabletypesize{\small}
874: \tablewidth{0pc}
875: \tablecaption{Best fit values: 0.5 magnitude bins/homoscedastic
876: \label{tab: fixed bin 0.5m}}
877: \tablehead{\colhead{I} &
878: \colhead{$\langle V - I \rangle_{blue}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{blue}$} &
879: \colhead{$\langle V - I \rangle_{red}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{red}$} &
880: \colhead{$\pi_{blue}$} & \colhead{$\pi_{red}$} &
881: \colhead{$P_{unimodal}$} & \colhead{$N_{clusters}$}}
882: \startdata
883: % \input{./tab1.tex}
884: 19.295 & 1.094$\pm$0.035 & 0.046$\pm$0.009 & 1.227$\pm$0.025 & 0.046$\pm$0.009 & 0.460$\pm$0.196 & 0.540$\pm$0.196 & 0.312 & 15\\
885: 19.788 & 0.942$\pm$0.064 & 0.115$\pm$0.011 & 1.215$\pm$0.053 & 0.115$\pm$0.011 & 0.419$\pm$0.187 & 0.581$\pm$0.187 & 0.269 & 42\\
886: 20.274 & 0.999$\pm$0.019 & 0.088$\pm$0.009 & 1.236$\pm$0.023 & 0.088$\pm$0.009 & 0.535$\pm$0.082 & 0.465$\pm$0.082 & 0.012 & 90\\
887: 20.758 & 0.990$\pm$0.022 & 0.095$\pm$0.009 & 1.221$\pm$0.017 & 0.095$\pm$0.009 & 0.430$\pm$0.067 & 0.570$\pm$0.067 & 0.016 & 134\\
888: 21.252 & 0.994$\pm$0.020 & 0.092$\pm$0.009 & 1.250$\pm$0.017 & 0.092$\pm$0.009 & 0.432$\pm$0.068 & 0.568$\pm$0.068 & 0.000 & 170\\
889: 21.752 & 1.007$\pm$0.011 & 0.092$\pm$0.006 & 1.268$\pm$0.012 & 0.092$\pm$0.006 & 0.415$\pm$0.043 & 0.585$\pm$0.043 & 0.000 & 262\\
890: 22.267 & 1.002$\pm$0.009 & 0.086$\pm$0.005 & 1.262$\pm$0.008 & 0.086$\pm$0.005 & 0.424$\pm$0.035 & 0.576$\pm$0.035 & 0.000 & 332\\
891: 22.737 & 0.974$\pm$0.015 & 0.106$\pm$0.005 & 1.276$\pm$0.011 & 0.106$\pm$0.005 & 0.325$\pm$0.036 & 0.675$\pm$0.036 & 0.000 & 288\\
892: 23.223 & 0.982$\pm$0.020 & 0.112$\pm$0.006 & 1.274$\pm$0.012 & 0.112$\pm$0.006 & 0.370$\pm$0.042 & 0.630$\pm$0.042 & 0.000 & 270\\
893: 23.722 & 1.004$\pm$0.022 & 0.112$\pm$0.008 & 1.293$\pm$0.015 & 0.112$\pm$0.008 & 0.384$\pm$0.063 & 0.616$\pm$0.063 & 0.000 & 189\\
894: 24.227 & 0.948$\pm$0.065 & 0.128$\pm$0.012 & 1.288$\pm$0.033 & 0.128$\pm$0.012 & 0.262$\pm$0.128 & 0.738$\pm$0.128 & 0.059 & 55\\
895:
896: \enddata
897: \end{deluxetable}
898:
899: \begin{deluxetable}{c cc cc cc cc}
900: \rotate
901: \tabletypesize{\small}
902: \tablewidth{0pc}
903: \tablecaption{Best fit values: 1.0 magnitude bins/homoscedastic
904: \label{tab: fixed bin 1.0m}}
905: \tablehead{\colhead{I} &
906: \colhead{$\langle V - I \rangle_{blue}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{blue}$} &
907: \colhead{$\langle V - I \rangle_{red}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{red}$} &
908: \colhead{$\pi_{blue}$} & \colhead{$\pi_{red}$} &
909: \colhead{$P_{unimodal}$} & \colhead{$N_{clusters}$}}
910: \startdata
911: % \input{./tab2.tex}
912: 19.658 & 0.888$\pm$0.073 & 0.111$\pm$0.012 & 1.175$\pm$0.027 & 0.111$\pm$0.012 & 0.198$\pm$0.122 & 0.802$\pm$0.122 & 0.074 & 57\\
913: 20.564 & 0.995$\pm$0.012 & 0.093$\pm$0.007 & 1.227$\pm$0.015 & 0.093$\pm$0.007 & 0.468$\pm$0.049 & 0.532$\pm$0.049 & 0.001 & 224\\
914: 21.555 & 1.001$\pm$0.010 & 0.093$\pm$0.005 & 1.262$\pm$0.009 & 0.093$\pm$0.005 & 0.427$\pm$0.029 & 0.573$\pm$0.029 & 0.000 & 432\\
915: 22.485 & 0.991$\pm$0.009 & 0.097$\pm$0.004 & 1.269$\pm$0.007 & 0.097$\pm$0.004 & 0.372$\pm$0.024 & 0.628$\pm$0.024 & 0.000 & 620\\
916: 23.428 & 0.990$\pm$0.014 & 0.113$\pm$0.005 & 1.281$\pm$0.010 & 0.113$\pm$0.005 & 0.375$\pm$0.036 & 0.625$\pm$0.036 & 0.000 & 459\\
917:
918: \enddata
919: \end{deluxetable}
920:
921: \begin{deluxetable}{c cccc cccc}
922: \tabletypesize{\small}
923: \tablewidth{0pc}
924: \tablecaption{Best fit trends
