1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \newcommand{\up}[1]{\ifmmode^{\rm #1}\else$^{\rm #1}$\fi}
6: \newcommand{\zdot}{\makebox[0pt][l]{.}}
7: \newcommand{\upd}{\up{d}}
8: \newcommand{\uph}{\up{h}}
9: \newcommand{\upm}{\up{m}}
10: \newcommand{\ups}{\up{s}}
11: \newcommand{\arcd}{\ifmmode^{\circ}\else$^{\circ}$\fi}
12: \newcommand{\arcm}{\ifmmode{'}\else$'$\fi}
13: \newcommand{\arcs}{\ifmmode{''}\else$''$\fi}
14:
15: \title{The Araucaria Project. The Distance to the Local Group
16: Galaxy WLM from Cepheid Variables discovered in a Wide-Field Imaging Survey
17: \footnote{Based on observations obtained with the 1.3~m
18: telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory.
19: }
20: }
21:
22: \author{Grzegorz Pietrzy{\'n}ski}
23: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy
24: Group,
25: Casilla 160-C,
26: Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
27: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Al. Ujazdowskie 4,00-478, Warsaw,
28: Poland}
29: \authoremail{pietrzyn@hubble.cfm.udec.cl}
30: \author{Wolfgang Gieren}
31: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy Group,
32: Casilla 160-C,
33: Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
34: \authoremail{wgieren@astro-udec.cl}
35: \author{Andrzej Udalski}
36: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, PL-00-478,
37: Warsaw,Poland}
38: \authoremail{udalski@astrouw.edu.pl}
39: \author{Igor Soszy{\'n}ski}
40: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy
41: Group, Casilla 160-C, Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
42: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4,
43: PL-00-478,Warsaw, Poland}
44: \author{Fabio Bresolin}
45: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2680 Woodlawn
46: Drive,
47: Honolulu HI 96822, USA}
48: \authoremail{bresolin@ifa.hawaii.edu}
49: \author{Rolf-Peter Kudritzki}
50: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2680 Woodlawn
51: Drive, Honolulu HI 96822, USA}
52: \authoremail{kud@ifa.hawaii.edu}
53: \author{Alejandro Garcia}
54: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy
55: Group,Casilla 160-C,
56: Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
57: \authoremail{agarcia@astro-udec.cl}
58: \author{Dante Minniti}
59: \affil{Pontifica Universidad Cat{\'o}lica de Chile, Departamento de
60: Astronomia y Astrofisica, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile}
61: \author{Ronald Mennickent}
62: \affil{Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n, Departamento de Fisica, Astronomy
63: Group, Casilla 160-C,
64: Concepci{\'o}n, Chile}
65: \authoremail{rmennick@astro-udec.cl}
66: \author{Olaf Szewczyk}
67: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, PL-00-478,
68: Warsaw,Poland}
69: \authoremail{szewczyk@astrouw.edu.pl}
70: \author{Micha{\l} Szyma{\'n}ski}
71: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, PL-00-478,
72: Warsaw, Poland}
73: \authoremail{msz@astrouw.edu.pl}
74: \author{Marcin Kubiak}
75: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, PL-00-478,
76: Warsaw, Poland}
77: \authoremail{mk@astrouw.edu.pl}
78: \author{{\L}ukasz Wyrzykowski}
79: \affil{Warsaw University Observatory, Aleje Ujazdowskie 4, PL-00-478,
80: Warsaw,Poland}
81: \affil{Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, CB3 0HA, UK}
82: \authoremail{wyrzykow@astrouw.edu.pl}
83:
84: \begin{abstract}
85: We have conducted an extensive wide-field imaging survey for Cepheid variables
86: in the Local Group irregular galaxy WLM. From data obtained on 101 nights,
87: we have discovered 60 Cepheids which
88: include 14 of the 15 Cepheid variables previously detected by Sandage and Carlson.
89: Down to a period of 3 days, our Cepheid survey in WLM should be practically
90: complete. Importantly, we have found for the first time a long-period Cepheid
91: (P=54.2 days) in this galaxy, alleviating the puzzle that WLM with its many
92: blue, massive stars does not contain Cepheids with periods longer than about
93: 10 days. Our data define tight period-luminosity relations in V, I and the
94: reddening-free Wesenheit magnitude ${\rm W}_{\rm I}$ which
95: are all extremely well fit by the corresponding slopes of the LMC Cepheid
96: PL relation, suggesting no change of the PL relation slope down to a
97: Cepheid metal abundance of about -1.0 dex, in agreement with other recent studies.
98: We derive a true distance modulus
99: to WLM of 25.144 $\pm$0.03 (r) $\pm$0.07 (s) mag from our data, in
100: good agreement with the earlier 24.92 $\pm$ 0.21 mag determination of
101: Lee, Freedman and Madore (1993a) from Cepheid variables. The quoted value
102: of the systematic uncertainty does not include the contribution from
103: the LMC distance which we have assumed to be 18.50 mag, as in the previous
104: papers in our project.
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: \keywords{distance scale - galaxies: distances and redshifts - galaxies:
108: individual: WLM - galaxies: stellar content - stars: Cepheids}
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111: In our ongoing Araucaria Project, we are improving on the usefulness of a number
112: of stellar distance indicators by determining their environmental dependences from a study
113: of these objects in nearby galaxies with largely different environmental parameters.
114: We have described our approach and motivations
115: to improve the local calibration of the extragalactic
116: distance scale in a number of previous papers (Pietrzynski et al. 2002; Gieren et al. 2005a).
117: Among the known stellar methods of distance determination
118: Cepheid variables continue to be the most powerful standard candles to
119: determine the distances to galaxies out to about 10 Mpc, especially when they are used
120: in the near-infrared domain where the problems with dust absorption, particularly
121: intrinsic to the host galaxies, can be minimized (Gieren et al. 2005b, 2006; Pietrzynski
122: et al. 2006a; Soszynski et al. 2006). For this reason, we have made a considerable effort
123: to discover large samples of Cepheid variables in the target galaxies of the
124: Araucaria Project, viz. the irregular galaxies in the Local Group, and a number
125: of spiral galaxies in the nearby Sculptor Group (we are currently expanding our work
126: to several of the more massive spiral galaxies in both hemispheres, including M 83,
127: M 31 and M 81). Since Cepheid variables can be most easily
128: discovered in optical photometric bands where their light curves display the typical
129: sawtooth shapes and the amplitudes of the light variations are large, we have performed
130: extensive optical (VI) wide-field imaging surveys for Cepheid variables in all our target galaxies.
131: These surveys have discovered the first-ever reported Cepheids in the Sculptor galaxies
132: NGC 55 (Pietrzynski et al. 2006b), NGC 247 and NGC 7793 (in preparation), and have
133: greatly enhanced the number of known Cepheids with excellent light curves in the
134: optical V and I bands in the Local Group (NGC 6822: Pietrzynski et al. 2004; NGC 3109:
135: Pietrzynski et al. 2006c), and in the Sculptor Group spiral galaxy NGC 300 (Gieren et al. 2004).
136:
137: The last of the irregular galaxies of the Local Group for which our project has not yet
138: provided a modern new survey for Cepheids is the WLM (Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte) galaxy.
139: In this paper, we report on the results of such an extensive survey which
140: has detected a large number of new Cepheid variables in WLM, greatly expanding the list of 15 Cepheid
141: variables which had been previously discovered by Sandage and Carlson (1985; hereafter SC85)
142: from blue and yellow photographic plates
143: taken with the Palomar Hale 5-m and the Las Campanas 2.5-m du Pont reflectors between
144: 1952 and 1983. All of the SC85 Cepheids in WLM have periods less than 10 days and their
145: usefulness for distance determination had been somewhat restricted therefore.
146: Our new Cepheid catalog given in section 3 of this paper contains 60 Cepheid
147: variables in WLM with periods down to 1.6 days, increasing the known Cepheid population
148: in WLM by a factor of four. Most importantly, we can also show from our
149: data that there is one truly long-period Cepheid (54 days) in WLM-the absence of
150: such objects had been a major puzzle which was suspected to be a consequence of the low
151: metallicity of the young stellar population in WLM (SC85). For distance determination,
152: the discovery of such a long-period Cepheid variable is clearly relevant and we will exploit
153: on it in section 4 of this paper.
154:
155: Our paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we describe our observations, reductions
156: and calibrations. In section 3, we present the catalog of Cepheid variables discovered from
157: our wide-field images, including their periods and mean magnitudes. In section 4, we present
158: the period-luminosity (PL) relations resulting from our new data, and use these relations
159: to determine the distance to WLM. In section 5, we discuss our results, and in section 6 we summarize
160: the main conclusions of this paper.
161:
162:
163: \section{Observations, Reductions and Calibrations}
164: All the data presented in this paper were collected with the Warsaw 1.3-m
165: telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. The telescope was equipped with
166: a mosaic 8k $\times$ 8k detector, with a field of view of about 35 $\times$ 35
167: arcmin and a scale of about 0.25 arcsec/pix. For more instrumental
168: details on this camera, the reader is referred to the OGLE website.\footnote{
169: {\it http://ogle.astrouw.edu.pl/\~{}ogle/index.html}}
170: V images of WLM were secured on 101 different nights between
171: Dec 2001 and Dec 2003. In addition, 24 I-band images were collected
172: in 2003. The exposure time was set to 900 seconds in both filters.
173:
174: Preliminary reductions (i.e. debiasing and flatfielding) were
175: done with the IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the
176: National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the
177: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative
178: agreement with the NSF.} package. Then, PSF photometry was obtained
179: for all stars in the same manner as described in Pietrzy{\'n}ski, Gieren and
180: Udalski (2002). Independently, the data were reduced with the OGLE III pipeline
181: based on the image subtraction technique (Udalski 2003; Wo{\'z}niak 2000).
182:
183: In order to accurately calibrate our photometry onto the standard system
184: our target was monitored during three photometric nights in 2000 - 2006,
185: each time together with a large number of photometric standard stars.
186:
187: On September 9, 2000 WLM was observed with the OGLE II instrumental system
188: (e.g. a one chip 2048 x 2048 pixel CCD camera) together with
189: some 20 standards from the Landolt fields spanning a wide range of
190: colors ( -0.14 $<$ V-I $<$ 1.54), and observed at very different
191: airmasses. The transformation from the OGLE II system onto the Landolt
192: system was extremely well established from extensive observations
193: of a large number of standard stars over several observing seasons
194: in the course of the OGLE II project (e.g. Udalski et al. 1998, 2000).
195: Therefore, we adopted the following transformations:\\
196:
197: $$V-I= 0.969\times (v-i) + {\rm const}_{V-I}$$
198: $$V=v-0.002\times (V-I) + {\rm const}_V$$
199: $$I=i+0.029\times (V-I) + {\rm const}_I \eqno{(1)}$$
200:
201: \noindent where the lower case letters {\it v,i} denote the aperture
202: instrumental magnitudes normalized to 1 sec exposure time, and the color coefficients
203: are those derived by the OGLE team. The extinction coefficients and zero points
204: were derived from our data. The residuals did not exceed 0.04 mag (see Fig. 1)
205: and did not show any significant dependence on color or magnitude. The accuracy of the
206: zero points is estimated to be better than 0.02 mag in both filters.
207:
208: In order to check the color coefficients provided by the OGLE team we
209: also derived a full set of transformation coefficients. Then the instrumental
210: magnitudes were transformed using our coefficients and the OGLE ones,
211: and the results were compared. The resulting differences in magnitude
212: were smaller than 0.007 mag in each band.
213:
214: We also observed WLM together with a large set of Landolt standards
215: covering a large range of colors ( -0.14 $<$ V-I $<$ 1.95) and at widely different air
216: masses with the OGLE III mosaic camera on the same 1.3 m Warsaw telescope
217: on two different photometric nights.
218: WLM was located on two of the 8 chips of the camera (chip 2 and chip 3).
219: Since in principle the transformation equations for each
220: chip may have different color coefficients and zero points, the selected
221: sample of standard stars was observed on each of the individual chips, and
222: transformation coefficients were derived independently for each chip,
223: on each night.
224: The following transformations were obtained for chips 2 and 3:\\
225:
226: $$V-I= 0.939\times (v-i) + {\rm const}_{V-I}$$
227: $$V=v-0.032\times (V-I) + {\rm const}_V$$
228: $$I=i+0.031\times (V-I) + {\rm const}_I ~~ chip 2 \eqno{(2)}$$
229:
230: $$V-I= 0.936\times (v-i) + {\rm const}_{V-I}$$
231: $$V=v-0.030\times (V-I) + {\rm const}_V$$
232: $$I=i+0.037\times (V-I) + {\rm const}_I ~~ chip 3 \eqno{(3)}$$
233:
234: The resulting color coefficients are consistent with those derived
235: to calibrate our mosaic data from the same telescope and camera
236: for NGC 6822, NGC 3109 and NGC 55, other galaxies studied in
237: the Araucaria Project (see the references given in the Introduction).
238: It is worth noticing that the
239: color coefficients in equations 1, 2 and 3 are very small, showing
240: that both instrumental systems adjust very closely to the
241: standard Cousins system.
242:
243: To correct the possible small variation of the photometric zero points in V and I
244: over the mosaic, the "correction maps" established by Pietrzynski
245: et al. (2004) were used. These maps were already applied to correct our
246: photometry obtained in the field of NGC 6822 (Pietrzynski et al.
247: 2004) and NGC 3109 (Pietrzynski et al. 2006c). Comparison with
248: other studies given in these papers revealed that these maps allow to correct
249: the zero point variations down to a level of better than 0.03 mag.
250:
251: The differences between the mosaic camera zero points obtained on the two
252: independent photometric nights
253: were found smaller than 0.03 mag, in each filter and for both chips.
254: In addition, the comparison of the photometry obtained with the OGLE II
255: and OGLE III instrumental systems revealed that the
256: differences in the zero points in both V and I bands
257: are smaller than 0.02 mag and do not correlate in any significant way
258: with magnitude or color (see Fig 1). As a result of all this comparative
259: work, we are sure that the V and I magnitudes from the two cameras used in this study
260: are consistent at the 1-2\% level. This can also be seen in the quality
261: of the Cepheid light curves, particularly for the brightest variable, presented
262: in Fig. 2.
263:
264: In order to perform an external check of our photometry we compared it
265: to the recent results obtained by McConnachie et al. (2005), who
266: kindly provided us with their data.
267: While the zero point difference
268: in the V band is reassuringly small (about 0.02 mag, within the errors), the mean difference
269: in I amounts to 0.22 mag, in the sense that our I magnitudes are fainter
270: by this amount than the corresponding McConnachie et al. magnitudes for WLM stars. Also, there
271: is a clear color trend in the sense that for blue stars, our and McConnachie's I-band
272: magnitudes agree very well, but for redder stars there is an increasing discrepancy
273: with McConnachie's magnitudes becoming increasingly brighter than ours.
