submitted to AJ Preprint typeset using L A T E X style emulateapj v. 5/2/11 THE RADIAL VELOCITY EXPERIMENT (RAVE): FIFTH DATA RELEASE Andrea Kunder 1 , Georges Kordopatis 1 , Matthias Steinmetz 1 , Tomaˇ z Zwitter 2 , Paul J. McMillan 3 , Luca Casagrande 4 , Harry Enke 1 , Jennifer Wojno 1 , Marica Valentini 1 , Cristina Chiappini 1 , Gal Matijeviˇ c 1 , Alessandro Siviero 5 , Patrick de Laverny 6 , Alejandra Recio-Blanco 6 , Albert Bijaoui 6 , Rosemary F. G. Wyse 7 , James Binney 8 , E. K. Grebel 9 , Amina Helmi 10 , Paula Jofre 11,12 , Gerard Gilmore 12 , Arnaud Siebert 13 , Benoit Famaey 13 , Olivier Bienaym´ e 13 , Brad K. Gibson 14 , Kenneth C. Freeman 15 , Julio F. Navarro 16 , Ulisse Munari 5 , George Seabroke 17 , Borja Anguiano 18,19 , Warren Reid 19,20 , Joss Bland-Hawthorn 21 , Fred Watson 22 , Quentin A. Parker 23,24 , Ralf Scholz 1 , Donna Burton 18 , Paul Cass 18 , Malcolm Hartley 18 , Kristin Fiegert 18 , Milorad Stupar 18,19 , Ortwin Gerhard 25 , W. J. Chaplin 26,27 G. R. Davies 26,27 , Y. P. Elsworth 26,27 , M. N. Lund 26,27 , A. Miglio 26,27 , B. Mosser 28 E-mail: [email protected]submitted to AJ ABSTRACT Data Release 5 (DR5) of the Radial Velocity Experiment (RAVE) is the fifth data release from a magnitude-limited (9 <I< 12) survey of stars randomly selected in the southern hemisphere. The RAVE medium-resolution spectra (R ∼ 7500) covering the Ca-triplet region (8410-8795 ˚ A) span the complete time frame from the start of RAVE observations in 2003 to their completion in 2013. Radial velocities from 520 781 spectra of 457 588 unique stars are presented, of which 215 590 unique stars have parallaxes and proper motions from the Tycho-Gaia astrometric solution (TGAS) in Gaia DR1. For our main DR5 catalog, stellar parameters (effective temperature, surface gravity, overall metallicity) are computed using the RAVE DR4 stellar pipeline, but calibrated using recent K2 Campaign 1 seismic gravities and Gaia benchmark stars, as well as results obtained from high-resolution studies. Also included are temperatures from the Infrared Flux Method, and we provide a catalogue of red giant stars in the dereddened color (J -Ks) 0 interval (0.50,0.85) for which the gravities were calibrated based only on seismology. Further data products for sub-samples of the RAVE stars include individual abundances for Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, Fe, and Ni, and distances found using isochrones. Each RAVE spectrum is complemented by an error spectrum, which has been used to determine uncertainties on the parameters. The data can be accessed via the RAVE Web site or the Vizier database. Subject headings: surveys — stars: abundances, distances 1 Leibniz-Institut f¨ ur Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, D-14482 Potsdam, Germany 2 Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubl- jana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 Lund Observatory, Lund University, Department of Astron- omy and Theoretical Physics, Box 43, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden 4 Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Mount Stromlo Observatory, The Australian National University, ACT 2611, Australia 5 INAF Astronomical Observatory of Padova, 36012 Asiago (VI), Italy 6 Laboratoire Lagrange, Universit´ e Cˆote d’Azur , Observatoire de la Cˆote d ´ Azur, CNRS, Bd de l ´ Observatoire, CS 34229, 06304 Nice cedex 4, France 7 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA 8 Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK 9 Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum f¨ ur Astronomie der Universit¨ at Heidelberg, M¨ onchhofstr. 12–14, 69120 Heidel- berg, Germany 10 Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands 0000-0003- 3937-7641 11 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Mading- ley Road, CB3 0HA Cambridge, UK 12 N´ ucleo de Astronom´ ıa, Facultad de Ingenier´ ıa, Universidad Diego Portales, Av. Ejercito 441, Santiago, Chile 13 Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg, Universit´ e de Strasbourg, CNRS, UMR 7550, 11 rue de l’Universit´ e, F-67000 Strasbourg, France 14 E.A. Milne Centre for Astrophysics, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, United Kingdom 15 Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Australian National University, Cotter Rd., Weston, ACT 2611, Australia 16 CIfAR Senior Fellow, Department of Physics and Astron- omy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P5C2 17 Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College Lon- don, Holmbury St Mary, Dorking, RH5 6NT, UK 18 Australian Astronomical Observatory, P.O. Box 915, North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia 19 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie Univer- sity, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia 20 University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia 21 Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 22 Anglo-Australian Observatory, P.O. Box 296, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia 23 Department of Physics, CYM Building, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China 24 The Laboratory for Space Research, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China 25 Max-Planck-Institut fuer Ex. Physik, Giessenbachstrasse, D-85748 Garching b. Muenchen, Germany 26 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birming- ham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK 27 Stellar Astrophysics Centre, Department of Physics and As- tronomy, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark 28 Observatoire de Paris, PSL Research University, CNRS, Universit Pierre et Marie Curie, Universit Paris Diderot, 92195, Meudon, France arXiv:1609.03210v2 [astro-ph.SR] 16 Sep 2016
Transcript
submitted to AJPreprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11
THE RADIAL VELOCITY EXPERIMENT (RAVE): FIFTH DATA RELEASE
Andrea Kunder1, Georges Kordopatis1, Matthias Steinmetz1, Tomaz Zwitter2, Paul J. McMillan3, LucaCasagrande4, Harry Enke1, Jennifer Wojno1, Marica Valentini1, Cristina Chiappini1, Gal Matijevic1,
Alessandro Siviero5, Patrick de Laverny6, Alejandra Recio-Blanco6, Albert Bijaoui6, Rosemary F. G. Wyse7,James Binney8, E. K. Grebel9, Amina Helmi10, Paula Jofre11,12, Gerard Gilmore12, Arnaud Siebert13, BenoitFamaey13, Olivier Bienayme13, Brad K. Gibson14, Kenneth C. Freeman15, Julio F. Navarro16, Ulisse Munari5,
George Seabroke17, Borja Anguiano18,19, Warren Reid19,20, Joss Bland-Hawthorn21, Fred Watson22, Quentin A.Parker23,24, Ralf Scholz1, Donna Burton18, Paul Cass18, Malcolm Hartley18, Kristin Fiegert18, MiloradStupar18,19, Ortwin Gerhard25, W. J. Chaplin26,27 G. R. Davies26,27, Y. P. Elsworth26,27, M. N. Lund26,27, A.
Data Release 5 (DR5) of the Radial Velocity Experiment (RAVE) is the fifth data release from amagnitude-limited (9 < I < 12) survey of stars randomly selected in the southern hemisphere. TheRAVE medium-resolution spectra (R ∼ 7500) covering the Ca-triplet region (8410-8795 A) span thecomplete time frame from the start of RAVE observations in 2003 to their completion in 2013. Radialvelocities from 520 781 spectra of 457 588 unique stars are presented, of which 215 590 unique stars haveparallaxes and proper motions from the Tycho-Gaia astrometric solution (TGAS) in Gaia DR1. Forour main DR5 catalog, stellar parameters (effective temperature, surface gravity, overall metallicity)are computed using the RAVE DR4 stellar pipeline, but calibrated using recent K2 Campaign 1seismic gravities and Gaia benchmark stars, as well as results obtained from high-resolution studies.Also included are temperatures from the Infrared Flux Method, and we provide a catalogue of redgiant stars in the dereddened color (J−Ks)0 interval (0.50,0.85) for which the gravities were calibratedbased only on seismology. Further data products for sub-samples of the RAVE stars include individualabundances for Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, Fe, and Ni, and distances found using isochrones. Each RAVEspectrum is complemented by an error spectrum, which has been used to determine uncertainties onthe parameters. The data can be accessed via the RAVE Web site or the Vizier database.Subject headings: surveys — stars: abundances, distances
1710, Australia23 Department of Physics, CYM Building, The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China24 The Laboratory for Space Research, The University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong, China25 Max-Planck-Institut fuer Ex. Physik, Giessenbachstrasse,
D-85748 Garching b. Muenchen, Germany26 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birming-
ham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK27 Stellar Astrophysics Centre, Department of Physics and As-
tronomy, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark28 Observatoire de Paris, PSL Research University, CNRS,
Universit Pierre et Marie Curie, Universit Paris Diderot, 92195,Meudon, France
arX
iv:1
609.
0321
0v2
[as
tro-
ph.S
R]
16
Sep
2016
2 Kunder et al.
1. INTRODUCTION
The kinematics and spatial distributions of Milky Waystars help define the Galaxy we live in, and allow usto trace parts of the formation of the Milky Way. Inthis regard, large spectroscopic surveys that provide mea-surements of fundamental structural and dynamical pa-rameters for a statistical sample of Galactic stars, havebeen extremely successful in advancing the understand-ing of our Galaxy. Recent and ongoing spectroscopicsurveys of the Milky Way include the RAdial VelocityExperiment (RAVE, Steinmetz et al. 2006), the SloanExtension for Galactic Understanding and Exploration(SEGUE, Yanny et al. 2009), the APO Galactic Evolu-tion Experiment (APOGEE, Eisenstein et al. 2011), theLAMOST Experiment for Galactic Understanding andExploration (LAMOST, Zhao et al. 2012), the Gaia–ESOSurvey (GES, Gilmore et al. 2012) and the GALacticArchaeology with HERMES (GALAH, De Silva et al.2015). These surveys were made possible by the emer-gence of wide field multi-object spectroscopy (MOS) fibresystems, technology that especially took off in the 1990s.Each survey has its own unique aspect, and together formcomplementary samples in terms of capabilities and skycoverage.
Of the above mentioned surveys, RAVE was the first,designed to provide stellar parameters to complementmissions that focus on astrometric information. The fourprevious data releases, DR1 (Steinmetz et al. 2006), DR2(Zwitter et al. 2008), DR3 (Siebert et al. 2011) and DR4(Kordopatis et al. 2013a) have been the foundation for anumber of studies which have advanced our understand-ing of especially the disc of the Milky Way (see reviewby Kordopatis 2014). For example, in recent years awave-like pattern in the stellar velocity distribution wasuncovered (Williams et al. 2013) and the total mass ofthe Milky Way was measured using the RAVE extreme-velocity stars (Piffl et al. 2014a), as was the local darkmatter density (Bienayme et al. 2014; Piffl et al. 2014b).Moreover, chemodynamical signatures of a merger ori-gin of the Galactic disc (Minchev et al. 2014), and sig-natures of radial migration were detected (Kordopatiset al. 2013b; Wojno et al. 2016). Stars tidally strippedfrom globular clusters were also identified (Kunder et al.2014; Anguiano et al. 2015, 2016). RAVE further allowedfor the creation of pseudo-3D maps of the diffuse inter-stellar band at 8620 A (Kos et al. 2014) and high-velocitystars to be studied (Hawkins et al. 2015).
RAVE DR5 includes not only the final RAVE obser-vations taken in 2013, but also earlier discarded obser-vations recovered from previous years, resulting in anadditional ∼ 30 000 RAVE spectra. This is the firstRAVE data release in which error spectrum was gener-ated for each RAVE observation, so we can provide real-istic uncertainties and probability distribution functionsfor the derived radial velocities and stellar parameters.We have performed a recalibration of stellar metallicities,especially improving stars of super-solar metallicity. Us-ing the Gaia benchmark stars (Jofre et al. 2014; Heiteret al. 2015) as well as 72 RAVE stars with Kepler-2 as-teroseismic log g parameters (Valentini et al. submit-ted, hereafter V16), the RAVE log g values have beenrecalibrated, resulting in more accurate gravities espe-cially for the giant stars in RAVE. The distance pipeline
(Binney et al. 2014) has been improved and extendedto process more accurately stars with low metallicities([M/H] < −0.9 dex). Finally, by combining optical pho-tometry from APASS (Munari et al. 2014) with 2MASS(Skrutskie et al. 2006) we have derived temperaturesfrom the Infrared Flux Method (Casagrande et al. 2010).
Possibly the most unique aspect of DR5 is the extentto which it complements the first significant data releasefrom Gaia. The successful completion of the HipparcosMission and publication of the catalogue (ESA 1997)demonstrated that global astrometry is a powerful tech-nique to measure accurate distances to astronomical ob-jects. Already in RAVE-DR1(Steinmetz et al. 2006), welooked forward to the results to the ESA cornerstone mis-sion Gaia, as this space-based mission’s astrometry ofMilky Way stars will have ∼100 times better astromet-ric accuracies than its predecessor, Hipparcos. AlthoughGaia has been launched and data collection is ongoing,a long enough time baseline has to have elapsed for suffi-cient accuracy of a global reduction of observations (e.g.,five years for Gaia to yield positions, parallaxes and an-nual proper motions at an accuracy level of 5 – 25 µas,Michalik et al. 2015). To expedite the use of the firstGaia astrometry results, the approximate positions atthe earlier epoch (around 1991) provided by the Tycho-2Calalogue (Høg et al. 2000) can be used to disentanglethe ambiguity between parallax and proper motion in ashorter stretch of Gaia observations. These TGAS starstherefore contain positions, parallaxes, and proper mo-tions sooner than when the global astrometry from Gaiacan be released. There are 215 590 unique RAVE starsin TGAS, so for these stars we now have space-basedparallaxes and proper motions from Gaia DR1 in addi-tion to stellar parameters, radial velocities, and in manycases chemical abundances. The Tycho-2 stars observedby RAVE in a homogeneous and well-defined manner canbe combined with the released TGAS stars to exploit thelarger volume of stars for which milliarcsecond accuracyastrometry exists, for an extraordinary return in scien-tific results.
In §2, the selection function of the RAVE DR5 stars ispresented – further details can be found in (Wojno et al.submitted, hereafter W16). The RAVE observations andreductions is summarised in §3. An explanation of howthe error spectra were obtained is found in §4, and §5summarises the derivation of radial velocities from thespectra. In §6, the procedure used to extract atmosphericparameters from the spectrum is described and the exter-nal verification of the DR5 Teff , log g and [M/H] valuesis discussed in §7. The dedicated pipelines to extract el-emental abundances, and distances are described in §§8and 9, respectively – DR5 gives radial velocities for allRAVE stars but elemental abundances and distances aregiven for sub-samples of RAVE stars that have SNR ¿ 20and the most well-defined stellar parameters. Temper-atures from the Infrared Flux Method are presented in§10. In §11 we present for the red giants gravities basedon asteroseismology by the method of V16. The finalsections, §12 and §13 provide a summary of the differ-ence between DR4 and DR5 and an overview of DR5,respectively. Lastly, we note that in a companion pa-per, a data-driven re-analysis of the RAVE spectra usingThe Cannon model has been carried out (Casey et al.submitted), which presents the derivation of Teff , surface
RAVE DR5 3
gravity log g, and chemical abundances of up to sevenelements (O, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Fe, Ni).
2. SURVEY SELECTION FUNCTION
Rigorous exploitation of DR5 requires knowledge ofRAVE’s selection function, which was recently describedby W16. Here we provide only a summary.
The stars for the RAVE input catalogue were selectedfrom their I-band magnitudes, focusing on bright stars(9 < I < 12) in the southern hemisphere, but the cat-alogue does contain some stars that are either brighteror fainter, in part because stars were selected by extrap-olating data from other sources, such as Tycho-2 beforethe DENIS and SuperCOSMOS catalogs were available,(see DR4 paper, Kordopatis et al. 2013a, §2 for details).As the survey progressed, the targets in the input cata-log were grouped into four I-band magnitude bins: 9.0– 10.0, 10.0 – 10.75, 10.75 – 11.5, and 11.5 – 12.0, whichhelped mitigate fibre cross-talk problems. This led to asegmented distribution of RAVE stars in I-band mag-nitudes, but the distributions in other passbands areclosely matched by Gaussians (see e.g., Fig. 11 in Mu-nari et al. 2014). For example, in the B-band, the starsobserved by RAVE have a nicely Gaussian distribution,peaking at B = 12.62 with σ = 1.11 mag.
The initial target selection was based only on the ap-parent I-band magnitude, but a colour criterion (J −Ks ≥ 0.5) was later imposed in regions close to theGalactic plane (Galactic latitude |b| < 25◦) to bias thesurvey towards giants. Therefore, the probability, S, ofa star being observed by the RAVE survey is
S ∝ Sselect(l, b, I, J −Ks), (1)
where l is Galactic longitude. W16 determine thefunction Sselect both on a field-by-field basis, so time-dependent effects can be captured, and with HierarchicalEqual-Area iso-Latitude Pixelisation (HEALPix) (e.g.,Gorski et al. 2005), which divides the sky into equal-areapixels, as regularly distributed as possible. The sky isdivided into 12 288 pixels (Nside = 32) which results ina pixel area of ' 3.36 deg2, and only consider the selec-tion function evaluated with HEALPix, because RAVEfields overlap on the sky for quality control and variabil-ity tests.
The parent RAVE sample is constructed by first dis-carding all repeat observations, keeping only the observa-tion with the highest SNR. Then observations which werenot conducted as part of the typical observing strategy(e.g., calibration fields) were removed. Finally, all starswith |b| < 25◦ that were observed despite violating thecolour criterion J −Ks ≥ 0.5 were dismissed. After ap-plying these cuts, we are left with 448 948 stars, or 98%of all stars targeted by RAVE. These define the RAVEDR5 core sample (survey footprint). The core sample iscomplemented by targeted observations (e.g., open clus-ters), mainly for calibration and testing.
The number of RAVE stars (NRAVE) in each HEALPixpixel is then counted as a function of I2MASS. We ap-ply the same criteria to two photometric all-sky sur-veys, 2MASS and Tycho-2 to discover how many starscould, in principle, have been observed. After these cat-alogues were purged of spurious measurements, we obtainN2MASS and NTYCHO2 and can compute the complete-
ness of RAVE as a function of magnitude for both 2MASSand TYCHO2 as NRAVE/N2MASS and NRAVE/NTYCHO2.
Figure 1 shows the DR5 completeness with respect toTycho-2 as a function of magnitude. It is evident thatRAVE avoids the Galactic plane, and we find that thecoverage on the sky is highly anisotropic, with a signifi-cant drop-off in completeness at the fainter magnitudes.A similar result is seen for NRAVE/N2MASS (W16). How-ever, in NRAVE/N2MASS, there is a significantly highercompleteness at low Galactic latitudes (|b| < 25◦) for thefainter magnitude bins.
Because stars that passed the photometric cuts wererandomly selected for observation, RAVE DR5 is free ofkinematic bias. Hence, the contents of DR5 are represen-tative of the Milky Way for the specific magnitude inter-val. A number of peculiar and rare objects are included.The morphological flags of Matijevic et al. (2012) allowone to identify the normal single stars (90 - 95%), andthose that are unusual – the peculiar stars include vari-ous types of spectroscopic binary and chromosphericallyactive stars.
Fig. 1.— Mollweide projection of Galactic coordinates of thecompleteness of the stars in Tycho-2 for which RAVE DR5 ra-dial velocity measurements are available for the core sample. Eachpanel shows the completeness over a different magnitude bin, wherethe HEALPix pixels are colour-coded by the fractional complete-ness (NRAVE/NTYCHO2).
3. SPECTRA AND THEIR REDUCTION
The RAVE spectra were taken using the multi-objectspectrograph 6dF (6 degree field) on the 1.2 m UKSchmidt Telescope of the Australian Astronomical Ob-servatory (AAO). A total of 150 fibres could be allocatedin one pointing, and the covered spectral region (8410–8795 A) at an effective resolution of R = λ/∆λ ∼ 7 500was chosen as analogous to the wavelength range ofGaia’s Radial Velocity Spectrometer (see DR1 paper,Steinmetz et al. 2006, §2 and §3 for details).
The RAVE reductions are described in detail in DR1§4 and upgrades to the process are outlined in DR3 §2. InDR5 further improvements have been made to the Spec-tral Parameters And Radial Velocity (SPARV) pipeline,the DR3 pipeline that carries out the continuum nor-malisation, masks bad pixels, and provides RAVE radialvelocities. The most significant is that instead of thereductions being carried out on a field-by-field basis, sin-gle fibre processing was implemented. Therefore, if therewere spectra within a RAVE field which simply could notbe processed, instead of the whole field failing and being
4 Kunder et al.
omitted in the final RAVE catalogue, only the problem-atic spectra are removed. This is one reason DR5 hasmore stars than the previous RAVE data releases.
The DR5 reduction pipeline is able to processes theproblematic DR1 spectra, and it produces error spec-tra. An overhaul of bookkeeping and process controllead to identification of multiple copies of the same ob-servation and of spectra with corrupted FITS headers.Some RAVE IDs have changed from DR4, and somestars released in DR4 could not be processed by the DR5pipeline. The vast majority of these stars have low signal-to-noise ratios (SNR < 10). Details are provided in Ap-pendix A; less than 0.1% of RAVE spectra were affectedby bookkeeping inconsistencies.
4. ERROR SPECTRA
The wavelength range of the RAVE spectra is domi-nated by strong spectral lines: for a majority of stars,the dominant absorption features are due to the infra-red calcium triplet (CaT), which in hot stars gives wayto Paschen series of hydrogen. Also present are weakermetallic lines for the Solar type stars and molecularbands for the coolest stars. Within an absorption troughthe flux is small, so shot noise is more significant in themiddle of a line than in the adjacent continuum. Errorlevels increase also at wavelengths of airglow sky emis-sion lines, which have to be subtracted during reductions.As a consequence, a single number, usually reported asa SNR ratio, is not an adequate quantification of theobservational errors associated with a given spectrum.
For this reason, DR5 provides error spectra which com-prise uncertainties (“errors”) for each pixel of the spec-trum. RAVE spectra generally have a high SNR in thecontinuum (its median value is SNR ∼ 40), and thereshot noise dominates the errors. Denoting number ofcounts accumulated in the spectrum before sky subtrac-tion by Nu, the corresponding number after sky subtrac-tion by Ns, and the the effective gain by g, the shot noiseis N =
√gNu and the signal is S = gNs. The appearance
of Nu rather than Ns in the relation for N reflects the factthat noise is enhanced near night-sky emission lines. Asa consequence the SNR ratio is decreased both withinprofiles of strong stellar absorption lines (where Ns issmall) and near sky emission lines. The gain g is deter-mined using the count vs. magnitude relation (see eq. 1from Zwitter et al. 2008). Its value (g = 0.416e−/ADU)reflects systematic effects on a pixel-to-pixel scale thatlower the effective gain to this level.
Telluric absorptions are negligible in the RAVEwavelength range (Munari 1999). RAVE observa-tions from Siding Spring generally show a sky signalwith a low continuum level, even when observedclose to the Moon. The main contributors to thesky spectrum are therefore airglow emission lines,which belong to three series: OH transitions 6-2 atλ < 8651 A, OH transitions 7-3 at λ > 8758 A, andO2 bands at 8610 A < λ < 8710 A. Wavelengths ofOH lines are listed in the file linelists$skylines.datwhich is part of the IRAF29 reduction package, while
29 IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Ob-servatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities forResearch in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreementwith the National Science Foundation.
the physics of their origin is nicely summarised athttp://www.iafe.uba.ar/aeronomia/airglow.html.One needs to be careful when analysing stellar lines withsuperimposed airglow lines. Apart from increasing thenoise levels, these lines may not be perfectly subtracted,as they can be variable on angular scales of degrees andon timescales of minutes, whereas the telescope’s fieldof view is 6.7◦ and the exposure time was typically 50minutes.
Evaluation of individual reduction steps (see Zwitteret al. 2008) shows that fibre cross-talk and scattered lighthave only a small influence on error levels. In particu-lar, a typical level of fibre-cross talk residuals is 0.0014f ,where f is the ratio between flux of an object in an ad-jacent fibre and flux of the object in question. Fibrecross-talk suffers from moderate systematic effects (vari-able point spread function profiles across the wavelengthrange), but even at the edges of the spectral range theseeffects do not exceed a 1% level. Scattered light typicallycontributes ∼ 5% of the flux level of the spectral tracing.So its effect on noise estimation is not important, and wewere not able to identify any systematics. Finally, RAVEobserves in the near IR and uses a thinned CCD chip, soan accurate subtraction of interference fringes is needed.Tests show that fringe patterns for the same night andfor the same focal plate typically stay constant to within1% of the flat-field flux level. As a result scattered lightand fringing only moderately increase the final noise lev-els. Together, scattered light and fringing are estimatedto contribute a relative error of ∼ 0.8%, which is addedin quadrature to the prevailing contribution of shot noisediscussed above.
Finally we note that fluxes and therefore noise levelsfor individual pixels of a given spectrum is not indepen-dent of each other, but are correlated because of a lim-ited resolving power of RAVE spectra. So the final noisespectrum was smoothed with a window with a width of3 pixels in the wavelength direction, which correspondsto the FWHM for a resolving power of RAVE spectra.
The raw errors as derived in the error spectra are prop-agated into the radial velocities and stellar parameterspresented here. This process allows a better assessmentof the uncertainties, especially of stars with low SNR orhot stars, where the CaT is not as prominent. Figure 2shows how the derived radial velocities of typical hot, lowSNR, and “normal” stars vary once the RAVE spectraare resampled from the error spectra 100 times. For mostRAVE stars, the radial velocity errors are consistent witha Gaussian (see middle panel), but for the more problem-atic hot stars, or those with low SNR, this is clearly notthe case.
Each RAVE spectrum was resampled from its errorspectrum ten times. Whereas our tests indicate that alarger number of resamplings (∼ 60) would be ideal forthe more problematic spectra, ten resamplings were cho-sen as a compromise between computing time and therelatively small number of RAVE spectra with low SNRand hot stars that would benefit from additional resam-plings. For ∼ 97.5% of the RAVE sample, there is one-sigma or less difference in the radial velocity and radialvelocity dispersions when resampling the spectrum 10 or100 times. In DR5, we provide both the formal errorin radial velocity, which is a measure of how well thecross-correlation of the RAVE spectrum against a tem-
TGAS + RAVE stars 215,590aFor a discussion of AlgoConv see §6.1
Fig. 2.— The derived radial velocities and dispersion from resam-pling the RAVE error spectra 100 times. The top panel shows theradial velocity distribution from a SNR=5 star with a Teff=3620 K,the middle panel shows the radial velocity distribution from aSNR=13 star with a Teff=5050 K, and the bottom panel shows theradial velocity distribution from a SNR=8 star with a Teff=7250 K.
plate spectrum was matched, and the standard deviationand the median absolute deviation (MAD) in heliocentricradial velocity from a spectrum resampled ten times.
5. RADIAL VELOCITIES
The DR5 radial velocities are derived in an identicalmanner to in those in DR4. The process of velocity deter-mination is explained by Siebert et al. (2011). Templatesare used to measure the radial velocities in a two-stepprocess. First, using a subset of 10 template spectra, apreliminary estimate of the RV is obtained, which has atypical accuracy better than 5 km s−1. A new templateis then constructed using the full template database de-scribed in Zwitter et al. (2008), from which the final,more precise RV is obtained. This has a typical accuracybetter than 2 km s−1.
The internal error in RV, σ(RV), comes from the xcsaotask within IRAF, and therefore describes the error on
Fig. 3.— Histograms of the errors on the radial velocities of theDR5 stars, derived from the resampling of the DR5 spectra tentimes using their associated error spectra. The filled black his-togram shows the standard deviation distributions and the greenhistogram shows the MAD estimator distribution. The red his-togram shows the internal radial velocity error obtained from crosscorrelating the RAVE spectra with a template.
the determination of the maximum of the correlationfunction. It was noticed that for some stars, particu-larly those with σ(RV) > 10 km s−1, σ(RV) was under-estimated. The inclusion of error spectra in DR5 largelyremedies this problem, and the standard deviation andMAD provide independent measures of the RV uncer-tainties (see Fig. 2). Uncertainties derived from the errorspectra are especially useful for stars that have low SNRor high temperatures. Figure 3 shows the errors fromthe resampled spectra compared to the internal errors.For the majority of RAVE stars, the uncertainty in RVis dominated by the cross-correlation between the RAVEspectrum and the RV template, and not by the arrayof uncertainties (“errors”) for each pixel of the RAVEspectrum.
Repeated RV measurements have been used to char-acterise the uncertainty in the RVs. There are 43 918stars that have been observed more than once; the ma-
6 Kunder et al.
jority (82%) of these stars have two measurements, andsix RAVE stars were observed 13 times, the highest num-ber of repeat observations. The histogram of the RVscatter between the repeat measurements peaks at 0.5km s−1, and has a long tail at larger scatter. This ex-tended scatter is due both to variability from stellar bi-naries and problematic measurements. If stars are se-lected that have radial velocities derived with high con-fidence, e.g., stars with |correctionRV| < 10 km s−1,σ(RV ) < 8 km s−1, and correlationCoeff > 10 (seeKordopatis et al. 2013a), the scatter of the repeat mea-surements peaks at 0.17 km s−1 and the tail is reducedby 90%.
The zero-point in RV has already been evaluated in theprevious data releases. The exercise is repeated here,with the inclusion of a comparison to APOGEE andGaia-ESO, and the summary of the comparisons to dif-ferent samples is given in Table 5. Our comparison sam-ple comprises of the GCS (Nordstrom et al. 2004) dataas well as high-resolution echelle follow-up observationsof RAVE targets at the ANU 2.3 m telescope, the Asi-ago Observatory, the Apache Point Observatory (Ruchtiet al. 2011), and Observatoire de Haute Provence usingthe Elodie and Sophie instruments. Sigma-clipping isused to remove contamination by spectroscopic binariesor problematic measurements, and the the mean ∆(RV)given is ∆(RV) = RVDR5−RVref . As seen previously, theagreement in zero-point between RAVE and the externalsources is better than 1 km s−1.
6. STELLAR PARAMETERS AND ABUNDANCES
6.1. Atmospheric parameter determinations
RAVE DR5 stellar atmospheric parameters, Teff , log gand [M/H] have been determined using the same stellarparameter pipeline as in DR4. The details can be foundin Kordopatis et al. (2011) and the DR4 paper (Kor-dopatis et al. 2013a), but a summary is provided here.
The pipeline is based on the combination of a decisiontree, DEGAS (Bijaoui et al. 2012), to renormalise iter-atively the spectra and obtain stellar parameter estima-tions for the low SNR spectra, and a projection algorithmMATISSE (Recio-Blanco et al. 2006) to derive the pa-rameters for stars having high SNR. The threshold abovewhich MATISSE is preferred to DEGAS is based on testsperformed with synthetic spectra (see Kordopatis et al.2011) and has been set to SNR=30 pixel−1.
The learning phase of the pipeline is carried out us-ing synthetic spectra computed with the Turbospectrumcode (Alvarez & Plez 1998) combined with MARCSmodel atmospheres (Gustafsson et al. 2008) assuminglocal thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) and hydrostaticequilibrium. The cores of the CaT lines are masked inorder to avoid issues such as non-LTE effects in the ob-served spectra, which could affect our parameter deter-mination.
The stellar parameters covered by the grid are between3000 K and 8000 K for Teff , 0 and 5.5 for log g and −5 to+1 dex in metallicity. Varying α-abundances ([α/Fe]) asa function of metallicity are also included in the learninggrid, but are not a free parameter. The line-list wascalibrated on the Sun and Arcturus (Kordopatis et al.2011).
The pipeline is run on the continuum normalised,
radially-velocity corrected RAVE spectra using a softconditional constraint based on the 2MASS J − Ks
colours of each star. This restricted the solution spaceand minimised the spectral degeneracies that exist in thewavelength range of the CaT (Kordopatis et al. 2011).Once a first set of parameters is obtained for a givenobservation, we select pseudo-contrinuum windows tore-normalize the input spectrum based on the pseudo-continuum shape of the synthetic spectrum having theparameters determined by the code, and the pipeline isrun again on the modified input. This step is repeatedten times, which is usually enough for convergence of thecontinuum shape to be reached and hence to obtain afinal set of parameters (see, however, next paragraph).
Once the spectra have been parameterised, the pipelineprovides one of the four quality flags for each spectrum30:
• ‘0’: The analysis was carried out as desired. The re-normalisation process converged, as did MATISSE(for high SNR spectra) or DEGAS (for low SNRspectra).
• ‘1’: Although the spectrum has a sufficiently highSNR to use the projection algorithm, the MA-TISSE algorithm did not converge. Stellar param-eters for stars with this flag are not reliable. Ap-proximately 6% of stars are affected by this.
• ‘2’: The spectrum has a sufficiently high SNR touse the projection algorithm, but MATISSE oscil-lates between two solutions. The reported parame-ters are the mean of these two solutions. In generalthe oscillation happens for a set of parameters thatare nearby in parameter space and computing themean is a sensible thing to do. However, this is notalways the case, for example, if the spectrum con-tains artefacts. Then the mean may not provideaccurate stellar parameters. Spectra with a flag of‘2’ could be used for analyses, but with caution.
• ‘3’: MATISSE gives a solution that is extrapolatedfrom the parameter range of the learning grid, andthe solution is forced to be the one from DEGAS.For spectra having artefacts but high-SNR overall,this is a sensible thing to do, as DEGAS is lesssensitive to such discrepancies. However, for thefew hot stars that have been observed by RAVE,adopting this approach is not correct. A flag of ‘3’and a Teff > 7750 K is very likely to indicate thatthis is a hot star with Teff > 8000 K and hence thatthe parameters associated with that spectrum arenot reliable.
• ‘4’: This flag will only appear for low SNR stars.For metal-poor giants, the spectral lines availableare neither strong enough nor numerous enoughto have DEGAS successfully parametrise the star.Tests on synthetic spectra have shown that to de-rive reliable parameters the settings used to explorethe branches of the decision tree need to be changedcompared to the parameters adopted for the rest ofthe parameter space. A flag ‘4’ therefore marks thischange in the setting for book-keeping purposes,
and the spectra associated with this flag should besafe for any analysis.
The several tests performed for DR4 as well as the sub-sequent science papers, have indicated that the stellar pa-rameter pipeline is globally robust and reliable. However,being based on synthetic spectra that may not match thereal stellar spectra over the entire parameter range, thedirect outputs of the pipeline need to be calibrated onreference stars in order to minimise possible offsets.
6.2. Metallicity calibrations
In DR4, metallicity calibration proved to be the mostcritical and important one. Using a set of reference starsfor which metallicity determinations were available inthe literature (usually derived from high-resolution spec-tra), a second order polynomial correction, based on sur-face gravity and raw metallicity, was applied in DR4.This corrected the metallicity offsets with the externaldatasets of Pasquini et al. (2004); Pancino et al. (2010);Cayrel et al. (2004); Ruchti et al. (2011) and the PASTELdatabase (Soubiran et al. 2010). For DR5, we relied onthe same approach. However, we added reference stars tothe set used in DR4, with the focus on expanding our cal-ibrating sample towards the high metallicity end to bet-ter calibrate the tails of the distribution function. Thiscalibration is based on the crossmatch of RAVE targetswith the Worley et al. (2012) and Adibekyan et al. (2013)catalogues, as well as the Gaia benchmark stellar spec-tra. The metallicity of the Gaia benchmark stars is takenfrom Jofre et al. (2014), where a library of Gaia bench-mark stellar spectra was especially prepared to matchRAVE data in terms of wavelength coverage, resolutionand spectral spacing. This was done following the pro-cedure described in Blanco-Cuaresma et al. (2014). Ourcalibration has already been successfully used in Kor-dopatis et al. (2015); Wojno et al. (2016) and Antoja etal. (submitted). The calibration relation for DR5 is:
[M/H] = [M/H]p − (−0.276 + 0.044 log gp
−0.002 log gp2 + 0.248 [M/H]p
−0.007 [M/H]p log gp + 0.078 [M/H]2p),
(2)
where [M/H] is the calibrated metallicity, [M/H]p andlog gp are, respectively, the uncalibrated (raw outputfrom the pipeline) metallicity and surface gravity. Theeffect of the calibration on the raw output can be seen inthe top panel of Fig. 4. The bottom panel shows that inthe range (−2, 0) the DR5 and DR4 values are very sim-ilar. Above [M/H] ∼ 0, the DR5 metallicities are higher
than the DR4 ones and are in better agreement with thechemical abundance pipeline presented below (§8). Wenote that after metallicity calibration we do not re-runthe pipeline to see if other stellar parameters change withthis new metallicity.
6.3. Surface gravity calibrations
Measuring the surface gravity spectroscopically, andin particular from medium resolution spectra around theIR calcium triplet, is challenging. Nevertheless, the DR4pipeline proved to perform in a relatively reliable man-ner, so no calibrations was performed on log gp. Theuncertainties in the DR4 log gp values are of the order of∼ 0.2−0.3 dex, with any offsets being mainly confined tothe giant stars. In particular, an offset in log gp of ∼ 0.15was detected for the red clump stars.
For the main DR5 catalogue, the surface gravities arecalibrated using both the asteroseismic log g values of 72giants from V16 and the Gaia benchmark dwarfs andgiants (Heiter et al. 2015). Although the calibration pre-sented in V16 focuses only on giant stars and shouldtherefore perform better for these stars (see §11), theglobal DR5 log g calibration is valid for all stars for whichthe stellar parameter pipeline provides Teff , log g and[M/H].
Biases in log gp depended mostly on log gp, so for thesurface gravity calibration, we computed the offset be-tween the pipeline output and the reference values, as afunction of the pipeline output, and fitted a low orderpolynomial to the residuals (for a more quantitative as-sessment, see W16). This quadratic expression definesour surface gravity calibration:
The calibration above affects mostly the giants butalso allows a smooth transition of the calibration forthe dwarfs. The red clump is now at log g ∼ 2.5 dex,consistent with isochrones for thin disc stars of metal-licity [M/H] = −0.1 and age of 7.5 Gyr (see Sect. 6.5).This calibration has the effect of increasing the mini-mum published log g from 0 (as set by the learning grid)to ∼ 0.5. The maximum reachable log g is ∼ 5.2 (insteadof 5.5, as in DR4). Tests carried out with the Galaxiamodel, where the RAVE selection function has been ap-plied (W16) show that the calibration improves log g evenat these boundaries. We do caution, however, that spe-cial care should be taken for stars with log g . 0.75 orlog g & 5.
6.4. Effective temperature calibrations
8 Kunder et al.
Fig. 4.— Top: The calibrated DR5 [M/H] is compared to theuncalibrated DR5 [M/H]p. Bottom: A comparison of [M/H] fromDR5 with [M/H] from DR4. The changes occur mostly in themetal-rich end, as our reference sample now contains more high-metallicity stars. The grey scale bar indicates the log10(N) of starsin a bin, and the contour lines contain 33, 66, 90 and 99 per centof the sample.
Munari et al. (2014) showed that the DR4 effectivetemperatures for warm stars (Teff & 6000 K) are under-estimated by ∼ 250 K. This offset is evident when plot-ting the residuals against the reference (photometric)Teff , but is barely discernible when plotting them againstthe pipeline Teff . Consequently, it is difficult to correctfor this effect. The calibration that we carry out changesTeff,p only modestly, and does not fully compensate forthe (fortunately small) offsets (see Fig. 6). The adoptedcalibration for effective temperatures is
Figures 7 and 8 show, as functions of metallicity andeffective temperature, respectively, the residuals between
Fig. 5.— As Figure 4 except it compares the calibrated DR5 log gwith the uncalibrated DR5 log gp. Contours as in Figure 4.
Fig. 6.— As Figure 4 except it compares the calibrated DR5 Teffwith the uncalibrated DR5 Teff,p. Contours as in Figure 4.
the calibrated values and the set of reference stars thathave been used. We show the log g comparison (firstrows of Figs. 7, 8), for all sets of stars, and not onlythe stars in V16 and Jofre et al. (2014), which in theend were the only samples used to define the calibration.Although the V16 and Jofre et al. (2014) derivation oflog g are independent of each other, the shift in log gbetween the two samples are small, so there is no concernthat we could end up with non-physical combinations ofparameters.
Overall there are no obvious trends as a function ofany stellar parameter, except the already mentioned mildtrend in Teff for the stars having 4 < log g <5 (seen atthe middle row, last column of Fig. 8). The absenceof any strong bias in the parameters is also confirmedin the next sections, with additional comparisons withAPOGEE, Gaia-ESO and LAMOST stars (§ 7).
The effect of the calibrations on the (Teff , log g) dia-
RAVE DR5 9
Fig. 7.— Residuals between the calibrated DR5 parameters and the reference values, as a function of the calibrated DR5 metallicity, fordifferent calibrated DR5 logg bins. The numbers inside each panel indicate the mean difference (first line) and the dispersion (second line)for each considered subsample.
gram is shown in Fig. 9. The calibrations bring the dis-tribution of stars into better agreement with the predic-tions of isochrones for the old thin disc and thick disc(yellow and red, respectively).
6.6. Estimation of the atmospheric parameter errorsand robustness of the pipeline
Using the error spectrum of each observation, 10 re-sampled spectra were computed for the entire database(see also §4). The SPARV algorithm was run on thesespectra, the radial velocity estimated and the spectrashifted to the rest-frame. Subsequently, the Kordopatiset al. (2013a) pipeline was run on these radial velocity-corrected spectra.
The dispersion of the derived parameters among there-sampled spectra of each observation give us an indi-cation of the individual errors on Teff , log g and [M/H]and of the robustness of the pipeline. That said, becausethe noise is being introduced twice (once during the ini-tial observation and once when re-sampling), the resultsshould be considered as an over-estimation of the errors(since we are dealing with an overall lower SNR).
Figure 10 shows the dispersion of each parameter de-termined from the spectra collected in 2006. We showboth the simple standard deviation, and the Median Ab-solute Deviation (MAD) estimator, which is more robustto outliers. The distribution of the internal errors (nor-malised to the peak of the black histogram) as given inTables 1 and 2 of Kordopatis et al. (2013a) is also plot-ted. Figure 10 shows that the internal errors are consis-
tent with the parameter dispersion we obtain from there-sampled spectra, though the uncertainties calculatedfrom the error spectra have a tail extending to larger er-ror values. Therefore, for some stars, the true errors areconsiderably larger than those produced by the pipeline.This is not unexpected, as it reflects the degeneraciesthat hamper the IR CaT region, and also the fact thatthe resampled spectra has a lower SNR than the trueobservations, since the noise is introduced a second time.
The published DR5 parameters, however, are not theraw output of the pipeline, but are calibrated values.Since this calibration takes into account the output Teff ,log g and [M/H], it is also valuable to test the dispersionof the calibrated values. This is shown in Fig. 11 forthe same set of stars. As before, no large differences areintroduced, indicative again of a valid calibration andreliable stellar parameter pipeline.
6.7. Completeness of Stellar Parameters
It is of value to consider the completeness of DR5with respect to derived stellar parameters. To eval-uate this, the stars that satisfy the following criteriaare selected: SNR ≥ 20, |correctionRV| < 10 km s−1,σ(RV ) < 8 km s−1 , and correlationCoeff > 10 (seeKordopatis et al. 2013a). The resulting distributions areshown in Figure 12. Whereas the 10.0 < I2MASS < 10.8magnitude bin has the highest number of stars with spec-tral parameters, distances, and chemical abundances, thefractional completeness compared to 2MASS (panel 3)peaks in the 9.0 < I2MASS < 10.0 magnitude bin. In this
10 Kunder et al.
Fig. 8.— Same as Fig. 7, but showing on the x-axis the calibrated DR5 Teff .
bin, we find that we determine stellar parameters for ap-proximately 50% of 2MASS stars in the RAVE fields. Wefurther estimate distances for 40% of stars, and chemicalabundances for ∼ 20%. This fraction drops off signifi-cantly at fainter magnitudes.
Similarly, for the brighter bins we obtain stellar param-eters for ∼ 55% of Tycho-2 stars, distances for ∼ 45% ofstars and similar trends in the completeness fraction ofchemical abundances.
7. EXTERNAL VERIFICATION
Stars observed specifically for understanding the stel-lar parameters of RAVE, as well as stars observed thatfortuitously overlap with high-resolution studies are com-piled to further asses the validity of the RAVE stellarparameter pipeline. As discussed above, calibrating theRAVE stellar parameter pipeline is not straight-forward,and although a global calibration over the diverse RAVEstellar sample has been applied, the accuracy of the at-mospheric parameters depends also on the stellar popu-lation probed. Therefore, for the specific samples inves-tigated in this section, Table 4 summarises the resultsof the external comparisons split into hot, metal-poordwarfs, hot, metal-rich dwarfs, cool, metal-poor dwarfs,cool, metal-rich dwarfs, cool, metal-poor giants and cool,metal-rich giants. The boundary between “metal-poor”and “metal-rich” occurs at [M/H] = 0.0, and between“hot” and “cool” lies at Teff = 5500 K. The giants anddwarfs are divided at log g = 3.5 dex. From here on, onlythe calibrated RAVE stellar parameters are used.
7.1. Cluster Stars
In the 2011B, 2012 and 2013 RAVE observingsemesters, stars in various open and globular clusterswere targeted with the goal of using the cluster stars asindependent checks on the reliability of RAVE stellar pa-rameters and their errors. RAVE stars observed withinthe targeted clusters that have also been studied exter-nally from high-resolution spectroscopy are compiled, soa quantitative comparison of the RAVE stellar parame-ters can be made.
Table 3 lists clusters and their properties for whichRAVE observations could be matched to high-resolutionstudies. The open cluster properties come from the MilkyWay global survey of star clusters (Kharchenko et al.2013) and the globular cluster properties come from theHarris catalog (Harris 1996, 2010 update). The numberof RAVE stars that were cross-matched and the literaturesources are also listed.
Figure 13 shows a comparison between the high-resolution cluster studies and the RAVE cluster stars.From this inhomogeneous sample of 75 overlap RAVEcluster stars with an AlgoConv 6= 1, the formal uncer-tainties in Teff , log g, and [M/H] are 300 K, 0.6 dex, and0.04 dex, respectively, but decrease by a factor of almosttwo when only stars with SNR > 50 are considered (seeTable 5). This is a ∼ 15% improvement on the sameRAVE cluster stars in DR4.
7.2. Field star surveys
We have matched RAVE stars with the high-resolutionstudies of Gratton et al. (2000); Aoki et al. (2002); Holleket al. (2011); Carrera et al. (2013); Ishigaki et al. (2013);Roederer et al. (2014) and Schlaufman & Casey (2014),
NGC 2632 Praesepe 08 40 24.0 +19 40 00 3.1 33.4 0.094 0.187 0.83 2012 1 (0) Yang et al. (2015)
which concentrate on bright metal-poor stars, the studyof Trevisan et al. (2011), which concentrates on old,metal-rich stars, and the studies of Ramırez et al. (2013)and Bensby et al. (2014), which target FGK stars in thesolar neighbourhood. Figures 14, 15, and 16 comparestellar parameters from these studies with the DR5 val-ues. Trends are detectable in log g for both giants anddwarfs. For the giants the same tendency for log g to beover-estimated when log g is small was evident in V16.In Figure 15 a similar, but less pronounced, tendency isevident in the log g values for dwarfs.
7.3. APOGEE
The Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Ex-periment, part of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and cov-ering mainly the northern hemisphere, has made publicnear-IR spectra with a resolution of R∼22,500 for over150,000 stars (DR12, Holtzman et al. 2015). Stellar pa-rameters are only provided for APOGEE giant stars, andtemperatures, gravities, [Fe/H] metallicities and radialvelocities are reported to be accurate to ∼100 K (inter-nal), ∼0.11 dex (internal), ≤0.1 dex (internal) and ∼100m s−1, respectively (Holtzman et al. 2015; Nidever et al.2012). Despite the different hemispheres targeted byRAVE and APOGEE, there are ∼1100 APOGEE starsthat overlap with RAVE DR5 stars, two thirds of thesehaving valid APOGEE stellar parameters.
A comparison between the APOGEE and RAVE stel-lar parameters is shown in Figure 17. The zero-pointand standard deviation for different subsets of SNR andAlgoConv are provided in Table 5. There appears to be a∼0.15 dex zero-point offset in [Fe/H] between APOGEEand RAVE, as seen most clearly in the high SNR sam-ple, and there is a noticeable break in log g where the coolmain-sequence stars and stars along the giant branch be-gin to overlap. This is the consequence of degeneraciesin the CaT region that affect the determination of log g(see Tables 1 and 2 in DR4).
7.4. LAMOST
The Large sky Area Multi-Object Spectroscopic Tele-scope is an ongoing optical spectroscopic survey with a
resolution of R ∼ 1 800, which has gathered spectra formore than 4.2 million objects. About 2.2 million stellarsources, mainly with SNR > 10, have stellar parame-ters. Typical uncertainties are 150 K, 0.25 dex, 0.15 dex,5 km s−1 for Teff , log g, metallicity and radial velocity,respectively (Xiang et al. 2015).
The overlap between LAMOST and RAVE comprisesalmost 3000 stars, including both giants and dwarfs. Fig-ure 18 shows the comparison between the stellar param-eters of RAVE and LAMOST. The giants (stars withlog g <3) and dwarfs (stars with log g > 3) exhibit dif-ferent trends in log g, and the largest uncertainties inlog g occur where these populations overlap in log g. Thezero-point and standard deviation for the comparisonsbetween RAVE and LAMOST stellar parameters are pro-vided in Table 4.
7.5. GAIA-ESO
Gaia-ESO, a public spectroscopic survey observingstars in all major components of the Milky Way using theVery Large Telescope (VLT), provides 14 947 unique tar-gets in DR2. The resolution of the stellar spectra rangesfrom R ∼ 17 000 to R ∼ 47 000. There are ∼ 100 RAVEstars that overlap with a star observed in Gaia-ESO, halfof these are situated around the η Chamaeleontis Cluster(Mamajek et al. 1999), and a third are in the vicinity ofthe Gamma Velorum cluster (Jeffries et al. 2014).
Figure 19 shows the comparison of stellar parametersbetween the RAVE and Gaia-ESO overlap stars. Theoverlap sample is small; still Table 4 quantifies the resultsbetween these two surveys.
8. ELEMENTAL ABUNDANCES
The elemental abundances for Aluminium, Magne-sium, Nickel, Silicon, Titanium, and Iron are determinedfor a number of RAVE stars using a dedicated chemicalpipeline that relies on an equivalent width library en-compassing 604 atomic and molecular lines in the RAVEwavelength range. This chemical pipeline was first intro-duced by Boeche et al. (2011) and then improved uponfor the DR4 data release.
Briefly, equivalent widths are computed for a grid of
12 Kunder et al.
TABLE 4Estimates of the external errors in the stellar parameters.
stellar type N σ(Teff ) σ(log g) σ([M/H]) σ(Teff,IRFM)
Fig. 9.— Top: Teff -log g diagram for the raw output of thepipeline, i.e., before calibration. Bottom: Teff -log g diagram forthe calibrated DR5 parameters. Both plots show in red two Padovaisochrones at metallicity −0.5 and ages 7.5 and 12.5 Gyr, and inyellow two Padova isochrones at metallicity −0.1 and ages 7.5 and12.5 Gyr. For the new calibration, the locus of the red-clumpagrees better with stellar evolution models, as does the position ofthe turn-off.
stellar parameter values in the following ranges: Teff
from 4000 to 7000 K, log g from 0.0 to 0.5 dex, [M/H]from −2.5 to +0.5 dex and five levels of abundances from−0.4 to +0.4 dex relative to the metallicity, in steps of0.2 dex, using the solar abundances of Grevesse & Sauval(1998). Using the calibrated RAVE effective temper-atures, surface gravities and metallicities (see §5), thepipeline searches for the best-fitting model spectrum byminimizing the χ2 between the models and the observa-tions.
The line list and specific aspects of the equivalentwidth library are given in Boeche et al. (2011) and thefull scheme to compute the abundances is given in §5 ofKordopatis et al. (2013a). Abundances from the RAVEchemical abundance pipeline are only provided for stars
Fig. 10.— Histograms of the errors in the uncalibrated param-eters (top: Teff , middle: log g, bottom: [M/H]p), obtained fromthe analysis of all the spectra gathered in 2006, resampled tentimes using their associated error spectra. The filled black his-tograms show the standard deviation distributions whereas greenhistograms show the MAD estimator distribution. The red his-tograms are normalised to peak of the standard deviation distribu-tion, and show the distributions of the internal errors as estimatedby the stellar parameter pipeline.
fulfilling the following criteria:
• Teff must be between 4000 and 7000 K
• SNR > 20
• Rotational velocity, Vrot < 50 km s−1.
The highest quality of abundances will be determinedfor the stars that have the following additional con-straints:
• χ2 < 2000, where χ2 quantifies the mismatchbetween the observed spectrum and the best-matching model.
14 Kunder et al.
Fig. 11.— Same as Fig. 10 but showing the error histograms forthe calibrated DR5 parameters.
• frac > 0.7, where frac represents the fraction ofthe observed spectrum that satisfactorily matchesthe model.
• c1, c2 and c3 classification flags indicate that thespectrum is “normal” (see Matijevic et al. 2012, fordetails on the classification flags).
• AlgoConv value indicates the stellar parameterpipeline converged. AlgoConv = 0 indicates thehighest quality result.
The precision and accuracy of the resulting elementalabundances are obtained in two ways. First, uncertain-ties in the elemental abundances are investigated from asample of 1353 synthetic spectra. The typical dispersionsare σ ∼ 0.05 dex for SNR = 100 spectra, σ ∼ 0.1 dex forSNR = 40 spectra and σ ∼ 0.25 dex for SNR = 20 spec-tra. The exception is the element Fe, which has a smaller
Fig. 12.— Top Left panel: The number of RAVE stars withspectral parameters (yellow), distances (red) and chemical abun-dances (green) as a function of magnitude. Top Right panel: Thecompleteness of the RAVE DR5 sample is shown as a function ofmagnitude for stars with spectral parameters, distances and chemi-cal abundances. Bottom left panel: The completeness of the RAVEDR5 sample with respect to the completeness of 2MASS is shownas a function of magnitude for stars with spectral parameters, dis-tances and chemical abundances. Bottom right panel: The sameas the third panel, but for TYCHO2.
Fig. 13.— A comparison between the stellar parameters pre-sented here with those from cluster stars studied in the literaturefrom various different sources (see Table 3). The filled squaresindicate the stars with AlgoConv = 0.
dispersion by a factor of two, and the element Ti, whichhas a larger dispersion by a factor of 1.5 - 2 (see Boecheet al. 2011; Kordopatis et al. 2013a, for details).
The number of measured absorption lines for an ele-ment, which is also provided in the DR5 data release, is,like SNR, a good indicator of the reliability of the abun-dance. The higher the number of measured lines, thebetter the expected precision. The relatively low uncer-
RAVE DR5 15
Fig. 14.— A comparison between the Teff presented here withthose from field stars studied using high-resolution studies in theliterature from various different sources. The encircled symbolsindicate those with AlgoConv = 0.
Fig. 15.— A comparison between the log g presented here withthose from field stars studied using high-resolution studies in theliterature from various different sources.
tainty in the Fe abundances reflects the large number ofits measurable lines at all stellar parameter values.
A second assessment of the performance of the chem-ical pipeline is provided by comparing the DR5 abun-dances in 98 dwarf stars with values given in Soubiran &Girard (2005) and in 203 giant stars with abundances inRuchti et al. (2011). The dwarfs in Soubiran & Girard
Fig. 16.— A comparison between the [Fe/H] presented here withthose from field stars studied using high-resolution studies in theliterature from various different sources.
Fig. 17.— A comparison between the stellar parameters of theRAVE stars that overlap with APOGEE. Different subsets of SNRand AlgoConv cuts are shown.
(2005) typically have RAVE SNR > 100, and the giantsin Ruchti et al. (2011) have RAVE SNR in the range 30to 90.
Figures 20 and 21 show the results obtained for the sixelements from the RAVE chemical pipeline. In general,there is a slight improvement in the external compar-isons from DR4, likely resulting from the improved DR5calibration for the stellar parameters. The accuracy of
16 Kunder et al.
Fig. 18.— A comparison between the stellar parameters of thestars presented here with those from LAMOST. There are 2700,1026 and 987 stars in the top, middle and bottom panels, respec-tively.
Fig. 19.— A comparison between the stellar parameters of thestars presented here with those from Gaia-ESO. There are 53, 11and 28 stars in the top, middle and bottom panels, respectively.
the RAVE abundances depends on many variables, whichcan be inter-dependent in a non-linear way, making itnon-trivial to provide one value to quantify the accu-racy of the RAVE elemental abundances. We also havenot taken into account the errors in abundance measure-ments from high-resolution spectra. Here is a summaryof the expected accuracy of the DR5 abundances, ele-
ment by element.
• magnesium: The uncertainty is σMg ∼ 0.2 dex,slightly worse for stars with SNR < 40.
• aluminum: This is measured in RAVE spectra fromonly two isolated lines. Abundance errors are σAl ∼0.2 dex, and slightly worse for stars with SNR < 40.
• silicon: This is one of the most reliably determinedelements, with σSi ∼ 0.2 dex, and slightly worse forstars with SNR < 40.
• titanium: The estimates are best for high-SNR,cool giants (Teff < 5500 K and log g < 3). We sug-gest rejecting Ti abundances for dwarf stars. Un-certainties for cool giants are σTi ∼ 0.2 dex, andslightly worse for stars with SNR < 40.
• iron: A large number of measurable lines is avail-able at all stellar parameter values. The expectederrors are σFe ∼ 0.2 dex.
• nickel: Ni estimates should be used for high SNR,cool stars only (Teff < 5000 K). In this regime,σNi ∼ 0.25 dex, but correlates with number of mea-sured lines (i.e., with SNR).
• α-enhancement: This is the average of [Mg/Fe]and [Si/Fe], and is a particularly useful measure-ment at low SNR. The expected uncertainty isσα ∼ 0.2 dex.
The green histogram in Figure 22 shows the distribu-tion of [Fe/H] from the chemical pipeline. This is simi-lar to the black histogram of [Fe/H] values in DR4 butshifted to slightly larger [Fe/H] . The red histogramof [M/H] values in DR5 is slightly narrower than either[Fe/H] histogram and peaks at slightly lower values thanthe DR5 [Fe/H] histogram.
9. DISTANCES, AGES AND MASSES
In DR4 we included for the first time distances derivedby the Bayesian method developed by Burnett & Binney(2010). This takes as its input the stellar parametersTeff , log g and [M/H] determined from the RAVE spec-tra, and J , H and Ks magnitudes from 2MASS. Thismethod was extended by Binney et al. (2014), who in-cluded dust extinction in the modelling, and introducedan improvement in the description of the distance to thestars by providing multi-Gaussian fits to the full proba-bility density function (pdf) in distance modulus. Pre-vious data releases included distance estimates from dif-ferent sources (Breddels et al. 2010; Zwitter et al. 2010),but the Bayesian pipeline has been shown to be morerobust when dealing with atmospheric parameter valueswith large uncertainties, so it provided the recommendeddistance estimates for DR4, and the only estimates thatwe provide with DR5.
We provide distance estimates for all stars except thosefor which we do not believe we can find reliable distances,which include stars with the following DR5 characteris-tics:
• AlgoConv = 1 or SNR < 20,
RAVE DR5 17
Fig. 20.— Comparison between high-resolution elemental abun-dances from Soubiran & Girard (2005) (grey) and Ruchti et al.(2011) (black) compared to the derived elemental abundances fromthe RAVE chemical pipeline. The input stellar parameters for theRAVE chemical pipeline are those presented here (see §5).
Fig. 21.— A comparison between the literature relative elemen-tal abundance and residual abundances (RAVE-minus-literature).The stellar parameters and symbols used are as in Figure 20.
• Teff < 4000 K and log g > 3.5 (i.e. cool dwarfs),and
• Teff > 7400 K and [M/H] < −1.2.
The distance pipeline applies the simple Bayesian
Fig. 22.— A comparison between the [Fe/H] derived with thechemical pipeline to the calibrated [M/H] values from the stellarparameter pipeline. Also shown is the [Fe/H] distribution fromDR4.
statement
P (model|data) =P (data|model)P (model)
P (data),
where in our case “data” refers to the inputs describedabove for a single stars, and “model” comprises a starof specified initial mass M, age τ , metallicity [M/H] ,and location, observed through a specified line-of-sightextinction. P (data|model) is determined assuming un-correlated Gaussian uncertainties on all inputs, and us-ing isochrones to find the values of the stellar param-eters and absolute magnitudes of the model star. Theuncertainties of the stellar parameters are assumed to bethe quadratic sum of the quoted internal uncertaintiesand the external uncertainties calculated from stars withSNR > 40 (Table 4). P (model) is our prior, and P (data)is a normalisation which we can safely ignore.
The method we use to derive the distances for DR5is nearly the same as that used by DR4, and we re-fer readers to Binney et al. (2014) for details. We ap-ply the same priors on stellar location, age, metallicity,and initial mass, and on the line-of-sight extinction tothe stars. These are all described in §2 of Binney et al.(2014). The isochrone set that we use has been updated,to the PARSEC v1.1 set (Bressan et al 2012), which pro-vide values for 2MASS J , H and Ks magnitudes, so weno longer need to obtain 2MASS magnitudes by trans-forming Johnston-Cousins-Glass magnitudes, as we didwhen calculating the distances for DR4. Whereas theisochrones used by Binney et al. (2014) went no lowerin metallicity than Z = 0.00220 ([M/H] = −0.914),the new isochrones extend to Z = 0.00010 ([M/H] =−2.207) – see Table 9. The new isochrones have aclear impact on distances to stars at lower metallici-ties (Figure 23). Experiments on a subset of stars using
18 Kunder et al.
TABLE 6Metallicities of the PARSEC v1.1 isochrones used, takingZ� = 0.0152 and applying scaled solar composition, with
isochrones more closely spaced in Z found that the in-clusion of more isochrones has negligible impact on thederived properties of the stars.
Fig. 23.— Difference between the derived distance modulus foundin DR5 and DR4, as a function of DR5 [M/H] . While thereis some scatter at all metallicities, the clearest trend is towardshigher distances in DR5 at [M/H] . −1. This is due to the ab-sence of isochrones with [M/H] < −0.9 in the set used to derivedistances for DR4. The solid black line indicates the median inbins of 0.03 dex in [M/H], and the dotted lines indicate the 1σequivalent range.
The distance pipeline determines a full pdf,P (model|data), for all the parameters used to de-scribe the stars and their positions. We characterisethis pdf in terms of expectation values and formaluncertainties for [M/H] , log10(τ), initial mass, andlog10(AV ) (marginalising over all other properties). Forthe distance we provide several characterisations of thepdf: expectation values and formal uncertainties for thedistance itself (s), for the distance modulus (µ) and forthe parallax $. As pointed out by Binney et al. (2014),it is inevitable that the expectation values (denoted
as e.g., 〈s〉) are such that 〈s〉 > s〈µ〉 > 1/ 〈$〉 (wherelog10 s〈µ〉 = 1 + 〈µ〉 /5 and s is in pc). In additionwe provide multi-Gaussian fits to the pdfs in distancemodulus.
As shown in Binney et al. (2014), the pdfs in distanceare not always well represented by an expectation valueand uncertainty (which are conventionally interpretedas the mean and dispersion of a Gaussian distribution).A number of the pdfs are double or even triple peaked(typically because it can not be definitively determinedwhether the star is a dwarf or a giant), and approximat-ing this as single Gaussian is extremely misleading. Themulti-Gaussian fits to the pdfs in µ provide a compactrepresentation of the pdf, and can be written as
P (µ) =
N∑k=1
fk√2πσ2
k
exp
(− (µ− µk)2
2σ2k
), (5)
where the number of components N , the meansµk, weights fk, and dispersions σk are deter-mined by the pipeline. DR5 gives these values asnumber of Gaussians fit (for N), and for k = 1, 2, 3as mean k, sig k and frac k (corresponding to µk, σk,and fk respectively).
To determine whether a distance pdf is well representedby a given multi-Gaussian representation in µ we takebins in distance modulus of width wi = 0.2, which con-tain a fraction pi of the total probability taken from thecomputed pdf and a fraction Pi from the Gaussian rep-resentation, and compute the goodness-of-fit statistic
F =∑i
(piwi− Piwi
)2
σwi, (6)
where the weighted dispersion
σ2 ≡∑k=1,N
fkσ2k
is a measure of the overall width of the pdf. Our strategyis to represent the pdf with as few Gaussian componentsas possible, but if the value of F is greater than a thresh-old value (Ft = 0.04), or the dispersion associated withthe model differs by more than 20 per cent from thatof the complete pdf, then we conclude that the repre-sentation is in not adequate, and add another Gaussiancomponent to the representation (to a maximum of 3components). For around 45 per cent of the stars, a sin-gle Gaussian component proves adequate, while around51 per cent are fitted with two Gaussians, and only 4per cent require a third component. The value of F isprovided in the database as CHISQ Binney and we alsoinclude a flag (denoted FitFLAG Binney) which is non-zero if the dispersion of the fitted model differs by morethan 20 per cent from that of the computed pdf. Typi-cally the problems flagged are rather minor (as shown inFig. 3 of Binney et al. 2014).
Using the derived distance moduli and extinctions, itis simple to plot an absolute colour-magnitude diagram,from which we can check that the pipeline producesbroadly sensible results. It was inspection of this plotwhich led us to filter out dwarfs with Teff ≤ 4000 K andhot, metal poor stars, because they fell in implausible
RAVE DR5 19
regions of the diagram. We show this plot, constructedfrom the filtered data, in Figure 24.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2(J −Ks)0
−6
−4
−2
0
2
4
6
8
MJ
101
102
103
numberdensity
Fig. 24.— Absolute colour magnitude diagram, derived from thepipeline outputs, for all stars in the filtered distance catalogue.The values are found from the values in the catalogue as MJ =J−〈µ〉−0.282× AV and (J−Ks)abs = J−Ks−0.17× AV where
log10 AV = 〈log10 AV 〉 Shading indicates the number of stars inbins of width 0.01 mag in (J −Ks)0 and 0.1 mag in MJ . If thereare less than 5 stars in a bin, they are represented as points.
To test the output from the pipeline, we compare thederived parallaxes (and uncertainties) with those foundby Hipparcos (van Leeuwen 2007) for the ∼5 000 starscommon to the two catalogues. It is important to com-pare parallax with parallax, because, as noted before,〈$〉 > 1/ 〈s〉, so this is the only fair test. We thereforeconsider the statistic ∆, which we define as
∆ =〈$DR5〉 −$H√σ2$,DR5 + σ2
$,H
, (7)
where $H is the quoted Hipparcos parallax, and σ$,H thequoted uncertainty, while $DR5 and σ$,DR5 are the samequantities from the distance pipeline. Ideally, ∆ wouldhave a mean value of zero and a dispersion of unity.
In Figure 25 we plot a histogram of the values of ∆for these stars separated into giants (log g ≤ 3.5), cooldwarfs (log g > 3.5 and Teff ≤ 5500K), and hot dwarfs(log g > 3.5 and Teff > 5500 K), as well as for thesubset of giants that we associate with the red clump(1.7 < log g < 2.4 and 0.55 < J − Ks < 0.8). Wehave ‘sigma clipped’ the values, such that none of the(very few) stars with |∆| > 4 contribute to the statistics.The results are all pleasingly close to having zero meanand dispersion of unity, especially the giants. We tendto slightly overestimate the parallaxes of the hot dwarfs,and slightly underestimate those of the cool dwarf (corre-sponding to underestimated distances to the hot dwarfsand overestimated distances to the cool dwarfs. Thisrepresents an improvement over the comparable figuresfor DR4, except for a very slightly worse mean value forthe cool dwarfs (and even for these stars, there is an im-provement in that the dispersion is now closer to unity).
With the release of the TGAS data it becomes possibleto construct a figure like Figure 25 using the majority ofRAVE stars. Thus much more rigorous checks of ourdistance (parallax) estimates are now possible. Whenthat has been done and and systematics calibrated out,
we will be able to provide distances to all stars that aremore accurate than those based on either DR5 or TGASalone, by feeding the TGAS data, including parallaxes,into the distance pipeline.
Fig. 25.— A comparison of the parallax estimates found by theDR5 pipeline and those found by Hipparcos. The statistic ∆ isdefined in equation 7, and ideally has a mean of zero and dispesionof unity. The points are a histogram of ∆, with error bars given
by the expected√N Poisson noise in each bin. The solid line is a
Gaussian with the desired mean and dispersion. Stars are dividedinto ‘hot dwarfs’ (Teff > 5500K and log g > 3.5), ‘cold dwarfs’(Teff < 5500K and log g > 3.5), and ‘giants’ (log g > 3.5), aslabelled. The ‘red clump’ stars are a subset of the giants, with1.7 < log g < 2.4 and 0.55 < J −Ks < 0.8.
Where stars have been observed more than once byRAVE, we recommended using the distance (and otherproperties) obtained from the spectrum with the highestsignal to noise ratio. However, DR5 reports distancesfrom each spectrum.
10. INFRARED FLUX METHOD TEMPERATURES
The Infrared Flux Method (IRFM) (Blackwell & Shal-lis 1977; Blackwell et al. 1979) is one of the most accu-rate techniques to derive stellar effective temperatures inan almost model independent way. The basic idea is tomeasure for each star its bolometric flux and a monochro-matic infrared flux. Their ratio is then compared to thatobtained for a surface at Teff , i.e., σTeff
4 divided by thetheoretical monochromatic flux. The latter quantity isrelatively easy to predict for spectral types earlier than∼ M0, because the near infrared region is dominated bythe continuum, and the monochromatic flux is propor-tional to Teff (Rayleigh-Jeans regime), so dependencieson other stellar parameters (such as [Fe/H] and log g) andmodel atmospheres are minimized (as extensively testedin the literature, e.g., Alonso et al. 1996; Casagrandeet al. 2006). The method thus ultimately depends on aproper derivation of stellar fluxes, from which Teff canthen be derived. Here we adopt an updated version
20 Kunder et al.
of the IRFM implementation described in Casagrandeet al. (2006) and Casagrande et al. (2010) which hasbeen validated against interferometric angular diameters(Casagrande et al. 2014) and combines APASS BV g′r′i′
together with 2MASS JHKs to recover bolometric andinfrared flux of each star. The flux outside photometricbands (i.e. the bolometric correction) is derived using atheoretical model flux at a given Teff , [Fe/H], log g. Aniterative procedure in Teff is adopted to cope with themildly model dependent nature of the bolometric cor-rection and of the theoretical surface infrared monochro-matic flux. For each star, we interpolate over a grid ofsynthetic model fluxes, starting with an initial estimateof the stellar effective temperature and fixing [Fe/H] andlog g to the RAVE values, until convergence is reachedwithin 1 K in effective temperature.
In a photometric method such as the IRFM, redden-ing can have a non-negligible impact, and must be cor-rected for. For each target RAVE provides an estimateof E(B − V ) from Schlegel et al. (1998). These val-ues however are integrated over the line of sight, andin the literature there are several indications suggestingthat reddening from this map is overestimated, particu-larly in regions of high extinction (e.g. Arce & Goodman1999; Schlafly & Finkbeiner 2011). To mitigate this ef-fect, we recalibrate the Schlegel et al. (1998) map usingthe intrinsic colour of clump stars, identified as num-ber overdensities in colour distribution (and thus inde-pendently of the RAVE spectroscopic parameters). Wetake the 2MASS stellar catalogue, tessellate the sky withboxes of 10 × 10 degrees, and select stars in the mag-nitude range of RAVE. Within each box we can easilyidentify the overdensity due to clump stars, whose posi-tion in J − Ks colour is little affected by their age andmetallicity. Thus, despite the presence of metallicity andage gradients across the Galaxy (e.g. Boeche et al. 2014;Casagrande et al. 2016), we can regard the average J−Ks
colour of clump stars as a standard crayon. We take thesample of clump stars from Casagrande et al. (2014), forwhich reddening is well constrained, and use their me-dian unreddened (J−Ks)0 against the median measuredat each n−tessellation, to derive a value of reddening ateach location E(B − V )n = (J −Ks)n − (J −Ks)0. Wethen compare these values of reddening with the medianones obtained using the Schlegel et al. (1998) map overthe same tessellation. The difference between the red-dening values we infer and those from the Schlegel et al.(1998) map is well fitted as function of log(b) up to ' 40◦
from the Galactic plane. We use this fit to rescale theE(B − V ) from the Schlegel et al. (1998) map, thus cor-recting for its tendency to overestimate reddening, whileat the same time keeping its superior spatial resolution(∼ arcmin). For |b| & 40◦ there is little extinction, andit is well described by the Schlegel et al. (1998) map.
Temperatures from the IRFM, Teff,IRFM, are criticalfor the RAVE stars that were released in DR1. This isbecause during the first year of RAVE operations, noblocking filter was used to isolate the spectral range re-quired and as a result, the spectra collected were con-taminated by the second order. Hence, although the de-termination of radial velocities is still straight-forward,stellar parameters cannot be reliably determined fromthe spectra. IRFM temperatures are further especiallyvaluable for low SNR stars, which have more uncertain
stellar parameters, and metal-poor stars, where modelatmospheres are not yet fully tested and NLTE effectsplay a role (Aoki et al. 2006).
Figure 26 shows a comparison between the DR5 tem-peratures and those from the IRFM. Stars with tem-peratures cooler than Teff ∼5300 K show a good agree-ment between Teff,IRFM and Teff,DR5, with a scatter of∼150 K, which is the typical uncertainty of the RAVEtemperatures. Stars hotter than Teff 5300 K have an off-set in temperature, in the sense that Teff,IRFM is approx-imately 350 K warmer than Teff,DR5 at 5500 K. As thetemperature increases, the temperature offset decreasesto ∼100 K at 7000 K. This offset is consistent to what isseen in comparison between RAVE and other datasets(see e.g., Table 4 and Figures 14 and 18) thus suggestingthat the offset is unlikely to stem from the IRFM only.From Table 4 it is evident that the IRFM temperaturesfor especially the cool dwarfs are in better agreementwith high-resolution studies than the spectroscopic DR5temperatures.
Nevertheless, we remark that various reasons mightbe responsible for this trend: first, the rescaling of theSchlegel et al. (1998) map is based on clump stars, so itis not surprising that best agreement is found for giantstars. Turn-off and main sequence stars are on aver-age closer than intrinsically brighter giants, so despiteof the rescaling, E(B − V ) will on average still be over-estimated implying hotter effective temperatures in theIRFM. Also, at the hottest Teff the contribution of opti-cal photometry becomes increasingly important so doesproper control over the standardization, and absolute cal-ibration of the APASS photometry.
Fig. 26.— A comparison between the temperatures derived fromthe IRFM with those in DR5. Only stars with SNR > 50 andAlgoConv = 0 are shown. The giants, with Teff < 5500, havetemperatures that agree well with IRFM temperatures, but thereis a systematic offset to the main-sequence/turn-off stars. Thepixelisation, an artifact of the RAVE stellar parameter pipeline, isapparent as vertical bands.
RAVE DR5 21
11. ASTEROSEISMICALLY CALIBRATED RED GIANTCATALOG
Asteroseismic data provide a very accurate way to de-termine surface gravities of red giant stars (e.g., Stelloet al. 2008; Mosser et al. 2010; Bedding et al. 2011).When solar-like pulsations in red giants can be detected,the pulsation frequencies, such as the average large fre-quency separation, 〈∆ν〉, and the frequency of maximumoscillation power, νmax, can be used to obtain the den-sity and surface gravity of the star. Exquisite datasetswith which to search for oscillations have arisen in thespace-based missions CoRoT and Kepler, and it has al-ready been shown that their long dataset in time givethe frequency resolution needed to extract accurate andprecise estimates of the basic parameters of individualmodes covering several radial orders, such as frequencies,frequency splittings, amplitudes, and damping rates.
Pulsations in red giants have significantly longer peri-ods and larger amplitudes than solar-type stars, so os-cillations may be detected in fainter (more numerous)targets observed with long cadence. Further, the seis-mic log g values are almost fully independent of the in-put physics in the stellar evolution models that are used(e.g., Gai et al. 2011). This makes the use of red gi-ants with asteroseismic log g values ideal to check andcalibrate surface gravities that are obtained spectroscop-ically.
V16 present 72 RAVE stars with solar-like oscillationsdetected by the K2 mission. For the colour interval0.50 < J −Ks < 0.85, which was shown to be appropri-ate for selecting red giant stars in the Kepler field, theycalibrate the spectroscopic gravities present in the RAVEcatalogue against the seismic gravities. This calibrationis a function only of RAVE log gp and does not dependon photometric colour, metallicity or SNR. Whereas theSchlegel et al. (1998) reddening maps indicate that the(J−K) reddening in the K2 field is negligible, RAVE ob-serves many reddened stars. Therefore, the dereddenedcolour range is kept unchanged, and DR5 includes log gcalibrated according to V16 only when the dereddenedcolour (J −Ks)0 lies in the interval (0.50, 0.85).
There are 207 050 RAVE stars that fall within 0.50 <(J − Ks)0 < 0.85; 200 524 of these have a RAVE log g,enabling the application of an asteroseismic calibration.Because of the RAVE log g uncertainties, misclassifica-tions of red giants can occur, i.e., red giants can havegravities that indicate they are dwarfs or supergiantstars. Therefore each asteroseismically calibrated RAVEstar has a flag, Flag005, indicating if the seismically cal-ibrated log g, log gsc, and the DR5 log gp are within 0.5dex of each other. The flag Flag M specifies if all 20 clas-sification flags of Matijevic et al. (2012) point to the starbeing “normal”, which likely means the star is indeed atypical red giant. Therefore, stars with both Flag005=0and Flag M=1 point to an especially desirable sample ofasteroseismically calibrated giants.
Figure 27 shows log gsc compared to the gravities fromthe RAVE stars observed by the APOGEE, LAMOSTand Gaia-ESO surveys, as well as the RAVE cluster andexternal stars (from §7). The scatter about these 856stars is σ log gsc = 0.37 dex. This is a 30% smaller scat-ter than when using the RAVE DR5 log g from the stel-lar parameter pipeline. Tables 4 and 5 summarise how
Fig. 27.— The difference in the asteroseismically calibrated grav-ities, log gsc and that from various sources in the literature as afunction of log gsc. Only stars with Flag M=1 are shown.
log gsc compares with external results.Combining the log gsc with the temperatures from the
IRFM, the RAVE chemical pipeline (§8) and distancepipeline(§9) is re-run. Neither the uncertainty in chemi-cal pipeline nor the uncertainty in distance changes whenusing the more accurate log gsc and IRFM temperaturesas an input, as seen in Figure 28. The seismically cal-ibrated giants are presented in a separate table, alongwith the elemental abundances and distances derived.
12. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DR4 AND DR5
RAVE DR5 differs from DR4 in a number of ways, aslisted below.
• The DR5 RAVE sample is larger than DR4 by∼30 000 stars. This is due in part to the inclusion ofthe 2013 data, but mainly due to the improvementof the DR5 reduction pipeline, which now processesdata on a fibre-by-fibre basis instead of a field-by-field basis.
• The DR1 data are now ready to be ingestedthrough the same reduction pipeline, improving thehomogeneity of the DR5 radial velocities comparedto those in DR4.
• The error spectra now available for all RAVE starshave yielded more accurate uncertainties on theRAVE radial velocities and stellar parameters, es-pecially for low-SNR and hot stars. We plan toextend the error spectra analysis to also the thechemical elements in a future release.
• A new Teff , log g and [M/H] calibration has beenapplied, increasing the accuracy of the stellarparameters by up to 15%. This calibration isemployed mainly because there are now RAVEstars with log g values determined asteroseismically
22 Kunder et al.
Fig. 28.— A comparison of the elemental abundances from theRAVE chemical pipeline (top) and parallax estimates found fromthe DR5 distance pipeline but using log gsc and IRFM tempera-tures as an input. Only stars with Flag M=1 are considered.
(V16). The metal-rich tail of the RAVE stars hasalso been re-investigated, by increasing the numberof calibration stars in the super-solar metallicityregime. Hence the updated DR5 stellar parame-ters mainly improve the gravities of the giants andthe super-solar metallicity stars. Figure 29 showshow the atmospheric parameters in DR5 differ fromthose in DR4.
• A sample of RAVE giants is provided for whichthe V16 asteroseismic calibration can be applied.These log g parameters are the most accurate, butcan only be applied to stars that fall within 0.50 <
Fig. 29.— The difference in the stellar parameters Teff (bottom),log g (middle) and [M/H] (top) between RAVE DR4 and DR5.Only stars with SNR > 40 and AlgoConv = 0 are shown.
(J −KS)0 < 0.85.
• Although the chemical pipeline is the same as theone employed in DR4, the stellar parameters fedinto this pipeline are better calibrated, and hencethe resulting elemental abundances are slightlychanged. The [Fe/H] and [X/Fe] abundances areshifted by ∼ 0.1 dex to be more metal-rich than inDR4.
• The distance pipeline has been improved, especiallyfor the metal-poor stars. In DR5, we list individ-ual distances per spectrum and not per star, forstars that have been observed more than once (in-dicated by the Rep Flag), we recommend use of thedistance from the spectrum with the highest SNR.
• For the first time, photometry from APASS andWISE can be matched with RAVE stars. Thisdevelopment opens new ways to do science withthe database. For example, Figure 30 shows theRAVE giants in a 2MASS-WISE colour-colour plot.The most metal-poor giants observed by RAVE([Fe/H] < −2 dex) are over-plotted in red. Thesemetal-poor stars have been identified by projectingall RAVE spectra on a low-dimensional manifoldusing the t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Em-bedding (t-SNE) and then re-analysing the metal-licity, via the CaT lines, of all RAVE stars in themanifold that is mostly populated by very metal-poor stars (Matijevic et al. 2016, in prep.). It isevident that they occupy a distinct WISE colourrange. The comprehensive RAVE dataset may beused as a test bed to define cuts in colour spaceto select metal-poor candidates, which can then beapplied to fainter samples than RAVE probed orregions RAVE has not surveyed (e.g., Schlaufman
RAVE DR5 23
Fig. 30.— Colour-colour diagram of the RAVE giants, with themost metal-poor RAVE stars over-plotted in red. RAVE can beused to refine criteria and quantify likelihood to photometicallyselect metal-poor stars for spectroscopic follow-up.
& Casey 2014).
• The inclusion of APASS photometry also allows forthe determination of IRFM temperatures, whichare provided for more than 95% of the RAVE sam-ple.
13. CONCLUSIONS
The RAVE data release five presents radial velocitiesfor 457 589 individual stars in the brightness range of9 < I < 12 mag, obtained from spectra with a resolutionof 7 500 covering the CaT regime. The typical SNR ofa RAVE star is 40 and the typical uncertainty in radialvelocity is < 2 km s−1. Stellar parameters are derivedfrom the DR4 stellar parameter pipeline, based on thealgorithms of MATISSE and DEGAS, but an updatedcalibration improves the accuracy of the DR5 stellar pa-rameters by up to 15%. The uncertainties in Teff , log gand [M/H] are approximately 250 K, 0.4 dex and 0.2 dex,respectively, but vary with stellar population and SNR.An error spectrum has been computed for each observedspectrum, and then used to assess the uncertainties inthe radial velocities and stellar parameters.
Temperatures from the Infrared Flux Method are de-rived for > 95% of all RAVE stars, and for a sub-sampleof stars that can be calibrated asteroseismically (∼ 45%of the RAVE sample), the asteroseismically calibratedlog g is provided. As in Matijevic et al. (2012), bina-rity and morphological flags are given for each spectrum.Photometric information and proper motions are com-piled for each star,
The abundances of Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Mg and Ni are pro-vided for approximately 2/3 of the RAVE stars. Theseare generally good to ∼ 0.2 dex, but their accuracy varieswith SNR and, for some elements, also of the stellar pop-ulation. Distances, ages, masses and the interstellar ex-tinctions are computed using the methods presented inBinney et al. (2014), but upgraded, especially for themore metal-poor stars.
For 80% of the stars in the RAVE volume, space veloci-ties can be derived to better than 20 km s−1 by combiningDR5 distances, radial velocities and the UCAC4 propermotions lister in DR5. The astrometry from the firstGaia data release has the potential to bring the uncer-tainties in space velocities down by a factor of 4 for theTGAS stars. Further, because Gaia astrometry providescompletely new constraints on distances and tangentialvelocities, we can now use the RAVE pipelines to deriveyet more accurate stellar parameters and distances forthe TGAS stars, and even improve the parameters anddistances of RAVE stars that are not in TGAS.
Funding for RAVE has been provided by: the Aus-tralian Astronomical Observatory; the Leibniz-Institutfuer Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP); the Australian Na-tional University; the Australian Research Council; theFrench National Research Agency; the German ResearchFoundation (SPP 1177 and SFB 881); the European Re-search Council (ERC-StG 240271 Galactica); the Isti-tuto Nazionale di Astrofisica at Padova; The Johns Hop-kins University; the National Science Foundation of theUSA (AST-0908326); the W. M. Keck foundation; theMacquarie University; the Netherlands Research Schoolfor Astronomy; the Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council of Canada; the Slovenian ResearchAgency; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Sci-ence & Technology Facilities Council of the UK; Opticon;Strasbourg Observatory; and the Universities of Gronin-gen, Heidelberg and Sydney. Based on data productsfrom observations made with ESO Telescopes at the LaSilla Paranal Observatory under programme ID 188.B-3002.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX BOOKKEEPING
In total, there are 2505 RAVE DR4 stars that are not in this data release. These fall into five categories:
1. Doubled field – identical field was published twice under a different name
20060123 0456m20 is doubled with 20060126 0456m20
20060123 0456m20 is removed
2. Renamed fields – fields that were renamed
20060627 0003m13 is renamed 20060629 0003m13
24 Kunder et al.
20070207 0734m34 is renamed 20070918 0734m34
3. Incorrect FITS headers – coordinates in header do not appear to be correct, so the proper stars that wereobserved can not be identified; these fields were removed
20050814 2314m31
20060629 0003m13
4. Poor quality fields that were released in DR4 20110705 2028m00b
20091201 0206m84
5. DR4 stars with SNR < 10, spectra of too poor quality to process
We are left with 296 DR4 stars with SNR > 10 that were not able to be processed with SPARV.
APPENDIX MATERIAL
The contents of the individual columns of the main DR5 catalog are specified in Table 7, and the contents ofthe individual columns of the asteroseismically calibrated red giant catalog are specified in Table 8. The catalog isaccessible online at http://www.rave-survey.org and via the CDS VizieR service.
The contents of the individual columns of the asteroseismically calibrated giant sample in the Fifth Data Releasecatalog are specified in Table 8. The catalog is accessible online at http://www.rave-survey.org and via the CDSVizieR service.
1 char(32) - N RAVE OBS ID Target designation2 char(18) - N HEALPix Hierarchical Equal-Area iso-Latitude Pixelisation value (Note 1)3 char(18) - N RAVEID RAVE target designation4 double deg N RAdeg Right ascension5 double deg N DEdeg Declination6 double deg N Glon Galactic longitude7 double deg N Glat Galactic latitude8 float km/s N HRV Heliocentric radial velocity9 float km/s N eHRV HRV error10 float km/s N StdDev HRV Standard deviation in HRV from 10 resampled spectra11 float km/s N MAD HRV Median absolute deviation in HRV from 10 resampled spectra12 float Y STN SPARV Signal-to-noise ratio calculated by SPARV (Note 2)13 float - Y SNR K Signal to Noise value (Note 2)14 float K Y Teff K Effective temperature (Note 2)15 float K Y Teff N K Calibrated effective temperature (Note 2)16 float K Y eTeff K Error Effective temperature (Note 2)17 float K N StdDev Teff K Standard deviation in Teff K from 10 resampled spectra18 float K N MAD Teff K Median absolute deviation in Teff K from 10 resampled spectra19 float dex Y logg K Log gravity (Note 2)20 float dex Y logg N K Calibrated log gravity (Note 2)21 float dex Y elogg K Error Log gravity (Note 2)22 float dex N StdDev logg K Standard deviation in logg K from 10 resampled spectra23 float dex N MAD logg K Median absolute deviation in logg K from 10 resampled spectra24 float dex Y Met K Metallicity [m/H](Note 2)25 float dex Y Met N K Calibrated Metallicity [m/H](Note 2)26 float dex Y eMet K ErrorMetallicity [m/H] (Note 2)27 float dex N StdDev Met K Standard deviation in Met K from 10 resampled spectra28 float dex N MAD Met K Median absolute deviation in Met K from 10 resampled spectra29 float - Y CHISQ K χ2 of the Stellar Parameter Pipeline (Note 2)30 float - Y Algo Conv K Quality Flag for Stellar Parameter pipeline [0..4] (Note 2, Note 4)31 float K Y Teff IR Temperature from infrared flux method32 float K Y eTeff IR Internal error on Teff IR33 char - N IR direct infrared flux method flag (Note 5)34 float dex Y Mg Abundance of Mg [Mg/H]35 int - Y Mg N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance36 float dex Y Al Abundance of Al [Al/H]37 int - Y Al N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance38 float dex Y Si Abundance of Si [Si/H]39 int - Y Si N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance40 float dex Y Ti Abundance of Ti [Ti/H]41 int - Y Ti N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance42 float dex Y Fe Abundance of Fe [Fe/H]43 int - Y Fe N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance44 float dex Y Ni Abundance of Ni [Ni/H]45 int - Y Ni N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance46 float dex Y Alpha c Alpha-enhancement from chemical pipeline (Note 2)47 float - Y CHISQ c χ2 of the chemical pipeline (Note 2)48 float - Y frac c Fraction of spectrum used for calculation of abundances (Note 2)49 float mag Y AV Schlegel Total Extinction in V-band from Schlegel et al. (1998)50 float kpc Y distance Spectrophotometric Distance (Binney et al. 2014)51 float kpc Y e distance Error on Distance (Binney et al. 2014)52 float mag Y log Av Log Av Extinction (Binney et al. 2014)53 float mag Y elog Av Error on log Av (Binney et al. 2014)54 float mas Y parallax Spectrophotometric parallax (Binney et al. 2014)55 float mas Y e parallax Error on parallax (Binney et al. 2014)56 float mag Y DistanceModulus Binney Distance modulus (Binney et al. 2014)57 float mag Y eDistanceModulus Binney Distance modulus (Binney et al. 2014)58 float - Y Fit QUALITY Binney given by symbol ”F” in eq 15 of Binney et al. (2014)59 float - Y FitFLAG Binney See final paragraph §3 of Binney et al. (2014)60 float - Y N Gauss fit Number of components required for multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit61 int - Y Gauss mean 1 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 562 float - Y Gauss sigma 1 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 563 float - Y Gauss frac 1 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 564 float - Y Gauss mean 2 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 565 float - Y Gauss sigma 2 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 566 float - Y Gauss frac 2 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 567 float - Y Gauss mean 3 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 5
26 Kunder et al.
TABLE 7Catalogue description (continued)
Col Format Units NULL Label Explanations
68 float - Y Gauss sigma 3 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 569 float - Y Gauss frac 3 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 570 char(2) - Y c1 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)71 char(2) - Y c2 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)72 char(2) - Y c3 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)73 char(2) - Y c4 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)74 char(2) - Y c5 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)75 char(2) - Y c6 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)76 char(2) - Y c7 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)77 char(2) - Y c8 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)78 char(2) - Y c9 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)79 char(2) - Y c10 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)80 char(2) - Y c11 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)81 char(2) - Y c12 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)82 char(2) - Y c13 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)83 char(2) - Y c14 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)84 char(2) - Y c15 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)85 char(2) - Y c16 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)86 char(2) - Y c17 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)87 char(2) - Y c18 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)88 char(2) - Y c19 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)89 char(2) - Y c20 n.th minimum distance (Note 6)90 int dex N Rep Flag 0: single observation, 1: more than one observation91 int dex N CluStar Flag 0: not a targeted cluster observation, 1: targeted cluster observation92 int dex N FootPrint Flag 0: in RAVE selection function footprint, 1: outside footprint93 char dex Y ID TGAS source TGAS Target designation94 float deg Y RA TGAS TGAS Right ascension (J2015)95 float deg Y DE TGAS TGAS Declination (J20196 float mas/yr Y pmRA TGAS Proper motion RA from TGAS97 float mas/y Y pmRA error TGAS standard error of proper motion in RA from TGAS98 float mas/yr Y pmDE TGAS Proper motion in DE from TGAS99 float mas/yr Y pmDE error TGAS standard error of proper motion in DE from TGAS100 float mas Y parallax TGAS parallax from TGAS101 float mas Y parallax error TGAS standard error of parallax from TGAS102 float mag Y phot g mean mag TGAS G-band mean magnitude from TGAS103 float mas/yr Y phot g mean flux TGAS G-band mean flux from TGAS104 float mas/yr Y phot g mean flux error TGAS Error on G-band mean flux from TGAS105 char dex Y ID Hipparcos Hipparcos Target designation106 char(16) - Y ID TYCHO2 TYCHO2 Target designation107 float arcsec Y Dist TYCHO2 Center distance to target catalog108 char(2) - Y MatchFlag TYCHO2 Crossmatch quality flag (Note 6)109 float mag Y BTmag TYCHO2 BT magnitude from TYCHO2110 float mag Y eBTmag TYCHO2 error on BT mag from TYCHO2111 float mag Y VTmag TYCHO2 VT magnitude from TYCHO2112 float mag Y eVTmag TYCHO2 error VT magnitude from TYCHO2113 float mas/yr Y pmRA TYCHO2 Proper motion RA from TYCHO2114 float mas/yr Y epmRA TYCHO2 error Proper motion RA from TYCHO2115 float mas/yr Y pmDE TYCHO2 Proper motion DE from TYCHO2116 float mas/yr Y epmDE TYCHO2 error Proper motion DE from TYCHO2117 char(16) - Y ID UCAC4 UCAC4 Target designation118 float arcsec Y Dist UCAC4 Center distance to target catalog119 char(2) - Y MatchFlag UCAC4 Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)120 float mas/yr Y pmRA UCAC4 Proper motion RA from UCAC4121 float mas/yr Y epmRA UCAC4 error Proper motion RA from UCAC4122 float mas/yr Y pmDE UCAC4 Proper motion DE from UCAC4123 float mas/yr Y epmDE UCAC4 error Proper motion DE from UCAC4124 char(16) - Y ID PPMXL PPMXL Target designation125 float arcsec Y Dist PPMXL Center distance to target catalog126 char(2) - Y MatchFlag PPMXL Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)127 float mas/yr Y pmRA PPMXL Proper motion RA from PPMXL128 float mas/yr Y epmRA PPMXL error Proper motion RA from PPMXL129 float mas/yr Y pmDE PPMXL Proper motion DE from PPMXL130 float mas/yr Y epmDE PPMXL error Proper motion DE from PPMXL131 char(16) - Y ID 2MASS 2MASS Target designation132 float arcsec Y Dist 2MASS Center distance to target catalog
RAVE DR5 27
TABLE 7Catalogue description (continued)
Col Format Units NULL Label Explanations
133 char(2) - Y MatchFlag 2MASS Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)134 double mag Y Jmag 2MASS J magnitude135 double mag Y eJmag 2MASS Error J magnitude136 double mag Y Hmag 2MASS H magnitude137 double mag Y eHmag 2MASS Error H magnitude138 double mag Y Kmag 2MASS K magnitude139 double mag Y eKmag 2MASS Error K magnitude140 char(16) - Y ID ALLWISE WISE Target designation141 double arcsec Y Dist ALLWISE Centre distance to target catalog142 char(2) - Y MatchFlag ALLWISE Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)143 double mag Y W1mag ALLWISE W1 magnitude144 double mag Y eW1mag ALLWISE Error W1 magnitude145 double mag Y W2mag ALLWISE W2 magnitude146 double mag Y eW2mag ALLWISE Error W2 magnitude147 double mag Y W3mag ALLWISE W3 magnitude148 double mag Y eW3mag ALLWISE Error W3 magnitude149 double mag Y W4mag ALLWISE W4 magnitude150 double mag Y eW4mag ALLWISE Error W4 magnitude151 char(4) - Y cc flags ALLWISE prioritized artifacts affecting the source in each band152 int - Y ext flg ALLWISE probability source morphology is not consistent with single PSF153 char(4) - Y var flg ALLWISE probability that flux varied in any band greater than amount expected from unc.s154 char(4) mag Y ph qual ALLWISE photometric quality of each band (A=highest, U=upper limit)155 double arcsec Y Dist APASSDR9 Centre distance to target catalog156 char(2) - Y MatchFlag APASSDR9 Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)157 double mag Y Bmag APASSDR9 B magnitude158 double mag Y eBmag APASSDR9 error B magnitude159 double mag Y Bmag APASSDR9 V magnitude160 double mag Y eVmag APASSDR9 error V magnitude161 double mag Y gpmag APASSDR9 g′ magnitude162 double mag Y egpmag APASSDR9 error g′ magnitude163 double mag Y rmag APASSDR9 r′ magnitude164 double mag Y ermag APASSDR9 error r′ magnitude165 double mag Y umag APASSDR9 i′ magnitude166 double mag Y eimag APASSDR9 error i′ magnitude167 char(16) - Y ID DENIS DENIS Target designation168 double arcsec Y Dist DENIS Centre distance to target catalog169 char(2) - Y MatchFlag DENIS Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)170 double mag Y Imag DENIS I magnitude171 double mag Y eImag DENIS Error I magnitude172 double mag Y Jmag DENIS J magnitude173 double mag Y eJmag DENIS Error J magnitude174 double mag Y Kmag DENIS K magnitude175 double mag Y eKmag DENIS Error K magnitude176 char(16) - Y ID USNOB1 USNOB1 Target designation177 double arcsec Y Dist USNOB1 Centre distance to target catalog178 char(2) - Y MatchFlag USNOB1 Crossmatch quality flag (Note 7)179 double mag Y B1mag USNOB1 B1 magnitude180 double mag Y R1mag USNOB1 R1 magnitude181 double mag Y B2mag USNOB1 B2 magnitude182 double mag Y R2mag USNOB1 R2 magnitude183 double mag Y Imag USNOB1 I magnitude184 float mas/yr Y pmRA USNOB1 Proper motion RA from USNOB1185 float mas/yr Y epmRA USNOB1 error Proper motion RA from USNOB1186 float mas/yr Y pmDE USNOB1 Proper motion DE from USNOB1187 float mas/yr Y epmDE USNOB1 error Proper motion DE from USNOB1188 char(10) - N Obsdate Observation date yyyymmdd189 char(14) - N FieldName Name of RAVE field (RA/DE)190 int - N FiberNumber Number of optical fiber [1,150]191 int - N PlateNumber Number of field plate [1..3]192 double day N MJD OBS Modfied Julian Date193 double - N LST start exposure start in Local Sidereal Time194 double - N LST end exposure end in Local Sidereal Time195 double - N UTC start exposure start in Coordinated Universal Time196 double - N UTC end exposure end in Coordinated Universal Time
28 Kunder et al.
TABLE 7Catalogue description (continued)
aNotes. (1): HEALPix values were computed using the resolution parameter Nside = 4096 (resolution index of 12) and the NESTED
numbering scheme. Any lower-resolution index HEALPix value can be computed from the given one by dividing it by 4(12 − n), wheren < 12 is the desired resolution index. (2): Originating from: K indicates values from Stellar Parameter Pipeline, N K indicates acalibrated value, c indicates values from Chemical Pipeline, SPARV indicates values of Radial Velocity Pipeline (used in DR3 also). (3):Flag value of the form FGSH, F being for the entire plate, G for the 50 fibres group to which the fibre belongs. S flags the zero-pointcorrection used: C for cubic and S for a constant shift. If H is set to * the fibre is close to a 15 fibre gap. For F and G the values can beA, B, C, D, or E A = dispersion around correction lower than 1km/s B = dispersion between 1 and 2km/s C = dispersion between 2 and3km/s D = dispersion larger than 3km/s E = less than 15 fibres available for the fit. (4): Flag of Stellar Parameter Pipeline 0 = Pipelineconverged. 1 = no convergence. 2 = MATISSE oscillates between two values and the mean has been performed. 3 = results of MATISSEat the boundaries or outside the grid and the DEGAS value has been adopted 4 = the metal-poor giants with SNR<20 have been re-run bydegas with a scale factor (ie, internal parameter of DEGAS) of 0.40 (5): Cross-identification flag as follows: IRFM Temperature derivedfrom infrared flux method CTRL Temperature computed via color-Teff relations NO No temperature derivation possible (6): MorphologicalFlag n.th minimum distance to base spectrum given by one of the types a,b,c,d,e,g,h,n,o,p,t,u,w (see Matijevic et al. 2012). (7): Cross-identification flag as follows: A = 1 association within 2 arcsec. B = 2 associations within 2 arcsec. C = More than 2 associations within2 arcsec. D = Nearest neighbour more than 2 arcsec. away. X = No association found (within 10 arcsec limit ).
TABLE 8Asteroseismically Calibrated Red Giant Catalog description
Col Format Units NULL Label Explanations
1 char(32) - N RAVE OBS ID Target designation2 float dex Y logg SC Log gravity calibrated asteroseismically (V16)3 float dex Y elogg SC error on logg MV (V16)4 int dex Y Flag050 Difference between logg MV and logg K is less than 0.5 dex. 1= true 0=false5 int dex Y Flag M Normal star, meaning c1 - c20 are all “n”. 1= true 0=false6 float dex Y Mg Abundance of Mg [Mg/H]7 int - Y Mg N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance8 float dex Y Al Abundance of Al [Al/H]9 int - Y Al N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance10 float dex Y Si Abundance of Si [Si/H]11 int - Y Si N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance12 float dex Y Ti Abundance of Ti [Ti/H]13 int - Y Ti N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance14 float dex Y Fe Abundance of Fe [Fe/H]15 int - Y Fe N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance16 float dex Y Ni Abundance of Ni [Ni/H]17 int - Y Ni N Number of used spectral lines for calculation of abundance18 float dex Y Alpha c Alpha-enhancement from chemical pipeline19 float - Y CHISQ c χ2 of the chemical pipeline20 float - Y frac c Fraction of spectrum used for calculation of abundances21 float mag Y AV Schlegel Total Extinction in V-band from Schlegel et al. (1998)22 float kpc Y distance Spectrophotometric Distance (Binney et al. 2014)23 float kpc Y e distance Error on Distance (Binney et al. 2014)24 float mag Y log Av Log Av Extinction (Binney et al. 2014)25 float mag Y elog Av Error on log Av (Binney et al. 2014)26 float mas Y parallax Spectrophotometric parallax (Binney et al. 2014)27 float mas Y e parallax Error on parallax (Binney et al. 2014)28 float mag Y DistanceModulus Binney Distance modulus (Binney et al. 2014)29 float mag Y eDistanceModulus Binney Distance modulus (Binney et al. 2014)30 float - Y Fit QUALITY Binney given by symbol ”F” in eq 15 of Binney et al. (2014)31 float - Y FitFLAG Binney See final paragraph §3 of Binney et al. (2014)32 float - Y N Gauss fit Number components required for multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit33 int - Y Gauss mean 1 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 534 float - Y Gauss sigma 1 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 535 float - Y Gauss frac 1 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 536 float - Y Gauss mean 2 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 537 float - Y Gauss sigma 2 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 538 float - Y Gauss frac 2 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 539 float - Y Gauss mean 3 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 540 float - Y Gauss sigma 3 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 541 float - Y Gauss frac 3 Property of multi-Gaussian distance modulus fit, see Section 9, eq. 5
RAVE DR5 29
REFERENCES
Adibekyan, V., Figueira, P., Santos, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, 44Alonso, A., Arribas, S., & Martinez-Roger, C. 1996, A&AS, 117,
227Alvarez, R. & Plez, B. 1998, A&A, 330, 1109Anguiano, B., Zucker, D. B., Scholz, R.-D. et al. 2015, MNRAS,
451, 1229Anguiano, B., De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. et al. 2016, MNRAS,
457, 2078Aoki, W., Ryan, S. G., Norris, J. E., et al. 2002, ApJ, 580, 1149Aoki, W., Frebel, A., Christlieb, N., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 897Arce, H. G., & Goodman, A. A. 1999, ApJ, 512, L135Bedding T. R. et al., 2011, Nature, 471, 608Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, A&A, 562, A71Bijaoui, A., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., & Ordenovic, C.
2012, StMet, 9, 55Bienayme, O., Famaey, B., Siebert, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, 92Binney, J., Burnett, B., Kordopatis, G., et al. 2014a, MNRAS,
437, 351Blackwell, D. E., & Shallis, M. J. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 177Blackwell, D. E., Shallis, M. J., & Selby, M. J. 1979, MNRAS,
188, 847Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Jofre, P. & Heiter, U. 2014,
A&A, 566, 98Boeche, C., Siebert, A., Williams, M., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 193Boeche, C., Siebert, A., Piffl, T., et al. 2013, A&A 559, 59Boeche, C., Siebert, A., Piffl, T., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A71Bragaglia, A., Sestito, P., Villanova, S., Carretta, E., Randich, S.
& Tosi, M. 2008, A&A, 480, 79Breddels, M. A., Smith, M. C., Helmi, A., et al., 2010, A&A, 511,
A90Bressan, A. , A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Salasnich, B., Dal Cero,
C., Rubele, S., Nanni, A.,Burnett, B., & Binney, J. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 339Burnett, B., Binney, J., Sharma, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A113Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G. & Tosi, M. 2014,
A&A, 422, 951Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., & Lucatello, S. 2009,
A&A, 505, 139Carrera, R., Pancino, E., Gallart, C., & del Pino, A. 2013,
MNRAS, 434, 1681Casagrande, L., Portinari, L., & Flynn, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 13Casagrande, L., Ramırez, I., Melendez, J., Bessell, M., &
Asplund, M. 2010, A&A, 512, A54Casagrande, L., Silva Aguirre, V., Stello, D., et al. 2014, ApJ,
787, 110Casagrande, L., Portinari, L., Glass, I. S., et al. 2014, MNRAS,
439, 2060Casagrande, L., Silva Aguirre, V., Schlesinger, K. J., et al. 2016,
MNRAS, 455, 987Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M. et al. 2004, A&A, 416, 1117Cordero, M. J., Pilachowski, C. A., Johnson, C. I., McDonald, I.,
Zijlstra, A. A. & Simmerer, J. 2014, 780, 94De Silva, G.M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J. et al. 2015,
MNRAS, 449, 2604Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142,
72ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP-1200Ford, A., Jeffries, R. D. & Smalley, B.2005, MNRAS, 364, 272Funayama, H., Itoh, Y., Oasa, Y., Toyota, E., Hashimoto, O. &
Mukai, T. 2009, PASJ, 61, 931Gai, N., Basu, S., Chaplin, W. J., & Elsworth, Y. 2011, ApJ, 730,
63Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Asplund, M., et al. 2012, The
Messenger, 147, 25Gratton, R. G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2000,
A&A, 354, 169Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161Gorski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., Wandelt, B. D., Hansen,
F. K., Reinecke, M., & Bartelmann, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Erriksson, K. et al. 2008, A&A,
486, 951Harris, W. E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487Hawkins, K., Kordopatis, G., Gilmore, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS,
447, 2046
Heiter, U., and Jofre, P., Gustafsson, B., Korn, A. J., Soubiran,C. & Thevenin, F. 2015, A&A, 582, 49
Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27Hollek, J. K., Frebel, A., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2011, ApJ, 742, 54Holtzman, J. A., Shetrone, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, AJ,
150, 148Ishigaki, M. N., Aoki, W., & Chiba, M. 2013, ApJ, 771, 67Jeffries, R.D., Jackson, R.J., Cottaar, M. et al. 2014, A&A, 563,
94Jofre, P., Heiter, U., Soubiran, C. et al. 2014, A&A, 564, 133Johnson, C.I. & Pilachowski, C.A. 2010, ApJ 722, 1373Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., Roser, S. &
Scholz, R.-D. 2013, A&A, 558, 53Koch, A. & McWilliam, A. 2008, AJ, 135, 1551Kordopatis, G., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., et al. 2011a,
A&A, 535, A106Kunder, A., Bono, G., Piffl, T., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, 30Kos, J., Zwitter, T. Wyse, R. et al. 2014, Sci, 345, 791Kordopatis, G., Gilmore, G., Steinmetz, M., et al. 2013a, AJ, 146,
134Kordopatis, G., Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.F.G., et al. 2013b,
MNRAS, 436, 3231Kordopatis, G. R. C., 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1410.4254Kordopatis, G., Binney, J., Gilmore, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS,
14Michalik, D., Lindegren, L. & Hobbs, D. 2014, A&A, 574, 115Mishenina, T., Pignatari, M., Carraro, G., Kovtyukh, V.,
Monaco, L., Korotin, S., Shereta, E., Yegorova, I. & Herwig, F.2015, MNRAS, 446, 3651
Minchev, I., Chiappini, C., Martig, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, L20Mosser B., Belkacem, K., Goupil, M.-J et al., 2010, A&A, 517, 22Munari, U. 1999, BaltA, 8, 73Munari, U., Henden, A., Frigo, A. et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 81Nidever, D.L., Zasowski, G., Majewski, S.R. et al. 2012, ApJ, 755,
25Nordstrom, B., Mayor, M., Andersen, J., et al. 2004, A&A, 418,
989Onehag, A., Gustafsson, B. & Korn, A. 2014, A&A, 562, 102Pancino, E., Carrera, R., Rossetti, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 511, 56Pasquini, L., Randich, S., Zoccali, M., Hill, V., Charbonnel, C. &
Nordstrom, B. 2004 A&A, 424, 951Piffl, T., Scannapieco, C., Binney, J., et al. 2014a, A&A, 562, A9Piffl, T., Binney, J., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2014b, MNRAS, 445,
3133Ramırez, I., Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L. 2013, ApJ, 764,
78Recio-Blanco, A., Bijaoui, A., & de Laverny, P. 2006, MNRAS,
370, 141Roederer, I. U., Preston, G. W., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2014, AJ,
147, 136Ruchti, G. R., Fulbright, J. P., Wyse, R. F. G., et al. 2011, ApJ,
737, 9Schlaufman, K.C. & Casey, A. R. 2014, ApJ, 797, 13Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500,
525Siebert, A., Williams, M. E. K., Siviero, A., et al. 2011, AJ, 141,
187Soubiran, C., Le Campion, J.-F., Cayrel de Strobel, G. et al.
2010, A&A, 515, 111Stello D., Bruntt H., Preston H., Buzasi D., 2008, ApJ, 674, 53Steinmetz, M., Zwitter, T., Siebert, A., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1645
(DR1)Skrutskie, M.F., Cutri, R.M., Stiening, R. et al. 2006, AJ, 131,
1163Soubiran, C., & Girard, P. 2005, A&A, 438, 139Takeda, Y., Honda, S., Ohnishi, T., Ohkubo, M., Hirata, R. &
Sadakane, K. 2013, PASJ, 65, 53Trevisan, M., Barbuy, B., Eriksson, K., Gustafsson, B., Grenon,
M. & Pompeia, L. 2011, A&A, 535, 42Valentini, M. et al. 2016, submitted (V16)
![ATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11 · arXiv:1207.2466v1 [astro-ph.SR] 10 Jul 2012 Draftversion July12,2012 Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11 MULTIWAVELENGTH OBSERVATIONS](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6016222b988c62529a259b46/atex-style-emulateapj-v-5211-arxiv12072466v1-astro-phsr-10-jul-2012-draftversion.jpg)
