The Case for the Dual Halo of the Milky Way
  Carollo et al. have recently resolved the stellar population of the Milky Way halo into at least two distinct components, an inner halo and an outer halo. This result has been criticized by Schoenrich et al., who claim that the retrograde signature associated with the outer halo is due to the adoption of faulty distances. We refute this claim, and demonstrate that the Schoenrich et al. photometric distances are themselves flawed because they adopted an incorrect main-sequence absolute magnitude relationship from the work of Ivezi\'c et al. When compared to the recommended relation from Ivezi\'c et al., which is tied to a Milky Way globular cluster distance scale and accounts for age and metallicity effects, the relation adopted by Schoenrich et al. yields up to 18% shorter distances for stars near the main-sequence turnoff (TO). Use of the correct relationship yields agreement between the distances assigned by Carollo et al. and Ivezi\'{c} et al. for low-metallicity dwarfs to within 6-10%. Schoenrich et al. also point out that intermediate-gravity stars (3.5 <= log g <= 4.0) with colors redder than the TO region are likely misclassified, with which we concur. We implement a new procedure to reassign luminosity classifications for the TO stars that require it. New derivations of the rotational behavior demonstrate that the retrograde signature and high velocity dispersion of the outer-halo population remains. We summarize additional lines of evidence for a dual halo, including a test of the retrograde signature based on proper motions alone, and conclude that the preponderance of evidence strongly rejects the single-halo interpretation. 
Timothy C. Beers (1,2), Daniela Carollo (3,4), Zeljko Ivezic (5),   Deokkeun An (6), Masashi Chiba (7), John E. Norris (3), ...
astro-ph.GA