1: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
2: %
3: \documentclass[onecolumn]{aa}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: %
8: \begin{document}
9: %
10: \title{High accuracy proper motions in crowded fields}
11: \author{C. Alard}
12: \offprints{C. Alard}
13: \institute{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, 98bis boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris France,
14: \email{alard@iap.fr}
15: \and
16: Observatoire de Paris, 77 avenue Denfert Rochereau, 75014 Paris France.}
17:
18:
19: \date{}
20:
21: \abstract{
22: The image subtraction method is a powerful tool to analyze
23: the light variations in crowded fields. This method is
24: able to achieve a nearly optimal differential photometry, even
25: in very dense regions. However, image subtraction is not limited
26: to photometry, and it is shown in this paper that the method
27: can be generalized to the measurement of the differential
28: proper motions. It is important to emphasize that image
29: subtraction can re-construct an un-biased frame to frame astrometric
30: transform. A nearly optimal determination of this astrometric transform
31: can be performed by expanding the spatial variations of the kernel using
32: the derivatives of the constant kernel solution. It is demonstrated that
33: an expansion using first and second derivatives is optimal.
34: Differential refraction can be corrected easily using an artificial
35: image and the first derivatives of the kernel. To illustrate the
36: ability of the method to measure proper motions, a small sub-area
37: near the center of a Galactic Bulge field covered 265 times
38: by the OGLE II experiment has been selected. The resulting astrometric
39: accuracy is very close to the photon noise for the faint objects, while
40: for the brighter ones it approaches closely the limit set by the residual
41: seeing fluctuations on the smaller scales. The accuracy obtained with this
42: new method is compared to the accuracy achieved using classical methods.
43: The improvement obtained varies from a factor of $\simeq$ 2 for the brighter
44: objects, to more than a factor of 3 for the fainter ones. This improvement
45: is typical of the improvement that was obtained for the measurement of the
46: photometric variations.
47: %
48: \keywords{Techniques: image processing,Astrometry,Stellar dynamics}
49: }
50: \maketitle
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53: %
54: The development of the image subtraction method was motivated by the need
55: to perform an optimal analysis of the light variations in crowded
56: stellar fields. In particular, the large amount of data produced by the
57: microlensing surveys towards the Galactic Bulge or the LMC (Udalski {\it et al.}
58: 1994 (OGLE), 1997 (OGLE II), Alcock {\it et al.} 1997 MACHO, Alard \& Guibert 1997 (DUO))
59: posed the problem of the optimal detection and measurements of the light
60: variations of a faint object surrounded by a dense background of stars.
61: The first successful attempts were performed by Tomaney \& Crotts (1996)
62: who developed a Fourier based image subtraction method. This work was followed by a least-square implementation of the image subtraction method
63: Alard \& Lupton (1998). This least-square implementation is nearly optimal
64: provided that the kernel solution is almost constant across the image. However
65: this is not always the case, and sometimes it can be a severe limitation.
66: As a consequence the least-square method was generalized to the case of
67: spatially variable kernel solution with conservation of flux (Alard 2000).
68: The ability of the least-square method to obtain nearly optimal results
69: was demonstrated at many occasions (see for instance Alard 1999, or Wozniak
70: 2002). It was also demonstrated that this method improved the photometry
71: by a factor 2 to a factor 4, with respect to classical
72: methods (see Alard 1999 for details). It was recently suggested by Paczy\'nski
73: (2002), that it might be possible to extend this improvement to the measurement
74: of the stellar differential motions. As shown by Eyer \& Wozniak (2001) it is possible
75: to detect and estimate the proper motions of stars using the version of image
76: subtraction optimized for photometric measurements. However, it is clear that
77: to perform a nearly optimal astrometric measurement, it necessary to extend
78: and develop substantially the image subtraction method.
79: %
80: \section{Basic equations}
81: An observed image is the result of the application of several physical process
82: to the ``true image''. The three major process are instrumental and atmospheric
83: blurring, the sampling introduced by the detector array, and the noise. Each
84: of these process can be described appropriately by simple mathematical
85: operations. It is of particular importance to image subtraction that
86: the instrumental and atmospheric blurring of the image can be described
87: appropriately be a convolution process. As a result it should be possible
88: to transform an image to exactly the same observing condition as another
89: one by a convolution process. The basic idea of image subtraction
90: is that this convolution kernel can be written as sum of linear functions.
91: Considering that the kernel $\phi$ takes the values $\phi_{i,j}$
92: on the image 2 dimensional grid, and that the basis functions $f^k$ takes
93: the corresponding values $f^k_{ij}$ on the same grid, one can write:
94: $$
95: \phi_{ij} = a_{ij} f^k_{ij}
96: $$
97: in order to simplify the notation, the summation symbol will be omitted.
98: The following implicit summation rule will be used: {\bf summation occurs when the
99: index is repeated twice.}
100: \\\\
101: In general the coefficient $a_j$ of the kernel decomposition will depend upon
102: the position in the image, thus:
103: \begin{equation}
104: \phi_{ij} = a_j(x,y) \ f^k_{ij}
105: \end{equation}
106: By applying this kernel transform to the best seeing image $G$, it is possible
107: to match closely the other image. Assuming Gaussian statistics the optimal
108: kernel transform should minimize the chi-square between the convolved image
109: and the bad seeing image $B$.
110: $$
111: \chi^2=\left|\left|\frac{a_k G_{i-l,j-m} f^k_{lm} - B_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}}\right|\right|^2
112: $$
113: To simplify the notations it is interesting to define the convolved
114: basis functions:
115: $$
116: W_{ij}^k = G_{i-l,j-m} f^k_{lm}
117: $$
118: Thus:
119: \begin{equation}
120: \chi^2=\left|\left|\frac{a_k W_{ij}^k - B_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}}\right|\right|^2
121: \end{equation}
122: %
123: %
124: %
125: \section{Image subtraction and optimal astrometry}
126: \subsection{modeling of differential motions}
127: To perform optimal astrometry one has to measure the displacements of
128: stars between 2 images with the best possible accuracy. The displacements
129: due to proper motions of stars corresponds to tiny shifts on the image
130: grid. It is possible to model such small shifts in a given image
131: $I$ with great accuracy
132: using a first order expansion in spatial coordinates:
133: \begin{equation}
134: \delta I_{ij} = \left({\frac {\partial I}{\partial x}}\right)_{ij} dx + \left({\frac {\partial I}{\partial y}}\right)_{ij} dy
135: \end{equation}
136: Thus to model the displacements between our 2 images it is necessary to
137: introduce the local derivatives. Our model of the image is (see eq 2):
138: $$
139: M_{ij}=a_k W_{ij}^k
140: $$
141: According to eq (3) the shifted model $\tilde M$ can be written:
142: $$
143: \tilde M_{ij} = M_{ij} + \left({\frac {\partial M}{\partial x}}\right)_{ij} dx + \left({\frac {\partial M}{\partial y}}\right)_{ij} dy
144: $$
145: Note that:
146: $$
147: \left({\frac {\partial M}{\partial x}}\right)_{ij} = {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}} \left( B_{i-l,j-m} \ \phi_{lm} \right) \simeq {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}} \int B(u,v) \phi(x-u,y-v) \ dudv \simeq \int B(u,v) \ {\frac {\partial }{\partial x}} \ \phi(x-u,y-v) \ dudv
148: $$
149: Consequently:
150: $$
151: \left({\frac {\partial M}{\partial x}}\right)_{ij} \simeq B_{i-l,j-m} \left({\frac {\partial \phi}{\partial x}} \right)_{lm}
152: $$
153: Thus, we see that it is possible to model small shifts between the image
154: by including the derivatives of the kernel in the kernel expansion. Provided
155: that the kernel basis is complete this basis should also contain the
156: kernel derivatives (as a linear combination of the original basis function).
157: As a consequence it is clear that the general image subtraction method should
158: be able to model small shifts between the images. Since the kernel decomposition
159: depends on the position in the image, the shift may also depend on the
160: position. However, we may wonder if this mapping of the shifts between
161: the images corresponds to the right astrometric registration.
162: %
163: \subsection{Image subtraction and astrometric alignment}
164: %
165: One condition for the perfect astrometric alignment between 2 systems
166: is that there should be no systematic offset between the 2 systems.
167: Thus it is important to check that the subtracted image does not contains
168: some systematics astrometric shift. A residual shift in the subtracted
169: image would mean that there is a displacement between the convolved
170: solution and the image to fit. Assuming that the unshifted subtracted image
171: is $R_{ij}$ , and that the bad seeing image $B_{ij}$
172: is shifted by $(\delta_x,\delta_y)$ with respect to the convolved
173: good seeing image $a_k W_{ij}^k$, using eq (3) one can write that\ the shifted subtracted $S_{ij}$ image will be:
174: %
175: $$
176: S_{ij}=a_k W_{ij}^k - B_{ij} = R_{ij}+\left(\frac{\partial B}{\partial x}\right)_{ij} \delta x + \left(\frac {\partial B}{\partial y}\right)_{ij} \delta y
177: $$
178: Thus the estimation of the displacement is once
179: again a linear least-squares problem related to the estimation of
180: $(\delta x, \delta y)$. Here the 2 least-squares vectors are
181: the derivatives of the image. The corresponding normal least square equation is a linear system of equations with the following form:
182: \begin{equation}
183: N \delta_{xy} = V
184: \end{equation}
185: Where $N$ is a matrix containing the cross products of the vectors.
186: V is a vector which components are the cross products of the vectors
187: with the subtracted image.
188: For the ideal, unshifted solution, $R_{ij}$, $\delta_{xy}=0$, and consequently
189: , according to eq (4), the cross products:
190: $$
191: \frac{R_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}^2} \left(\frac{\partial B}{\partial x} \right)_{ij} {\rm and} \ \ \frac{R_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}^2} \left(\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} \right)_{ij}
192: $$
193: have to be zero. It is possible to demonstrate the same
194: result for the shifted subtracted image. The image subtraction method
195: implies that $\chi^2$ must be minimal with respect to any the
196: kernel coefficient $a_p$, using eq (2) one can write:
197: \begin{equation}
198: \frac {\partial \chi^2}{\partial a_p} = 0 = W_{ij}^p \left[\frac{a_k W_{ij}^k - B_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}}\right] = W_{ij}^p \ R_{ij}
199: \end{equation}
200: As it was already shown in Sec. 3.1 the kernel basis of functions should
201: contain the kernel derivatives. A convolution with the kernel derivatives
202: will recreate the derivatives of the image. Thus the basis of functions
203: $W_{ij}^p$ should contain the image derivatives. Then using eq (5) it is
204: easy to prove that the scalar product of the image derivatives with the
205: subtracted image is zero. And consequently using eq (4), we see that
206: the displacement $\delta_{xy}$ has to be zero.
207: Thus there is no systematic bias on in an astrometric
208: registration performed using the image subtraction method.
209: %
210: %
211: \section{Optimal astrometric alignment}
212: The general image subtraction method is able to perform an unbiased
213: image alignment, however the least-square process, and in particular
214: the spatial variability involves a large number of free parameters which
215: may introduce unnecessary noise. To perform an optimal astrometric alignment
216: it is required to use the smallest possible set of parameters.
217: Image subtraction with spatial variations requires many parameters.
218: To estimate the number of parameters, it is necessary to multiply the numbers
219: of parameters for the constant kernel solution by the number of polynomial
220: coefficients used the spatial expansion. Typically, a constant kernel
221: solution requires about 50 parameters and with a spatial expansion of
222: second degree we get 300 parameters. However, if we consider a smaller
223: region of the image, we expect that the spatial variation of the kernel
224: will be small, and that we might be able to model the kernel variations
225: using an expansion in Taylor series of the constant kernel solution
226: $\phi^0$ ($\phi^0$ can be for instance the solution near the center
227: of the frame:
228: \begin{equation}
229: \phi_{ij} = \phi^0_{ij}+\sum_{l <= k} a_{kl}(x,y) \left [\frac {\partial^{k+l} \phi^0}{\partial x_k \partial y_l} \right]_{ij}
230: \end{equation}
231: It is particularly interesting to use a Taylor series of degree 2. In this
232: expansion, the first derivatives will take into account the motion between
233: the frames, while the second derivatives will help to reduce the general
234: chi-square. It is important
235: to note that the components corresponding to the astrometric displacement
236: $(\frac{\partial \phi^0}{\partial x}, \frac{\partial \phi^0}{\partial y})$ are orthogonal to the other components of the kernel expansion. For
237: instance:
238: $$
239: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\partial \phi^0}{\partial x} \phi^0 dx = \left[\frac{1}{2} \left(\phi^0 \right)^2\right]_{-\infty}^{\infty} = 0 {\rm \ \ \ \ (Since \ the \ kernel \ decreases \ exponentially)}
240: $$
241: Similarly, one can demonstrate easily that the first derivatives are
242: orthogonal to the second derivatives. This property is also true for
243: the convolved basis functions. The convolution with the kernel derivatives
244: will give the derivatives of the convolved image. Thus, our former reasoning
245: will apply. Except, that here the relevant integration boundaries will be
246: the edges of the image. The image may not be zero on its edges, but what
247: matter for the value of the integral is the difference between the edges.
248: Statistically if the value on the edges are un-correlated, the mean
249: should be zero. In any case the cross-product of the first derivative
250: with the 2 others component should be very small. Thus, the least-squares
251: vectors corresponding to the kernel derivatives are orthogonal to the
252: other least-square vectors. In the least-square normal equations, the
253: matrix contains the cross products of the vectors, and thus many components
254: of the matrix will be zero. This matrix will be non-zero only in local
255: blocks. In particular, the block corresponding to the first derivatives will
256: be isolated, and surrounded with zeros. As a result the least-square solution
257: for the first derivatives will be independent from the estimation of the
258: other parameters. This property is very interesting, because it means that
259: the errors will be also independent on the errors on the other parameters, and
260: as a consequence should be minimized. Note that formally the scalar
261: product of the vectors, represent the least-square matrix element in
262: case the statistically weight $\sigma_{ij}$ is constant (gaussian noise).
263: In case of Poissonian weighting, the difference should be negligible in
264: most area, except for bright stars. But even around bright stars, provided
265: the psf is nearly symmetrical, one can show that in this case the integral
266: is close to zero.
267: Thus it means that the errors on estimation of the astrometric displacement
268: will be minimal. This interesting property of the spatial dependence in
269: terms of derivatives could be completely flawed if the spatial expansion
270: did not conserved the flux. Hopefully it is easy to demonstrate that
271: the derivatives have zero sums. For instance:
272: $$
273: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} dx =\left[ \phi \right]_{-\infty}^{\infty} = 0 {\rm \ \ \ \ Since \ the \ kernel \ decrases \ exponentially}
274: $$
275: The same reasoning apply to all the other derivatives. Thus, using eq (5) we
276: see immediately that the integral of the kernel as a function of position
277: is constant, and is equal to the integral of the constant kernel solution.
278: As a conclusion, we see that the Taylor expansion of order 2 provides a natural
279: basis to expand the spatial variations of the kernel: the errors
280: on the differential motions are minimized, and flux conservation
281: is preserved.
282: %
283: \section{Correction of differential refraction}
284: %
285: To first order, the effect of differential refraction is to shift
286: slightly the position of the stars. The amplitude of the shift depends
287: on the color of the stars. Thus to correct the differential refraction,
288: one must know the color of the objects in the image. To compute the
289: color of the objects it is necessary to run a source extraction code
290: in the V and I band. The magnitudes in each band are estimated by PSF
291: fitting. Once the color and magnitude of each star are known, it is
292: possible to correct for the differential refraction effect. For instance
293: assuming a simple model where the displacement is proportional to the
294: color, the correction will be proportional to the color of the star
295: multiplied by its flux. In this simple model, to compute
296: the differential refraction correction it is sufficient to reconstruct
297: an artificial image where the amplitude of the stars are multiplied by
298: their color, and convolve it with the kernel derivatives. A least-square
299: fit of these 2 vectors will give directly the 2 coefficients corresponding
300: to the differential refraction along x and y. Obviously the method can
301: be extended to non-linear modeling of the color versus differential refraction
302: effect.
303: %
304: \section{Application to OGLE data}
305: %
306: \subsection{practical implementation}
307: The OGLE II project (Udalski {\it et al} 1997) produced a large amount of good quality
308: CCD image in either Galactic or Magellanic fields. Most of the data is
309: in the I band, with also some images in V and B.
310: Some of the Galactic Bulge fields offers an impressive
311: coverage of the observing seasons. In particular the field OGLE Bulge SC 33
312: has been observed 265 times over an interval of approximately 1200 days. This
313: data set is very well suited to experiment the new method presented in this
314: paper. In this field the density of stars is very large, and thus it is
315: sufficient to study a smaller sub-area of the field. The area selected
316: is near the center of the SC 33 field, the Galactic coordinates of
317: the center of the field are: (l$=$2.2, b$=$-3.7). An image surface
318: of 512$\times$512 pixels which corresponds to about
319: $3.5^{'}\times 3.5^{'}$ on the
320: sky is large enough to give a total of about 800 stars for which the
321: color and magnitudes can be measured with decent accuracy. Although
322: it is important to note that due to the severe blending, this may
323: not be true for the fainter objects, which actually can be unresolved
324: blends. Due to this source confusion issue, it is interesting
325: to have the best possible spatial resolution in the reference image.
326: One of the image was taken under outstanding seeing conditions, with
327: low airmass. This image has also the advantage to be near the
328: middle of the data time interval, which minimize the differential motion
329: of the stars. All the frame were aligned
330: to this reference frame (see Alard \& Lupton 1998, and Alard 2000
331: for details), and then subtracted. The constant
332: kernel solution was derived by a local fit on the bright stars.
333: The solution that was selected is the local solution
334: having the best $\chi^2$ for the whole image.
335: The derivatives of the constant kernel solution were
336: expanded spatially using polynomials of 2nd degree. The differential
337: refraction was corrected using a polynomial of the same degree. Thus,
338: the total number of components to fit on the image using linear least-square
339: is 43. In order to minimize the errors due to the drift scan procedure,
340: the frame was splited into 3 sub-frames along the y direction
341: . Using the full set of 265 subtracted images, it is possible to
342: produce astrometric curves along each direction for the 782 stars of the
343: sample. Knowing the baseline flux of the star $F_0$, the local
344: kernel solution $\phi$, and the local psf on the reference image,
345: $\psi$, one can relate the displacement to the residuals in the subtracted
346: image $S_{ij}$ using eq (3):
347: $$
348: S_{ij}= F_0 \left({\frac {\partial \eta}{\partial x}}\right)_{ij} dx + F_0 \left({\frac {\partial \eta}{\partial y}}\right)_{ij} dy \ \ \ \ {\rm \ with: \ \ \ \ } \eta_{ij} = \phi_{i-j,k-l} \psi_{k,l}
349: $$
350: Thus dx and dy can be measured by a 2 parameter linear least-square fit:
351: \begin{equation}
352: S_{ij}= a_0 \left({\frac {\partial \eta}{\partial x}}\right)_{ij} + a_1 \left({\frac {\partial \eta}{\partial y}}\right)_{ij} \ \ \ \ {\rm \ with: \ \ \ \ } dx=\frac{a_0}{F_0}, \ dy=\frac{a_1}{F_0}
353: \end{equation}
354: %
355: \begin{figure}
356: \epsfig{file=dxy.ps,width=17cm}
357: \caption{The error on measuring the proper motion along the X and Y directions as a function of the I band magnitude for the 782 stars of the sample. The
358: diagrams in the bottom presents the real value of the errors, while on
359: the top the errors are compared to the theoretical poissonian
360: expectations.}
361: \end{figure}
362: %
363: \begin{figure}
364: \epsfig{file=d.ps,width=14cm}
365: \caption{The error on measuring the proper motion as a function
366: of the I band magnitude for the 782 stars of the sample. Note that
367: one star near the magnitude I$=$13 has a large deviation from the rest
368: of the sample. Although this star is unsaturated, it is very close
369: to a very bright saturated star. The diagram at the bottom presents
370: the errors for each stars, while the diagram on the top gives
371: the mean error.}
372: \end{figure}
373: %
374: The differential motions of each star in each of the 265 frames was estimated
375: using eq (6). To estimate the proper motion of the star, the curve representing
376: its displacement as a function of time was fitted with a straight line. This fit
377: gives also the opportunity to compute the error on the estimation of the slope
378: (proper motion). The brightness of the star $F_0$ was derived by PSF fitting
379: (see also Sec. 5).
380: %
381: \subsection{The errors on the proper motion}
382: In principle the error on the slope should be derived directly
383: from the Poisson fluctuations. However, the real errors exceeds the Poisson
384: expectations, and especially for bright stars (see Fig. 1). Obviously, there
385: are other causes of uncertainties that are larger than the Poisson fluctuations
386: for bright stars. These cause do certainly include the seeing fluctuations,
387: and possibly also, the variation of sensitivity on the
388: surface of a pixel, the noise in the flat fielding, and finally the drift
389: . It is simple to analyze each of these causes separately.
390: First the seeing fluctuations: in Alard \& Lupton (1998) it was shown that
391: on a scale of an arc minute the variation of the centroid position due to the
392: seeing fluctuations was about 10 mas. However, since in the present work
393: it is possible to correct the systematic spatial variations between the
394: 2 images to subtract, at least, the large scale seeing fluctuations
395: should be corrected. Although, it is clear that nothing can be done
396: on smaller scales: typically a few arc seconds. To be more specific
397: the seeing fluctuations cannot be corrected on a distance smaller
398: than the minimum separation between 2 resolved stars, which is about
399: 10 pixels $\simeq$ 4 arc seconds. Since the seeing
400: fluctuations between 2 stars separated by $\theta$ decreases like $\theta^{1/3}$
401: , and that there are 265 data points, a quick estimate of the error gives
402: $\simeq (4/60)^(1/3)*10/\sqrt{265} \simeq$ 0.25 mas. The other errors except
403: possibly the uncertainties in the flat fielding are much smaller. Numerical
404: simulation shows that the variations of sensitivity on the surface of a pixel
405: should be at least one hundred time smaller than the errors due to the
406: seeing fluctuations. In case the drift scan errors would contribute significantly
407: to the error budget, we would see a different between the errors in each direction.
408: But Fig. 1 shows that this is not the case. The last possibility to investigate
409: are systematic flat fielding errors on the scale of the PSF. For a 1 arc second
410: seeing, a systematic flat fielding variation (with the right shape) of 1 \%
411: would translate into
412: a variation of 7 mas of the centroid, corresponding to a global error
413: on the proper motion of about 0.4 mas. But it is important to emphasize,
414: that it is unlikely to find systematic variation in the flats
415: on the scale of the PSF, and that it is less likely again that these
416: systematic variations have the right shape (the shape of the derivatives).
417: As a conclusion it is very likely that most of the excess in the astrometric
418: error for bright stars is due to residual seeing fluctuations on smaller scales.
419: %
420: \subsection{Testing the accuracy of the method}
421: %
422: The recent release by Sumi {\it et al.} (2003) of a large scale study
423: of the proper motions of stars in a large number of OGLE Bulge fields
424: offers the possibility to compare
425: the accuracy achieved using this method to the accuracy obtained using
426: classical methods (DoPHOT).
427: By comparing Fig. 2 in this paper to Fig. 4
428: in Sumi {\it et al.} (2003), we can estimate that for clump giants (I $\simeq$ 15.5)
429: Sumi {\it et al.} obtain a mean accuracy slightly above 1 mas $\simeq$ 1.2 mas, while
430: Fig. 2 in this work gives an accuracy of $\simeq$ 0.4 mas. This improvement of factor
431: of 3 in the accuracy is also typical of the improvement obtained for the photometry.
432: Note that the brighter unsaturated stars this improvement is closer to a factor of
433: 2, while for the fainter stars it is a little above 3. One may wonder why such an
434: improvement is observed even on the bright stars. The answer might be that in
435: classical methods to perform an optimal measurement of the position of a star
436: it is neccessary to build a psf model for each new image. Image subtraction
437: does not need a psf model. The measurement of the motions in the subtracted
438: images, requires to build a psf model only for the reference image. There
439: is no need to re-create a psf model for each new image. As the calculation of
440: the position is quite sensitive to the psf model, this result certainly in
441: a reduction of the noise.
442: As a final testing it is
443: interesting to investigate the structure of the proper motions as a function of color
444: and magnitudes. The proper motions along the Galactic longitude and latitude (l,b) have
445: been represented in Fig. 3 as a function of color. The bluer stars belong to the
446: disk population, and show a systematic motion a along the l axis as expected from
447: the differential rotation between the the Galactic disk and bulge. No systematic
448: motion are observed along the b axis.
449: Fig. 3 includes all stars in the sample, whatever the accuracy achieved on these
450: objects, there was no attempt to perform any cut-off in the error distribution.
451: Since the disk stars have systematic positive motions in longitude,
452: it should be possible to reject the disk stars and to retain only the bulge
453: stars by selecting stars having negative motions in l. Stars having negative
454: l motions have been selected by means of a 3 $\sigma$ cuts. Their position
455: in the color-magnitude diagram is presented in Fig. 4. Two different cuts
456: have been used. The first cut in the lower panel favors the maximum number
457: of stars by allowing the fainter star to enter the selection.
458: The second panel presents stars having accurately measured
459: proper motions, thus allowing a lower cut-off, but also restricting
460: the selection to the brighter objects. An interesting feature start to appear
461: in the lower panel: there are a few stars just above the main sequence. Even
462: if the kinematics of these stars overlaps the Bulge kinematics these stars
463: are probably not Bulge stars. The upper panels reveals their true nature:
464: we see a well defined sequence, just parallel to the main sequence but
465: just a little above. These stars are most likely wide binaries. These
466: binaries belongs to the disk population, but the long period motion
467: of their center of gravity alter their proper-motions, to the point
468: that they overlap some of the Bulge kinematics. The ability of the
469: method to find these stars indicates that the method is really accurate.
470: In the lower panel of Fig. 4 there are also some stars below the main
471: sequence. These stars could be white dwarfs. A further examination of
472: a larger sample will help to confirm this possibility. As a final test
473: of these proper motions, it is interesting to compare the velocity dispersion
474: of the Bulge stars to the recent results obtained by Kuijken \& Jones (2002).
475: Most of the clump giants in this field belong to the Bulge population. Thus
476: this is a good set of stars to estimate the Bulge velocity dispersion.
477: By selecting stars in a small window around the clump it is possible to derive
478: the following (l,b) proper motion dispersions: (2.76, 2.16) mas.
479: Kuijken \& Jones (2002) found (2.9, 2.5) mas for a field located close
480: to OGLE SC 33. It is difficult to determine whether the smaller dispersion
481: found in this study is related to the accuracy of the measurement of the
482: proper motions, or is due to a different sampling of the Bulge stellar
483: population. Assuming a distance to the Bulge of 8 Kpc, the proper motion
484: dispersions measured in this study translate to respectively (105, 82) km/s.
485: This result is consistent with the former study of Spaenhauer,
486: Jones \& Whitford (1992).
487: %
488: \begin{figure}
489: \epsfig{file=lb.ps,width=14cm}
490: \caption{The proper motion of the of all the stars in the sample along
491: the (l,b) axis as a function of color. Note that the proper motions of the
492: bluer stars are systematically shifted along the l axis, but not along
493: the b axis.}
494: \end{figure}
495: %
496: \begin{figure}
497: \epsfig{file=col1.ps,width=17cm}
498: \caption{Selection of stars having negative proper motions along the l direction.
499: These stars should belong to the Bulge population. The cross represents all the stars
500: while the bold dots represents negative l motion.
501: Two different cuts
502: have been performed: $\mu_l < -1$ plus error on $\mu < 0.35 \simeq 3 \sigma$ below 0 (top), and $\mu_l < -2.5$ plus error on $\mu < 0.83$ (bottom). In the lower diagram,
503: the Bulge sequence is well outlined. The top of the Bulge main sequence, as well
504: as the Bulge sub-giants and giants are clearly visible. There also some stars
505: below and above the main sequence. The the star below the main sequence could be
506: white dwarfs. The star above the main sequence appear more clearly in the upper
507: diagram (lower cut-off, better accuracy). These stars could be wide binaries.}
508: \end{figure}
509: %
510: \acknowledgements{The author would like to thank B. Paczy\`nski for interesting
511: discussions and suggestions. The stay of the author in Princeton
512: was supported by the NSF grant AST-1206213, and the NASA grant
513: NAG5-12212 and funds for proposal \#09518 provided by NASA through a grant from
514: the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
515: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
516: }
517: %
518: \begin{thebibliography}{}
519: Alard, C., 2000, A\&AS, {\bf 144}, 363 \\
520: Alard, C., 1999, A\&A, {\bf 343}, 10 \\
521: Alard, C., \& Lupton, R., 1998, ApJ, {\bf 503}, 325 \\
522: Alard, C. \& Guibert, J., 1997, A\&A, {\bf 326}, 1 \\
523: Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., Alves, D., Axelrod, T. S., Becker, A. C., Bennett, D. P., Cook, K. H., Freeman, K. C., Griest, K., Guern, J., Lehner, M. J., Marshall, S. L., Peterson, B. A., Pratt, M. R., Quinn, P. J., Rodgers, A. W., Stubbs, C. W., Sutherland, W., Welch, D. L.,1997,ApJ, {\bf 486}, 697 \\
524: Eyer, L., Wozniak, P., 2001, MNRAS, {\bf 327}, 601 \\
525: Kuijken, K., Rich, R., 2002, AJ, {\bf 124}, 2054 \\
526: Paczy\'nski, B., 2002, Private communication. \\
527: Spaenhauer, A., Jones, B., Whitford, A., 1992, AJ, {\bf 103}, 297 \\
528: Sumi, T., Wu, X., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G., Soszynski, I., Wozniak, P., Zebrun, K.,
529: Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, L., 2003, astro-ph/0210381, submitted to MNRAS \\
530: Tomaney, A., Crotts, A., 1996, AJ, {\bf 112}, 2872 \\
531: Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M., 1997, AcA, {\bf 47}, 319 \\
532: Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Stanek, K. Z., Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., Mateo, M., Krzeminski, W., Paczynski, B., Venkat, R., 1994, AcA, {\bf 44}, 165 \\
533: Wozniak, P. R., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G., Soszynski, I., Zebrun, K., 2002, ACA, {bf 52}, 129 \\
534: \end{thebibliography}
535: %
536: \end{document}
537: