1: %\documentstyle[aasms4,natbib]{article}

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: \def\kms{{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}

4: \def\pc{{\rm pc}}

5: \def\kpc{{\rm kpc}}

6: \def\sech{{\rm sech}}

7: \def\erf{{\rm erf}}

8: \def\masyr{{\rm mas}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}

9: \def\usno{{\rm USNO}}

10: \def\nltt{{\rm NLTT}}

11: \def\au{{\rm AU}}

12: \def\min{{\rm min}}

13: \def\pyr{{{\rm yr}^{-1}}}

14: \def\tot{{\rm tot}}

15: \def\bin{{\rm bin}}

16: \def\brk{{\rm brk}}

17: \def\init{{\rm init}}

18: \def\cl{{\rm cl}}

19: \def\bh{{\rm bh}}

20: \def\habit{{\rm habit}}

21: \def\bol{{\rm bol}}

22: \begin{document}

23: 

24: \title{Stellar Contribution to the Galactic Bulge Microlensing

25: Optical Depth}

26: 

27: 

28: \author 

29: {Cheongho Han}

30: \affil{Department of Physics, Institute for Basic Science Research,

31: Chungbuk National University, Chongju 361-763, Korea}

32: \email{cheongho@astroph.chungbuk.ac.kr}

33: \and

34: \author 

35: {Andrew Gould}

36: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

37: 43210, USA}

38: \email{gould@astronomy.ohio-state.edu} 

39: 

40: 

41: \singlespace

42: 

43: \begin{abstract}

44: 

45: We estimate the optical depth to self-lensing by stars in the Galactic

46: bulge using the {\it Hubble Space Telescope} star counts of 

47: Holtzman et al.\ and Zoccali et al.\ as extrapolated by Gould into the 

48: brown-dwarf and remnant regimes and deprojected along the 

49: line of sight using the model of Dwek et al.  We find a self-lensing

50: optical depth $\tau{\rm (bulge-bulge)}=0.98\times 10^{-6}$.  When

51: combined with the lensing of bulge stars by foreground stars in the

52: disk, this yields $\tau{\rm (bulge-total)}=1.63\times 10^{-6}$, in

53: reasonable agreement with the estimates of $\tau=2.13\pm 0.40\times 10^{-6}$ 

54: and $\tau=1.08\pm0.30\times 10^{-6}$ based on observations of clump giants

55: by the MACHO and EROS collaborations.

56: 

57: \end{abstract}

58: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- stars: luminosity function, mass function 

59: Galaxy: bulge -- dark matter}

60: \clearpage

61:  

62: \section{Introduction

63: \label{sec:intro}}

64: 

65: The optical depth to microlensing toward the Galactic bulge has been

66: controversial since before it was first ``officially'' measured.

67: When \citet{pac91} and \citet{griest91}  first proposed bulge microlensing

68: observations, they estimated the optical depth to be about 

69: $\tau\sim 5\times 10^{-7}$ assuming all events were due to known disk stars.

70: However, as soon as the first six bulge events were reported by OGLE

71: \citep{ogle1,ogle2}, the apparently high event rate prompted 

72: \citet{kp} to evaluate the contribution to the optical depth of bulge stars 

73: in addition

74: to those of the disk.  They estimated $\tau\sim 8.5\times 10^{-7}$ and

75: concluded that the value could be as much as twice as high if the bulge

76: were elongated along the line of sight.

77: 

78: Nevertheless, the first measurements of the optical depth,

79: $\tau=3.3\pm 1.2 \times 10^{-6}$ by OGLE \citep{ogle3}, and

80: $\tau=3.9^{+1.8}_{-1.2} \times 10^{-6}$ by MACHO

81: \citep{macho1}\footnote{Submission

82: of the manuscript was delayed 4 months by a secretarial

83: error (C.\ Alcock 1996, private communication) but the results were

84: widely circulated in the microlensing community (astro-ph/9512146).

85: } were substantially higher than even the highest predictions.

86: Indeed, \citet{gould94} and \citet{kk} argued that they were so high

87: as to eliminate the need for any dark halo inside the solar circle, 

88: provided the Galaxy was assumed axisymmetric.  This argument was subsequently

89: generalized to non-axisymmetric mass distributions by \citet{binney}.

90: 

91: These early results motivated substantial additional work.  On the one

92: hand MACHO made several new estimates of the bulge optical depth,

93: one based on a difference-image analysis of a large number of primarily

94: faint sources, yielding $\tau=3.2\pm 0.5\times 10^{-6}$ 

95: \citep{macho2}, and another

96: based on clump giants, yielding $\tau=2.0\pm 0.4 \times 10^{-6}$ 

97: \citep{macho3}.  On the

98: other hand, beginning with \citet{zsr}, many workers attempted to develop 

99: highly non-axisymmetric bulge models that could account for the high 

100: observed optical depth \citep{metcalf,zrs,zm,bebg,gyuk,nm,sk,be}.

101: 

102: Most recently, EROS has reported a much lower optical depth,

103: $\tau=0.94\pm 0.30\times 10^{-6}$ 

104: \citep{eros} based on a study specifically designed to

105: monitor clump giant sources as advocated by \citet{gould95}.  In their

106: Table 2, \citet{eros} also put all optical-depth measurements

107: on a common basis by adjusting them for their offset from Baade's Window (BW).

108: Hence, for example, their own measurement was adjusted upward to

109: $\tau=1.08\pm 0.30\times 10^{-6}$ because their mean field position was

110: less densely populated than BW.

111: 

112: Given the strongly divergent observational results as well as the

113: theoretical difficulties these pose, it is useful to have as many

114: model-independent constraints as possible.  One such constraint

115: comes from star counts.  At the time that \citet{pac91}, \citet{griest91},

116: and \citet{kp} made their estimates, the stellar content of the disk

117: was poorly measured and the stellar content of the bulge was almost

118: completely unconstrained.  Star count from {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)}

119: observations have now completely transformed that situation

120: \citep{holtzman,zoccali,zheng}.  The stellar mass function is

121: well measured  in the disk down to the hydrogen-burning limit and in the

122: bulge down to $M\sim 0.15\,M_\odot$.  There are, of course, uncertainties

123: in extrapolating these mass functions to lower, sub-stellar masses, and to

124: the remnants of the now deceased stars at higher masses.  Nevertheless,

125: the fact that large portions of these mass functions have been directly

126: measured allows one to construct useful constraints.

127: 

128: 

129: We formulate these constraints within the context of a specific

130: model of the Galactic bulge and disk.

131: The model of the disk is relatively secure, and uncertainties in it

132: play an overall very small role in controversies about the total 

133: optical depth toward the bulge.  That is why most of the effort to explain 

134: the high optical depth has centered on models of the bulge.  The benchmark

135: model that we adopt is therefore far from unique.  We show, however, 

136: that it is

137: possible to factor the stellar constraint into two terms, one

138: representing the bulge model convolved with the observational strategy, 

139: and the other representing the star counts.  In this way, our result can

140: easily be applied to any model of the Galactic bulge.  

141: 

142: 

143: \section{Bulge and Disk Models

144: \label{sec:models}}

145: 

146: \subsection{Disk

147: \label{sec:disk}}

148: 

149: 	We model the local vertical disk density profile in accord with 

150: the model of \citet{zheng}.  To extend this model to the whole

151: Galactic disk, we assume that the column density of the disk has

152: a scale length $H=2.75\,\kpc$, as measured by \citet{zheng}.  We

153: account for the gradual flaring of the disk by rescaling the scale heights

154: in the \citet{zheng} formula in proportion to the scale height derived

155: by \citet{kent}.  We normalize the local stellar column density to

156: $\Sigma_0 = 36\,M_\odot\,\pc^{-2}$.  

157: This includes $28\,M_\odot\,\pc^{-2}$ in observable stars and white

158: dwarfs \citep{zheng,gbf} and another $8\,M_\odot\,\pc^{-2}$, which is

159: a rough estimate of the column density of brown dwarfs (BDs).  

160: The disk density profile in cylindrical coordinates is then,

161: \begin{equation}

162: \rho(R,z) = {\rho_0 \over\eta} \exp\biggl(-{R-R_0\over H}\biggr)

163: \biggl[(1-\beta)\sech^2{z\over \eta h_1} + 

164: \beta\exp\biggl(-{|z|\over \eta h_2}\biggr)\biggr]

165: \label{eqn:zhengprofile}

166: \end{equation}

167: where $\rho_0=0.0493\,M_\odot\,\pc^{-3}$, $\beta = 0.565$,

168: $h_1=270\,\pc$, $h_2=440\,\pc$, $H=2.75\,\kpc$, $R_0=8\,\kpc$, and

169: \begin{equation}

170: \label{eqn:}

171: \eta(R) = {\rm max}\biggl\{{R\over 9025\,\pc} + 0.114, 0.670\biggr\}.

172: \end{equation}

173: 

174: \subsection{Bulge

175: \label{sec:bulge}}

176: 

177: For the bulge model, we follow \citet{hg95} and scale the bulge mass

178: density to the deprojected infrared light density profile of

179: \citet{dwek}.  Specifically, we use model G2 (with $R_{\rm max}=5\,\kpc$)

180: from their Table 2.  However, whereas \citet{hg95} fixed the normalization

181: of this model using the tensor virial theorem (which is sensitive to

182: all the mass), we will normalize it by the observed stars (and inferred

183: stellar remnants and substellar objects).

184: 

185: \subsection{Mass Function and Mass-Luminosity Relation

186: \label{sec:mf}}

187: 

188: For the bulge, we adopt the (unnormalized) mass function of \citet{gould00}.

189: This assumes that bulge stars formed initially according to

190: a power law, $d N/dM = k(M/M_\brk)^\alpha$, where $M_\brk=0.7\,M_\odot$,

191: $\alpha=-2.0$ for $M>M_\brk$, and $\alpha=-1.3$ for $M<M_\brk$.

192: These slopes are consistent with the observations of \citet{zoccali},

193: but the profile is extended below their lower limit of $M\sim 0.15\,M_\odot$

194: to a BD cutoff of $M=0.03\,M_\odot$.  The stars with

195: initial masses $1\,M_\odot<M<8\,M_\odot$ are assumed to have become

196: white dwarfs (WDs), those with masses $8\,M_\odot<M<40\,M_\odot$ are 

197: assumed to have become neutron stars (NSs) with masses $M=1.35\,M_\odot$, 

198: and those with masses $M>40\,M_\odot$ are assumed to have become black

199: holes (BHs) with mass $M=5\,M_\odot$.  The total mass

200: is then dominated by main-sequence (MS) stars, with mass fractions

201: \begin{equation}

202: {\rm BD:MS:WD:NS:BH} = 7:62:22:6:3.  

203: \label{eqn:ratios}

204: \end{equation}

205: This is important because, as we will see in

206: \S~\ref{sec:normal},  the observational constraint comes from luminous 

207: (i.e. MS) stars.

208: 

209: We adopt the mass-$M_V$ relation of \citet{allen}

210: 

211: \section{Normalization From Star Counts

212: \label{sec:normal}}

213: 

214: We populate the bulge with stars (and BDs and

215: remnants) according to the \citet{gould00} mass function described in

216: \S~\ref{sec:mf} and adjust the overall normalization until we match

217: the \citet{holtzman} $V$-band star counts in BW.  See Figure \ref{fig:lf}.  

218: To predict these counts, we assign each star a luminosity using

219: the \citet{allen} mass-$M_V$ relation, while treating all BDs, WDs,

220: NSs, and BHs as dark.  We then convert to apparent magnitudes using

221: the each star's individual distance.  Finally, each star is then reddened 

222: by assuming that the total extinction along the line of sight is $A_V=1.28$

223: \citep{holtzman}, and that the dust has a scale height of 120 pc.

224: 

225: We incorporate disk as well as bulge stars in predicting the \cite{holtzman}

226: star counts.  Since the disk stellar profile is regarded as well

227: measured (by \citealt{zheng}), we do not adjust the normalization

228: of the disk profile as we do the bulge profile, but rather leave it

229: fixed in the form given in \S~\ref{sec:disk}.  However, we use the

230: same mass function and mass-$M_V$ relation for the disk as the bulge.

231: In principle, one should make an independent estimate of these functions.

232: However, since the disk stars contribute only $\sim 15\%$ of the counts

233: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lf}), the net corrections from more accurate functions

234: would be only a few percent, which is small compared to other uncertainties

235: in the problem.  Hence, we ignore this distinction in the interest of

236: simplicity.

237: 

238: 	We fix the normalization by demanding agreement between the

239: model predictions and the (mass-weighted) \citet{holtzman} star counts 

240: over the range $22.5<V<26.5$.  

241: At fainter magnitudes, the \citet{holtzman} data become seriously

242: incomplete, while at somewhat brighter magnitudes our simple mass-$M_V$

243: relation fails to account for evolution off the MS and so slightly

244: overpredicts the counts.  At much brighter magnitudes, the fact that

245: our model has no giants causes it to completely underestimate the

246: counts.  These latter two effects are each small and roughly cancel one

247: another.  See Figure~\ref{fig:lf}.

248: 

249: 	The good agreement over four magnitudes demonstrates that

250: the mass function of \citet{zoccali}, which is based on infrared

251: observations, is compatible with the optically-based \citet{holtzman}

252: mass function, an agreement already noted by \citet{zoccali}.

253: 

254: 	The total column density of bulge stars (and associated BDs and

255: remnants) toward BW is

256: \begin{equation}

257: \Sigma_* = 2086\,M_\odot\,\pc^{-2}.

258: \label{eqn:sigmastar}

259: \end{equation}

260: As shown by equation~(\ref{eqn:ratios}), 62\% of this mass is in the 

261: form of luminous stars, while 55\% is in MS stars with masses 

262: $0.15\,M_\odot<M<1\,M_\odot$,

263: and so with sufficient luminosity to have been directly observed by 

264: \citet{zoccali}.

265: 

266: \section{Optical Depth Due to Stars

267: \label{sec:optdep}}

268: 

269: The observed optical depth will always be an average over the individual

270: optical depths to the stars being monitored.  More distant stars have

271: higher optical depth, but are also fainter and so less likely to

272: be included in the sample \citep{kp}.  To parameterize this effect, we

273: write

274: \begin{equation}

275: \langle \tau\rangle_\gamma = {4\pi G\over c^2}{

276: \int_0^\infty d D_s D_s^{2-\gamma} \rho(D_s)

277: \int_0^{D_s}d D_l \rho(D_l) D_l (D_s - D_l)/D_s

278: \over

279: \int_0^\infty d D_s D_s^{2-\gamma} \rho(D_s)

280: }

281: \label{eqn:taugamma}

282: \end{equation}

283: For standard candles, which can be identified independent of distance,

284: $\gamma=0$.  We are most directly interested in comparing to optical

285: depth measurements using clump giants, which are approximately standard

286: candles.  We therefore adopt $\gamma=0$ as the default.  For bulge

287: sources and for, respectively, disk and bulge lenses, we find

288: \begin{equation}

289: \langle \tau\rangle_0({\rm disk}) = 0.65\times 10^{-6},\qquad

290: \langle \tau\rangle_0({\rm bulge}) = 0.98\times 10^{-6}.

291: \label{eqn:tau0}

292: \end{equation}

293: In fact, $\langle \tau\rangle_\gamma({\rm disk})$ does not significantly

294: depend on $\gamma$, but $\langle \tau\rangle_\gamma({\rm bulge})$ does.

295: For example $\langle \tau\rangle_1({\rm bulge})=0.86\times 10^{-6}$

296: 

297: The total optical depth due to stars that is predicted by this mass

298: profile for observations toward BW, $\langle \tau\rangle_0({\rm total}) = 

299: 1.63\times 10^{-6}$, agrees reasonably well with the two measurements

300: made using clump giants.  When these are adjusted to a common mean

301: direction at BW \citep{eros}, they yield 

302: $\tau=2.13\pm 0.40\times 10^{-6}$ \citep{macho3} and

303: $\tau=1.08\pm 0.30\times 10^{-6}$ \citep{eros}. 

304: 

305: \section{Discussion

306: \label{sec:discuss}}

307: 

308: While the agreement between the observations and the model predictions

309: is comforting, it is important to recognize that the model has some

310: uncertainties.  These are most easily discussed by writing the predicted

311: optical depth as

312: \begin{equation}

313: \langle \tau\rangle_\gamma({\rm bulge}) 

314: = {4\pi G\Sigma_* \overline{D_\gamma}\over c^2}.

315: \label{eqn:dbar}

316: \end{equation}

317: This equation serves to define $\overline{D_\gamma}$, which may be

318: thought of roughly as the characteristic source-lens separation.

319: This characteristic separation depends only on the mass profile and

320: (through $\gamma$) on the observational strategy.  It can be

321: evaluated trivially for any mass model.  For the \citet{dwek} bulge

322: model used here,

323: \begin{equation}

324: \overline{D_0} = 782\,\pc.

325: \label{eqn:d0eval}

326: \end{equation}

327: 

328: 	On the other hand,

329: $\Sigma_*$ depends only on the surface density of stars.  

330: For luminous stars, this is practically an observed quantity

331: \citep{holtzman,zoccali}, and the major uncertainty is how

332: to extrapolate the observations into the BD and remnant regimes.

333: One might, for example, argue that a Salpeter mass function $(\alpha=2.35)$

334: is more appropriate for the extrapolation to higher masses. In this

335: case, the WD contribution would fall by 20\% and the BH contribution

336: would fall by a factor 5.  Or one could argue that the mean mass of

337: BHs is higher, or that the threshold stellar mass to leave BH remnants

338: is lower than the $40\,M_\odot$ adopted here, either of which would raise 

339: the BH contribution.  Finally, the \citet{zoccali} mass function does

340: not take account of binary companions, which might plausibly raise $\Sigma_*$

341: by 10--20\%.  Any of these changes can be easily incorporated 

342: using equation~(\ref{eqn:ratios}), once new estimates are made.

343: 

344: We can compare the approach adopted here to that of \citet{hg95}, who

345: normalized the \citet{dwek} model using the tensor virial theorem.

346: To do so, we first note that \citet{hg95} tilted their bulge ellipsoid

347: $20^\circ$ to the line of sight, as advocated in the \citet{dwek} abstract,

348: rather than the $13.\hskip-2pt ^\circ 4$ given in Table 1 of 

349: \citet{dwek} and used here.  Normalizing the \citet{hg95} $20^\circ$ model 

350: according to the procedure defined in this paper, we find a bulge

351: self-lensing optical depth of $\langle\tau\rangle_0=0.88\times 10^{-6}$,

352: only 66\% of the value obtained using the \citet{hg95} tensor virial theorem

353: normalization. Part of

354: the difference is undoubtedly due to binary companions, which contribute to the

355: integrated mass and enter the

356: microlensing optical depth but which, because they are generally substantially

357: less luminous than their primaries, leave almost no trace on the observed

358: {\it HST} stellar luminosity functions.  If the BD or remnant populations

359: were substantially larger than modeled by \citet{gould00}, this would

360: also add to both the integrated mass density and the optical depth.

361: Part of the difference could also be due to non-baryonic dark matter, which

362: would add to the integrated mass (to which the tensor virial theorem is

363: sensitive) but would not contribute to microlensing.  Finally, of course,

364: the tensor virial theorem yields results that are only as accurate as

365: the mass model and velocity dispersion tensor to which it is applied,

366: and either of these could have errors.

367: 

368: 

369: %\begin{equation}

370: %\label{eqn:}

371: %\end{equation}

372: 

373: 

374: \acknowledgments 

375: Work by CH was supported by the Astrophysical Research Center

376: for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of Korea

377: Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the Science

378: Research Center (SRC) program.

379: Work by AG was supported by grant AST 02-01266 from the NSF.

380: \clearpage

381: 

382: \begin{thebibliography}{}

383: 

384: \bibitem[Afonso et al.(2003)]{eros} Afonso, C., et al.\ 2003, \aap, in 

385: press (astro-ph/0303100)

386: 

387: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1997)]{macho1} Alcock C., et al.\ 1997, \apj, 479, 119

388: 

389: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{macho2} Alcock C., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 541, 734

390: 

391: \bibitem[Cox(1999)]{allen} Cox, A.N.\ 1999, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities,

392: Fourth Edition, (Springer-Verlag: New York), 489

393: 

394: \bibitem[Binney, Bissantz \& Gerhard(2000)]{binney}Binney, J., Bissantz, N., 

395: \& Gerhard, O.\ 2000, \apj, 537, L99

396: 

397: \bibitem[Bissantz et al.(1997)]{bebg}  Bissantz N., Englmaier P., 

398: Binnet J., \& Gerhard O.\ 1997, \mnras, 289, 651

399: 

400: \bibitem[Dwek et al.(1995)]{dwek} Dwek, E.\ 1995, \apj, 445, 716

401: 

402: \bibitem[Belokurov \& Evans(2002)]{be} Belokurov V.,\& Evans N.W.\ 2002, \apj,

403: 567, L119

404: 

405: \bibitem[Gould(1994)]{gould94} Gould, A.\ 1994, ApJ Letters submitted

406: (astro-ph/940860)

407: 

408: \bibitem[Gould(1995)]{gould95} Gould, A.\ 1995, \apj, 447, 91

409: 

410: \bibitem[Gould(2000)]{gould00} Gould, A.\ 2000, \apj, 539, 928

411: 

412: \bibitem[Han \& Gould(1995)]{hg95} Han, C., \ Gould, A.\ 1995, \apj, 447, 53

413: 

414: \bibitem[Gould, Bahcall, \& Flynn(1997)]{gbf} Gould, A., Bahcall, J.N., 

415: \& Flynn, C.\ 1996, \apj, 465, 759

416: 

417: \bibitem[Griest et al.(1991)]{griest91} Griest, K.\ 1991, \apj, 372, L79

418: 

419: \bibitem[Gyuk(1999)]{gyuk} Gyuk G.\ 1999, \apj, 510, 205

420: 

421: \bibitem[Holtzman et al.(1998)]{holtzman} Holtzman, J.A., Watson, A.M., Baum,

422: W.A., Grillmair, C.J.,

423: Groth, E.J., Light, R.M., Lynds, R., \& O'Neil Jr., E.J.\ 1998, \aj, 115, 1946

424: 

425: \bibitem[Kent(1992)]{kent} Kent, S.M.\ 1992, \apj, 387, 181

426: 

427: \bibitem[Kiraga \& Paczy\'nski(1994)]{kp} Kiraga, M., \& Paczy\'nski, B.\

428: 1994, \apj, 430, L101

429: 

430: \bibitem[Kuijken(1997)]{kk} Kuijken, K.\ 1997, \apj, 486, L19

431: 

432: \bibitem[Metcalf(1995)]{metcalf} Metcalf, R.B.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 869

433: 

434: \bibitem[Nair \& Miralda-Escude(1999)]{nm} Nair V., \& Miralda-Escud\'e, J.\

435: 1999, \apj, 515, 206

436: 

437: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1991)]{pac91} Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1991, \apj, 371, L63

438: 

439: \bibitem[Popowski et al.(2001)]{macho3} Popowski, P.\ 2001, in 

440: ASP Conference Series 239, Microlensing

441: 2000, a New Era in Astrophysics, p.\ 244, eds. J.W. Menzies \& P.D. Sackett,

442: (San Francisco: ASP)

443: 

444: \bibitem[Sevenstar \& Kalnajs(2001)]{sk}  Sevenstar, M.N., \& Kalnajs, A.J.\ 

445: 2001, \aj, 122, 885

446: 

447: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1993)]{ogle1} Udalski, A., Szyma\'nski, M., 

448: Kalu\.zny, J.,

449:  Kubiak, M., Krzemi\'nski, W., Mateo, M., Preston, G.W., 

450: \& Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1993, Acta Astron.\ 43, 69

451: 

452: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1994)]{ogle2} Udalski, D., Szyma\'nski, M., 

453: Kalu\.zny, J.,

454:  Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., \& Krzemi\'nski, W.\ 1994, \apj, 426, L69

455: 

456: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1994)]{ogle3} Udalski, D., Szyma\'nski, M., 

457: Stanek, K.\ Kalu\.zny, J.,

458:  Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., Krzemi\'nski, W., Paczy\'nski, B.

459: \& Venkat, R.\ 1994, Acta Astron., 44, 165

460: 

461: \bibitem[Zhao \& Mao(1996)]{zm}Zhao, H., \& Mao, S.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, 1197

462: 

463: \bibitem[Zhao, Rich \& Spergel(1996)]{zrs}Zhao, H., Rich, R.M., \& 

464: Spergel, D.N.\ 1996, \mnras, 282, 175

465: 

466: \bibitem[Zhao, Spergel \& Rich(1995)]{zsr}Zhao, H., Spergel, D.N.,\& 

467: Rich, R.M.\ 1995, \apj, 440, L13

468: 

469: \bibitem[Zheng et al.(2002)]{zheng} Zheng, Z., Flynn, C., 

470: Gould, A., Bahcall, J.~N., \& Salim, S.\ 2001, \apj, 555, 393 

471: 

472: \bibitem[Zoccali et al.(2000)]{zoccali} Zoccali, M., S., Cassisi, S., 

473: Frogel, J.A., Gould, A., Ortolani, S., Renzini, A.,  Rich, R.M. 1999, \&

474: Stephens, A.\ 2000, \apj, 530, 418

475: 

476: \end{thebibliography}

477: \clearpage

478: 

479: \begin{figure}

480: %\epsscale{0.7}

481: \plotone{f1.eps}

482: \caption{\label{fig:lf}

483: Star counts toward Baade's Window.  Observations of \citet{holtzman}

484: ({\it connected data points}) are used to fix the normalization

485: of the bulge mass-density profile of \citet{dwek}.  The individual 

486: contributions of the disk ({\it dashed curve}) and bulge ({\it solid curve})

487: are added to predict the total disk+bulge counts ({\it bold curve}).

488: The disk is held fixed, while the bulge is scaled until the mass-weighted

489: disk+bulge star-count predictions agree with the

490: observations over the range $22.5<V<26.5$.

491: }\end{figure}

492: 

493: \end{document}

494: