2020
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab629b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing Observed Stellar Kinematics and Surface Densities in a Low-latitude Bulge Field to Galactic Population Synthesis Models

Abstract: We present an analysis of Galactic bulge stars from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) observations of the Stanek window (l,b=[0.25,-2.15]) from two epochs approximately two years apart. This dataset is adjacent to the provisional Wide-field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) microlensing field. Proper motions are measured for approximately 115,000 stars down to 28th mag in V band and 25th mag in I band, with accuracies of 0.5 mas yr −1 (20 km s −1 ) at I ≈ 21. A cut on the longitudinal pr… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As already discussed in e.g. Kuijken & Rich (2002); Clarkson et al (2008); Calamida et al (2014); Bernard et al (2018); Terry et al (2020), µ * can be used to distinguish efficiently between foreground stars and bulge stars, even if there is a clear overlap between the distribu-tions, at µ * ∼ −5 mas/yr. A bump in the red distribution is also evident at µ * ∼ −2 mas/yr, due to the contamination by foreground objects.…”
Section: Astrometric Cleaning Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As already discussed in e.g. Kuijken & Rich (2002); Clarkson et al (2008); Calamida et al (2014); Bernard et al (2018); Terry et al (2020), µ * can be used to distinguish efficiently between foreground stars and bulge stars, even if there is a clear overlap between the distribu-tions, at µ * ∼ −5 mas/yr. A bump in the red distribution is also evident at µ * ∼ −2 mas/yr, due to the contamination by foreground objects.…”
Section: Astrometric Cleaning Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…In this appendix we further clean the bulge CMDs shown in Fig. 11, reducing the completeness of the fields, but increasing their purity (see also Bernard et al 2018;Terry et al 2020). In 11 is likely to be a residual foreground contaminant to the bulge CMDs.…”
Section: Appendix A: Choosing the Number Of Components For The Gaussi...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If there are no systematic errors, the mean value of σ µ i ,VVV − σ µ i ,HST should be consistent with 0. However, we found the mean and standard deviation values of σ µ l ,VVV − σ µ l ,HST = 0.124 ± 0.135 mas/yr and σ µ b ,VVV − σ µ b ,HST = 0.153 ± 0.144 mas/yr when we used the 39 fields without the outlier indicated in the figure that is specified by Terry et al (2020). This implies the existence of systematic offset between the VVV and HST measurements.…”
Section: Virac Red Giants' Proper Motionsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…3 shows the comparison as a function of extinction A I . We used 35 fields observed by Koz lowski et al (2006) and 4 fields summarized in Table 2 of Terry et al (2020) for the comparison, and the HST values are taken from the two papers. If there are no systematic errors, the mean value of σ µ i ,VVV − σ µ i ,HST should be consistent with 0.…”
Section: Virac Red Giants' Proper Motionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, the Besançon (Robin et al 2003) and GalMod (Pasetto et al 2018) models have been used in many different studies, to explore the structure, kinematics, and formation history of the Milky Way (Czekaj et al 2014;Robin et al 2017). In addition, they have also been used to simulate astronomical sky surveys (Penny et al 2013(Penny et al , 2019Rauer et al 2014;Kauffmann et al 2020), and their predictions have been tested against real observations (Schultheis et al 2006;Bochanski et al 2007;Pietrukowicz et al 2012;Schmidt et al 2020;Terry et al 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%