925: \label{tab: best fit trends}}
926: \tablehead{\colhead{Model} &
927: \colhead{$a_{blue}$} & \colhead{$b_{blue}$} &
928: \colhead{$k_{blue}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{blue}$} &
929: \colhead{$a_{red}$} & \colhead{$b_{red}$} &
930: \colhead{$k_{red}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{red}$}}
931: \startdata
932: % \input{./tab3.tex}
933: Fixed 0.5 mag & 1.184 & -0.008 & -1.749 & 0.110 & 0.908 & 0.016 & 1.666 & -0.209 \\
934: Fixed 1.0 mag & 1.029 & -0.002 & -1.197 & 0.021 & 0.824 & 0.020 & 1.972 & -0.258 \\
935: 100 point running bins & 1.199 & -0.009 & -1.728 & 0.114 & 1.015 & 0.011 & 1.231 & -0.144 \\
936:
937: \enddata
938: \end{deluxetable}
939:
940: \begin{deluxetable}{c cccc cccc}
941: \tabletypesize{\small}
942: \tablewidth{0pc}
943: \tablecaption{Best fit trends above turnover
944: \label{tab: best fit trends to}}
945: \tablehead{\colhead{Model} &
946: \colhead{$a_{blue}$} & \colhead{$b_{blue}$} &
947: \colhead{$k_{blue}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{blue}$} &
948: \colhead{$a_{red}$} & \colhead{$b_{red}$} &
949: \colhead{$k_{red}$} & \colhead{$\alpha_{red}$}}
950: \startdata
951: %\input{./tab4.tex}
952: Fixed 0.5 mag & 1.135 & -0.006 & -1.538 & 0.080 & 0.906 & 0.016 & 1.672 & -0.210 \\
953: Fixed 1.0 mag & 1.009 & -0.001 & -1.118 & 0.009 & 0.733 & 0.024 & 2.338 & -0.314 \\
954: 100 point running bins & 0.928 & 0.004 & -0.596 & -0.054 & 0.794 & 0.021 & 2.118 & -0.278 \\
955:
956: \enddata
957: \end{deluxetable}
958:
959: \begin{figure}
960: \plotone{f1_color.eps}
961: \caption{Histograms of the cluster colors in three bins of
962: magnitude, each containing 632 clusters, along with the best
963: fitting KMM component models for the red and blue populations as
964: well as the sum of these two components (shown in green). The top
965: panel shows the brightest clusters, with $I < 21.94$. The middle
966: panel shows fainter clusters, with $21.94 < I < 23.06$. The
967: bottom panel shows the faintest clusters. The constancy of the
968: peaks in the red and blue populations indicate the absence of any
969: strong tilts in the M87 globular cluster system.}
970: \label{fig: histograms}
971: \end{figure}
972: \begin{figure}
973: \plotone{f2_color.eps}
974: \caption{Color trends with I magnitude for the globular clusters in
975: these data, based on 0.5 magnitude width bins with homoscedastic fits. The errors are calculated via bootstrapping. The best
976: fitting trends show effectively no blue tilt ($Z \propto M^{0.08 \pm 0.05}$),
977: and is significantly different than the previously published trend
978: $Z \propto M^{0.55}$ shown as a dotted line. For reference, the
979: median 90\% completeness line is shown as a dot-dashed line.
980: \label{fig: fixed bin 0.5m}}
981: \end{figure}
982:
983: \begin{figure}
984: \plottwo{f3a_color.eps}{f3b_color.eps}
985: \caption{Color magnitude diagram of a set of simulated clusters with
986: a mass-metallicity trend defined to be $Z \propto M^{0.55}$
987: (left). As shown by the best fitting line ($Z \propto M^{0.58 \pm
988: 0.05}$), if the clusters truly had such a trend, it would be
989: easily identifiable in our data. The right panel shows the
990: results of fitting simulated clusters with no mass-metallicity
991: trend at all. The best fitting line for this data is also shown
992: ($Z \propto M^{0.06 \pm 0.06}$), which falls within the
993: uncertainty of our fits.
994: \label{fig: simulated}}
995: \end{figure}
996:
997:
998:
999: \end{document}
1000: