1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
5: %\usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
8: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
9:
10: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}
11:
12: \shorttitle{On the Origin of Bimodal HBs in Massive GCs}
13:
14: \shortauthors{Yoon et al.}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{ON THE ORIGIN OF BIMODAL HORIZONTAL-BRANCHES IN MASSIVE GLOBULAR CLUSTERS:
19: \\THE CASE OF NGC 6388 and NGC 6441}
20:
21: \author{Suk-Jin Yoon, Seok-Joo Joo, Chang H. Ree, Sang-Il Han, Do-Gyun Kim, and Young-Wook Lee}
22:
23: \affil{Center for Space Astrophysics \& Department of Astronomy, Yonsei
24: University, Seoul 120-749, Korea}
25:
26: \email{sjyoon@galaxy.yonsei.ac.kr}
27:
28: %\altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astrophysics, University of Oxford, Keble Road,
29: %Oxford OX1 3RH, UK }
30:
31: %=========================================================================
32: %=========================================================================
33: \begin{abstract}
34:
35: Despite the efforts of the past decade, the origin of the bimodal
36: horizontal-branch (HB) found in some globular clusters (GCs) remains
37: a conundrum. Inspired by the discovery of multiple stellar
38: populations in the {\it most massive} Galactic GC, $\omega$
39: Centauri, we investigate the possibility that two distinct
40: populations may coexist and are responsible for the bimodal HBs in
41: the {\it third} and {\it fifth} brightest GCs, NGC 6388 and NGC
42: 6441. Using the population synthesis technique, we examine two
43: different chemical ``self-enrichment'' hypotheses in which a
44: primordial GC was sufficiently massive to contain two or more
45: distinct populations as suggested by the populations found in
46: $\omega$ Cen: (1) the age-metallicity relation scenario in which two
47: populations with different metallicity and age coexist, following an
48: internal age-metallicity relation, and (2) the super-helium-rich
49: scenario in which GCs contain a certain fraction of helium-enhanced stars,
50: for instance, the second generation stars formed from the helium-enriched ejecta of the
51: first. The comparative study indicates that the detailed
52: color-magnitude diagram morphologies and the properties of the RR
53: Lyrae variables in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 support the latter
54: scenario; i.e., the model which assumes a minor fraction ($\sim$ 15
55: \%) of helium-excess (Y $\simeq$ 0.3) stars.
56: The results suggest that helium content is the main driver behind
57: the HB bimodality found most often in massive GCs. If confirmed, the
58: GC-to-GC variation of helium abundance should be considered a {\it
59: local} effect, further supporting the argument that age is the {\it
60: global} second parameter of HB morphology.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \keywords{Galaxy: formation --- globular clusters: general ---
64: globular clusters: individual (NGC 6388, NGC 6441) ---
65: stars: horizontal-branch --- stars: RR Lyrae variables}
66:
67: %=========================================================================
68: %=========================================================================
69: \section{INTRODUCTION}
70:
71: The horizontal-branch (HB) morphology of a globular cluster (GC) is defined as
72: the color distribution of its HB stars. The physical cause of the wide
73: diversity in the HB morphology among GCs with similar metallicity, or the
74: ``second parameter effect", has long been the subject of examination
75: \citep{lee94,ste96,sar97,lee99a,bel01,cat05,rec06}. Although several other
76: variables may simultaneously play roles in HB morphology, the idea that GC age
77: is the major second parameter has been very popular \citep{lee94,rey01,yoo02}.
78: However, one of the strongest arguments against the age hypothesis has been the
79: existence of a number of GCs whose HB color distribution is distinctly bimodal
80: \citep{roo93,ste96}. An explanation based purely upon age as the second
81: parameter suggests that, at a given metallicity, the population associated with
82: the red HB is a few gigayears younger than that associated with the blue HB.
83: This cannot be reconciled with the traditional ``single-population" picture of
84: GCs.
85:
86: Perhaps the most striking examples of HB bimodality are the two Galactic bulge
87: GCs, NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, along with NGC 2808 \citep{pio02,sos97}. NGC 6388
88: and NGC 6441 are relatively metal-rich GCs with [Fe/H] = $-$0.60 and $-$0.53,
89: respectively \citep{arm98}. Observations from the {\it Hubble Space Telescope}
90: ({\it HST}\,) have revealed the presence of a significant fraction of extended
91: blue-HB stars \citep{pio97,ric97,pri03,pio02,bus04,cat06}, in addition to a
92: majority of red-HB stars as would be expected given their metallicity.
93:
94: Recent studies suggest that the long-standing puzzle of the HB bimodality may
95: no longer be a complete mystery. It has been discovered that at least four
96: discrete populations coexist in the most massive Galactic GC, $\omega$ Cen
97: \citep[and references therein]{lee99b,sta06}. This finding obviously opposes
98: the conventional ``single-population'' picture of GCs, and also provides an
99: instructive precedent for the bimodal-HB feature in other GCs. The multiple populations
100: in $\omega$ Cen imply an internal age-metallicity relation (AMR), in that stars
101: having a higher metallicity are younger. Furthermore, subsequent observations
102: have revealed the presence of a marked double main-sequence (MS) with a
103: minority population of bluer and/or fainter MS stars, which are separated from
104: the majority \citep{and02,bed04}. \citet{nor04} and \citet{pio05} have
105: suggested that a greatly enhanced helium abundance ($\Delta$Y = 0.12 $\sim$
106: 0.14) can explain the split MS of $\omega$ Cen. Lee et al. (2005) have further
107: shown that the helium-enhanced population in the MS is most likely the
108: progenitor of the extreme HB (EHB) stars.
109:
110: It has also come to our attention that the integrated luminosities of NGC 6388
111: and NGC 6441 \citep{har96} make them {\it the third and fifth brightest} GCs
112: next to $\omega$ Cen and M54 among the $\sim$ 150 Galactic GCs
113: \citep{yoo00,ree02}. We are particularly inspired by the fact that five of the
114: 10 brightest GCs can be characterized by the ``composite'' nature of
115: color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs), such as multiple red-giant-branches (RGBs) and/or
116: bimodal HBs \citep{van96}. The five GCs in this group are $\omega$ Cen, M54
117: \citep{sie07}, the two GCs of interest in this study, NGC 6388 and NGC 6441,
118: and the seventh brightest GC, NGC 2808 (Table 1, 6th column). On the other
119: hand, according to the \citet{har96} catalog, the 11 confirmed or suspected
120: bimodal-HB GCs \citep{cat98} are always brighter than the turnover of the
121: $V$-band luminosity function ($M_V^{tot}$ $\simeq$ $-$7) of the Galactic GC
122: system (Fig. 1$a$). The relative fraction of the combined sample of the
123: bimodal-HB GCs, $\omega$ Cen, and M54 progressively increases at the higher
124: brightness bin (Fig. 1$b$). It may be that there is a link between the massive
125: bimodal-HB GCs and the most massive multiple-population GCs -- $\omega$ Cen and
126: M54.
127:
128: The purpose of this paper is to explore, with the stellar population synthesis
129: technique, the possibility that two distinct stellar populations may coexist
130: and be responsible for the HB bimodality in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. We assume
131: the two chemical ``self-enrichment" processes that were proposed to explain
132: discrete subpopulations in $\omega$ Cen: (1) the two hypothetical
133: subpopulations in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 follow an internal AMR (hereafter ``the
134: AMR scenario"), and (2) NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 contain a certain fraction of
135: super-helium-rich (SHR) stars (hereafter ``the SHR scenario''). Further
136: investigation is in progress to determine whether one of these scenarios can
137: account for other GCs thought to contain bimodal HBs \citep{cat98}, including
138: NGC 1851, NGC 2808, and NGC 6229.
139:
140: The paper is organized as follows. A brief description of the stellar
141: population models is given in \S\,2. We compare the synthetic CMDs (\S\,3) and
142: the model RR Lyraes (\S\,4) to observed data. We argue that the bimodality of
143: HBs and the unusual properties of the RR Lyrae variables observed in NGC 6388
144: and NGC 6441 are better explained by the SHR scenario. Finally, we discuss the
145: implications of our results in \S\,5.
146:
147: %=========================================================================
148: %=========================================================================
149: \section{STELLAR POPULATION MODELS}
150:
151: The present models are constructed using the Yonsei Evolutionary Population
152: Synthesis (YEPS) code \citep{par97,lee99b,lee00,rey01,yoo02,lee05,yoo06}. The models
153: use a set of stellar libraries for the MS--RGB and post-RGB evolutionary tracks
154: that were built using the same input physics for consistency.
155: Combined with RR Lyrae pulsation theories, the synthetic
156: population models can predict the properties of the RR Lyrae variables
157: \citep{lee90,yoo02}. It is not our intention to discuss the population
158: synthesis technique in this paper, and readers are referred to the above papers
159: and Yoon et al. (2008, {\it in prep.}) for the details of the YEPS model. Table
160: 2 and Table 3 summarize the model's ingredients and input parameters employed
161: in this study.
162:
163: %=========================================================================
164: %=========================================================================
165: \section{COLOR-MAGNITUDE DIAGRAMS} %\label{bozomath}
166:
167: %=========================================================================
168: \subsection{The Age-Metallicity Relation (AMR) Model} %\label{bozomath}
169:
170: Figure 2 compares our population models to the observed {\it HST} CMDs of NGC
171: 6388 and NGC 6441 \citep{ric97}. We note that more recent {\it HST} CMDs now
172: exist for the GCs \citep{pri03,cat06}. For NGC 6441, however, we selected
173: Rich et al.'s CMD instead of that of \citet{pri03} as the former is better
174: fit for the purposes of our CMD analysis in this section. The snapshot study by
175: Pritzl et al. is abundant in information on variable stars and clearly more
176: appropriate for the RR Lyrae analysis, so we fully exploit their results in
177: \S\,4. For the sake of consistency with the case of NGC 6441, we also opt for
178: Rich et al.'s CMD over the superseding CMD by \citet{cat06} for NGC 6388.
179:
180: To simulate CMDs based on the AMR hypothesis (Figs. 2$b$ \& 2$e$), we first
181: generate model CMDs assuming a common age of 13 Gyr, but different [Fe/H] of
182: $-$0.60 for NGC 6388 and $-$0.53 for NGC 6441. Once the model shows reasonable
183: agreement with the MS through the RGB and {\it red} portions of the HB, we
184: then, according to our working hypothesis, add the second minor component
185: following a mild internal AMR. We adjust the AMR parameters until the model
186: CMDs mimic both the overall appearance and the population number ratios of the
187: HB. Given the level of photometric accuracy, the purpose of our CMD fit is
188: neither to determine the absolute age of the GCs nor to make a definitive
189: statement about their exact AMR parameters. For a direct comparison with
190: observations, we carried out Monte Carlo error simulations based on the actual
191: observational uncertainties.
192:
193: The occurrence of a rather strong differential reddening across the fields of
194: NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 is a well-known phenomenon
195: \citep{pio97,hei99,lay99,rai02,law03}. Interestingly, the differential
196: reddening effect facilitates the development of markedly sloped red clumps. By
197: including such an effect, our model can reproduce the tilted red clump found in
198: the GCs. However, several studies have argued that the observed
199: differential reddening would not be enough to turn a ``normal'' red HB into a
200: significantly sloped structure \citep{cat96,bea01,rai02}. It is thus important
201: to assess the extent to which the models are able to reproduce the red clumps.
202:
203: Figure 3 illustrates our numerical experiments on the impact of differential
204: reddening upon these structures. The middle panels (Figs. 3$b$ \& 3$e$) show
205: the flat red clumps without differential reddening, and the right panels (Figs.
206: 3$c$ \& 3$f$) show the tilt of the clumps due to this effect. The simulations
207: suggest that a differential reddening value of $\sigma_{E(B-V)}$ = 0.03 (mag.)
208: is sufficient for the models to reproduce the observed tilt of the red clumps.
209: This is comparable to the observed value of $\Delta E(B-V)$ $<$ 0.1 ($\sim$ 3
210: $\times$ $\sigma_{E(B-V)}$) in \citet{rai02}, and slightly smaller than
211: $\Delta$$E(B-V)$ $\simeq$ 0.15 ($\sim$ 5 $\times$ $\sigma_{E(B-V)}$) in
212: \citet{pio97}, \citet{hei99}, \citet{lay99}, and \citet{law03}.
213: Figure 3 also shows that the
214: models reproduce the observed RGB bump positions. It should be stressed that,
215: in addition to the shape of red HB clumps, the differential reddening effect seems
216: to be necessary to reproduce the observed scatter and possible tilt of the RGB
217: bumps.
218:
219: We now turn back to Figure 2. The comparison of the CMDs between observed data
220: (Figs. 2$a$ \& 2$d$) and the models (Figs. 2$b$ \& 2$e$) shows reasonable
221: matches from the MS through the HB. The colors of RGB stars are sensitive to
222: metallicity, especially in the high-[Fe/H] regime. Yet, the metallicity
223: differences between the two hypothetical populations are small enough to
224: produce apparently single RGBs within observational uncertainties. Decreasing
225: age shifts the color of the RGB towards blue, and this effect, albeit small,
226: also helps to generate the single RGBs.
227:
228: Another important result illustrated in Figure 2 is that the observed bimodal
229: HBs can be reproduced by the sum of the red HB (from the metal-rich younger
230: component) and the blue HB (from the metal-poor older component).
231: Interestingly, theories of stellar evolution predict that increasing age or
232: decreasing metallicity yields a bluer HB, whereas decreasing age or increasing
233: metallicity produces a redder HB \citep{lee94}. Hence, it is obvious that an
234: internal AMR splits readily the HB of each population in two, leading to bimodal HBs.
235: Moreover, our population models \citep{lee99a,rey01,yoo02} show that the HB
236: morphology is more sensitive to GC age by a factor of two when compared to
237: earlier studies \citep{lee94}. This results in a substantial reduction in the
238: required age difference between blue- and red-HB populations. This is significant
239: because all of the bimodal-HB GCs found to date \citep{cat98} have no
240: noticeable structure in the CMDs near the MS turn-offs \citep{pio02}, thus
241: leaving little room for an age spread of more than a couple of gigayears. The
242: difference in [Fe/H] and the ages required to reproduce their CMD morphologies
243: are 0.35 dex and 2.0 Gyr for NGC 6388, and 0.22 dex and 2.0 Gyr for NGC 6441
244: (Table 3).
245:
246: There are several versions of the semi-empirical mass-loss formula
247: used for reproducing the observed amount of the mass loss in giant
248: stars. Various mass-loss formulae are summarized by \citet{cat00,cat05}.
249: We note that a different choice of formulae
250: somewhat alters the required difference in [Fe/H] and age
251: between the blue and red HBs, but does not affect our conclusion.
252: For instance, according to Figure 11 of \citet{cat00}, the
253: \citet{rei75} formula would allow $\Delta$age = 2.0 Gyr centered at
254: 13 Gyr to yield a 5 \% difference in $\Delta M$ (i.e., the mass loss
255: along the RGB). If one adopts Equation A5 (the steepest one) in
256: \citet{cat00}, then 5 \% in $\Delta M$ translates into $\Delta$age =
257: 2.3 Gyr centered at 13 Gyr. Thus, even the most extreme choice of
258: the mass-loss formula would cause only a $\sim$ 15 \% [$=$
259: (2.3$-$2.0)$/$2.0] change in the age difference between red- and
260: blue-HB populations. In order to inspect the metallicity dependence
261: of the formulae, we take the steepest example in Figure 4 of
262: \citet{cat05} instead of the Reimers' formula, and find that the
263: required difference in [Fe/H] between red- and blue-HB populations
264: in the AMR model becomes smaller by about a factor of eight. This
265: makes the reproduction of bimodal HBs even easier.
266:
267: The above analyses lead us to conclude that a mild internal AMR between the two
268: hypothetical populations may be a plausible cause of the HB bimodality,
269: together with the single MSs and RGBs within observational uncertainties.
270:
271: %=========================================================================
272: \subsection{The Super-Helium-Rich (SHR) Model} %\label{bozomath}
273:
274: We now consider the SHR hypothesis. The model CMDs in Figures 2$c$ \& 2$f$ are
275: constructed based on this assumption. To simulate the CMDs, we adopt [Fe/H] =
276: $-$0.60 for NGC 6388 and $-$0.53 for NGC 6441, with a common age of 13 Gyr and
277: a helium abundance of Y = 0.245. The major dominant populations are the same in
278: both the AMR (the metal-rich younger component denoted by ``1''
279: in Figs. 2$b$ \& 2$e$ ) and
280: the SHR (the normal-helium component denoted again by ``1''
281: in Fig. 2$c$ \& 2$f$) models.
282: We then add a helium-enhanced population according to our working hypothesis. The
283: helium abundance and the number of stars are adjusted until the best match
284: between the modeled and observed CMDs is achieved, especially for the blue HB
285: appearance. Observational errors and differential reddening effects are also
286: simulated in the same manner as in the AMR model.
287:
288: \citet{pio05} report that the stars of the bluer component of the split MS in
289: $\omega$ Cen are more metal-rich (by 0.3 dex in [Fe/H]) than those of the
290: dominant redder component. For NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, however, there is no such
291: constraint dictated by observations. For a reference, in order for a 0.3 dex
292: more metal-rich population to mimic the observed blue-HB structure in NGC 6388
293: and NGC 6441, the required increase in helium abundance ($\Delta$Y) is
294: as small as 0.02. Hence, in the
295: SHR scenario, we consider the helium-enriched population to have the same
296: [Fe/H] as the normal-Y population. The parameters required to reproduce
297: their CMD morphologies are listed in Table 3.
298:
299: The model CMDs based on the SHR assumption match well with observations from
300: the MS through the HB. The variation in helium abundance has a relatively weak
301: effect on the MS to the RGB, so the simulations show no indication of
302: bifurcation on the MS through the RGB in each model CMD. The multiple MS feature,
303: as found in $\omega$ Cen \citep{pio05} and NGC 2808 \citep{pio07},
304: is not feasible in the available CMDs which contain
305: considerable observational uncertainty under the MS turnoffs. More importantly,
306: the observed bimodal HBs can be reproduced by the sum of the red HB (from the
307: normal helium component) and the blue HB (from the helium-enriched component).
308: For identical values of the total mass and helium core mass, theoretical models
309: show that the HB stars with a higher Y are bluer \citep{roo70,swe76}. Moreover,
310: for a given age and metal abundance, a helium-enriched HB star has a thinner
311: hydrogen envelope surrounding the helium-burning core, making the HB even
312: bluer. As a result, bimodal HBs with single RGBs can be achieved given
313: the assumption that $\sim$ 15 \% of the stars in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 have an
314: enhanced helium abundance of $\Delta$Y $\simeq$ 0.05 (Table 3).
315:
316: The CMD morphology analysis suggests that both the AMR and SHR models are
317: generally in first-order agreement with observations, reproducing the bimodal
318: HBs along with the single RGBs. We proceed to make a detailed
319: comparison of the HB structures in the two models.
320:
321: %=========================================================================
322: \subsection{Comparison between the AMR and SHR Models} %\label{bozomath}
323:
324: Apart from the overall agreement in the CMD morphology between the observations
325: and the models, there is an important feature of HBs that must be explained in
326: detail. The observed HBs seem to slope upward with decreasing $(B-V)$, and
327: their upper parts are brighter than the bulk of the red HBs by $\sim$ 0.5 mag
328: in $V$ \citep{ric97,swe98,rai02,pri03,cat06}.
329:
330: The AMR models in Figures 2$b$ \& 2$e$ can only partially recreate the feature
331: by virtue of the HB evolutionary effect \citep{lee90}. If there are two HB
332: populations as predicted by the AMR model, the stars at the top of the blue HB
333: are most likely to be highly evolved and thus brighter than stars near the
334: zero-age HB (ZAHB). As a result, the HB evolutionary effect promotes the difference in
335: brightness between the upper part of the blue HB and the red clump. However,
336: inspection of Figures 2$a$ \& 2$d$ suggests that the RR Lyraes in NGC 6388 and
337: NGC 6441 appear to be dominated by stars near the ZAHB. It is therefore
338: unlikely that the brightness of the blue HBs of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 support
339: the AMR scenario.
340:
341: In contrast to the AMR model, the interesting HB appearance can be more readily
342: reproduced by the SHR model (Figs. 2$c$ \& 2$f$), because helium-rich HB stars
343: are intrinsically brighter. In an attempt to explain the sloping blue HB
344: extensions in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, \citet{swe98} have first proposed a high
345: helium abundance (Y $\simeq$ 0.4). However, \citet{lay99} claimed that the
346: estimated Y values of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 via the R-method strongly disfavor
347: that scenario. Layden et al. showed that the models in which Y = 0.38 and 0.43,
348: presented in Sweigart \& Catelan, inevitably yield R = 3.4 and 3.9. These are
349: about 3 $\sigma$ away from the observed value of R = 1.6 $\pm$ 0.7, which
350: corresponds to Y = $0.25^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$. Although our SHR model in this study
351: assumes a subpopulation with a high helium abundance (Y $\simeq$ 0.3), its
352: number fraction is as low as $\sim$ 15 \%. A calculation shows that the
353: number-weighted {\it mean} Y of the GCs in our SHR model is as low as Y
354: $\simeq$ 0.254 for NGC 6488 and 0.252 for NGC 6441, in complete accordance with
355: $0.25^{+0.05}_{-0.08}$ by \citet{lay99}.
356:
357: Observations indicate that NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 contain a small portion of
358: additional EHB stars on their HBs. For the AMR model to reproduce this detail,
359: it should employ a unreasonably large mass dispersion ($\sigma_{M}$ $\sim$ 0.06 $M_{\odot}$)
360: on the blue HBs. This is three times larger than
361: the commonly used value of $\sigma_{M}$ = 0.02 $M_{\odot}$ \citep{lee94,cat98,yoo02},
362: which is currently used for the red HBs in our models.
363: In contrast, the SHR model requires only $\sigma_{M}$ $\simeq$ 0.03
364: $M_{\odot}$ to simulate the EHB structure. This is because, for larger helium
365: abundances, the blue loops in the evolutionary tracks can become considerably
366: longer, reaching higher effective temperatures \citep{swe87}.
367:
368: Alternatively, there is a possibility of the presence of a minor
369: third subpopulation which is responsible for the EHBs in NGC 6388
370: and NGC 6441. In the AMR hypothesis, the third population presumably
371: has an older age than the underlying metal-poor old population. Our
372: model suggests an age as high as $\gtrsim$ 17 Gyr. Such an
373: unrealistically old age would not be acceptable. In the SHR model,
374: on the other hand, the third population should have a larger $\Delta$Y
375: than the blue-HB component. Our present model gives
376: a helium abundance of Y $\simeq$ 0.33 -- 0.34 for the EHB stars in
377: NGC 6388 and NGC 6441.
378:
379: It is interesting to note that the SHR scenario is more consistent
380: with EHB (a. k. a. ``blue hook'') stars that are known to be fainter
381: than the redder HB stars and below the ZAHB locus.
382: \citet{lee05} show that the hottest EHB stars found in NGC 2808
383: \citep{bro01} are fainter than the redder HB stars as a natural
384: consequence of their high Y, consistent with \citet{swe87} predictions.
385: This may indicate that a high Y is sufficient {\it per se} to
386: explain the hottest blue-hook stars without necessarily invoking a delayed
387: helium flash \citep{lan04,moe04}. Readers are referred to
388: \citet{cat05} for various characteristics of EHB stars. The origin
389: of EHB stars and their possible link to the HB bimodality are
390: interesting issues worth further investigation. In this study we
391: consider the EHB stars as blue HB stars when calculating the number
392: ratios of blue and red HB stars.
393:
394: \citet{cle05} have shown that the mean metallicity of the RR Lyrae stars in NGC
395: 6441 is close enough to the typical metal abundance for this cluster.
396: More recently, \citet{gra07} have found no clear sign of
397: star-to-star Fe abundance variation in NGC 6441 from the Giraffe spectrograph at VLT2.
398: Hence, there appears to be a growing body of evidence that contradicts the
399: notion that RR Lyraes and blue HB stars have a lower metal abundance.
400: Moreover, \citet{moe06} have reported that the physical parameters of the cool blue HB
401: stars in NGC 6388 are consistent with the predictions of the helium enrichment
402: scenario, adding support to the SHR hypothesis.
403:
404: We have compared the AMR and SHR models in terms of the CMD morphology, and
405: concluded that the SHR model is more successful at reproducing the details of
406: the observed CMDs of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. There is yet another important
407: feature to be accounted for -- their unusual RR Lyrae properties. This is the
408: subject of the following section.
409:
410: %=========================================================================
411: %=========================================================================
412: \section{RR LYRAE VARIABLE STARS} %\label{bozomath}
413:
414: Observations \citep{swe98,lay99,cle01,pri00,pri01,pri02,pri03,cor06} have
415: revealed unusual properties of the RR Lyrae variables in NGC 6388
416: and NGC 6441. First, the mean pulsation periods of both the ${ab}$-
417: and $c$-type variables are too long for their metallicities, so they
418: do not fall into either of the usual Oosterhoff groups
419: \citep{oos39,yoo02}. Second, the number fraction of type $c$
420: variables, $N(c)/N(ab+c)$, falls between the two Oosterhoff groups,
421: but closer to that of the group II than of the group I. This is unusual because
422: the traditional group II GCs are always metal-poor ([Fe/H] $\leq$ $-$1.6).
423: These findings have posed yet another serious challenge to our
424: understanding of the GC stellar population. It is interesting to see
425: whether the present models based on the AMR and the SHR hypotheses
426: reproduce the peculiar properties of RR Lyrae variables in NGC 6388
427: and NGC 6441.
428:
429: %=========================================================================
430: \subsection{The Pulsating Periods} %\label{bozomath}
431:
432: Figure 4 presents a direct comparison between the observed and predicted RR
433: Lyraes in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 in terms of their pulsating periods as a function of
434: $(B-V)_0$. In Figures 4$a$ \& 4$d$, we show 12 RR Lyraes found in NGC 6388
435: \citep{pri02}, and 63 RR Lyraes in NGC 6441 \citep{pri01,pri03}. To obtain the
436: fundamental periods ($P_F$), the $c$-type period ($P_c$) has been
437: fundamentalized using the equation, Log $P_F$ = Log $P_c$ + 0.13 \citep{cas87,lee90}. As
438: shown in Figure 2, the RR Lyrae stars are predicted to belong to the blue-HB
439: components in both the AMR and SHR models. Since the inferred physical
440: parameters of the blue-HB populations of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 are almost
441: identical (Table 3), one may consider the RR Lyrae populations of the two GCs
442: to be twins. Indeed, Figure 4$a$ reveals that, despite a difference in the
443: observed number of RR Lyraes in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, their RR Lyrae
444: distributions in the $P_F$ vs. $(B-V)_0$ diagram are statistically
445: indistinguishable from each other. On these grounds, we combine the catalogs of
446: NGC 6388 (12 RR Lyraes) and NGC 6441 (63 RR Lyraes) in order to minimize the
447: small number statistics.
448:
449: The AMR model predicts shorter periods at a given $(B-V)_0$ than observations
450: show. Figures 4$b$ \& 4$e$ show examples of the Monte Carlo simulations. The
451: 10,000 Monte Carlo realizations under the AMR assumption give $\langle P_{F}
452: \rangle$ = 0.555 $\pm$ 0.041 (day) from 12 $\pm$ 3 model RR Lyraes (NGC 6388) and
453: 0.567 $\pm$ 0.017 (day) from 63 $\pm$ 7 (NGC 6441). Each of the $\langle P_{F}
454: \rangle$ values is 2.6 $\sigma$ and 5.5 $\sigma$ from the observed value of
455: $\langle P_{F} \rangle$ = 0.661 (day) for the combined NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 data.
456: For the AMR model to achieve a longer mean period, more highly-evolved RR
457: Lyraes and thus a bluer HB are required. However, the number of these evolved
458: and bright RR Lyrae stars is expected to decrease sharply as the HB morphology
459: gets bluer. This problem has been investigated in detail by \citet{pri02}, who
460: concluded that the model, which produces the observed ratio between blue HB
461: stars and RR Lyraes, cannot reproduce the exceedingly long mean period of NGC 6388.
462: Therefore, the AMR model appears to be in conflict with the available RR Lyrae
463: observations.
464:
465: On the contrary, the SHR model appears to succeed in reproducing both the mean
466: $P_F$ and the observed $(B-V)_0$--$P_F$ correlations. Figures 4$c$ \& 4$f$ show
467: examples of the Monte Carlo simulations. The 10,000 Monte Carlo realizations
468: performed under the SHR assumption give $\langle P_{F} \rangle$ = 0.629 $\pm$
469: 0.041 (day) from 12 $\pm$ 3 model RR Lyraes (NGC 6388) and 0.645 $\pm$ 0.018 (day)
470: from 63 $\pm$ 7 (NGC 6441). Each of the $\langle P_{F} \rangle$ values exhibits
471: $<$ 1 $\sigma$ agreement with the observed value
472: of $\langle P_{F} \rangle$ = 0.661 (day).
473: As in the AMR model, all of the RR Lyraes belong to the blue-HB population in
474: the SHR model. However, this model does not require the presence of highly
475: evolved RR Lyraes to produce long-period RR Lyraes, as helium-enhanced RR
476: Lyraes are intrinsically brighter and of longer periods. Since most of the RR
477: Lyraes exist at the stage of the ZAHB, their significant numbers are also
478: reproduced. We emphasize that $\Delta$Y = 0.05 reproduces simultaneously the
479: peculiar RR Lyrae periods and the ratio between blue HB and RR Lyrae stars.
480:
481: \citet{pri02} has attributed great importance to the presence of long-period
482: $c$-type RR Lyraes in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, which are rarely found in other
483: GCs. The mean periods of $c$-type variables, $\langle P_c \rangle$, in NGC 6388
484: and NGC 6441 are 0.36 (day) and 0.38 (day). Note that the average $\langle P_c
485: \rangle$ for Galactic GCs is known to be 0.33 (day), respectively. In the AMR
486: model, the assumed $c$-types (i.e., $(B-V)_0$ $\lesssim$ 0.3) are
487: concentrated toward the ZAHB (Figs. 4$b$ \& 4$e$) and thus have short periods.
488: To include evolved $c$-types, the blue HB component must become bluer.
489: However, the model shows that this shift gives rise to a significant decrease
490: in the number of RR Lyraes, as discussed by \citet{pri02}. In contrast to the
491: AMR hypothesis, a raise in $\langle P_c \rangle$ agrees with the SHR scenario.
492: The high helium content increases the zero-point of RR Lyrae brightness,
493: leading to $c$-types of longer periods (Figs. 4$c$ \& 4$f$).
494:
495: %=========================================================================
496: \subsection{The Oosterhoff Groups} %\label{bozomath}
497:
498: Figure 5 shows the correlation between the mean period of type {\it ab} RR
499: Lyraes ($\langle P_{ab} \rangle$) in GCs and their [Fe/H]. In Figure 5$a$, we
500: display the well-known Oosterhoff dichotomy \citep{oos39}, along with the
501: unusual distribution of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. The $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$
502: data are obtained from \citet{cle01} and \citet{cor06}. One can see that the
503: Galactic GCs are mainly divided into two distinct groups according to mean
504: period and metal abundance: Oosterhoff group I (filled squares; $\langle P_{ab}
505: \rangle$ $\simeq$ 0.55 day, and [Fe/H] $>$ $-$1.8) and group II (open squares;
506: $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ $\simeq$ 0.65 day, and [Fe/H] $<$ $-$1.6). NGC 6388
507: and NGC 6441 (solid diamonds) have $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ values of 0.676
508: (nine $ab$-types) and 0.759 (42 $ab$-types), respectively. Note that NGC 6388
509: and NGC 6441 belong to neither Oosterhoff group. It is \citet{pri00} who first
510: showed that NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 do not fall into either of the usual
511: Oosterhoff groups, and proposed the possibility of a new Oosterhoff class. Do
512: NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 break down the traditional Oosterhoff classification
513: scheme? Or, do we need to add a third class to the scheme?
514:
515: The answers to these questions depend solely on our understanding of the origin
516: of the Oosterhoff dichotomy. An explanation for the phenomenon
517: has been put forward in the work of \citet{lz90} and \citet{yoo02}. In
518: particular, \citet{yoo02} have discovered that most of the lowest-metallicity
519: ([Fe/H] $<$ $-$2.0) GCs display a striking planar alignment in the outer-halo of
520: the Milky Way. The alignment, combined with evidence from kinematics and stellar
521: population, indicates that the metal-poorest GCs were originated
522: from a satellite system, very likely from the Large Magellanic Cloud
523: (LMC). In such a case, age and metallicity can be decoupled, so the
524: lowest-metallicity Galactic GCs are not necessarily the oldest component of the
525: Milky Way. This is interesting because the Oosterhoff dichotomy among the
526: Galactic GCs can be naturally reproduced by assuming that the
527: lowest-metallicity GCs are slightly younger than the genuine Galactic GCs of
528: similar metallicity.
529:
530: Figure 5$b$ conveys the essence of the \citet{yoo02} explanation. The Galactic
531: GCs are re-classified according to their Galactocentric distances ($R_G$), and
532: shown along with the population models. From this figure, one can see that the
533: inner- ($R_G$ $<$ 8 kpc) and outer-halo ($R_G$ $>$ 8 kpc) GCs are well
534: represented by the models of the 13-Gyr population (solid line), and by those
535: of a slightly younger population (11.8 Gyr; dashed line), respectively. The
536: observed $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ of the lowest-metallicity ([Fe/H] $<$ $-$2.0)
537: GCs are well reproduced by the dashed line. This line also fits the GCs on
538: retrograde orbits, which are most likely an accreted component of the Milky Way
539: \citep{zin93,van93}. Note also that the LMC GCs follow the same dashed line.
540: From this analysis, \citet{yoo02} conclude that the Oosterhoff dichotomy can be
541: viewed as a manifestation of the age structure of the Galactic GC system, and
542: thus, of the Galactic assembly history.
543:
544: Following the \citet{yoo02} framework, we now compare the AMR and SHR models
545: for NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 in terms of the $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ vs. [Fe/H]
546: correlation (Fig. 5$b$). The use of the input parameters in Table 3 leads the
547: AMR model to predict an $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ that is too low at their
548: [Fe/H] (the lower stripe in Fig. 5$b$). This result is in line with
549: \citet{pri02} and \citet{cat03}, who confirmed the difficulty in reproducing
550: the RR Lyrae periods for the given metallicities of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. We
551: have explored a large parameter space to find a way to reproduce the
552: observations of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 based on the AMR assumption, but failed
553: unless we assumed an unreasonably high age ($>$ 17 Gyr). Such an
554: unrealistically old age is not acceptable. Moreover, the very old population is
555: predicted to have too few RR Lyrae stars when compared with the observations.
556:
557: By contrast, the SHR model is remarkably consistent with the observations
558: displayed in the Oosterhoff diagram (the upper stripe in Fig. 5$b$). We recall
559: that all of the RR Lyraes belong to the blue-HB population in both the AMR and
560: SHR models. When assuming that the helium abundance of the RR Lyraes is
561: enhanced by $\Delta$Y = 0.05 (Table 3), their large $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$
562: values can be easily achieved at their [Fe/H], even with RR Lyraes near the
563: ZAHB. This is not surprising, since any effect that leads to a brighter
564: HB such as an enhanced Y, would lead to longer periods, more consistent with
565: the observations \citep{swe98,swe99}.
566:
567: We finish this section by discussing the unusual values of
568: $N(c)/N(ab+c)$ of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 for their metallicities.
569: The combined data of NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 give 0.40 (= 34/85) \citep{cor06}.
570: The value falls between Oosterhoff group I ($\sim$ 0.2) and group II ($\sim$ 0.5).
571: The $c$-type fraction of RR Lyrae variables has long been known
572: to vary among GCs with differing HB types \citep{lee90}.
573: The $c$-type fraction is significantly higher for predominantly
574: blue HBs with little ZAHB stars within the RR Lyrae strip
575: (Oosterhoff group II) than for red or intermediate HBs (group I).
576: \citet{lee90} demonstrated that the evolutionary effect of blue HBs causes an
577: uneven distribution in $(B-V)$, since the speed of evolution
578: increases as a star evolves further from its original position. As a
579: result, the GCs with predominantly blue HB components are predicted to
580: have high incidences of bluer RR Lyraes, i.e., $c$-type variables.
581: In this regard, the GCs with 0.3 $\lesssim$ $N(c)/N(ab+c)$ $\lesssim$ 0.4
582: can only be produced by a transitional HB morphology
583: from intermediate-HB to predominantly-blue HBs.
584: Under the normal-Y circumstances, GCs with such a transient HB type are rare,
585: because it is hard for blue HBs to contain ZAHBs long enough to extend into the RR Lyrae strip.
586: Few examples include NGC 5904 and NGC 6626 with $N(c)/N(ab+c)$ $\sim$ 0.3.
587: By constrast, the SHR model can generate relatively easily
588: blue HBs with long ZAHBs extending into the instability strip.
589: This is because the high-Y HB tracks are characterized by considerably stretched
590: blue loops \citep{swe87}. The unusual value of
591: $N(c)/N(ab+c)$ ($\sim$ 0.4) for NGC 6388 and NGC 6441, therefore, points toward
592: the SHR scenario.
593:
594: By means of the Oosterhoff class argument, we conclude that the SHR
595: hypothesis provides a more plausible solution to the problem posed by the
596: unusual behaviors of the RR Lyraes in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. As suggested by
597: \citet{pri00}, NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 may be taken as a third class of
598: Oosterhoff groups, and the helium abundance of RR Lyrae stars is the main
599: driver behind this new class.
600:
601: In this section, we have compared the two models in terms of RR Lyrae
602: properties (i.e., the pulsating periods and the Oosterhoff classes), and
603: consistently found that the observations are strongly in favor of the SHR
604: scenario over the AMR scenario.
605:
606: %=========================================================================
607: %=========================================================================
608: \section{DISCUSSION}
609:
610: Using stellar population simulations, we have investigated the possibility that
611: the bimodality of the HBs in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 can be attributed to the
612: presence of two distinct populations. This study was motivated by the discovery
613: of multiple stellar populations coexisting in the most massive Galactic GC,
614: $\omega$ Cen \citep[and references therein]{lee99b,sta06}. We are particularly
615: inspired by the fact that the integrated luminosities of NGC 6388, NGC 6441,
616: and NGC 2808 \citep{har96} make them {\it the 3rd, 5th, and 7th} brightest
617: among the $\sim$ 150 Galactic GCs \citep{yoo00,ree02}.
618:
619: Two chemical enrichment scenarios for GCs are discussed; namely, the
620: age-metallicity relation (AMR) and the super-helium-rich (SHR) scenarios. In
621: both models, two hypothetical populations coexist within individual GCs. We
622: have examined the CMD morphologies and the RR Lyrae properties of NGC 6388 and NGC
623: 6441, and found consistently that the SHR scenario is superior to the AMR
624: hypothesis in accounting for the observations. Our best solution is
625: that the blue HB and the RR Lyrae stars are comprised of helium-enhanced
626: ($\Delta$Y $\sim$ 0.05) stars, which make up $\sim$ 15 \% of the total
627: population. Table 4 summarizes the model's ability to reproduce
628: various aspects of the observations.
629:
630: Recently, \citet[hereafter CD07]{cal07} have investigated the NGC 6441 HB population,
631: including the periods of the RR Lyrae variables.
632: From their analysis, CD07 conclude that Y
633: $\simeq$ 0.35 is required for the tilted red clump, Y $\simeq$ 0.37
634: for the RR Lyrae stars, and Y $\simeq$ 0.38 -- 0.40 for the blue HB.
635: A partial, qualitative
636: agreement is found between our SHR model and CD07's, in that the SHR
637: population is necessarily invoked. However, several factors
638: differentiate our result from CD07's: ({\it a}) While our model
639: assumes two discrete populations with distinct helium abundances,
640: CD07 present a continuous distribution of helium content; ({\it b})
641: The helium abundance required in our SHR model to reproduce the blue HB is Y $\simeq$
642: 0.29 -- 0.30, which is well below the inferred Y in CD07 (Y $\simeq$
643: 0.35 -- 0.40); ({\it c}) Our model exhibits the tilted red clump
644: naturally reproduced by the inclusion of differential reddening
645: effect, thus indicating the red clumps of a normal helium
646: abundance (Y $\simeq$ 0.24 -- 0.25). In short, the main difference
647: lies in the predicted total helium abundance of the GCs,
648: in that our SHR model requires significantly
649: lower value of total helium abundance.
650: CD07 predict the total helium-enriched population amounting to $\sim$
651: 60 \% of the entire stellar content.
652: We note that, as mentioned in \S\S\,3.3, the R-method argument by \citet{lay99}
653: allows only a limited amount of helium content in the GCs.
654: Furthermore, using deep {\it HST}
655: photometry of NGC 6388, \citet{cat06} discover the
656: lack of a sizeable luminosity difference between the red HBs of NGC
657: 6388 and 47 Tuc (a ``flat''-red-clump GC with similar metallicity).
658: This result points to the normal helium abundance of the red clump in NGC
659: 6388, more consistent with our conclusion than CD07's.
660:
661: The high-helium hypothesis was originally suggested to explain the
662: presence of hot EHBs by \citet{dan02}. This notion has been expanded
663: to account for the bimodal HBs found in NGC 2808
664: \citep{dan04,lee05}, NGC 6388, and NGC 6441 \citep[CD07, this
665: study]{dan04,dan05,dan06,cat05}. It is noteworthy that the GCs with
666: bimodal HBs often, if not always, also possess EHBs.
667: Since the EHB phenomenon appears to share a common origin
668: with HB bimodality, it is important to see whether the occurrence of
669: EHBs correlates with GC mass, as does the instance of the bimodal
670: HB (see Figure 1 of \citet{lee07}).
671: In fact, this was the basis for suggestions that the integrated luminosity
672: plays an important role in the context of the
673: second-parameter phenomenon \citep{fus93}. Table 1 shows that eight
674: Galactic GCs out of the 10 brightest contain hot EHB components (the
675: 7th column). According to \citet{cat98} catalog, $\sim$ 90 \% (14
676: out of 16) of the EHB GCs have blue HBs. Given the
677: fact that increasing metallicity makes an HB redder, we speculate
678: that the EHB GCs with normal blue HBs in Table 1 (NGC 6266, NGC
679: 7078, and NGC 6273) could have typical {\it bimodal} HBs if they
680: were as metal-rich as NGC 6388 and NGC 6441.
681:
682: Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the peculiar
683: chemical history of GCs with helium-excess populations
684: \citep{dan02,ven01,ven02,nor04,gra04,bek06,chu06,cho07,tsu07,new07}.
685: One theoretical requirement for the proposed chemical evolution is
686: an initially high mass to retain the ejecta of the first generation
687: stars, as is evident in the case of $\omega$ Cen
688: \citep{nor04,pio05,lee05,bek06}. The HB bimodality found in massive
689: GCs such as NGC 6388, NGC 6441 \citep[CD07, this
690: study]{dan04,dan05,dan06,cat05}, and NGC 2808
691: \citep{dan04,lee05,pio07} appears to be another piece of evidence
692: for a link between the GC mass and the helium-enrichment
693: process. It has been suggested that $\omega$ Cen was once part of a
694: more massive system that later merged with the Milky Way \citep[and
695: references therein]{lee99b,din02,alt05,mez05,bek06}. Similar
696: accretion events may have continued throughout the Galactic history,
697: and the massive GCs with bimodal HB distributions may be considered
698: minor versions of $\omega$ Cen, representing relics of the Galaxy
699: assembly process (see \citet{lee07} for further discussion).
700:
701: Another important implication of our results concerns
702: the long-standing second parameter debate regarding HB morphology.
703: Given that the HB-bimodality phenomenon has long been taken
704: as the strongest evidence against the GC age being the second parameter,
705: a fully satisfactory solution will not be found
706: until the origin of the HB bimodality has been accounted for.
707: Our results suggest that the GC-to-GC variation in helium abundance,
708: which was one of the first candidates for the
709: second parameter in the literature \citep{san67,van67},
710: have a role in giving rise to the HB bimodality.
711: If our interpretation is confirmed,
712: the GC-to-GC helium variation found most often in massive GCs should be considered
713: a {\it local} effect rather than a global one,
714: further supporting age as the {\it global} second parameter.
715: Further observations and modelling of GCs with bimodal HBs are still required
716: to verify that helium variation is a local effect,
717: and thus the third parameter controlling HB morphology.
718:
719: %=========================================================================
720: %=========================================================================
721: \acknowledgments We would like to thank Michael Rich for providing the
722: observational data in Figures 2 \& 3. Helpful comments from the referee were
723: gratefully appreciated.
724: S.-J. Y. acknowledges support
725: from the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science \& Engineering Foundation
726: (Grant No. R01-2006-000-10716-0),
727: and from the Korea Research Foundation Grant (MOEHRD: KRF-2006-331-C00134).
728: %and by grant No. KRF-2005-213-C00017 from
729: %the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (S.-J. J.).
730:
731: %=========================================================================
732: %=========================================================================
733: \begin{thebibliography}{}
734: \bibitem[Altmann, Catelan, \& Zoccali(2005)]{alt05}
735: Altmann, M., Catelan, M., \& Zoccali, M. 2005, A\&A, 439, 5
736: \bibitem[Anderson(2002)]{and02}
737: Anderson, J. 2002, in $\omega$ Centauri, a Unique Window into Astrophysics, ASP Conf. Ser. 265,
738: eds F. van Leeuwen, J. D. Hughes, and G. Piotto. (San Francisco: ASP), p. 87
739: \bibitem[Armandroff \& Zinn(1998)]{arm98}
740: Armandroff, T. E., \& Zinn, R. 1988, \aj, 96, 92
741: \bibitem[Beaulieu et al.(2001)]{bea01}
742: Beaulieu, S. F., et al. 2001, \aj, 121, 2618
743: \bibitem[Bedin et al.(2004)]{bed04}
744: Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Cassisi, S., King, I. R., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G. 2004,
745: \apjl, 605, L125
746: \bibitem[Bekki \& Norris(2006)]{bek06}
747: Bekki, K., \& Norris J. E. 2006, ApJ, 637, L109
748: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(1999)]{bel99}
749: Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R., \& Buonanno, R. 1999, \mnras, 307, 619
750: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2001)]{bel01}
751: Bellazzini, M., Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F. R., Galleti, S., Catelan, M., \& Landsman, W. B. 2001,
752: \aj, 122, 2569
753: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2001)]{bro01}
754: Brown, T. M., Sweigart, A. V., Lanz, T., Landsman, W. B., \& Hubeny, I. 2001, \apj, 562, 368
755: \bibitem[Busso, Piotto, \& Cassisi(2004)]{bus04}
756: Busso, G., Piotto, G., \& Cassisi, S. 2004, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 75, 46
757: %\bibitem[Busso et al.\ 2004]{bus04} Busso, G., Piotto, G., \& Cassisi, S. 2004, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 75, 46
758: %\bibitem[Cacciari \& Renzini]{cac76} Cacciari, C., \& Renzini, A. 1976, \aaps, 25, 303
759: \bibitem[Caloi \& D'Antona(2007)]{cal07}
760: Caloi, V., \& D'Antona, F. 2007, A\&AS, 463, 949 (CD07)
761: \bibitem[Castellani \& Quarta(1987)]{cas87}
762: Castellani, V., \& Quarta, M. L. 1987, \aaps, 71, 1
763: \bibitem[Catelan(2000)]{cat00}
764: Catelan, M. 2000, \apj, 531, 826
765: \bibitem[Catelan(2005)]{cat05}
766: Catelan, M. 2005, in Resolved Stellar Populations, ASP Conf. Ser.,
767: ed. D. Valls-Gabaud \& M. Chavez, {\it in press} (asto-ph/0507464)
768: %\bibitem[Catelan(2006)]{cat06} Catelan, M. 2006, in Variable Stars in the Local Group, ASP Conf. Ser. 310, eds. D. Valls-Gabaud and M. Chavez (San Francisco: ASP), {\it in press}
769: \bibitem[Catelan et al.(2006)]{cat06}
770: Catelan, M., et al. 2006, \apjl, 651, L133
771: %\bibitem[Catelan 1997]{cat97} Catelan, M. 1997, \apj, 478, L99
772: \bibitem[Catelan et al.(1998)]{cat98}
773: Catelan, M., Borissova, J., Sweigart, A. V., \& Spassova, N. 1998, \apj, 494, 265
774: \bibitem[Catelan \& de Freitas Pacheco(1996)]{cat96}
775: Catelan, M., \& de Freitas P. 1996, \pasp, 108, 166
776: \bibitem[Catelan et al.(2003)]{cat03}
777: Catelan, M., Sweigart, A. V., Pritzl, B. J., \& Smith, H. A. 2003,
778: in New Horizons in Globular Cluster Astronomy, ASP Conf. Ser. 296,
779: eds. Giampaolo Piotto, Georges Meylan, S. George Djorgovski and Marco Riello (San Francisco: ASP), p. 289
780: \bibitem[Choi \& Yi(2007)]{cho07}
781: Choi, E., \& Yi, S. K. 2007, \mnras, 375, L1
782: \bibitem[Chuzhoy(2006)]{chu06}
783: Chuzhoy, L. 2006, \mnras, 369, L52
784: \bibitem[Clement et al.(2001)]{cle01}
785: Clement, C., et al. 2001, \aj, 122, 2587
786: \bibitem[Clementini et al.(2005)]{cle05}
787: Clementini, G., et al. 2005, \apjl, 630, L145
788: \bibitem[Corwin et al.(2006)]{cor06}
789: Corwin, T. M., Sumerel, A. N., Pritzl, B. J., Smith, H. A., Catelan, M., Sweigart, A. V.,
790: \& Stetson, P. B. 2006, \aj, 132, 1014
791: %\bibitem[Cole et al.\ 2000]{col00} Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., \& Frenk, C. S. 2000, \mnras, 319, 168
792: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2005)]{dan05}
793: D'Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Pecci, F. F., Galleti, S., \& Rood, R. T. 2005, \apj, 631, 868
794: \bibitem[D'Antona \& Caloi(2004)]{dan04}
795: D'Antona, F., \& Caloi, V. 2004, \apj, 611, 871
796: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2002)]{dan02}
797: D'Antona, F., Caloi, V., Montaalban, J., Ventura, P., \& Gratton, R. 2002, A\&A, 395, 69
798: \bibitem[D'Antona et al.(2006)]{dan06}
799: D'Antona, F., Ventura, P., \& Caloi, V. 2006, Mem. Soc. Astr. It., 77, 168
800: \bibitem[Dinescu(2002)]{din02}
801: Dinescu, D. I. 2002, in $\omega$ Centauri, a Unique Window into Astrophysics, ASP Conf. Ser. 265,
802: eds F. van Leeuwen, J. D. Hughes, and G. Piotto. (San Francisco: ASP), p. 365
803: %\bibitem[Izzard et al. 2004]{izz04} Izzard et al. 2004 {\bf ??}
804: \bibitem[Fusi Pecci et al.(1993)]{fus93}
805: Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., Djorgovski, S., Piotto, G., \& Buonanno, R. 1993,
806: \aj, 105, 1145
807: %\bibitem[Freeman 1993]{fre93} Freeman, K. C. 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 48, The Globular Clusters-Galaxy Connection,
808: %\bibitem[Freeman \& Bland-Hawthorn 2002]{fre02} Freeman, K. C., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, \araa, 40, 487
809: %\bibitem[Gnedin et al.\ 2002]{gne02} Gnedin, O. Y., Zhao, H., Pringle, J. E., Fall, S. M., Livio, M., \& Meylan G. 2002, \apj, 568, L23
810: \bibitem[Gratton et al.(2007)]{gra07}
811: Gratton, R. G., et al. 2007, A\&A, 464, 953
812: \bibitem[Gratton, Sneden, \& Carretta(2004)]{gra04}
813: Gratton, R. G., Sneden, C., \& Carretta, E. 2004, \araa, 42, 385
814: %\bibitem[Green, Demarque, \& King(1987)]{gre87} Green, E. M., Demarque, P., \& King, C. R. 1987, The Revised Yale Isochrones and Luminosity Functions (New Haven: Yale Univ. Obs.)
815: \bibitem[Harris(1996)]{har96}
816: Harris, W. E. 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
817: \bibitem[Heitsch \& Richtler(1999)]{hei99}
818: Heitsch, F., \& Richtler, T. 1999, A\&A, 347, 455
819: \bibitem[Hilker \& Richtler(2000)]{hil00}
820: Hilker, M., \& Richtler, T. 2000, A\&A, 362, 895
821: %\bibitem[Hughes \& Wallerstein 2000]{hug00} Hughes, J., \& Wallerstein, G. 2000, \aj, 119, 1225
822: %\bibitem[Ibata et al.\ 1994]{iba94} Ibata, R. A., Gilmore, G., \& Irwin, M. J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194
823: %\bibitem[Kauffmann et al.\ 1993]{kau93} Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., \& Guiderdoni, B. 1993, \mnras, 264, 201
824: %\bibitem[Karakas et al.(2006)]{kar06} Karakas, A. I., Fenner, Y., Sills, A., Campbell, S. W., \& Lattanzio, J. C. 2006, astro-ph/0608366
825: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2002)]{kim02}
826: Kim, Y.-C., Demarque, P., Yi, S. K., \& Alexander, D. R. 2002, \apjs, 143, 499
827: %\bibitem[Larson 1990]{lar90} Larson, R. B. 1990, \pasp, 102, 709
828: \bibitem[Law et al.(2003)]{law03}
829: Law, D. R., Majewski, S. R., Skrutskie, M. F., Carpenter, J. M., \& Ayub, H. F. 2003, \aj, 126, 1871
830: %\bibitem[Layden \& Sarajedini 1997]{lay97} Layden, A. C., \& Sarajedini, A. 1997, \apj, 486, L107
831: \bibitem[Layden \& Sarajedini(2000)]{lay00}
832: Layden, A. C., \& Sarajedini, A. 2000, \aj, 119, 1760
833: \bibitem[Layden et al.(1999)]{lay99}
834: Layden, A. C., Ritter, L. A., Welch, D. L., \& Webb, T. M. A. 1999, \aj, 117, 1313
835: \bibitem[Lee, Yoon \& Lee(2000)]{lee00} Lee, H.-c., Yoon, S.-J., \& Lee, Y.-W. 2000, \aj, 120, 998
836: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2005)]{lee05}
837: Lee, Y.-W., et al. 2005, \apj, 621, L57
838: %\bibitem[Lee 1992]{lee92} Lee, Y.-W. 1992, \pasp, 104, 798
839: \bibitem[Lee, Demarque, \& Zinn(1990)]{lee90}
840: Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R. 1990, \apj, 350, 155
841: \bibitem[Lee, Demarque, \& Zinn(1994)]{lee94}
842: Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R. 1994, \apj, 423, 248
843: \bibitem[Lee, Gim, \& Casetti-Dinescu(2007)]{lee07}
844: Lee, Y.-W., Gim, H. B., \& Casetti-Dinescu, D. I. 2007, \apjl, 661, L49
845: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1999b)]{lee99b}
846: Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J., Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-C., \& Walker, A. R. 1999b, Nature, 402, 55
847: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1999a)]{lee99a}
848: Lee, Y.-W., Yoon, S.-J., Lee, H.-C., \& Woo, J.-H. 1999a,
849: in Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies, ASP Conf. Ser. 192,
850: eds. Ivan Hubeny, Sally Heap, and Robert Cornett (San Francisco, ASP), p. 185
851: \bibitem[Lee \& Zinn(1990)]{lz90}
852: Lee, Y.-W., \& Zinn, R. 1990, in Confrontation between Stellar Pulsation and Evolution,
853: ASP Conf. Ser. 11 (San Francisco, ASP), p. 26
854: \bibitem[Lanz et al.(2004)]{lan04}
855: Lanz, T., Brown, T. M., Sweigart, A., Hubeny, I., \& Landsman, W. B. 2004, \apj, 602, 342
856: \bibitem[Lejeune, Cuisinier, \& Buser(1998)]{lej98}
857: Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., \& Buser, R. 1998, A\&AS, 130, 65
858: \bibitem[Meza et al.(2005)]{mez05}
859: Meza, A., Navarro, J. F., Abadi, M. G., \& Steinmetz, M. 2005, \mnras, 359, 93
860: \bibitem[Moehler \& Sweigart(2006)]{moe06}
861: Moehler, S., \& Sweigart, A. V. 2006, A\&A, 455, 943
862: %\bibitem[Moehler, Sweigart, \& Catelan 1999]{moe99} Moehler, S., Sweigart, A. V., \& Catelan, M. 1999, A\&A, 351, 519
863: %\bibitem[Moehler et al.\ 2002]{moe02} Moehler, S., Sweigart, A. V., Landsman, W. B., \& Dreizler, S. 2002, A\&A, 395, 37
864: \bibitem[Moehler et al.(2004)]{moe04}
865: Moehler, S., Sweigart, A. V., Landsman, W. B., Hammer, N. J., \& Dreizler, S. 2004, A\&A, 415, 313
866: \bibitem[Newsham \& Terndrup(2007)]{new07}
867: Newsham, G., \& Terndrup, D. M. 2007, \apj, 664, 332
868: \bibitem[Norris(2004)]{nor04}
869: Norris, J. E. 2004, \apjl, 612, L25
870: %\bibitem[Oleg et al. 2002]{ole02} Oleg et al. 2002
871: \bibitem[Oosterhoff(1939)]{oos39}
872: Oosterhoff, P. T. 1939, Observatory, 62, 104
873: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2000)]{pan00}
874: Pancino, E., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., Piotto, G., \& Zoccali, M. 2000, \apjl, 534, L83
875: \bibitem[Park \& Lee(1997)]{par97}
876: Park, J.-H, \& Lee, Y.-W. 1997, \apj, 476, 28
877: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(1997)]{pio97}
878: Piotto, G., et al. 1997, in Advances in Stellar Evolution,
879: eds. R. T. Rood and A. Renzini (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), p.84
880: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2005)]{pio05}
881: Piotto, G., et al. 2005, \apj, 621, 777
882: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2007)]{pio07}
883: Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., King, I. R., Cassisi, S., Milone, A. P., Villanova, S.,
884: Pietrinferni, A., \& Renzini, A. 2007, \apjl, 661, L53
885: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2002)]{pio02}
886: Piotto, G., King, I. R., Djorgovski, S. G., Sosin, C., Zoccali, M., Saviane, I, De Angeli, F.,
887: Riello, M., Recio Blanco, A., Rich, R. M., Meylan, G., \& Renzini, A. 2002, A\&A, 391, 945
888: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2000)]{pri00}
889: Pritzl, B., Smith, H. A., Catelan, M., \& Sweigart, A. V. 2000, \apjl, 530, L41
890: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2001)]{pri01}
891: ---------. 2001, \aj, 122, 2600
892: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2002)]{pri02}
893: ---------. 2002, \aj, 124, 949
894: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2003)]{pri03}
895: Pritzl, B., Smith, H. A., Stetson, P. B., Catelan, M., Sweigart, A. V., Layden, A. C., \& Rich, R. M.
896: 2003, \aj, 126, 1381
897: \bibitem[Raimondo et al.(2002)]{rai02}
898: Raimondo, G., Castellani, V., Cassisi, S., Brocato, E., \& Piotto, G. 2002, \apj, 569, 975
899: \bibitem[Recio-Blanco et al.(2006)]{rec06}
900: Recio-Blanco, A., Aparicio, A., Piotto, G., De Angeli, F., \& Djorgovski, S. G. 2006, A\&A, 452, 875
901: \bibitem[Ree et al.(2002)]{ree02}
902: Ree, C. H., Yoon, S.-J., Rey, S.-C., \& Lee, Y.-W. 2002,
903: in Omega Centauri: A Unique Window into Astrophysics, ASP Conf. Ser. 265,
904: ed. F. van Leeuwen, G. Piotto, and J. Hughes (San Francisco, ASP), p. 101
905: \bibitem[Reimers(1975)]{rei75}
906: Reimers, D. 1975, in Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Li\`ege 6 S\'er., 8, 369
907: \bibitem[Rey et al.(2001)]{rey01}
908: Rey, S.-C., Yoon, S.-J., Lee, Y.-W., Chaboyer, B., \& Sarajedini, A. 2001, \aj, 122, 3219
909: \bibitem[Rich et al.(1997)]{ric97}
910: Rich, R. M., et al. 1997, \apjl, 484, L25
911: \bibitem[Rood et al.(1970)]{roo70}
912: Rood, R. T. 1970, \apj, 161, 145
913: \bibitem[Rood et al.(1993)]{roo93}
914: Rood, R. T., et al. 1993, in The Globular Clusters-Galaxy Connection, ASP Conf. Ser. 48,
915: eds. G. H. Smith and J. P. Brodie (San Francisco, ASP), p. 218
916: \bibitem[Rosenberg et al.(2004)]{ros04}
917: Rosenberg, A., Recio-Blanco, A, \& Garc\'ia-Mar\'in, M. 2004, \apj, 603, 135
918: \bibitem[Sandage \& Wildey(1967)]{san67}
919: Sandage, A., \& Wildey, R. 1967, \apj, 150, 469
920: \bibitem[Sarajedini et al.(1997)]{sar97}
921: Sarajedini, A., Chaboyer, B., \& Demarque, P. 1997, \pasp, 109, 1321
922: %\bibitem[Searle and Zinn 1978]{sea78} Searle, L., \& Zinn, R. 1978, \apj, 225, 357
923: \bibitem[Siegel et al.(2007)]{sie07}
924: Siegel, M. H., et al. 2007, \apjl, 667, L57
925: \bibitem[Sosin et al.(1997)]{sos97}
926: Sosin, C, Dorman, B., Djorgovski, S. G., Piotto, G., Rich, R. M., King, I. R., Liebert, J.,
927: Phinney, E. S., \& Renzini, A. 1997, \apjl, 480, L35
928: \bibitem[Standford et al.(2006)]{sta06}
929: Stanford, L. M., Da Costa, G. S., Norris, J. E., \& Cannon, R. D. 2006, \apj, 647, 1075
930: \bibitem[Stetson et al.(1996)]{ste96}
931: Stetson, P. B., Vandenberg, D. A., \& Bolte, M. 1996, \pasp, 108, 560
932: \bibitem[Sweigart(1987)]{swe87}
933: Sweigart, A. V. 1987, \apjs, 65, 95
934: \bibitem[Sweigart(1999)]{swe99}
935: Sweigart, A. V. 1999, in Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies, ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 192,
936: ed. I. Hubeny, S. R. Heap, \& R. H. Cornett (San Francisco: ASP), 239
937: \bibitem[Sweigart \& Catelan(1998)]{swe98}
938: Sweigart, A. V., \& Catelan, M. 1998, \apjl, 501, L63
939: \bibitem[Sweigart \& Gross(1976)]{swe76}
940: Sweigart, A. V., \& Gross, P. G. 1976, \apjs, 32, 367
941: \bibitem[Tsujimoto, Shigeyama, \& Suda(2007)]{tsu07}
942: Tsujimoto, T., Shigeyama, T., \& Suda, T. 2007, \apjl, 654, L139
943: %\bibitem[Tuggle \& Iben(1972)]{tug72} Tuggle, R. S., \& Iben, I. Jr. 1972, \apj, 178, 455
944: \bibitem[van den Bergh(1967)]{van67}
945: van den Bergh, S. 1967, \aj, 72, 70
946: \bibitem[van den Bergh(1993)]{van93}
947: van den Bergh, S. 1993, \aj, 105, 971
948: \bibitem[van den Bergh(1996)]{van96}
949: van den Bergh, S. 1996, \apjl, 471, L31
950: \bibitem[Ventura et al.(2002)]{ven02}
951: Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., \& Mazzitelli, I. 2002, A\&A, 393, 215
952: \bibitem[Ventura et al.(2001)]{ven01}
953: Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., \& Gratton, R. 2001, \apjl, 550, L65
954: %\bibitem[Tsuchiya, Dinescu, \& Korchagin 2003]{tsu03} Tsuchiya, T., Dinescu, D. I., \& Korchagin, V. I. 2003, \apj, 589, L29
955: %\bibitem[Yi et al.(1997)]{yi97} Yi, S., Demarque, P., \& Kim, Y.-C. 1997, \apj, 482, 677
956: %\bibitem[Yi et al.\ 2001]{yi01} Yi, S., Demarque, P., Kim, Y.-C., Lee, Y.-W., Ree, C. H., Lejeune, T., \& Barnes, S. 2001, \apjs, 136, 417
957: \bibitem[Yoon, Lee, \& Lee(2000)]{yoo00}
958: Yoon, S.-J., Lee, C.-H., \& Lee, Y.-W. 2000, BAAS, 196, 41.02
959: \bibitem[Yoon \& Lee(2002)]{yoo02}
960: Yoon, S.-J., \& Lee, Y.-W. 2002, Science, 297, 578
961: \bibitem[Yoon, Yi, \& Lee(2006)]{yoo06}
962: Yoon, S.-J., Yi, S. K., \& Lee, Y.-W. 2006, Science, 311, 1129
963: \bibitem[Zinn(1993)]{zin93}
964: Zinn, R. 1993, in The Globular Clusters-Galaxy Connection, ASP Conf. Ser. 48,
965: eds. G. H. Smith and J. P. Brodie (San Francisco, ASP), p. 38
966: \end{thebibliography}
967:
968: %=========================================================================
969: %=========================================================================
970:
971: \clearpage
972:
973: %\begin{deluxetable}{cccrclll}
974: \begin{deluxetable}{clcrllll}
975: %\setcounter {table}{1}
976: %\footnotesize
977: \tablewidth{17cm}
978: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
979: %\rotate
980: \tablecaption{The 10 Brightest Galactic Globular Clusters and the Features in their CMDs\label{tbl-1}}
981: %\tablewidth{0pt}
982: \tablehead{
983: \colhead{Rank} & \colhead{NGC} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{$M_V^{tot}$ \tablenotemark{a}} &
984: \colhead{[Fe/H]\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{Composite CMD\tablenotemark{c} ?} &
985: \colhead{HB Shape} &\colhead{References}
986: }
987: \startdata
988: 1 & 5139 & $\omega$ Cen & $-$10.29 & $-$1.59 & Yes (Multiple MS/HB/RGB) & {\bf Multiple HB} + EHB & 1, 2, 3, 4 \\
989: 2 & 6715 & M54 & $-$10.01 & $-$1.43 & Yes (Multiple RGB/HB) & {\bf Multiple HB} + EHB & 5, 6, 7 \\
990: 3 & 6388 & \nodata & $-$9.82 & $-$0.60 & Yes (Bimodal HB) & {\bf Bimodal HB} + EHB & 8, 9, 10 \\
991: 4 & 2419 & \nodata & $-$9.58 & $-$2.10 & No & Normal blue HB & 8 \\
992: 5 & 6441 & \nodata & $-$9.47 & $-$0.53 & Yes (Bimodal HB) & {\bf Bimodal HB} + EHB & 8, 9, 11 \\
993: 6 & 104 & 47 Tuc & $-$9.42 & $-$0.71 & No & Normal red HB & 9 \\
994: 7 & 2808 & \nodata & $-$9.36 & $-$1.37 & Yes (Multiple MS/HB) & {\bf Bimodal HB} + EHB & 9, 12, 13 \\
995: 8 & 6266 & M62 & $-$9.19 & $-$1.29 & No & Long blue HB + EHB & 9 \\
996: 9 & 7078 & M15 & $-$9.17 & $-$2.17 & No & Normal blue HB + EHB & 9 \\
997: 10 & 6273 & M19 & $-$9.08 & $-$1.68 & No & Normal blue HB + EHB & 9 \\
998: \enddata
999: %\tablecomments{$M_V^{tot}$ and [Fe/H] are from \citet{har96} and \citet{zin93}, respectively}
1000: \tablenotetext{a}{$M_V^{tot}$ is obtained from \citet{har96}.}
1001: \tablenotetext{b}{[Fe/H] is obtained from \citet{zin93}.}
1002: \tablenotetext{c}{CMDs with multiple RGBs and/or HBs.}
1003: \tablerefs{ (1) \citet{lee99b}; (2) \citet{hil00}; (3)
1004: \citet{pan00}; (4) \citet{pio05}; (5) \citet{bel99}; (6) \citet{lay00};
1005: (7) \citet{ros04}; (8) \citet{ric97}; (9) \citet{pio02};
1006: (10) \citet{cat06}; (11) \citet{pri03}; (12) \citet{sos97}; (13) \citet{pio07} }
1007: \end{deluxetable}
1008:
1009: %=========================================================================
1010: \clearpage
1011:
1012: \begin{deluxetable}{ll}
1013: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1014: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1015: %\tabletypesize{\normalsize}
1016: \tablewidth{16cm}
1017:
1018: \tablecaption{Model Ingredients\label{tbl-2}}
1019: \tablehead{
1020: \colhead{Ingredient} & \colhead{Stellar \& Flux Libraries} } \startdata
1021: MS to RGB Evolutionary Tracks \dotfill & \citet{kim02} Yonsei--Yale Normal-helium Isochrones \\
1022: & Kim et al. (2008, {\it in prep.}) Yonsei--Yale Helium-rich Isochrones \\
1023: Post-RGB Evolutionary Tracks \dotfill & Han et al. (2008, {\it in prep.}) Yonsei--Yale Normal-helium HB Tracks \\
1024: & Han et al. (2008, {\it in prep.}) Yonsei--Yale Helium-rich HB Tracks \\
1025: Flux Library \dotfill & \citet{lej98} Model Atmosphere \\
1026: RR Lyrae Variable Stars \dotfill & \citet{lee90} Prescriptions \\
1027: \enddata
1028: \end{deluxetable}
1029:
1030: %=========================================================================
1031: \clearpage
1032:
1033: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1034: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1035: \tablewidth{14cm}
1036:
1037: \tablecaption{Model Input Parameters\label{tbl-3}}
1038:
1039: \tablewidth{0pt}
1040: \tablehead{ \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{NGC 6388} & \colhead{NGC 6441}}
1041: \startdata
1042: \sidehead{{\bf Common Parameters:}} Initial mass function \dotfill & Salpeter & Salpeter \\
1043: $\alpha$-element enhancement, $[$$\alpha$/Fe$]$ \dotfill & 0.3 & 0.3 \\
1044: Distance modulus, $(V-M_{V})$ (mag.) \dotfill & 16.50 & 17.17 \\
1045: Galactic reddening, $E(B-V)$ (mag.) \dotfill & 0.34 & 0.43 \\
1046: Differential reddening, $\sigma_{E(B-V)}$ (mag.) \dotfill & 0.03 & 0.03 \\
1047: Extinction coefficient, $A_{V}/E(B-V)$ \dotfill & 3.1 & 3.1 \\
1048: HB mass dispersion, $\sigma_{M}$ ($M_{\odot}$) \dotfill & 0.02 & 0.02 \\
1049: RR Lyrae instability strip width, $\Delta$\,Log\,$T_{e}$ (K) & 0.085 & 0.085 \\
1050: Reimers' (1975) mass-loss efficiency parameter, $\eta$ \dotfill & 0.56 & 0.56 \nl
1051:
1052: \sidehead{{\bf The AMR Model\tablenotemark{a}:}}
1053: Metal abundance, Z \dotfill & 0.007 \& 0.0035 & 0.008 \& 0.0055 \\
1054: Helium abundance, Y \dotfill & 0.245 \& 0.245 & 0.245 \& 0.245 \\
1055: Absolute age, t (Gyr) \dotfill & 13.0 \& 15.0 & 13.0 \& 15.0 \\
1056: Number fraction (\%) \dotfill & 82 \& 18 & 86 \& 14 \\
1057: %$\Delta$P$^{M3}_F$ (day)\tablenotemark{$\ast$} \dotfill & xxx \& xxx & xxx \& xxx\nl
1058:
1059: \sidehead{{\bf The SHR Model\tablenotemark{b}:}}
1060: Metal abundance, Z \dotfill & 0.007 \& 0.007 & 0.008 \& 0.008 \\
1061: Helium abundance, Y \dotfill & 0.245 \& 0.295 & 0.245 \& 0.295 \\
1062: Absolute age, t (Gyr) \dotfill & 13.0 \& 13.0 & 13.0 \& 13.0 \\
1063: Number fraction (\%) \dotfill & 82 \& 18 & 86 \& 14 \\
1064: %$\Delta$P$^{M3}_F$ (day)\tablenotemark{$\ast$} \dotfill & xxx \& xxx & xxx \& xxx \nl
1065:
1066: \enddata
1067: \tablenotetext{a} {Metal-rich younger \& metal-poor older populations}
1068: \tablenotetext{b} {Normal-helium \& helium-enriched populations}
1069: %\tablenotetext{$\ast$} {$\Delta$P$^{M3}_F$ $\equiv$ P$^{M3}_F$ (Observation) $-$ P$^{M3}_F$ (Model)}
1070: \end{deluxetable}
1071:
1072: %=========================================================================
1073:
1074: \clearpage
1075:
1076: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}
1077: \tabletypesize{\normalsize}
1078: \tablewidth{14cm}
1079:
1080: \tablecaption{Summary of Model Ability to Reproduce Observations\label{tbl-4}}
1081:
1082: \tablewidth{0pt}
1083: \tablehead{ \colhead{Feature} & \colhead{ The AMR Model} & \colhead{The
1084: SHR Model} } \startdata
1085: Single RGB \dotfill & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1086: RGB Bump Luminosity \dotfill & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1087: RGB Bump Slope \dotfill & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1088: HB Bimodality \dotfill & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1089: Red HB Tilt \dotfill & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1090: Overall HB Slope \dotfill & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1091: Extreme HB \dotfill & $\times$ & $\triangle$ \\
1092: RR Lyrae Luminosity \dotfill & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1093: RR Lyrae Period \dotfill & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1094: $N(c)/N(ab+c)$ \dotfill & $\bigcirc$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1095: Oosterhoff Diagram \dotfill & $\times$ & $\bigcirc$ \\
1096: \enddata
1097: \end{deluxetable}
1098:
1099:
1100: %=========================================================================
1101: %=========================================================================
1102: \clearpage
1103: \begin{center}
1104: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f1.eps}
1105: \end{center}
1106: \begin{figure}
1107: \begin{center}
1108: \caption{($a$) The $V$-band luminosity function (open histogram) of 147
1109: Galactic GCs from \citet{har96} catalog. Arrows denote the integrated magnitude of the
1110: brightest GC, $\omega$ Cen, and the GCs with bimodal HBs among the 10 brightest
1111: GCs. The numbers in the parentheses denote their brightness ranks. NGC 6388 and
1112: NGC 6441 are among the most massive GCs. The filled histogram is for the 11
1113: bimodal-HB GCs \citep{cat98} plus $\omega$ Cen and M54. Note that
1114: they are all brighter than $M_V^{tot}$ $\simeq$ $-$7.
1115: ($b$) The relative number fraction of bimodal-HB GCs plus $\omega$ Cen and M54
1116: as a function of the integrated magnitude. Their
1117: fraction in a luminosity bin increases with increasing luminosity. Error bars
1118: show Poisson errors. \label{fig1}}
1119: \end{center}
1120: \end{figure}
1121:
1122: %=========================================================================
1123: \clearpage
1124: \begin{center}
1125: %\includegraphics[width=17cm]{f2.eps}
1126: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{f2_degraded.eps}
1127: \end{center}
1128: \begin{figure*}
1129: \begin{center}
1130: \caption{Comparison of the observational data ($a$ \& $d$) with the AMR model ($b$
1131: \& $e$) and the SHR model ($c$ \& $f$) for NGC 6388 and NGC 6441. $($$a$ \&
1132: $d$$)$ The observed CMDs are from \citet{ric97}. Isochrones are overlaid with
1133: observations, from which the dominant major populations, i.e., the metal-rich younger population in
1134: the AMR model and the normal-helium population from the SHR model, are generated.
1135: Crosses represent the observed RR Lyrae stars from
1136: \citet{pri01,pri02,pri03}. The same RR Lyrae stars are also shown in Fig. 4.
1137: Horizontal dashed lines represent the brightness at the base of red clumps.
1138: Short tilted solid lines denote the RR Lyrae instability strips. $($$b$, $c$,
1139: $e$, \& $f$$)$ In $b$ \& $e$, the metal-rich younger (denoted by ``1'') and the
1140: metal-poor older (denoted by ``2'') populations are respectively shown as red
1141: and blue dots. The magenta and cyan isochrones are respectively for the
1142: metal-rich younger and the metal-poor older populations. The combinations of
1143: metallicity, helium abundance, and age required to reproduce the CMD morphology
1144: are denoted. Note that the observed bimodal HBs are explained as the sum of the
1145: red HBs from component 1 (red dots) and the blue HBs from component 2 (blue
1146: dots). Crosses denote the model RR Lyrae stars. In $c$ \& $f$, the
1147: normal-helium (denoted by ``1'') and the helium-excess (denoted by ``2'')
1148: populations are respectively shown as red and blue dots. The magenta and cyan
1149: isochrones are respectively for the normal-helium and the helium-excess
1150: populations. Note that the observed bimodal HBs are explained
1151: as the sum of red HBs from component 1 (red dots) and
1152: blue HBs from component 2 (blue dots). Crosses denote the model RR Lyrae stars.
1153: \label{fig2}}
1154: \end{center}
1155: \end{figure*}
1156:
1157: %=========================================================================
1158: \clearpage
1159: \begin{center}
1160: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{f3.eps}
1161: \end{center}
1162: \begin{figure*}
1163: \begin{center}
1164: \caption{Numerical experiments on the effect of differential reddening on the
1165: red clumps. The observed clumps ($a$ \& $d$) are compared with the flat clumps
1166: generated without the differential reddening effect ($b$ \& $e$), and the
1167: tilted clumps generated with the effect ($c$ \& $f$). Note that panels ($a$ \&
1168: $d$) and ($c$ \& $f$) are identical to Figs. 2$a$ \& 2$d$ and Figs. 2$c$ \& 2$f$,
1169: but have been magnified around the HB red clump region. The
1170: dominant major population is common across the AMR (the metal-rich younger
1171: component denoted by ``1'' in Fig. 2) and SHR (the normal-helium component
1172: denoted again by ``1'' in Fig. 2) models. The inferred differential reddening
1173: appears to be enough to turn a ``normal'' red HB component into a significantly
1174: sloped structure. Note also that the differential reddening effect appears to
1175: be necessary to reproduce the observed scatter and the possible tilt of the RGB
1176: bumps. \label{fig3}}
1177: \end{center}
1178: \end{figure*}
1179:
1180:
1181:
1182: %=========================================================================
1183: \clearpage
1184: \begin{center}
1185: \includegraphics[width=17cm]{f4.eps}
1186: \end{center}
1187:
1188: \begin{figure*}
1189: \begin{center}
1190: \caption{Comparison of the observations ($a$ \& $d$) with the AMR model ($b$ \&
1191: $e$) and the SHR model ($c$ \& $f$) for NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 in the ($B-V$,
1192: $\langle P_{F} \rangle$) plane. $($$a$ \& $d$$)$ The observed RR Lyrae
1193: variables are from \citet{pri01,pri02,pri03}. Solid and open squares represent
1194: {\it ab}-type and {\it c}-type RR Lyrae stars, respectively. Type $c$ RR Lyrae
1195: were fundamentalized by Log $P_F$ = Log $P_c$ + 0.13
1196: \citep{cas87,lee90}. In order to avoid small number statistics, the catalogs of
1197: NGC 6388 (12 RR Lyraes from \citet{pri02}) and NGC 6441 (63 RR Lyraes from
1198: \citet{pri01,pri03}) were combined. Dashed line in ($a$) denotes the observed
1199: mean $P_F$ value ($\langle P_{F} \rangle$ = 0.661 day) for the combined NGC 6388
1200: (magenta) and NGC 6441(cyan) data. Solid line is the least-squares fit to the
1201: data. Panel ($d$) is identical to panel ($a$). $($$b$, $c$, $e$, \& $f$$)$
1202: Examples of the Monte Carlo simulations. Solid lines are the same as in ($a$ \&
1203: $d$). Dashed and dotted lines in ($b$ \& $e$) and ($c$ \& $f$) denote the mean
1204: values of $P_F$ and their 1 $\sigma$ uncertainties of 10,000 synthetic
1205: simulations for the AMR model and the SHR model, respectively. \label{fig4}}
1206: \end{center}
1207: \end{figure*}
1208:
1209: %=========================================================================
1210: \clearpage
1211: \begin{center}
1212: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{f5.eps}
1213: \end{center}
1214:
1215: \begin{figure*}
1216: \begin{center}
1217: \caption{ ($a$) Oosterhoff classes. The correlation between the mean period of
1218: type {\it ab} RR Lyraes ($\langle P_{ab} \rangle$) and [Fe/H] for GCs in the
1219: Galaxy is shown. The data are from \citet{cle01}. GCs having 5 or
1220: more type {\it ab} RR Lyraes are shown. The error bar denotes the mean errors.
1221: GCs are mainly divided into two distinct groups according to the mean period
1222: and the metal abundance: Oosterhoff group I (filled squares; $\langle P_{ab}
1223: \rangle$ $\simeq$ 0.55 days, and [Fe/H] $>$ $-$1.8) or group II (open squares;
1224: $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ $\simeq$ 0.65 days, and [Fe/H] $<$ $-$1.6). The
1225: $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ values for NGC 6388 (0.676 days from nine type-$ab$
1226: variables) and for NGC 6441 (0.759 days from 42 type-$ab$ variables) are
1227: obtained from \citet{cor06}. Note that NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 (solid diamonds)
1228: belong to neither Oosterhoff group.
1229: ($b$) Inner- \& outer-halo division.
1230: Solid and dashed lines are our model predictions for the 13-Gyr and
1231: 11.8-Gyr populations, respectively. GCs with the Galactocentric distance, $R_G$
1232: $<$ 8 kpc (filled squares) are well reproduced by the models for the old
1233: population (solid line), whereas most GCs with $R_G$ $>$ 8 kpc (open squares)
1234: follow the model locus for slightly younger ages (dashed line). Small plus signs
1235: mark GCs on retrograde orbits around the Galactic center, whereas triangles
1236: represent the old GCs found in the LMC halo. Note that the retrograding GCs and the LMC
1237: GCs follow the dashed line. Large gray cross between the diamonds marks
1238: the number-weighted mean values of [Fe/H] and $\langle P_{ab} \rangle$ for NGC 6388
1239: and NGC 6441.
1240: Two thick stripes indicate the AMR model ($\Delta$t = +2 Gyr,
1241: lower stripe) and the SHR model ($\Delta$Y = +0.05, upper stripe). Note that the
1242: SHR model prediction succeeds in reproducing the unusual positions of NGC 6388
1243: and NGC 6441. \label{fig5}}
1244: \end{center}
1245: \end{figure*}
1246:
1247: \end{document}
1248: