1: %\documentstyle[aasms4,natbib]{article}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \usepackage{lscape}
4: \def\kms{{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}
5: \def\pc{{\rm pc}}
6: \def\masyr{{{{\rm mas}}\,{{\rm yr}}^{-1}}}
7: \def\usno{{\rm USNO}}
8: \def\rnltt{{\rm rNLTT}}
9: \def\nltt{{\rm NLTT}}
10: \def\sdss{{\rm SDSS}}
11: \def\rpm{{\rm RPM}}
12: \def\lim{{\rm lim}}
13: \def\det{{\rm det}}
14: \def\obs{{\rm obs}}
15: \def\pred{{\rm pred}}
16: \def\nom{{\rm nom}}
17: \def\true{{\rm true}}
18: \def\mod{{\rm mod}}
19: \def\bias{{\rm bias}}
20: \def\tot{{\rm tot}}
21: \def\cor{{\rm cor}}
22: \def\cov{{\rm cov}}
23: \def\ext{{\rm ext}}
24: \def\inter{{\rm int}}
25: \def\u{{\rm U}}
26: \def\s{{\rm S}}
27: \def\l{{\langle}}
28: \def\r{{\rangle}}
29: \def\smu{{\sigma_\mu}}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: \title{Halo Luminosity Function From
34: Photometric Calibration of the Revised NLTT}
35:
36: \author{Andrew Gould, Juna A.\ Kollmeier, Julio Chanam\'e}
37: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University,
38: 140 W.\ 18th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210}
39: \authoremail
40: %\email
41: {gould,jak,jchaname@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
42: \author{Samir Salim}
43: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
44: University of California at Los Angeles,
45: Los Angeles, CA 90095}
46: \authoremail
47: {samir@astro.ucla.edu}
48:
49: \singlespace
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52:
53: We calibrate the photographic photometry
54: of the revised New Luyten Two-Tenths catalog (rNLTT)
55: by matching 3448 rNLTT stars to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
56: The correction is linear in magnitude and goes from zero at $V\sim 14$
57: to 0.32 mag at $V=19$, in the sense that rNLTT was previously too bright.
58: The correction implies that the underlying USNO-A2.0 photometry, on
59: which rNLTT photometry is based, is non-linear. The new calibration
60: somewhat improves the appearance of the $(V,V-J)$ reduced proper
61: motion diagram in the sense of better separation between disk and
62: halo stars. We repeat Gould's analysis of 5000 halo stars in rNLTT.
63: The most important change is to move the peak of the halo luminosity
64: function about 0.5 mag dimmer, from $M_V=10.5$ to $M_V=11$, putting
65: it into good agreement with the parallax-based determination of
66: Dahn et al.
67:
68:
69: \end{abstract}
70: \keywords{astrometry -- catalogs -- stars: fundamental parameters
71: -- stars: subdwarfs -- late-type -- white dwarfs}
72: %\clearpage
73: %\newpage
74:
75: \section{Introduction
76: \label{sec:intro}}
77:
78: The revised NLTT (rNLTT), assembled by \citet{gould03bright}
79: and \citet{salim03}, presented improved astrometry and photometry for
80: approximately 36,000 stars drawn from the New Luyten Two Tenths
81: catalog (NLTT)
82: \citep{luyten7980}. At the bright end, NLTT stars were matched primarily
83: to the Hipparcos \citep{esa97}
84: and Tycho-2 \citep{t2} catalogs, while at the faint end they were matched
85: to USNO-A \citep{usnoa2} and 2MASS \citep{2mass}.
86: The bright end covers the whole sky. The faint
87: end basically covers the 44\% of the sky represented by the intersection
88: of the 2MASS Second Incremental Release
89: and First Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS I), as reduced and cataloged
90: by USNO-A.
91: The roughly 45 year baseline between these observations
92: enabled a proper-motion precision of $5.5\,\masyr$, roughly a 4-fold
93: improvement over NLTT. By identifying USNO-A and 2MASS counterparts, rNLTT
94: assigned $(V,J)$ magnitudes to almost all entries, with $V$ being derived
95: from USNO-A photographic photometry in $B_\usno$ and $R_\usno$ and
96: with $J$ coming
97: directly from 2MASS. This was a huge improvement over the original
98: $(B_\nltt,R_\nltt)$ photographic photometry of NLTT, in part because USNO-A
99: photographic photometry has smaller scatter than Luyten's, but primarily
100: because $V-J$ provides a much longer color baseline than does
101: $B_\nltt-R_\nltt$. Indeed, using a $(V,V-J)$ reduced proper motion (RPM)
102: diagram, \citet{salim02} were able for the first time to cleanly
103: separate main-sequence, subdwarf, and white dwarf stars in NLTT. This
104: clean separation then permitted \citet{gould03halo} to analyze a sample
105: of 4500 halo stars and to measure their luminosity function and
106: velocity distribution with much greater precision than was previously
107: possible. The improved astrometry and photometry of rNLTT also
108: permitted \citet{chaname04} to assemble a catalog with more than 1000
109: wide binaries, also cleanly separated into disk and halo objects.
110:
111: The photometric calibration of the rNLTT optical $(V)$ band
112: was derived by comparing USNO-A photometry of NLTT stars with
113: photometry found in the literature for the same stars, including
114: 36 white dwarfs from \citet{ldm88} and 19 M dwarfs from \citet{weis96}.
115: While the sample covered a broad range of magnitudes, $11\la V \la 18$,
116: the small sample size led \citet{salim03} to solve only for a
117: zero point and a color term but to assume that the flux levels
118: derived from USNO-A magnitudes were linear in flux. A proper calibration
119: would require a sample that is both large and covers the full
120: range $12\la V \la 19$ from the magnitude limit of Tycho-2
121: (and hence the onset of USNO-A-based photometry)
122: to the magnitude limit of rNLTT.
123:
124:
125: The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
126: Data Release 3\footnote{http://www.sdss.org/dr3}
127: \citep{abaz05}
128: now provides such a sample
129: and so permits a calibration of rNLTT photometry over the entire range
130: $12\la V \la 19$. We carry out this calibration and find that rNLTT
131: assigned $V$ magnitudes that are too bright by an amount that
132: grows linearly with increasing $V$. That is, $\Delta V = 0.0633(V-13.9)$.
133: Because this offset is of order the statistical photometric error of
134: 0.22 mag, it is too small to have any practical impact on applications
135: that use rNLTT to locate interesting classes of stars, such as
136: subdwarfs \citep{yong03}, white dwarfs \citep{vennes03,kawka04},
137: red dwarfs \citep{reid04}, and dwarf carbon stars \citep{lowrance03}.
138: However, because the effect is systematic, it could potentially affect
139: studies that derive parameters from a statistical analysis of rNLTT.
140: In this case, the fractional errors in the derived parameters can be
141: much smaller than the errors associated with individual stars.
142:
143: In some respects, rNLTT has already been superseded by
144: the \citet{lepine05} proper motion catalog (LSPM), which covers
145: the entire northern sky, $\delta\geq 0$. LSPM has a proper-motion
146: threshold of $\mu\geq 150\,\masyr$ (compared to $180\,\masyr$ for NLTT)
147: and is more complete than NLTT (and indeed is virtually 100\% complete
148: to $V = 19$). Ipso facto, LSPM is more complete than rNLTT in
149: the region it covers. However, rNLTT has significantly smaller
150: astrometric errors (5.5 vs.\ 8 $\masyr$) and somewhat smaller photometric
151: errors and also covers areas south of the equator. While all three of these
152: shortcomings can be rectified in principle,
153: substantial additional work will be required.
154: Moreover, the photometry and astrometry improvements would be achieved
155: by cross-identifying LSPM stars with USNO-A, and when this is done,
156: the photometric calibration presented here will still have to be applied.
157:
158: Finally, \cite{gould03halo}'s statistical analysis of rNLTT halo stars
159: will form a baseline of comparison for future studies based on even
160: larger proper-motion samples. It is therefore important to remove
161: systematic effects in this analysis.
162:
163: \section{Calibration
164: \label{sec:calib}}
165:
166: Our basic plan of attack is to cross identify rNLTT with SDSS
167: (third data release) in order
168: to plot $\Delta V \equiv V_\sdss - V_\rnltt$, where
169: \begin{equation}
170: V_\sdss \equiv r + 0.44(g - r) - 0.02
171: \label{eqn:vsdss}
172: \end{equation}
173: is the transformation of SDSS magnitudes into Johnson $V$ as s
174: calibrated by \citet{juric02} and
175: \begin{equation}
176: V_\rnltt \equiv R_\usno + 0.32(B-R)_\usno + 0.23
177: \label{eqn:vrnltt}
178: \end{equation}
179: is the transformation from USNO-A2 magnitudes into Johnson V as used in rNLTT.
180: \citet{juric02} estimate that the SDSS calibration reproduces Johnson $V$
181: to ``better than $\sim 0.05$ mag''.
182: Before proceeding, we note that equation (\ref{eqn:vrnltt}) applies directly
183: only for stars $\delta>-20^\circ$, where rNLTT derives its photometry
184: and astrometry from USNO-A2.0. For $-33^\circ\la\delta \la -20^\circ$,
185: rNLTT uses USNO-A1.0, which requires a photometric conversion given
186: by \citet{salim03} before applying equation (\ref{eqn:vrnltt}).
187: However, since all SDSS areas lie in the former region, this photometric
188: conversion plays no role in the current work.
189:
190: In order to assure a clean sample, we restrict the selection
191: as follows. First, we consider only SDSS stars with proper-motion entries,
192: derived from USNO-B1.0 \citep{monet03} cross identifications,
193: $\mu>140\,\masyr$. Second, we exclude SDSS stars with a ``bad''
194: position on the $gri$ color-color diagram. Here ``bad'' means away
195: from the characteristic ``dog-leg'' stellar locus of this diagram,
196: except that we allow stars with degenerate M-dwarf $g-r$ colors
197: ($1.2<g-r<1.8$) but with anomalously low $i$ flux due to saturation.
198: Third, we consider only rNLTT stars
199: that are matched to both USNO-A and 2MASS and with $V_\rnltt>12$.
200: Fourth, we exclude rNLTT
201: stars with binary companions within $10''$.
202: Fifth, we demand that the rNLTT epoch 2000
203: position agree with the SDSS position to within $3''$. Finally, we
204: exclude matches with discrepant proper motions (vector difference greater
205: than $30\,\masyr$), unless their positions lie within $1''$.
206:
207: SDSS (by virtue of USNO-B) and rNLTT (based on USNO-A) both use
208: POSS I for the first epoch of their
209: proper-motion estimates, so the first condition implies a high
210: probability that if there is a position match, it is to a genuine
211: rNLTT star. SDSS photometry can be compromised by saturation, and
212: this is particularly a worry for stars at the bright end of our
213: investigation. The $gri$ test should exclude most saturated
214: stars. However, if the $g-r$ color is consistent with the degenerate
215: M dwarf track, we do not want to exclude the star simply because
216: the $i$ measurement is corrupted. This is to be expected for
217: bright, red stars, but does not interfere with our $V$ band
218: estimate (which depends only on $g$ and $r$). The third condition
219: is motivated by the fact that while rNLTT does
220: contain entries that are missing either USNO-A or 2MASS data,
221: these identifications are generally less secure. Moreover, in the
222: former case, of course, its $V$ estimate is not based on USNO-A
223: photometry. The fourth condition is imposed because USNO-A
224: photometry can be corrupted by the presence of a near neighbor.
225: In general, we allow for a $3''$ mismatch in position because
226: SDSS positions are given at the epoch of observation while
227: rNLTT positions are at epoch 2000. For high proper-motion stars
228: there can be a significant offset. However, we guard against
229: random matches by demanding $1''$ agreement unless the proper motions
230: differ by less than $30\,\masyr$.
231:
232: In Figure \ref{fig:calib}, we plot
233: $V_\sdss - V_\rnltt$ for the sample of 3448 matches obtained in this
234: way. We fit these points to a straight line and estimate the
235: error from the scatter by demanding that $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom
236: (dof) be equal to unity. We eliminate the largest outlier and repeat this
237: procedure until the largest outlier is less than $3\,\sigma$.
238: This results in 51 eliminations compared to 10 that would be expected
239: from a strictly Gaussian distribution. That is, non-Gaussian outliers
240: constitute 1\% of the sample. We find,
241: \begin{equation}
242: V_\sdss - V_\rnltt = (0.1331 \pm 0.0039) + (0.0633\pm 0.0024)(V_\rnltt -16),
243: \label{eqn:Vcor}
244: \end{equation}
245: with a scatter of $\sigma=0.22\,$mag,
246: where the zero-point offset $(V_\rnltt -16)$ is chosen to minimize
247: (among integer values) the correlation between the two terms.
248: This relation implies that relatively faint stars $(V>14)$ should
249: be corrected to still fainter $V$ magnitudes, and hence also redder
250: $V-J$ colors. Because the slopes of main sequence and subdwarf sequence
251: are greater than unity, the color change has a bigger impact, so that
252: both of these sequences become {\it brighter} at fixed color.
253:
254: We try extending this linear fit to next order, but find that
255: the additional quadratic term does not significantly improve the fit.
256: Similarly, we find no correlation between the residuals to the fit
257: and observed $V-J$ color.
258:
259: Equation (\ref{eqn:Vcor}) implies that USNO-A2.0 photometry
260: is non-linear. By combining this equation with equation (\ref{eqn:vrnltt}),
261: we derive an explicit expression for this nonlinearity,
262: \begin{equation}
263: V_\sdss = 1.0633\,R_\usno + 0.3403(B-R)_\usno -0.6351
264: \label{eqn:vusno}
265: \end{equation}
266:
267:
268: While SDSS photometry is quite homogeneous, this is not
269: necessarily true of USNO-A photometry, which is derived from photographic
270: plates exposed under strongly varying conditions. Our principal
271: concern is not plate-to-plate variations, which would be too localized
272: to affect most statistical applications, but possible broad trends
273: with position on the sky. We therefore divide the data into seven
274: different subsets, the four quadrants in right ascension and three
275: bands in declination (separated at $\delta=0^\circ$ and $\delta=40^\circ$).
276: The only significant differences that we find are for the $(\delta<0^\circ)$
277: and $(0^\circ<\delta<40^\circ)$ subsamples, which have zero points that
278: are respectively about 0.035 mag greater and 0.025 mag smaller than the
279: sample as a whole. While these deviations are detected with high
280: (almost $7\,\sigma$) confidence, they are quite small compared to the
281: scatter of 0.22 mag. We will ignore them in what follows, but for
282: some applications the reader should be aware that they are present.
283:
284: Figure \ref{fig:rpm} shows the rNLTT $(V,V-J)$ RPM diagram before
285: and after correcting the photometry.
286: What is plotted is not the traditional RPM but
287: the parameter
288: \begin{equation}
289: V_{\rm rpm,adj} \equiv V + 5\log\mu - 1.47|\sin b| - 2.73,
290: \label{eqn:vrpmdef}
291: \end{equation}
292: where $\mu$ is the proper motion in arcsec per year and $b$ is
293: the Galactic latitude. As shown by \citet{salim03}, adding the
294: Galactic-latitude term yields a cleaner separation of disk and halo
295: stars. The line, $\eta=0$, where
296: \begin{equation}
297: \eta \equiv V_{\rm rpm,adj} - 3.1(V-J)
298: \label{eqn:etadef}
299: \end{equation}
300: is the boundary separating these
301: populations that was adopted by \citet{salim03}. The principal
302: change is that stars in the lower portions of the diagram are
303: shifted to the red because the $V$ measurements are now fainter.
304: (Of course, they are also shifted down, but this is less noticeable.)\ \
305: In addition, the ``trough'' between the disk and halo tracks now
306: appears both straighter and somewhat cleaner. The $\eta=0$ line
307: still appears to be a good boundary to separate stars that are most
308: likely in the halo from those in the disk or thick disk. However,
309: the boundary for secure halo stars can be placed at $\eta=0.5$,
310: rather than at $\eta=1.0$, as was adopted by \citet{gould03halo}.
311:
312: \section{Halo Parameters
313: \label{sec:halo}}
314:
315: We fit the halo stars in rNLTT (with the newly recalibrated photometry)
316: to the 28-parameter halo model of \citet{gould03halo}. We apply almost
317: exactly the same procedures as in the original work, which we review
318: very briefly here.
319:
320: \subsection{Review of Model and Method
321: \label{sec:review}}
322:
323:
324: The model contains 13 parameters to describe the luminosity function (LF),
325: $\Phi(M_{V,i}),\ i= 3\ldots 15$,
326: one for each 1-magnitude bin from $M_V=3$ to $M_V=15$. It has 9 parameters
327: describing the halo velocity ellipsoid including 3 for bulk motion relative
328: to the Sun $(U_i)$ and 6 for the velocity dispersion tensor [3 dispersions
329: $c_{ii}$ and 3 correlation coefficients,
330: $\tilde c_{ij}\equiv c_{ij}/(c_{ii}c_{jj})^{1/2}$].
331: The halo color-magnitude relation (CMR) is
332: described by 2 parameters $(a,b)$, i.e., $M_V=a(V-J)_0 + b$. There are
333: 2 parameters describing the halo density profile $(\nu,\kappa)$, i.e.,
334: $\rho = \rho_0(R/R_0)^{-\nu}\exp(-\kappa|z|)$. Here, $R$ is Galactocentric
335: distance, $R_0=R({\rm sun})$, $z$ is distance from the plane, $\nu$ is
336: the halo density power law, and $\kappa$ is the inverse scale height.
337: Finally, there are 2 parameters describing the sample completeness,
338: $V_{\rm break}$ and $f_{\rm break}$. The sample is assumed 100\%
339: complete for $V<12$ and then to fall linearly to $f_{\rm break}$ at
340: $V_{\rm break}$, and then to fall linearly from there to zero at
341: $V=20$. Of these 28 parameters, one is held fixed at $U_2=-216.6\,\kms$
342: in order to enforce an otherwise unconstrained distance scale.
343:
344: The best-fit model is found by maximizing the likelihood
345: \begin{equation}
346: \ln L = \sum_{k=1}^{N_{\rm det}} \ln \{P_k[z^m(z^m_{\rm obs})]{\cal J}\}
347: -N_{\rm exp},
348: \label{eqn:liklihood}
349: \end{equation}
350: where $N_{\rm det}$ is the number of stars in the sample, $N_{\rm exp}$
351: is the number expected in the model, $z^m$ are the $m=6$ phase space
352: coordinates per star in the model, $z^m_{\rm obs}$ are the $m=6$
353: observables $(l,b,\mu_l,\mu_b,V,J)$ from which these coordinates are
354: inferred, $P_k$ is the probability that the $k$ star will have
355: the phase-space coordinates that have been inferred from the observations
356: given the model parameters, and ${\cal J}$ is the Jacobian of the
357: transformation from the observables to the phase-space coordinates.
358: (Note that the rows in the second matrix of \citealt{gould03halo}'s
359: eq.~[6] should be reversed, but that the final result is correct.)
360: The number expected $(N_{\rm exp})$ in each trial model is evaluated
361: by Monte Carlo integration, which is populated at
362: 100 times higher density than the actual sample to suppress Poisson
363: errors. However, to avoid fluctuations when comparing one model to
364: another, the random positions and velocities are chosen only
365: once, and then are assigned different weights depending on the
366: model parameters.
367:
368: \citet{gould04} found a bug in the likelihood code used by \citet{gould03halo}
369: and gave revised parameters corrected for this bug. However, most of the
370: corrections were very small.
371:
372: \subsection{Changes in Approach
373: \label{sec:changes}}
374:
375:
376: We implement two major changes relative to \citet{gould03halo}'s
377: treatment (in addition to using the recalibrated photometry).
378: First, based on inspection of Figure \ref{fig:rpm}, we
379: select stars in the interval $0.5\leq \eta \leq 4.15$.
380: This yields a sample of 5042 ``secure halo stars'', somewhat larger
381: than the 4588 analyzed by \citet{gould03halo} (and corrected to
382: 4564 in \citealt{gould04}).
383:
384: Second, we discovered that \citet{gould03halo}'s likelihood
385: maximization routine was too ``stiff'' to probe the effect of
386: simultaneous changes in the two color-magnitude parameters, $(a,b)$,
387: and the LF, $\Phi(M_{V,i})$.
388: When either or both of the color-magnitude parameters change, this
389: affects all of the LF
390: parameters. Unless all can be varied simultaneously in just
391: the right way,
392: the true maximum cannot be
393: located. We address this problem using the method of ``hybrid
394: statistical errors'' of \citet{an02}. We hold the two color-magnitude
395: parameters $A_i^{(a,b)}=(a,b)$ fixed at a grid of values and evaluate
396: the likelihood $L$
397: for the remaining 25 free parameters $A_k^{\rm (remain)}$.
398: We then find the inverse covariance matrix for the color magnitude
399: parameters,
400: \begin{equation}
401: B^{(a,b)}_{ij} = -{\partial^2 L\over \partial
402: A_i^{(a,b)}\partial A_j^{(a,b)}}
403: \label{eqn:bijab}
404: \end{equation}
405: and so obtain the restricted covariance matrix $C^{(a,b)}=[B^{(a,b)}]^{-1}$.
406: We also find the gradient of all 27 parameters with respect to the
407: two color-magnitude parameters over the grid of solutions,
408: $\partial A_k/\partial A_i^{(a,b)}$. We determine the
409: covariance matrix, $C_{ij}^{\rm (remain)}$
410: of the remaining 25 free parameters (with $[a,b]$ held
411: fixed at their likelihood maximum) using the bootstrap technique.
412: Finally, we find the hybrid covariance matrix
413: \begin{equation}
414: C_{ij} = C_{ij}^{\rm (remain)} + \sum_{m,n} C_{mn}^{(a,b)}
415: {\partial A_i\over \partial A_m^{(a,b)}}
416: {\partial A_j\over \partial A_n^{(a,b)}}.
417: \label{eqn:hybrid}
418: \end{equation}
419:
420: \subsection{Results
421: \label{sec:results}}
422:
423: As discussed below equation (\ref{eqn:Vcor}), the
424: primary changes in the data set are to make the faint stars fainter
425: absolutely, but to make the tracks of subdwarf (and main-sequence)
426: stars {\it brighter} at fixed color. Hence, we expect that the
427: main changes in the fit
428: will be to make the CMR fainter and shallower,
429: and to move the peak in the LF toward fainter magnitudes. Table 1
430: shows that these are indeed the main effects. The first two columns give
431: the parameter name and units. The next two give the best fit values
432: as determined using the old and new photometric calibration, respectively.
433: The final two columns give the respective errors.
434:
435: Figure \ref{fig:lf} shows the new LF together with several other
436: determinations from the literature. Comparing this figure to
437: Figure 2 from \citet{gould04} (of which it is an updated version),
438: one sees that the rNLTT-based LF has moved toward very good agreement
439: with the LF of \citet{dahn} (DLHG) as renormalized by \citet{gould03halo}
440: using the results of \citet{crb} (CRB). Indeed, with the
441: exception of the final DLHG/CRB point, the two are in agreement at the
442: $1\,\sigma$ level. This resolves an important puzzle: the two determinations
443: are both essentially local and so should be similar. It would be quite
444: surprising if their peaks were separated by a magnitude, as appeared to
445: be the case before the rNLTT photometry was recalibrated.
446:
447: There are a few other changes that should be noted as well. First,
448: while most of the error bars are similar with the old and new photometry,
449: those of the two color-magnitude parameters $(a,b)$ and of the three
450: velocity dispersions $(c_{ii})$ have all grown significantly. As mentioned
451: above, the previous algorithm was too stiff to properly evaluate the
452: errors in $(a,b)$, so it is not surprising that they have grown. This
453: growth is also responsible for the increase in the $c_{ii}$ errors through
454: the second term in equation (\ref{eqn:hybrid}), which was not previously
455: incorporated. Of course, this term also increases the errors of all other
456: parameters, but it turns out that these other
457: increases are mostly not significant
458: relative to the errors given by the first term.
459:
460: Another significant change is that the break in the completeness function,
461: $V_{\rm break}$ has moved about 1/2 mag fainter. This is also not
462: surprising given that the whole photometric calibration has moved
463: fainter at the faint end. However, the completeness level at this
464: break has also moved lower, and this has disturbing consequences,
465: as we discuss in the next section.
466:
467: Finally, we note that the two bulk velocity parameters and three
468: velocity-ellipsoid correlation coefficients
469: $(U_1,U_3,\tilde c_{12},\tilde c_{13},\tilde c_{23})
470: =(10.6\pm 1.4,-6.4\pm 1.8,0.017\pm 0.015,-0.010\pm 0.017,-0.036\pm 0.025)$
471: remain very close to the values expected in an axisymmetric Galaxy,
472: $(10.0,-7.2,0,0,0)$, when account has been taken of the Sun's motion
473: with respect to the local standard of rest
474: $(-10.00\pm 0.36,+7.17\pm 0.38)\,\kms$ in the radially outward and vertical
475: directions \citep{dehnen98}. This yields a $\chi^2=4.04$ for
476: 5 degrees of freedom, almost identical to the value 3.97 obtained by
477: \citet{gould03granularity} from the halo solution of \citet{gould03halo}.
478: This implies that the constraints on the granularity of the stellar
479: halo derived by \citet{gould03granularity} from this $\chi^2$ determination
480: remain unaltered.
481:
482: \section{Two Puzzles
483: \label{sec:puzzles}}
484:
485: While it is comforting to see the old puzzle regarding the peak of the halo
486: LF resolved (see \S~\ref{sec:results}), the halo solution derived using
487: recalibrated rNLTT photometry presents two new puzzles. These concern
488: conflicts with independent determinations of NLTT completeness and
489: of the $(V,V-J)$ CMR.
490:
491: \subsection{Completeness
492: \label{sec:completeness}}
493:
494:
495: The completeness fraction ($f_{\rm break} = 0.38$)
496: at the completeness break point ($V_{\rm break}=18.8$) seems quite low.
497: \citet{gould03halo} had argued that a somewhat higher value
498: was consistent with what was then otherwise known about the completeness
499: of NLTT (see also \citealt{gould04}).
500: However, not only is the new value of $f_{\rm break}$ lower,
501: but \citet{lepine05} have shown, using their own independent and very
502: complete northern-sky proper-motion catalog, that
503: at high latitude, $b>15^\circ$, NLTT is 85\% complete
504: at $V=18.5$.
505: We now explore several ideas to resolve this conflict, but the
506: executive summary is: none are successful.
507:
508: First, the \citet{lepine05} completeness estimate strictly applies
509: only for proper motions $\mu\geq 250\,\masyr$, whereas rNLTT goes
510: down to $180\,\masyr$. Completeness falls to 79\% at $V=18.5$
511: for $\mu\geq 200\,\masyr$. However, this ``incompleteness''
512: is simply due to NLTT's $20\,\masyr$ errors combined
513: with its $180\,\masyr$ threshold: stars that are mismeasured below
514: this threshold due to normal statistical errors are not included in the
515: catalog. This effect is already taken into account in our likelihood
516: procedure. Moreover, even if it were not accounted for, the effect
517: is much smaller than the discrepancy and so could not account for
518: it in any case.
519:
520: Second, rNLTT is less complete than NLTT, and the halo sample used here
521: is less complete than rNLTT, primarily
522: because stars without $J$-band data are excluded.
523: However, as shown by \citet{salim03}, rNLTT is about 97\% complete
524: relative to NLTT down to $R_{\rm NLTT}= 17$ and 95\% complete
525: at $R_{\rm NLTT}=18$ These magnitudes correspond roughly to
526: $V\sim 17.5$ and $V\sim 18.5$, respectively. It is true that
527: the completeness
528: at the faint end is substantially worse if one excludes stars
529: without $J$-band data. However, as was argued by \citet{salim03}
530: and strikingly confirmed by \citet{lepine05}, almost all faint NLTT
531: stars that lack 2MASS counterparts are white dwarfs, not subdwarfs.
532: Hence, incompleteness of rNLTT relative to NLTT can explain at most
533: a few percent of the effect.
534:
535: Third, the form of the completeness function adopted by \citet{gould03halo},
536: and summarized above in \S~\ref{sec:review}, could in principle be too
537: simple to capture the evolution of NLTT completeness over 8 magnitudes. In
538: fact, however, from Figure 22 of \citet{lepine05}, this form actually looks
539: quite appropriate, except that the parameters should rather be
540: $f_{\rm break} = 0.8$, $V_{\rm break}=18.7$. Nevertheless, we further
541: test this possibility by eliminating the faintest stars in the likelihood
542: sample $V>18.5$, and refitting with a simple 1-parameter completeness
543: function, $f_{\rm break}$ at $V=18.5$. We find a best fit
544: $f_{\rm break}=0.39$. If we enforce $f_{\rm break}=0.80$ (to take account
545: of both the 15\% NLTT incompleteness and the 5\% incompleteness of rNLTT
546: relative to NLTT at the faint end), then the likelihood
547: falls by 25, which means that this potential solution is ruled
548: out at the $7\,\sigma$ level. To be conservative, we repeat this
549: exercise with the cutoff at $V=18$, but still find that the best-fit
550: $f_{\rm break}=0.41$ is preferred at the $7\,\sigma$ level over the
551: independently-determined value of $f_{\rm break}=0.85$.
552:
553: Is it possible that \citet{lepine05} overestimated the completeness of
554: NLTT? We believe not. At high latitudes, they failed to detect only
555: 1\% of NLTT stars. They tracked down the reason for this failure
556: in each case and found in essentially all cases that the star was
557: contaminated by a random field star
558: in their own (circa 1990) second epoch, but was free
559: from contamination in NLTT's (circa 1970) second epoch. They inferred
560: that they were missing an additional 1\% from stars corrupted in
561: the common NLTT/LSPM (circa 1950) first epoch. Hence, LSPM is itself
562: nearly 100\% complete and so forms an excellent template against
563: which to measure the completeness of NLTT.
564:
565: If $f_{\rm break}$ is forced to high values, then most of the parameters
566: in the halo fit remain unchanged. However, the LF is suppressed by
567: an amount that decreases from a factor 1 at the bright end to a factor
568: $\sim (f_{\rm break}/0.8)$ at the faint end. Such an adjustment would engender
569: a conflict between the DLHG/CRB LF and the one derived from the halo
570: fit. However, as we discuss in the next section, this in itself is
571: not a strong argument against making the adjustment. The principal
572: argument is simply that it leads to a poor fit to the rNLTT data.
573: In brief, at present we see no clear path to resolving this conflict.
574:
575: \subsection{Color-Magnitude Relation (CMR)
576: \label{sec:cmr}}
577:
578: The second puzzle concerns the CMR.
579: \citet{gould03halo} derived a CMR from stars with trigonometric
580: parallaxes taken from \citet{monet92} and \citet{gizis97} that
581: was quite consistent with the CMR derived from the halo likelihood
582: fit. Indeed, the two CMRs lie almost exactly on top of one another
583: in his Figure 3. However, after photometric recalibration, our
584: new CMR has changed, while the parallax-based CMR should remain
585: essentially the same. In fact, we slightly change our selection
586: of parallax stars to be consistent with our ``secure halo''
587: criterion, $0.5\leq \eta \leq 4.15$, but the impact of this
588: change is expected to be small.
589:
590: Before restricting attention to the halo stars, we first
591: find the mean photometric offset between the CCD $V$ magnitudes
592: given by \citet{monet92} and \citet{gizis97} and
593: the recalibrated rNLTT $V$ magnitudes for the entire sample
594: of 58 rNLTT-parallax
595: stars with $V>12$. We find a mean difference $0.03\pm 0.04$ mag,
596: in the sense that recalibrated rNLTT is brighter. The fact
597: that the two are consistent at the $1\,\sigma$ level serves as
598: a sanity check on the SDSS-based calibration, although the
599: smaller number of parallax stars makes the uncertainty in this
600: test uncompetitive with SDSS.
601:
602: As \citet{gould03halo} did, we eliminate the reddest
603: star on the ground that the CMR for the latest-type stars
604: may deviate from a straight line and take a turn toward the red.
605: (There are too few very late subdwarfs in the rNLTT sample to
606: test this conjecture, so it is better to just eliminate this
607: star from the comparison.) We use the CCD photometry both
608: to make the selection (i.e., determine $\eta$), and to estimate
609: the absolute magnitude. This yields a sample of 23 rNLTT-parallax
610: halo stars.
611: We find that we must add an error $\sigma(M_V)=0.72$ in quadrature to
612: the errors propagated from the given parallax errors, in order
613: to achieve $\chi^2/{\rm dof}=1$. Fitting to the form $M_V=a(V-J)_0 + b$,
614: we find,
615: \begin{equation}
616: %a = 3.748\pm 0.442,\qquad b=0.102\pm 1.321,\qquad \rho=-0.9916
617: a = 3.668\pm 0.396,\qquad b=0.324\pm 1.201,\qquad \rho=-0.9906
618: \qquad ({\rm parallax\ CMR})
619: \label{eqn:parallaxcmr}
620: \end{equation}
621: compared to the values
622: \begin{equation}
623: a = 3.339\pm 0.027,\qquad b=0.921\pm 0.073,\qquad \rho=-0.8948
624: \qquad ({\rm halo\ fit})
625: \label{eqn:rnlttcmr}
626: \end{equation}
627: obtained in the halo fit in \S~\ref{sec:results}. Here $\rho$
628: is the correlation coefficient. Figure \ref{fig:cmd} shows the
629: parallax data with various CMRs.
630:
631: While the slopes and zero points of equations
632: (\ref{eqn:parallaxcmr}) and (\ref{eqn:rnlttcmr}) are each consistent
633: at the $1\,\sigma$ level, the two are highly correlated, so that
634: the relations as a whole are mildly inconsistent, with
635: $\Delta\chi^2=4.0$. To interpret this discrepancy, we must first
636: ask how the slope and zero point of the halo-fit CMR depend on
637: the data and the assumptions. The slope is determined fairly
638: directly from the rNLTT data themselves and primarily reflects the
639: slope of the ``subdwarf sequence'' seen in the RPM diagram
640: (Fig.\ \ref{fig:rpm}). On the other hand, the zero point is
641: directly determined by fixing $U_2=-216.6\,\kms$. If this
642: value had been fixed 10\% faster, then all of the 5 other velocity
643: parameters would have increased in lock step by the same 10\%,
644: and all the inferred distances would have increased by the same
645: amount. This rigid scaling occurs because (apart from a very
646: slight effect in the extinction prescription) the only
647: way that the distance scale enters the likelihood calculation
648: is through $U_2$. This distance scaling then implies that
649: the LF would have been reduced uniformly by a factor
650: $(1.1)^{-3}$. However, the value of $U_2=-216.6\,\kms$ was
651: adopted directly from the statistical-parallax solution of
652: \citet{gp} and is therefore to some extent arbitrary. First,
653: that measurement had a $1\,\sigma$ statistical error of $12.5\,\kms$.
654: Second, as \citet{gp} (and references therein) note,
655: different selection criteria will yield halo samples with values of
656: $U_2$ that differ by of order $10\,\kms$. \citet{gould03halo} argued
657: that the ``$\eta$'' selection criterion used in his (and our) halo
658: analysis was most similar to that of \citet{gp}, but there could
659: still be some differences between the samples. Combining these two effects,
660: the true value of $U_2$ might plausibly be different from the
661: adopted one by of order $15\,\kms$, corresponding to 0.15 mag in the
662: CMR zero point.
663:
664: Hence, when combining the two CMRs, we should insist
665: on a common slope, but initially allow the two zero points to
666: differ. Since the halo-fit's slope error is about 15 times smaller
667: than that of the parallax determination,
668: this amounts to fixing the parallax-based slope at the halo-fit
669: value. The parallax-based zero point then becomes
670: $b=1.31\pm 0.16$, which is 0.29 mag fainter than the
671: halo-fit $b=0.92$. The direction of this discrepancy may seem
672: surprising at first sight because the photometric recalibration
673: moved the halo stars toward {\it fainter} mags, yet the CMR based on
674: these stars has now become {\it brighter} than the parallax-based CMR.
675: The reason is that the halo stars became not only {\it fainter}
676: but {\it redder}, and because the slope of the CMR is larger than
677: unity, the latter is the larger effect. Hence, at {\it fixed color}
678: (which is what is important for the CMR), the halo stars have become
679: {\it brighter}, even though they are fainter absolutely.
680:
681: Having reasoned through the problem heuristically and verified
682: that the two CMRs give qualitatively similar results, we combine them
683: in a formally rigorous way by averaging the two $(a,b)$ vectors,
684: each weighted by its inverse covariance matrix. To take account
685: of the external error due to uncertainty in the \citet{gp} velocity
686: input, we first add 0.15 mag to the halo-fit uncertainty in $b$.
687: We then find
688: \begin{equation}
689: %a=3.343\pm 0.0269\qquad b = 1.085\pm 0.135,\qquad \rho=-0.532
690: a=3.3438\pm 0.0269\qquad b = 1.091\pm 0.134,\qquad \rho=-0.543
691: \qquad \rm (combined\ determinations)
692: \label{eqn:cmrnet}
693: \end{equation}
694:
695: At the ``center of mass'' of the halo-star color distribution,
696: $V-J=2.4$, this relation is $0.17\pm 0.10$ fainter than the
697: CMR derived from the halo fit alone (but assuming a known $U_2$).
698: Hence, taking account of this calibration (and the added uncertainty
699: in the $U_2$ constraint) the velocities should all be smaller
700: by a factor $0.93\pm 0.04$, while the LF should be higher
701: by a factor $1.26\pm 0.16$. These changes are not large, but they
702: do mean that one cannot demand too close agreement between the
703: LF derived from the rNLTT sample and that derived from local
704: star counts by DLHG/CRB (see \S~\ref{sec:completeness}).
705:
706: \acknowledgments
707:
708: Work by AG and JAK was supported by grant AST 02-01266. Work by
709: JC was supported by an Ohio State University Presidential Fellowship.
710:
711: %\begin{equation}
712: %\label{eqn:}
713: %\end{equation}
714:
715: \clearpage
716:
717: \begin{thebibliography}{}
718:
719: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2005)]{abaz05} Abazajian, K. 2005, \aj,
720: submitted (astroph/0410239)
721:
722: %\bibitem[Alcock et al.(2001)]{alcock01} Alcock, C.~et al.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 337
723:
724: \bibitem[An et al.(2002)]{an02} An, J.H., et al. 2002, \apj, 572, 521
725:
726: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Casertano(1986)]{bc}
727: Bahcall, J.N., \& Casertano, S.\ 1986, \apj, 308, 347
728:
729: \bibitem[Casertano et al.(1990)]{crb} Casertano, S.,
730: Ratnatunga, K., \& Bahcall, J.N.\ 1990, \apj, 357, 435
731:
732: \bibitem[Chaname \& Gould(2004)]{chaname04}
733: Chaname, J., \& Gould, A.\ 2004, \apj, 601, 289
734:
735: \bibitem[Dahn et al.(1995)]{dahn} Dahn, C.C., Liebert, J.W., Harris, H.,
736: \& Guetter, H.C.\ 1995,
737: p.\ 239, An ESO Workshop on: the Bottom of the Main Sequence and Beyond,
738: C.G.\ Tinney ed.\ (Heidelberg: Springer)
739:
740: \bibitem[Dehnen \& Binney(1998)]{dehnen98} Dehnen, W. \& Binney, J.J.
741: 1998, \mnras, 298, 387
742:
743: %\bibitem[Digby et al.(2003)]{digby03}
744: %Digby, A.P., Hambly, N.C., Cooke, J.A., Reid, I.N., \& Cannon, R.D.\ 2003,
745: %\mnras, 344, 583
746:
747: \bibitem[ESA(1997)]{esa97} European Space Agency (ESA). 1997, The Hipparcos and
748: Tycho Catalogues (SP-1200; Noordwijk: ESA)
749:
750: \bibitem[Gizis(1997)]{gizis97} Gizis, J.~E. 1997, \aj, 113,508
751:
752: %\bibitem[Gizis \& Reid(1997)]{gizreid97} Gizis, J.~E.~\& Reid, I.~N.\ 1997,
753: %\pasp, 109, 849.
754:
755: %\bibitem[Goldman et al.(1999)]{eros99} Goldman, B. and The EROS
756: %Collaboration\ 1999, \aap, 351, L5.
757:
758: \bibitem[Gould(2003a)]{gould03halo}
759: Gould, A.\ 2003a \apj, 583, 765
760: % Halo velocity ellipsoid
761:
762: \bibitem[Gould(2003b)]{gould03granularity}
763: Gould, A.\ 2003b, \apjl, 592
764: % granularity of halo
765:
766: \bibitem[Gould(2004)]{gould04}
767: Gould, A.\ 2004 \apj, 607, 653
768: % Erratum
769:
770: %\bibitem[Gould(2003c)]{gould03e}
771: %Gould, A.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 472
772:
773: %\bibitem[Gould(2003d)]{gould03f} Gould, A.\ 2003, preprint, astro-ph 0310577
774:
775: %\bibitem[Gould \& An(2002)]{gouldan} Gould, A. \& An, J.\ 2003, \apj,
776: %565, 1381
777:
778: \bibitem[Gould et al.(1997)]{gould97} Gould, A., Flynn, C., \& Bahcall, J.N.
779: 1997, \apj, 503, 798
780:
781: %\bibitem[Gould \& Morgan(2003)]{gould03b}
782: %Gould, A. \& Morgan, C.W.\ 2003, \apj, 585
783: % finding planetary transit candidates
784:
785: \bibitem[Gould \& Popowski(1998)]{gp} Gould, A. \& Popowski, P. (1998)
786: \apj, 508,844
787:
788: \bibitem[Gould \& Salim(2003)]{gould03bright}
789: Gould, A., \& Salim, S., 2003, ApJ, 582, 1001
790: % faint rNLTT
791:
792: %\bibitem[Hambly et al.(2001a)]{hambly01a} Hambly, N.~C.~et al.\ 2001, \mnras,
793: %326, 1279
794:
795: %\bibitem[Hambly et al.(2001b)]{hambly01b} Hambly,
796: %N.C., Davenhall, A.C., Irwin, M.J., \& MacGillivray, H.T.\ 2001, \mnras, 326,
797: %1315
798:
799: %\bibitem[Henry, et al.(1997)]{henry97} Henry, T.J.,
800: %Ianna, P.A., Kirkpatrick, J.D., \& Jahreiss, H.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 388
801:
802: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{t2} H{\o}g, E.~et al.\ 2000, \aap, 355, L27
803:
804: %\bibitem[Ivezic et al.(2002)]{ivezic02}
805: %Ivezic, Z., Juric, M., Lupton, R.H., Tabachnik, S., \& Quinn, T. 2002,
806: %Proc.SPIE Int.Soc.Opt.Eng., 4836, 98 (astroph/0208099)
807:
808: %\bibitem[Jahreiss et al.(2001)]{jahr01} Jahreiss, H.,
809: %Scholz, R., Meusinger, H., \& Lehmann, I.\ 2001, \aap, 370, 967
810:
811: %\bibitem[Jones(1972)]{jones72} Jones, E.~M.\ 1972, \apj, 177, 245
812:
813: \bibitem[Juri\'c et al.(2002)]{juric02} Juri\'c, M. et al. 2002, \aj, 124, 1776
814:
815: \bibitem[Liebert et al.(1988)]{ldm88} Liebert, J., Dahn, C.C., \& Monet, D.G.
816: 1988, \apj, 332, 891
817:
818: \bibitem[Kawka et al.(2004)]{kawka04} Kawka, A., Vennes, S., Thorstensen, J.R.
819: 2004, \aj, 127 1702
820:
821: \bibitem[L\'{e}pine \& Shara(2005)]{lepine05}
822: L\'{e}pine, S. \& Shara, M.M. 2005, \aj, in press (astroph/0412070)
823:
824: %\bibitem[L\'{e}pine, Shara, \& Rich(2003)]{lepine03}
825: %L\'{e}pine, S., Shara, M.M., \& Rich, R.M.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 921
826:
827: %\bibitem[Liebert et al.(1979)]{liebert79} Liebert, J.,
828: %Dahn, C.C., Gresham, M., \& Strittmatter, P.A.\ 1979, \apj, 233, 226
829:
830: %\bibitem[Liebert, Dahn, \& Monet(1988)]{ldm} Liebert, J., Dahn, C.C., \&
831: %Monet, D.G.\ 1988, \apj, 332, 891
832:
833: \bibitem[Lowrance et al.(2003)]{lowrance03}
834: Lowrance, P.J., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Reid, I.N., Kelle, L.C., \& Liebert, J.
835: 2003, \apj, 584, L98
836:
837: \bibitem[Luyten(1979, 1980)]{luyten7980} Luyten, W.\ J.\ 1979, 1980, New Luyten
838: Catalogue of Stars with Proper Motions Larger than Two Tenths of an Arcsecond
839: (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press)
840:
841: %\bibitem[Luyten \& Hughes(1980)]{luytenhughes80} Luyten, W.\ J. \& Hughes, H.\ S.\ 1980,
842: %Proper Motion Survey wit h the Forty-Eight Inch Schmidt Telescope. LV. First
843: %Supplement to the NLTT Catalogue (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota)
844:
845: %\bibitem[Luyten(1970, 1977)]{luyten7077} Luyten, W.~J.\ 1970, 1977,
846: %Luyten's White Dwarf Catalogues (Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis)
847:
848: %\bibitem[Luyten(1979)]{luyten79} Luyten, W.\ J.\ 1979, LHS Catalogue:
849: %a catalogue
850: %of stars with proper motions exceeding $0\farcs5$ annually (Minneapolis:
851: %University of Minnesota Press)
852:
853: \bibitem[Monet(1998)]{usnoa2} Monet, D.~G.\ 1998, American Astronomical
854: Society Meeting, 193, 112003
855:
856: \bibitem[Monet et al.(1992)]{monet92}
857: Monet, D.G., Dahn, C.C., Vrba, F.J., Harris, H.C., Pier, J.R.,
858: Luginbuhl, C.B., \& Ables, H.D. 1992, \aj, 103, 638
859:
860: \bibitem[Monet et al.(2003)]{monet03}
861: Monet et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984
862:
863: %\bibitem[Oppenheimer et al.(2001)]{opp01} Oppenheimer, B.R., Hambly, N.C.,
864: %Digby, A.P., Hodgkin, S.T., \& Saumon, D.\ 2001, Science, 292, 698
865:
866: \bibitem[Reid et al.(2004)]{reid04} Reid, I.N. 2004, \aj, 128, 463
867:
868: %\bibitem[Reid \& Cruz(2002)]{reidcruz02} Reid, I.N. \& Cruz, K.L.\ 2002,
869: %AJ, 123, 2806
870:
871: %\bibitem[Reid, Liebert, \& Schmidt(2001)]{reid01} Reid, I.~N., Liebert, J., \&
872: %Schmidt, G.D.\ 2001, \apjl, 550, L61
873:
874: %\bibitem[Reid, Sahu, \& Hawley(2001)]{reid01b} Reid, I.N., Sahu, K.C., \&
875: %Hawley, S.L.\ 2001, \apj, 559, 942
876:
877: %\bibitem[Ruiz et al.(2001)]{ruiz01}
878: %Ruiz, M. T., Wischnjewsky, M.,Rojo, P.M.,\& Gonzalez, L.E., 2001
879: % \apjs, 133, 119
880:
881: %\bibitem[Ryan(1992)]{ryan92} Ryan, S.G.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 1144
882:
883: %\bibitem[Salim \& Gould(2000)]{salim00}
884: %Salim, S.~\& Gould, A.\ 2000, \apj, 539, 241
885: %nearby ml events
886:
887: \bibitem[Salim \& Gould(2002)]{salim02}
888: Salim, S. \& Gould, A., 2002, \apj, 575, L83
889:
890: \bibitem[Salim \& Gould(2003)]{salim03}
891: Salim, S., \& Gould, A.\ 2003 \apj, 582, 1011
892:
893: %\bibitem[Schmidt et al.(1999)]{schmidt99} Schmidt, G.~D., Liebert, J., Harris,
894: %H.C., Dahn, C.C., \& Leggett, S.K.\ 1999, \apj, 512, 916
895:
896: %\bibitem[Scholz, Meusinger, \& Jahreiss(2001)]{scholz01} Scholz, R.-D.,
897: %Meusinger, H., \& Jahreiss, H.\ 2001, \aap, 374, L12
898:
899: \bibitem[Skrutskie et al.(1997)]{2mass} Skrutskie, M.~F.~et al.\ 1997, in The
900: Impact of Large-Scale Near-IR Sky Survey, ed. F. Garzon et al (Kluwer:
901: Dordrecht), p.\ 187
902:
903: %\bibitem[Sumi et al.(2003)]{sumi03}
904: %Sumi, T. et al., 2003, astro-ph/0305315
905:
906: \bibitem[Vennes \& Kawka(2003)]{vennes03}Vennes, S. \& Kawka, A. 2003,
907: \apj, 586, L95
908:
909: \bibitem[Weis(1996)]{weis96} Weis, E.W. 1996, \aj, 112, 2300
910:
911: %\bibitem[Wroblewski \& Costa(2001)]{wroblewski01}
912: %Wroblewski, H. \& Costa, E., 2001, A\&A, 367, 725
913:
914: %\bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{yoo03}
915: %Yoo, J., Chaname, J., Gould, A., 2004, \apj, in press, astroph/0307437
916:
917: \bibitem[Yong \& Lambert(2003)]{yong03}
918: Yong, D. \& Lambert, D.L. 2003, \aj, 126 2449
919:
920: %\bibitem[Zacharias et al.(2000)]{zacharias00}
921: %Zacharias, N.~et al.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 2131.
922:
923: %\bibitem[Zacharias et al.(2001)]{zacharias01}
924: %Zacharias, N., Zacharias, M.I., Urban, S.E., Rafferty, T.J.,.\ 2001,
925: %AAS, meeting \#129.08, vol 33, p1495
926:
927:
928: \end{thebibliography}
929: \clearpage
930:
931: \begin{figure}
932: \plotone{f1.ps}
933: %\plotone{/home/moore/gould/machos/sim/nltt/cpm/phot/vvj4.ps}
934: \caption{\label{fig:calib}
935: Difference ($\Delta V = V_{\rm SDSS} - V_{\rm rNLTT}$) between
936: $V$ band measurements as derived from SDSS CCD photometry and
937: rNLTT (ultimately USNO-A) photographic photometry for 3448
938: stars in common. Crosses indicate the 51 recursively removed $3\,\sigma$
939: outliers. The remaining points are fit to
940: a straight line $\Delta V = 0.1331 + 0.0633(V_\rnltt - 16)$,
941: which is shown in bold. The residual scatter of these 3397 points
942: is 0.22 mag.
943: }\end{figure}
944:
945: \begin{figure}
946: \epsscale{0.8}
947: \plotone{f2.ps}
948: %\plotone{/home/moore/gould/machos/sim/nltt/cpm/phot/rpmcor_comb.ps}
949: \caption{\label{fig:rpm}
950: Reduced proper motion (RPM) diagram before (upper) and after (lower)
951: calibration of rNLTT $V$ band photometry. Following \citet{salim03},
952: the RPM includes a term that depends on Galactic latitude ($b$) as
953: well as proper motion ($\mu$),
954: $V_{\rm RPM,adj} \equiv V + 5\log(\mu) -1.47|\sin(b)| - 2.73$. This quantity
955: enters the discriminant $\eta \equiv V_{\rm RPM,adj} - 3.1(V-J)$.
956: \citet{salim03}
957: adopted $\eta=0$ ({\it solid line}) as a boundary between halo stars
958: (below) and disk and thick-disk stars (above). The new calibration
959: moves the faint end of both the halo and disk sequences
960: toward the red and straightens
961: and somewhat cleans up the ``trough'' between the halo and disk
962: populations. We still regard $\eta=0$ as a good boundary between
963: disk and halo stars.
964: }\end{figure}
965:
966:
967: \begin{figure}
968: \plotone{f3.ps}
969: %\plotone{/home/moore/gould/Dell/hipar/simpcor/vcor/lf.ps}
970: \caption{\label{fig:lf}
971: Comparison of the halo luminosity function (LF) derived in the present
972: work ({\it bold dashed curve}) using calibrated rNLTT photometry
973: with several previous determinations. The rNLTT LF is now in good
974: agreement with the parallax-based determination
975: of \citet{dahn} as renormalized by \citet{gould03halo}
976: based on results from \citet{crb}, which is shown as a {\it solid curve}
977: (DLHG/CRB). These are both local measurements, so they should agree,
978: but in an analysis prior to the new calibration \citep{gould03halo,gould04},
979: the rNLTT
980: determination peaked about 1 mag brighter than DLHG/CRB.
981: The measurement of \citet{gould97} (GFB) agrees with
982: the present work at bright magnitudes but shows a much weaker
983: peak. However, it is based on a distant sample, so in principle may
984: be probing a different population. Also shown is the determination
985: of \citet{bc} as renormalized by \citet{gould03halo} using CRB
986: (BC/CRB).
987: }\end{figure}
988:
989: \begin{figure}
990: \plotone{f4.ps}
991: %\plotone{/home/moore/gould/machos/sim/nltt/simplex/cmd.ps}
992: \caption{\label{fig:cmd}
993: Parallax-based absolute magnitudes $M_V$ and $(V-J)$ colors
994: of 23 stars ({\it circles}) used to estimate the color-magnitude
995: relation (CMR), given by eq.\ (\ref{eqn:parallaxcmr}) and
996: shown as a bold solid curve. Also
997: shown is one star that is excluded from the fit ({\it star}).
998: The error bars on the points reflect only the parallax errors and
999: not the 0.72 mag ``cosmic scatter'' that was added in the fitting
1000: process. The
1001: bold dashed curve shows the CMR derived from the fit to rNLTT halo
1002: stars presented in this paper. When the parallax-fit is forced
1003: to have the same slope as the rNLTT halo model (which has much
1004: higher statistical weight), its track is given by the thin dashed curve.
1005: When the parallax data are combined with the rNLTT halo fit, the resulting
1006: CMR is parallel to and roughly halfway between the two dashed curves.
1007: Its form is given by eq.~(\ref{eqn:cmrnet}), but it is not shown in this
1008: figure to avoid clutter.
1009: }\end{figure}
1010:
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014: %\begin{figure}
1015: %%\plotone{f1.ps}
1016: %\caption{\label{fig:one}
1017: %}\end{figure}
1018: \input tab
1019:
1020: \end{document}