274: Since all the external checks on
275: our I-band magnitudes obtained with the same telescope and cameras in our previously
276: studied Araucaria target galaxies always yielded good agreement with the photometry
277: of other authors, and since our mosaic camera I-band photometry agrees extremely well
278: with the OGLE II single-chip photometry which is calibrated to better than
279: 1\%, we conclude that there must be a problem with the I-band data of
280: McConnachie et al. whose origin remains unknown to us, but could be related
281: to the use of a non-standard I filter in their work.
282: Unfortunately, we are
283: not aware of any other source of I-band photometry for WLM we could
284: directly compare our data with. Therefore we constructed the I band
285: luminosity function for RGB stars in WLM using our new photometry, and
286: measured the TRGB magnitude to be 20.91 $\pm$ 0.08 mag. This result is
287: in good agreement with the I band TRGB magnitude determinations obtained
288: for this galaxy by Lee et al. (1993b; 20.85 $\pm$ 0.05 mag), and
289: by Minniti and Zijlstra (1997; 20.80 $\pm$ 0.05 mag), indicating
290: that our present I band photometric zero point has been correctly determined,
291: within the stated small uncertainties. From the internal and external checks we
292: have made, any systematic zero point error on our present I-band magnitudes
293: is limited to less than 2\%.
294:
295:
296: \section{Cepheid Catalog}
297:
298: All stars identified in our photometry of WLM were searched for photometric variations with
299: periods between 0.2 and 100 days, using the analysis of variance algorithm
300: (Schwarzenberg-Czerny 1989). In order to distinguish the Cepheids from other types
301: of variable stars we applied the criteria defined by Pietrzy{\'n}ski et al. (2002).
302: The light curves of all the variables identified as Cepheid candidates were fit by Fourier
303: series of order 2. We then rejected those objects with V amplitudes smaller than
304: 0.4 mag, in agreement with the procedure we applied in the previous studies in this series.
305: In principle, one might expect a few very low-amplitude Cepheids close to the center of the
306: Hertzsprung progression (in the period range 10-13 days, depending on the metallicity),
307: or located close to the red edge of the Cepheid instability
308: strip. These latter Cepheids have decreased amplitudes due to the increased efficiency
309: in the convective energy transport (Bono et al. 2000) but seem to be normal with
310: respect to their luminosities, and are therefore in principle useful for distance
311: determinations via PL relations. In our database for WLM we found only two such objects,
312: but we decided to omit them for the distance analysis because of the poor quality
313: of their light curves, and in order to be consistent
314: with our earlier studies. In any case, including these objects would not change any
315: of the results and conclusions reached in this paper.
316:
317: For the 60 stars passing our selection criteria, mean V and I magnitudes were derived
318: by integrating their light curves which had been previously converted onto an intensity
319: scale, and converting the results back onto the magnitude scale. The periods of the
320: 60 Cepheids in our catalog range between 1.6 and 54.2 days. The accuracy of the period values
321: is about $10^{-4}*P$ days. There is only one truly
322: long-period Cepheid in WLM, variable cep001 in our catalog, which is given in Table 1. The
323: variable with the next-longest period, cep002, has a period of 10.3 days. Since our
324: images cover the spatial content of WLM to almost 100\%, it seems that there are definitively
325: no other Cepheids with periods longer than 10.3 days in WLM except cep001. This bright
326: variable had already been discovered and classified as a Cepheid by SC85 (their variable
327: V12; entries in the "remarks" column in Table 1 give the Cepheid identifications of
328: SC85), but due to their limited set of photographic data they determined a wrong period
329: for this Cepheid (7.9 days). For all the other variables classified as Cepheids by
330: SC85, their Cepheid nature is confirmed in our study, although for most variables
331: the new periods differ quite significantly from the values given in SC85 which is not
332: a surprise given the quality and quantity of our new data, compared to the data SC85
333: had at their disposal for their very important and pioneering study of the stellar content
334: of WLM. We remark that from the 15 Cepheids discovered by SC85, two objects are not in
335: our catalog: V40 and V67. The variable V67 of SC85 falls between the chips of the
336: mosaic camera we used to image the WLM galaxy, and we have therefore no data for this object.
337: Variable V40 shows a Cepheid-like
338: light curve from our data with a period close to the one found by SC85, but its amplitude
339: is below our threshold value which explains why it has not entered our catalog. The
340: low amplitude of this variable is also evident in its B light curve shown in SC85.
341:
342: A comparison of the light curves of the 14 Cepheids in WLM common with SC85 shows a
343: dramatic increase in quality, and therefore in the accuracy of the periods and mean intensity
344: magnitudes we were able to derive from our new data. In Fig. 2, we show the V- and I light
345: curves for several of the Cepheids in our database whose quality is representative for
346: other Cepheids of similar periods. One can see that down to a period of 3 days, corresponding
347: to a mean V magnitude of about 22.2, the light curves are still very well defined and allow
348: the determination of the mean V magnitude with a precision of about 0.05 mag. The mean I magnitudes
349: of the Cepheids are somewhat less precise due to the smaller number of datapoints.
350:
351: In Fig. 3, we show the locations of the WLM Cepheids in the V, V-I color-magnitude diagram,
352: where they delineate the expected Cepheid instability strip (Chiosi et al. 1992; Simon and Young 1997).
353: The locations of the 60 variables in our catalog in the CMD lends further support to their correct
354: identifications as classical Cepheids. Again, it is remarkable to see the only long-period
355: variable in this diagram, at a V magnitude almost 2 mag brighter than all the other shorter-period,
356: lower-mass Cepheids we see in WLM. It still seems a challenging problem for stellar
357: evolution theory to explain the existence of just one high-mass star in the Cepheid instability
358: strip, given the rather abundant population of young, massive stars in this galaxy,
359: as evidenced by its blue supergiant population (Bresolin et al. 2006).
360:
361: In Table 2, we report the individual V and I observations of the Cepheids in Table 1. The
362: full Table 2 is available in electronic form.
363:
364:
365: \section{PL relations and distance determination}
366:
367: In Fig. 4, we show the V-band PL relation resulting from the data in Table 1, for the
368: Cepheids in our sample with logP (days) $>$ 0.5. The corresponding I-band PL relation defined
369: by these stars is shown in Fig. 5. These (35) objects represent the subsample
370: which should in principle be free of the Malmquist bias
371: which is introduced by retaining Cepheid variables close to the faint magnitude
372: cutoff of the photometry. This bias, if not accounted for,
373: would tend to systematically decrease the derived distance to the galaxy. A sample of Cepheids
374: with logP (days) $>$ 0.5 should also be reasonably free of first overtone pulsators, whose existence
375: at very short pulsation periods was impressively shown in the LMC work of the
376: OGLE II Project (Udalski et al. 1999).
377: Keeping only Cepheid variables above this period cutoff also assures, in the case
378: of the present photometry, that only Cepheid light curves of high quality are used for
379: the distance analysis.
380:
381: A closer inspection of the sample of Cepheids in Figs. 4 and 5 reveals three objects
382: which are clearly too bright for their respective periods. These objects are
383: cep028 and cep031 which stand out in both PL planes, and the star cep032 which seems
384: too bright for its period in the I-band PL plane. These stars are likely to be strongly blended by
385: nearby companion stars which are not resolved in our photometry, but they could also be
386: overtone pulsators which at these periods near 4 days are still ocurring,
387: albeit in small numbers. In view
388: of this we decided to choose the cutoff period, in the case of WLM, at logP (days) = 0.7
389: (5.0 days). This choice yields the best compromise between retaining a statistically
390: significant sample of stars for the determination of the PL relations (19 Cepheids), and avoiding
391: a possibly significant contamination of the sample by overtone Cepheids and and/or heavily
392: blended objects. As we will show below, the distance determination to WLM is however not
393: significantly affected by the choice of the cutoff period-both samples, using logP = 0.5, or 0.7
394: as the cutoff period, yield distance moduli to WLM which differ by only 0.05 mag, which
395: is within the uncertainty of the present distance determination of WLM from our
396: Cepheid photometry.
397:
398: >From an inspection of Figs. 4 and 5, it is obvious that the slopes of the PL relations
399: in V and I adopted from the LMC Cepheids as given by the OGLE II Project provide excellent
400: fits to the present data for the WLM Cepheids. Indeed, fits to a straight line to our data
401: yield the following slopes for the PL relations: -2.57 $\pm$ 0.16, -2.93 $\pm$ 0.12
402: and -3.15 $\pm$ 0.16 in V, I and ${\rm W_{\rm I}}$, the reddening-free Wesenheit band (see Fig. 6),
403: respectively. These values are consistent with the corresponding OGLE slopes of
404: the LMC Cepheid PL relation of -2.775, -2.977
405: and -3.300 (Udalski 2000) at the level of 1 $\sigma$. In the case of WLM, the low number of long-period
406: Cepheids and the large gap in period between 10 and 54 days make an accurate determination
407: of the slope of the PL relations impossible, but the data are clearly very well fit by the slopes
408: adopted from the LMC Cepheids, supporting the conclusion that any systematic change of the PL
409: relation slope as going from the LMC Cepheids to the more metal-poor WLM Cepheids must be
410: very small. Our present data are certainly fully consistent with the assumption of identical slopes
411: of the Cepheid PL relations in V, I and ${\rm W_{\rm I}}$ for WLM and the LMC.
412:
413: In view of this finding, we are justified to adopt the extremely well determined OGLE slopes to derive the
414: distance to WLM, as we have already done in the previous papers of this series.
415: This leads to the following equations: (logP (days) $>$ 0.7; 19 Cepheids): \\
416:
417: V = -2.775 log P + (23.772 $\pm$ 0.037) \\
418:
419: I = -2.977 log P + (23.275 $\pm$ 0.028) \\
420:
421: ${\rm W}_{\rm I}$ = -3.300 log P + (22.418 $\pm$ 0.045) \\
422:
423:
424: Using the 35 Cepheids with logP (days) $>$ 0.5, we obtain the following results: \\
425:
426:
427: V = -2.775 log P + (23.722 $\pm$ 0.037) \\
428:
429: I = -2.977 log P + (23.214 $\pm$ 0.030) \\
430:
431:
432: ${\rm W}_{\rm I}$ = -3.300 log P + (22.382 $\pm$ 0.036) \\
433:
434:
435: Adopting, as in our previous papers, a value of 18.50 mag for the true distance modulus to the LMC,
436: a value of E(B-V) = 0.02 mag for the foreground
437: reddening toward WLM (Schlegel et al. 1998), and the reddening law of
438: Schlegel et al. (1998) ( ${\rm A}_{\rm V}$ = 3.24 E(B-V), ${\rm A}_{\rm I}$ = 1.96
439: E(B-V)) we obtain the following reddening-corrected distance moduli for WLM in the
440: three different bands:\\
441:
442: 1. (19 Cepheids with logP (days) $>$ 0.7):\\
443:
444: $(m-M)_{0}$ (${\rm W}_{\rm I}$) = 25.144 mag \\
445:
446: $(m-M)_{0}$ (I) = 25.142 mag\\
447:
448: $(m-M)_{0}$ (V) = 25.050 mag\\
449:
450:
451:
452: 2. (35 Cepheids with logP (days) $>$ 0.5):\\
453:
454:
455: $(m-M)_{0}$ (${\rm W}_{\rm I}$) = 25.093 mag \\
456:
457:
458: $(m-M)_{0}$ (I) = 25.082 mag\\
459:
460:
461: $(m-M)_{0}$ (V) = 25.014 mag\\
462:
463:
464:
465: As we already mentioned above, the difference in the true distance moduli in the respective bands,
466: for the two samples,
467: is in the order of the uncertainty on the zero points of the respective PL relation,
468: demonstrating that the choice of the period cutoff for the WLM Cepheid sample used
469: for the distance determination is not a source of significant systematic error on
470: the WLM distance. We adopt 25.144 $\pm$ 0.040 (random error) mag
471: as our best determination of the true distance
472: modulus of WLM from the reddening-independent V-I Wesenheit magnitudes of its Cepheids.
473: We will discuss this result, and estimate its total uncertainty in the following section.
474:
475:
476: \section{Discussion}
477: The current distance result for the WLM dwarf irregular galaxy is based on a sizeable sample of Cepheid
478: variables with excellent light curves
479: which have been mostly discovered in our present wide-field imaging survey. Very importantly,
480: we have discovered one long-period variable which allows a check on the slope of the Cepheid PL relation
481: in WLM and partly resolves the mystery of the absence of such stars in WLM previously discussed
482: by Sandage and Carlson (1985). Our data in the period-mean magnitude planes in V, I and ${\rm W_{\rm I}}$
483: are very well fit
484: with the PL relation slopes obtained for the LMC Cepheids by the OGLE II project, further
485: supporting the evidence that the slope of the Cepheid PL relation is independent of metallicity
486: down to very low values of [Fe/H] or [O/H]. For WLM, the mean oxygen abundance of 3 blue
487: supergiant stars was recently measured to be about -0.6 dex (Bresolin et al. 2006), suggesting
488: that its older population of Cepheid variables is likely to have a mean metallicity close to -1.0 dex,
489: which is indeed considerably more metal-poor than the mean [Fe/H] of -0.34 dex
490: derived for a sample of LMC Cepheids by Luck et al. (1998). This is in agreement with the result of Udalski
491: et al. (2001) for the Cepheid PL relation in another metal-poor Local Group dwarf irregular galaxy,
492: IC 1613, which also does not show any sign for a change of the slope of the PL relation
493: at very low metallicities. The recent results of Gieren et al. (2005c) from a comparison
494: of the Cepheid PL relations in the LMC and Milky Way, and of Macri et al. (2006) from a
495: comparison of the Cepheid PL relations for two fields of very different mean metal abundance in the maser
496: galaxy NGC 4258 observed with HST/ACS also support the constancy of the slope of the
497: Cepheid PL relation in optical bands up to solar metallicity. Very importantly, a completely
498: independent confirmation of this has very recently come from the HST parallaxes of a
499: number of nearby Milky Way Cepheids derived by Benedict et al. (2006) which also suggest
500: that there is no difference between the slope of the PL relation in the Milky Way galaxy
501: and the LMC.
502:
503:
504: The current distance determination to WLM is subject to the several well-known sources of systematic
505: uncertainty in such studies. We have made a great effort to calibrate our data as accurately
506: as possible, and our discussion in section 2 in this paper shows that we can confidently assume
507: that our photometric zero points in V and I are accurate to better than $\pm$0.03 mag. The
508: sample of Cepheid variables in our study is large enough to ensure that our distance result
509: is not severely affected
510: by the problem of a possible incomplete filling of the instability strip. We do, however, note
511: that the range of periods for which a complete filling of the instability strip can be assumed
512: is rather limited (5-11 days). We recall that we are not attempting to use our data to fit
513: slopes to the PL diagrams in Figs. 4-6 whose values would sensitively depend on the exact position
514: of the one long-period Cepheid with respect to the ridge line in the instability strip,
515: and rather adopt the slopes from the LMC PL relations.
516: It is reassuring to see that the long-period Cepheid in our sample falls very close
517: to the fitting lines in all filters, suggesting that this star is located close to the center
518: of the Cepheid instability strip. This conclusion is also clearly supported by the position
519: of object cep001 in the color-magnitude diagram in Fig. 3. All the physical
520: information on this star available to us (shape of the light curve, amplitude, mean magnitude,
521: color, period) supports that this object is a normal classical Cepheid. Although it may appear
522: surprising, our database clearly indicates that there are no other Cepheids in the large period gap
523: between the objects cep001 and cep002 in WLM.
524:
525: Our discussion in
526: the previous section has also shown that our adopted choice of the cutoff period, necessary
527: to exclude overtone pulsators from the sample and to address the problem of Malmquist bias,
528: is not affecting our distance result by more than $\pm$0.05 mag. The small dispersion of
529: the data points in
530: Fig. 6 around the mean PL relation suggests that
531: the process of eliminating the influence of reddening (both foreground,
532: and a possible additional variable reddening produced inside WLM itself)
533: by the construction of the reddening-free Wesenheit magnitudes of the Cepheids has worked very well.
534: This is likely due to the fact
535: that our Cepheid photometry is very little affected by blending with unresolved, relatively bright nearby
536: companion stars which is a more serious problem in the spiral galaxies of higher stellar density
537: in our program. Yet, even in the case of NGC 300, at about twice the distance of WLM (Gieren et al. 2005b),
538: Bresolin et al. (2005) were able to show from a comparison of ground-based data to HST/ACS data
539: that the effect of blending on the distance modulus is less than 0.04 mag. We therefore believe
540: that the distance modulus of WLM from the Wesenheit PL relation eliminates reddening as a
541: significant source of systematic error in our study. Also, the fact that the distance result
542: from the I band is practically identical to the one from the Wesenheit band seems to indicate
543: that the total reddening affecting the WLM Cepheids in our database is very small, which
544: in turn means that in addition to the very small 0.02 mag foreground reddening there is very little
545: additional dust absorption {\it intrinsic} to WLM. A follow-up study of the WLM Cepheids in the near-IR
546: J and K bands will shed more light on this and allow an accurate determination of any residual
547: dust absorption inside WLM, as we have done in our previous studies in several of the target
548: galaxies of our project. Unfortunately, so far we have not been able to collect such near-IR images
549: of WLM under photometric conditions but hope to do so in the near future.
550:
551: As a conclusion, our present distance modulus determination of WLM from the Wesenheit magnitudes
552: of its long(er)-period Cepheid population has a total estimated systematic uncertainty
553: of $\pm$0.07 mag, when the different contributions discussed about are added in quadrature.
554: Therefore, we obtain as our best result from the current study a true distance modulus of
555: the WLM galaxy of 25.144 $\pm$0.03 (random) $\pm$0.07 (systematic) mag, equivalent to a total
556: uncertainty of $\pm$4\%. This estimation of the total uncertainty does {\it not} include,
557: however, the uncertainty on our adopted value of 18.50 mag for the distance of the LMC. A thorough
558: discussion of this value will be provided in a forthcoming paper once the Cepheid distances
559: to all Araucaria project target galaxies have been measured. At this point, we just mention
560: that the recent absolute calibration of the Cepheid PL relation of Macri et al. (2006) in NGC 4258 which
561: is tied to the geometrical maser distance to this galaxy implies a LMC distance modulus
562: of 18.41, but the uncertainty on this value estimated by the authors of that paper
563: makes it clearly compatible with our adopted
564: LMC distance of 18.50. It seems clear that the adopted distance to the LMC continues to be
565: the largest individual source of systematic error on modern Cepheid-based distance determinations
566: to nearby galaxies
567: like the present one, which have succeeded in beating down other systematics to a few percent level.
568: Work to improve this situation will be extremely important over the next years.
569: As a positive note, evidence is now clearly mounting that the {\it slope}
570: of the PL relation is independent of metallicity over the broad range from solar down to
571: about -1.0 dex allowing us to use the slope values determined in the LMC
572: by the microlensing projects with confidence for Cepheid-based distance determinations to other galaxies,
573: including those showing pronounced radial metal abundance variations in their disks.
574:
575: Finally, we note that our improved Cepheid distance determination to WLM puts the galaxy
576: some 0.2 - 0.3 mag
577: further away than the value derived from the TRGB I band magnitude
578: (Lee, Freedman and Madore (1993b): - 24.87 $\pm$ 0.08 ; Minniti and Zijlstra (1997): - 24.75
579: $\pm$ 0.1 ; this paper: - 24.91 $\pm$ 0.08). A possible interpretation of this discrepancy
580: is that the metal-poor WLM Cepheids are, at a given period, intrinsically fainter in V and I than
581: their more metal-rich counterparts in the LMC. Indeed, the sign
582: and size of the discrepancy between the present distance to WLM from its Cepheids, and the one derived
583: from the TRGB magnitude is consistent with the metallicity dependence of the zero point
584: of the Cepheid PL relation of 0.2-0.3 mag/dex found by Sakai et al. (2004-their Fig. 15).
585: On the other hand, our current work on the distances of nearby galaxies from the blue
586: supergiant Flux-Weighted Gravity-Luminosity Relation (FGLR; Kudritzki, Bresolin and Przybilla 2003)
587: supports the 25.14 mag true distance modulus derived in this paper from the WLM Cepheids
588: (Kudritzki et al. 2007, in preparation), so the interpretation that the Cepheid distance
589: to WLM is longer than the TRGB distance because of a metallicity effect on the PL
590: relation zero point may be premature at this time.
591: A full discussion of the effect of metallicity on the zero point of the Cepheid PL relation,
592: in different bands, will be presented in a later stage of our project when distances
593: from a variety of methods to all target galaxies of the project will have been determined,
594: and will hopefully lead to a very accurate calibration of the metallicity dependence
595: of the PL relation in various photometric bands.
596:
597:
598: \section{Conclusions}
599: The main conclusions of this paper can be summarized as follows:
600:
601: 1. We have conducted an extensive wide-field imaging survey for Cepheids in the Local Group
602: dwarf irrgular galaxy WLM. From V-band images obtained on 101 different nights, we have
603: found 60 Cepheids with periods down to 1.6 days. Down to a period of
604: about 3 days, our Cepheid survey in WLM
605: should be essentially complete. We have determined accurate periods and mean magnitudes for all
606: variables in the V, I and Wesenheit bands.
607:
608: 2. We have discovered the first (and only) long-period Cepheid variable in WLM, cep001 in our
609: catalog, with a period of 54.2 days. This variable had already been discovered before by Sandage and Carlson (1985),
610: but their low-quality data had led them to derive a wrong period for this Cepheid.
611:
612: 3. From the data in our catalog we have constructed PL relations in the V, I and the reddening-independent
613: Wesenheit band. We find that our data are very well fit by the slopes of the corresponding
614: PL relations determined in the LMC by the OGLE II project, supporting the conclusion that
615: the slope of the PL relation defined by the more metal-poor Cepheids in WLM is identical
616: to the one in the LMC.
617:
618: 4. We have derived absorption-corrected distance moduli to WLM from the data in V, I and W. Our adopted best value
619: for the WLM distance modulus from the reddening-independent Wesenheit magnitudes of the Cepheids
620: is 25.144 $\pm$0.03 (random) $\pm$0.07 (systematic) mag. The excellent agreement between the
621: W-band and I-band distance modulus values hints at very little dust absorption intrinsic to WLM.
622:
623: 5. The total uncertainty of our present distance determination of $\sim$$\pm$4\% does not include
624: the contribution from the uncertainty on the adopted LMC distance of 18.50 to which
625: our present distance determination to WLM is tied, as in the previous papers of the
626: Araucaria project. As in our previous Cepheid studies of NGC 6822
627: (Gieren et al. 2006), IC 1613 (Pietrzynski et al. 2006a), NGC 3109 (Pietrzynski et al. 2006c,
628: Soszynski et al. 2006), NGC 300 (Gieren et al. 2004; Gieren et al. 2005b), and NGC 55 (Pietrzynski
629: et al. 2006b), the total error on our Cepheid distance to WLM due to the variety of factors discussed in
630: the previous section
631: is clearly smaller than the contribution coming from the adopted LMC distance, implying that the
632: main obstacle to significant progress in the measurement
633: of the {\it absolute} distances to nearby galaxies is our continuing difficulty to obtain a
634: truly high-quality measurement of the distance to the LMC.
635:
636: 6. With WLM, there is now another galaxy in our project whose Cepheid distance can be compared
637: to the distances we will measure for our target galaxies from a variety of other methods, like the
638: Flux-Weighted Gravity-Luminosity relationship of Kudritzki et al. (2003) for blue
639: supergiant stars. It is another step toward the main goal of the Araucaria Project,
640: viz. an accurate
641: determination of the environmental dependences of different stellar distance indicators, with
642: the corresponding reduction on the systematic error on the Hubble constant determined from
643: secondary distance indicators which will be re-calibrated from the standard candles we are
644: investigating once their environmental dependences are well established.
645:
646:
647:
648: \acknowledgements
649: We are grateful to the staff of Las Campanas
650: Observatory, and to the CNTAC for providing the large amounts of
651: telescope time which were necessary to complete this project.
652: GP, WG, DM, RM and AG gratefully acknowledge
653: financial support for this
654: work from the Chilean Center for Astrophysics FONDAP 15010003.
655: Support from the Polish grant N203 002 31/0463 is also acknowledged.
656:
657:
658: \begin{references}
659:
660: \reference{} Benedict, G.F., McArthur, B.E., Feast, M.W., Barnes, T.G., et al., 2006, astro-ph/0612465
661:
662: \reference{} Bono, G., Castellani, V., and Marconi, M., 2000, \apj, 529, 293
663:
664: \reference{} Bresolin, F., Pietrzynski, G., Gieren, W. and Kudritzki, R.P., 2005, \apj, 634, 1020
665:
666: \reference{} Bresolin, F., Pietrzynski, G., Urbaneja, M.A., Gieren, W., Kudritzki, R.P. and Venn, K.A., 2006,
667: \apj, 648, 1007
668:
669: \reference{} Chiosi, C., Wood, P., Bertelli, G. and Bressan, A., 1992, \apj, 387, 320
670:
671: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Walker, A., Bresolin, F.,
672: Minniti, D., Kudritzki, R.P., Udalski, A., Soszy{\'n}ski, I., Fouqu\'e,
673: P., Storm, J., and Bono, G., 2004, \aj, 128, 1167
674:
675: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Bresolin, F., et al., 2005a, The Messenger, No. 121, 23
676:
677: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.P., Minniti, D.
678: and Storm, J., 2005b, \apj, 628, 695
679:
680: \reference{} Gieren, W., Storm, J., Barnes, T.G., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Pietrzynski, G.
681: and Kienzle, F., 2005c, \apj, 627, 224
682:
683: \reference{} Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Nalewajko, K., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F.,
684: Kudritzki, R.P., Minniti, D. and Romanowsky, A., 2006, \apj, 647, 1056
685:
686: \reference{} Kudritzki, R.P., Bresolin, F., Przybilla, N., 2003, \apj,
687: 582, 83
688:
689: \reference{} Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L. and Madore, B.F., 1993a, in New Perspectives
690: on Stellar Pulsation and Pulsating Variable Stars, Proc. of IAU Coll. 139,
691: eds. J.M. Nemec and J.M. Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 92
692:
693: \reference{} Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L. and Madore, B.F., 1993b, \apj,
694: 417, 553
695:
696: \reference{} Luck, R.E., Moffett, T.J., Barnes, T.G and Gieren, W., 1998, \aj, 115, 605
697:
698: \reference{} Macri, L.M., Stanek, K.Z., Bersier, D., Greenhill, L.J. and Reid, M.J., 2006,
699: \apj, 652, 1133
700:
701: \reference{} Minniti, D. and Zijlstra, A.A., 1997, \aj, 114, 147
702:
703: \reference{} McConnachie, A.W., Irwin, M.J., Ferguson, A.M.J., Ibata, R.A., Lewis, G.F.
704: and Tanvir, N., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 979
705:
706: \reference{} Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Gieren, W., Fouqu{\'e}, P., and Pont, F.,
707: 2002, \aj, 123, 789
708:
709: \reference{} Pietrzy{\'n}ski, G., Gieren, W., and Udalski, A., 2002,
710: \pasp, 114, 298
711:
712: \reference{} Pietrzynski, G., Gieren, W., Udalski, A., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.P.,
713: Soszynski, I., Szymanski, M. and Kubiak, M., 2004, \aj, 128, 2815
714:
715: \reference{} Pietrzynski, G., Gieren, W., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.P.,
716: Dall'Ora, M., Storm, J. and Bono, G., 2006a, \apj, 642, 216
717:
718: \reference{} Pietrzynski, G., Gieren, W., Soszynski, I., Udalski, A., Bresolin, F.,
719: Kudritzki, R.P., Mennickent, R., Walker, A., Garcia, A. and Kubiak, M., 2006b, \aj, 132, 2556
720:
721: \reference{} Pietrzynski, G., Gieren, W., Udalski, A., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F.,
722: Kudritzki, R.P., Mennickent, R. Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M. and Hidalgo, S., 2006c, \apj, 648, 366
723:
724: \reference{} Sandage, A. and Carlson, G., 1985, \aj, 90, 1464
725:
726: \reference{} Sakai, S., Ferrarese, L., Kennicutt, R.Jr., Saha, A., 2004,
727: \aj, 608, 42
728:
729: \reference{} Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., and Davis, M., 1998, \apj, 500,
730: 525
731:
732: \reference{} Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A., 1989, MNRAS, 241, 153
733:
734: \reference{} Simon, N.R., and Young, T.S., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 267
735:
736: \reference{} Soszynski, I., Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.P.
737: and Storm, J., 2006, \apj, 648, 375
738:
739: \reference{} Udalski, A., 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291
740:
741: \reference{} Udalski, A., et al. 1998, Acta Astron., 48, 147
742:
743: \reference{} Udalski, A., Szyma\'nski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzy\'nski, G.,
744: Soszy{\'n}ski, I.,
745: Wo\'zniak, P., and \.Zebru\'n, K., 1999, Acta Astron., 49, 201
746:
747: \reference{} Udalski, A., et al. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 289
748:
749: \reference{} Wo{\'z}niak, P., 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 421
750:
751: \end{references}
752:
753:
754: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c c c c c}
755: \tablecaption{Cepheids in WLM}
756: %\tablewidth{0pt}
757: \tablehead{
758: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{P} & \colhead{ ${\rm
759: T}_{0}$} &
760: \colhead{$<V>$} & \colhead{$<I>$} & \colhead{$<W_{\rm I}>$} & \colhead{remarks}\\
761: & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} &
762: \colhead{ [days]} & &
763: \colhead{[mag]} & \colhead{[mag]} & \colhead{[mag]} &
764: }
765: \startdata
766: cep001 & 0:01:57.48 & -15:24:50.9 & 54.17118 & 2452200.59519 & 19.124 & 18.145 & 16.628 & V12\\
767: cep002 & 0:01:54.33 & -15:30:00.1 & 10.34249 & 2452201.65246 & 21.110 & 20.352 & 19.177 & \\
768: cep003 & 0:01:54.03 & -15:27:05.2 & 10.33645 & 2452202.34982 & 20.975 & 20.247 & 19.119 & \\
769: cep004 & 0:02:03.30 & -15:26:23.4 & 10.32152 & 2452200.25769 & 21.270 & 20.416 & 19.092 & \\
770: cep005 & 0:01:54.68 & -15:29:55.0 & 8.63110 & 2452194.74995 & 21.182 & 20.471 & 19.369 & V21\\
771: cep006 & 0:01:57.08 & -15:30:56.6 & 8.12579 & 2452195.29021 & 21.350 & 20.600 & 19.438 & V24\\
772: cep007 & 0:02:00.19 & -15:24:11.4 & 8.12051 & 2452200.62453 & 21.319 & 20.629 & 19.559 & \\
773: cep008 & 0:01:56.56 & -15:27:15.6 & 7.49672 & 2452202.09693 & 21.170 & 20.511 & 19.490 & V7\\
774: cep009 & 0:01:57.07 & -15:27:25.7 & 7.34322 & 2452199.48513 & 21.297 & 20.573 & 19.451 & V48\\
775: cep010 & 0:01:56.40 & -15:24:33.0 & 7.32485 & 2452198.47873 & 21.314 & 20.661 & 19.649 & V11\\
776: cep011 & 0:01:57.04 & -15:29:36.9 & 6.64055 & 2452201.99522 & 21.258 & 20.640 & 19.682 & V8\\
777: cep012 & 0:02:00.51 & -15:25:23.2 & 6.15754 & 2452201.17636 & 21.423 & 20.736 & 19.671 & \\
778: cep013 & 0:01:53.27 & -15:29:40.5 & 6.05309 & 2452197.85970 & 21.775 & 21.086 & 20.018 & V37\\
779: cep014 & 0:02:10.26 & -15:33:31.9 & 5.56746 & 2452197.36270 & 21.557 & 20.973 & 20.068 & \\
780: cep015 & 0:01:59.91 & -15:24:49.4 & 5.43153 & 2452200.95046 & 21.544 & 21.043 & 20.266 & V50\\
781: cep016 & 0:01:55.20 & -15:24:26.8 & 5.20796 & 2452201.89881 & 21.760 & 21.090 & 20.052 & \\
782: cep017 & 0:01:57.32 & -15:29:03.9 & 5.12851 & 2452201.58810 & 21.963 & 21.281 & 20.224 & \\
783: cep018 & 0:01:56.16 & -15:25:44.8 & 5.02134 & 2452197.96031 & 21.964 & 21.211 & 20.044 & \\
784: cep019 & 0:02:00.12 & -15:25:15.1 & 4.92341 & 2452199.88515 & 21.507 & 21.009 & 20.237 & \\
785: cep020 & 0:01:59.50 & -15:25:57.4 & 4.91559 & 2452201.10843 & 21.708 & 21.002 & 19.908 & V29\\
786: cep021 & 0:02:01.47 & -15:23:20.1 & 4.86831 & 2452199.59021 & 21.993 & 21.356 & 20.369 & \\
787: cep022 & 0:02:00.20 & -15:25:17.2 & 4.71140 & 2452198.82984 & 22.012 & 21.278 & 20.140 & \\
788: cep023 & 0:02:00.85 & -15:25:04.9 & 4.61967 & 2452197.94467 & 22.181 & 21.371 & 20.116 & \\
789: cep024 & 0:01:52.13 & -15:27:05.8 & 4.36958 & 2452198.61530 & 21.904 & 21.318 & 20.410 & V66\\
790: cep025 & 0:02:02.37 & -15:23:36.9 & 4.05416 & 2452199.04623 & 22.231 & 21.597 & 20.614 & \\
791: cep026 & 0:02:02.23 & -15:26:45.1 & 3.97606 & 2452199.52316 & 22.375 & 21.490 & 20.118 & \\
792: cep027 & 0:01:55.96 & -15:26:22.1 & 3.86503 & 2452199.27326 & 22.262 & 21.546 & 20.436 & \\
793: cep028 & 0:01:55.92 & -15:29:02.9 & 3.83017 & 2452201.20424 & 21.528 & 20.990 & 20.156 & \\
794: cep029 & 0:02:01.15 & -15:32:09.2 & 3.82512 & 2452198.77320 & 22.076 & 21.478 & 20.551 & V38\\
795: cep030 & 0:01:51.94 & -15:27:11.1 & 3.74707 & 2452198.98222 & 22.129 & 21.479 & 20.472 & \\
796: cep031 & 0:01:54.57 & -15:25:18.1 & 3.65377 & 2452200.36249 & 21.606 & 21.044 & 20.173 & \\
797: cep032 & 0:02:00.60 & -15:26:21.8 & 3.47735 & 2452201.41880 & 22.033 & 21.248 & 20.031 & \\
798: cep033 & 0:01:58.99 & -15:24:37.3 & 3.30475 & 2452199.14958 & 22.193 & 21.655 & 20.821 & \\
799: \enddata
800: \end{deluxetable}
801:
802: \setcounter{table}{0}
803: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c c c c c}
804: \tablecaption{Cepheids in WLM - continued}
805: %\tablewidth{0pt}
806: \tablehead{
807: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{P} & \colhead{
808: ${\rm T}_{0}$} &
809: \colhead{$<V>$} & \colhead{$<I>$} & \colhead{$<W_{\rm I}>$} & \colhead{remarks}\\
810: & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} &
811: \colhead{ [days]} & &
812: \colhead{[mag]} & \colhead{[mag]} & \colhead{[mag]} &
813: }
814: \startdata
815: cep034 & 0:02:00.46 & -15:26:44.2 & 3.24559 & 2452199.75819 & 22.107 & 21.536 & 20.651 & \\
816: cep035 & 0:01:58.10 & -15:28:57.9 & 3.20292 & 2452199.69890 & 22.106 & 21.620 & 20.867 & \\
817: cep036 & 0:01:59.18 & -15:24:18.1 & 3.13908 & 2452200.37271 & 22.075 & 21.700 & 21.119 & V1\\
818: cep037 & 0:02:00.13 & -15:24:20.8 & 3.13102 & 2452199.64936 & 22.200 & 21.582 & 20.624 & \\
819: cep038 & 0:02:01.47 & -15:25:08.9 & 3.03891 & 2452199.44801 & 22.301 & 21.544 & 20.371 & \\
820: cep039 & 0:01:58.00 & -15:23:39.5 & 3.02576 & 2452201.61526 & 22.413 & 21.669 & 20.516 & \\
821: cep040 & 0:02:04.72 & -15:25:11.0 & 2.96301 & 2452199.33434 & 21.907 & 21.272 & 20.288 & \\
822: cep041 & 0:01:50.67 & -15:28:55.4 & 2.92899 & 2452202.05423 & 22.550 & 21.888 & 20.862 & \\
823: cep042 & 0:02:01.68 & -15:32:13.8 & 2.92454 & 2452202.46634 & 22.289 & 21.804 & 21.052 & \\
824: cep043 & 0:01:58.03 & -15:30:38.6 & 2.88896 & 2452201.16317 & 22.002 & 21.462 & 20.625 & \\
825: cep044 & 0:01:57.18 & -15:31:30.1 & 2.83459 & 2452199.52500 & 22.028 & 21.468 & 20.600 & \\
826: cep045 & 0:01:54.73 & -15:22:29.8 & 2.80077 & 2452201.45090 & 21.926 & 21.397 & 20.577 & \\
827: cep046 & 0:01:57.84 & -15:22:09.3 & 2.74179 & 2452200.78817 & 22.976 & 22.500 & 21.762 & \\
828: cep047 & 0:02:01.59 & -15:19:50.0 & 2.64641 & 2452200.62767 & 22.971 & 22.208 & 21.025 & \\
829: cep048 & 0:02:09.54 & -15:22:53.6 & 2.52010 & 2452201.90797 & 22.474 & - & - & \\
830: cep049 & 0:01:59.67 & -15:25:16.3 & 2.51004 & 2452200.24177 & 22.055 & 21.729 & 21.224 & \\
831: cep050 & 0:02:00.74 & -15:28:58.4 & 2.48031 & 2452201.87459 & 21.575 & 20.958 & 20.002 & \\
832: cep051 & 0:01:58.61 & -15:26:11.6 & 2.38903 & 2452199.88267 & 21.533 & 20.631 & 19.233 & \\
833: cep052 & 0:02:03.77 & -15:28:49.7 & 2.38701 & 2452200.11112 & 22.001 & 21.567 & 20.894 & \\
834: cep053 & 0:02:03.63 & -15:32:42.7 & 2.35613 & 2452201.71542 & 22.916 & 22.540 & 21.957 & \\
835: cep054 & 0:02:03.22 & -15:24:55.6 & 2.34579 & 2452200.82716 & 22.761 & 22.053 & 20.956 & \\
836: cep055 & 0:02:00.77 & -15:26:25.5 & 2.33770 & 2452200.24656 & 21.459 & 21.118 & 20.589 & \\
837: cep056 & 0:02:09.55 & -15:31:35.0 & 2.29048 & 2452200.50653 & 22.908 & 22.298 & 21.352 & \\
838: cep057 & 0:01:59.85 & -15:28:59.8 & 2.16776 & 2452201.55259 & 22.877 & 22.046 & 20.758 & \\
839: cep058 & 0:01:54.61 & -15:28:37.0 & 2.12863 & 2452201.26721 & 22.358 & 21.748 & 20.802 & \\
840: cep059 & 0:02:00.00 & -15:25:59.8 & 1.64746 & 2452201.88190 & 22.395 & 21.315 & 19.641 & blend\\
841: cep060 & 0:01:53.57 & -15:29:57.0 & 1.62627 & 2452201.78043 & 22.640 & 22.234 & 21.605 & \\
842: \enddata
843: \end{deluxetable}
844:
845:
846: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
847: \tablecaption{Individual V and I Observations}
848: \tablehead{
849: \colhead{object} & \colhead{filter} &
850: \colhead{HJD-2450000} & \colhead{mag} & \colhead{$\sigma_{mag}$}\\
851: }
852: \startdata
853: cep001 & V & 2859.767260 & 18.992 & 0.011\\
854: cep001 & V & 2870.773910 & 19.139 & 0.010\\
855: cep001 & V & 2877.719380 & 19.311 & 0.011\\
856: cep001 & V & 2884.726910 & 19.531 & 0.011\\
857: cep001 & V & 2902.671760 & 18.838 & 0.007\\
858: cep001 & V & 2906.700510 & 18.876 & 0.008\\
859: cep001 & V & 2910.673090 & 18.946 & 0.010\\
860: cep001 & V & 2915.629040 & 19.010 & 0.012\\
861: cep001 & V & 2930.643450 & 19.237 & 0.011\\
862: cep001 & V & 2934.624860 & 19.378 & 0.011\\
863: cep001 & V & 2942.576190 & 19.560 & 0.014\\
864: cep001 & V & 2950.543020 & 18.961 & 0.019\\
865: cep001 & V & 2954.584470 & 18.837 & 0.014\\
866: cep001 & V & 2959.548090 & 18.884 & 0.007\\
867: cep001 & V & 2963.554610 & 18.947 & 0.010\\
868: cep001 & V & 2966.523340 & 18.979 & 0.010\\
869: cep001 & V & 2968.541650 & 19.018 & 0.011\\
870: cep001 & V & 2971.552980 & 19.051 & 0.010\\
871: cep001 & V & 2972.535090 & 19.053 & 0.011\\
872: cep001 & V & 2973.555780 & 19.058 & 0.012\\
873: \enddata
874: \tablecomments{The complete version of this table is in the electronic
875: edition of the Journal. The printed edition contains only
876: the the first 20 measurements in V band for the Cepheid variable cep001.}
877:
878: \end{deluxetable}
879:
880:
881: \begin{figure}[p]
882: \vspace*{25cm}
883: \special{psfile=fig1a.ps hoffset=0 voffset=500 hscale=65 vscale=65}
884: \special{psfile=fig1b.ps hoffset=0 voffset=330 hscale=65 vscale=65}
885: \special{psfile=fig1c.ps hoffset=0 voffset=160 hscale=65 vscale=65}
886: \special{psfile=fig1d.ps hoffset=0 voffset=-10 hscale=65 vscale=65}
887: \caption{The comparison of the photometric zero points in our V- and I-band
888: photometry of WLM obtained from the OGLE II single chip and the OGLE III
889: mosaic camera. The independent zero point determinations are consistent
890: to better than 0.02 mag, and there are no significant trends with color
891: or magnitude in the data.}
892: \end{figure}
893:
894:
895: \begin{figure}[htb]
896: \vspace*{22cm}
897: \special{psfile=fig2.ps hoffset=-30 voffset=-50 hscale=85
898: vscale=85}
899: \caption{Phased V- and I-band light curves for some Cepheids of different
900: periods in our WLM catalog. These light curves are representative for the
901: light curves of other Cepheid variables of similar periods.
902: }
903: \end{figure}
904:
905:
906: \begin{figure}[htb]
907: \vspace*{15cm}
908: \special{psfile=fig3.ps hoffset=20 voffset=20 hscale=100
909: vscale=100}
910: \caption{The V,V-I magnitude-color diagram for WLM. The Cepheids discovered
911: in our survey are marked with black circles. They fill the expected
912: region of the Cepheid instability strip for fundamental mode pulsators
913: in this diagram, yielding supporting evidence that the classification of
914: the variables as classical fundamental mode Cepheids is correct.
915: }
916: \end{figure}
917:
918:
919: \begin{figure}[htb]
920: \vspace*{15cm}
921: \special{psfile=fig4.ps hoffset=0 voffset=80 hscale=100 vscale=100}
922: \caption{The period-luminosity relation from the 35 Cepheid variables in WLM with
923: logP (days) $>$ 0.5. Black circles show those Cepheids with logP $>$ 0.7.
924: This sample of 19 stars is unaffected by Malmquist bias and contamination with
925: possible overtone pulsators, and the mean magnitudes of the variables are determined to better
926: than 1\% (random uncertainty). The slope of the fitting line is taken from
927: the LMC Cepheid PL relation of the OGLE II project and provides an excellent fit
928: to the data.
929: }
930: \end{figure}
931:
932:
933: \begin{figure}[htb]
934: \vspace*{15cm}
935: \special{psfile=fig5.ps hoffset=0 voffset=80 hscale=100 vscale=100}
936: \caption{Same as Fig. 4, for the I band.
937: }
938: \end{figure}
939:
940: \begin{figure}[htb]
941: \vspace*{15cm}
942: \special{psfile=fig6.ps hoffset=0 voffset=80 hscale=100 vscale=100}
943: \caption{Same as Fig. 4, for the reddening-independent (V-I) Wesenheit
944: magnitudes. The very small scatter in this diagram for the Cepheids
945: denoted by the black circles indicates that this sample is free of
946: significantly blended stars which would tend to decrease the distance
947: of WLM derived from these data.
948: }
949: \end{figure}
950:
951:
952: \end{document}
953:
954:
955: