1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{apjfonts}
4: %\usepackage{natbib}
5: \usepackage{lscape}
6: %\usepackage{floatpag}
7:
8:
9:
10: \shorttitle{ULP Cepheids}
11: \shortauthors{Bird, Stanek, \& Prieto}
12:
13: \newcommand{\um}{\mu{\rm m}}
14: \newcommand{\hst}{{\it HST\,\,}}
15: \newcommand{\ergs}{erg s$^{-1}$}
16: \newcommand{\etal}{{\rm et al.}}
17: \newcommand{\eg}{{\rm e.g.}}
18: \newcommand{\ie}{{\rm i.e.}}
19: \newcommand{\kms}{km s$^{-1}$}
20: \newcommand{\kgcm}{kg cm$^{-3}$}
21: \newcommand{\kgm}{kg m$^{-3}$}
22: \newcommand{\osmc}{OGLE Cepheid}
23: \newcommand{\pls}{PL$_{SMC}$}
24: \newcommand{\plu}{PL$_{ULP}$}
25: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.75}
26: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.95}
27:
28: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.15}
29: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.90}
30:
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \title{Using Ultra Long Period Cepheids to Extend the Cosmic Distance
35: Ladder to 100 Mpc and Beyond}
36:
37: \author{Jonathan C. Bird, K. Z. Stanek, Jos\'{e} L. Prieto}
38: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 West
39: 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, bird@astronomy.ohio-state.edu,
40: kstanek@astronomy.ohio-state.edu, prieto@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
41:
42: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ.}
43: \begin{abstract}
44:
45: We examine the properties of 18 long period ($80-210$ days) and very
46: luminous (median absolute magnitude of M$_I=-7.86$ and M$_V=-6.97$)
47: Cepheids to see if they can serve as an useful distance indicator. We
48: find that these Ultra Long Period (ULP) Cepheids have a relatively
49: shallow Period-Luminosity (PL) relation, so in fact they are more
50: ``standard candle''-like than classical Cepheids. In the
51: reddening-free Wesenheit index, the slope of the ULP PL relation is
52: consistent with zero. The scatter of our sample about the W$_I$ PL
53: relation is $0.23$ mag, approaching that of classical Cepheids and
54: Type Ia Supernovae. We expect this scatter to decrease as bigger and
55: more uniform samples of ULP Cepheids are obtained. We also measure a
56: non-zero period derivative for one ULP Cepheid (SMC HV829) and use the
57: result to probe evolutionary models and mass loss of massive
58: stars. ULP Cepheids main advantage over classical Cepheids is that
59: they are more luminous, and as such show great potential as stellar
60: distance indicators to galaxies up to $100$ Mpc and beyond.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63:
64: \keywords{Cepheids --- stars: distances --- stars: mass loss --- distance scale}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
67:
68: A reliable method of measuring the physical distance to astrophysical
69: objects has always been sought after in observational astronomy
70: \citep[\eg,][]{Bessel1839}. In the era of ``precision cosmology'', the
71: need for accurate physical distance measurements has been amplified
72: \citep[\eg,][]{Spergel03, Riess04, Tegmark04}. Accurate and precise
73: distance indicators hold the key to pinning down the value of the
74: Hubble constant $(H_0)$ and many other cosmological parameters
75: \citep[see discussion in, \eg,][]{Macri06}. A number of methods have
76: been employed to determine extragalactic distances, with varying
77: degree of success \citep[\eg,][]{Freedman01}. The construction and
78: reliability of the ``cosmological distance ladder'' depends crucially
79: on Cepheid variables being able to provide precise and accurate
80: distances to nearby ($d\lesssim20\;$Mpc) galaxies. The quest for such
81: distances has been an arduous journey for almost a hundred years, with
82: many dramatic twists and turns \citep[for a review of early years,
83: see][for a recent review see, \eg, \citealt{Macri05}]{Baade1956}.
84:
85: Cepheids offer several advantages as distance indicators. Massive
86: stars $(\ge5 M_{\odot})$ make an excursion through the instability
87: strip and most, if not all, of them become Cepheid variables. These
88: variable stars are relatively bright ($M_V\sim -4$ for a $P\sim
89: 10\;$day Cepheid) and often have large brightness variations
90: (amplitude $\sim1$ mag) with a characteristic ``saw-tooth'' shaped
91: light curve. Their intrinsic brightness, combined with their light
92: curve shape and colors, make them easy to distinguish from other
93: classes of variable stars. As a result, Cepheids have been detected
94: and studied in a significant number of star-forming galaxies. The
95: physical mechanisms underlying Cepheid pulsation are well understood,
96: including the observed tight period-luminosity (PL) relationship
97: \citep[\eg,][]{Chiosi93}. The small scatter in the PL relation allows
98: distance measurements precise to $\sim 5\%$ \citep[\eg,][]{Macri06}.
99: For these reasons, Cepheids are commonly used to calibrate other
100: distance indicators, forming the base of the cosmological distance
101: ladder.
102:
103: Despite their many advantages as a distance indicator, Cepheid
104: distances also have some shortcomings. Most Cepheids have an intrinsic
105: brightness of $M_V \ge -5$, so with the current instrumentation they
106: can be only used to measure distances to $\lesssim30\;$Mpc (the
107: largest Cepheid distance in \citealt{Freedman01} is $\sim
108: 22\;$Mpc). Observations of Cepheids in distant galaxies are also
109: hindered by blending \citep{Mochejska00}--- as young stars, Cepheids
110: live in close proximity to the crowded star-forming regions of their
111: host galaxies, and are thus likely to have another star of similar
112: brightness on the scale of a typical instrumental
113: point-spread-function (PSF). The effect of blending becomes worse as
114: the square of the distance to the host galaxy \citep{Stanek99}, again
115: limiting the usefulness of Cepheids to measuring distances
116: $\lesssim30\;$Mpc even with high resolution instruments such as the
117: Hubble Space Telescopes ({\em HST}). Ideally, we would like to find a
118: distance indicator that shares the good properties of classical
119: Cepheids, but is even more luminous, allowing us to observe it further
120: away and be less susceptible to blending. In this paper we discuss
121: such a possible distance indicator, namely Ultra Long Period (ULP)
122: Cepheids.
123:
124: We define ULP Cepheids as fundamental mode Cepheids with pulsation
125: periods greater than 80 days. Several such Cepheids have been already
126: discovered in the pioneering study of \citet{Leavitt1908}. However,
127: ULP Cepheids have traditionally been ignored for distance measurements
128: as they are PL outliers. Indeed, the observed PL relation flattens
129: for Cepheids with periods greater than 100 days
130: \citep[\eg,][]{Grieve85,Freedman92}. \citet{Grieve85} suggests that
131: long period Leavitt Variables could be used for distance measures---
132: unfortunately that idea has not permeated through the community. We
133: argue that the flattening of the PL at long periods actually improves
134: the usefulness of ULP Cepheids as distance indicators because it makes
135: them a good standard candle in the traditional sense. We note several
136: additional advantages of ULP Cepheids over lower period Cepheids due
137: to their increased luminosity. ULP Cepheids could be used as a stellar
138: distance measure to the Hubble Flow (up to $\sim150$ Mpc)--- several
139: times the current observational limit. In Section~\ref{sec:sample} we
140: describe our sample compiled from the literature. The ULP Cepheid PL
141: relation is discussed in
142: Section~\ref{sec:DM}. Section~\ref{sec:massloss} demonstrates how ULP
143: Cepheids may provide the additional benefit of testing massive stellar
144: evolutionary models. We summarize our results in
145: Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
146:
147:
148:
149: \section{Sample}\label{sec:sample}
150:
151: \begin{figure*}
152: %\epsscale{0.80}
153: \figurenum{1}
154: \plotone{f1.eps}
155: \caption{\label{fig:lcs}The $V$ (open circles) and $I$ (filled
156: circles, where available) band light curves of the ULP Cepheids. Each
157: panel spans 2.4 magnitudes along the y-axis. The phase is given along
158: the x-axis. The Cepheid identification (see column 1,
159: Table~\ref{tab:ceps}) is listed in the upper left of each plot while
160: the period (in days) is in the upper right.}
161: \end{figure*}
162:
163: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
164: \begin{deluxetable*}{llccccccccccccc}
165: \tablewidth{0pt}
166: %\small
167: %\tabletypesize{\tiny}
168: \tablecolumns{15}
169: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.005in}
170: %\rotate
171: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
172: \tablecaption{Ultra Long Period Cepheids}
173: \tablehead{
174: \colhead{ID} &
175: \colhead{Host Galaxy} &
176: \colhead{RA} &
177: \colhead{DEC} &
178: \colhead{P} &
179: \colhead{$<V>$} &
180: \colhead{$(V-I)$} &
181: \colhead{W$_I$} &
182: \colhead{$E(B-V)$} &
183: \colhead{(m-M)$_0$} &
184: \colhead{$V_0$} &
185: \colhead{$(V-I)_0$} &
186: \colhead{$W_{I0}$} &
187: \colhead{$12 + \log($O/H$)$} &
188: \colhead{References} \\
189: \colhead{} &
190: \colhead{} &
191: \colhead{(J2000.0)} &
192: \colhead{(J2000.0)} &
193: \colhead{(days)} &
194: \colhead{(mag)} &
195: \colhead{(mag)} &
196: \colhead{(mag)} &
197: \colhead{(mag)} &
198: \colhead{(mag)} &
199: \colhead{(mag)} &
200: \colhead{(mag)} &
201: \colhead{(mag)} &
202: \colhead{dex} &
203: \colhead{} \\
204: \colhead{(1)} &
205: \colhead{(2)} &
206: \colhead{(3)} &
207: \colhead{(4)} &
208: \colhead{(5)} &
209: \colhead{(6)} &
210: \colhead{(7)} &
211: \colhead{(8)} &
212: \colhead{(9)} &
213: \colhead{(10)} &
214: \colhead{(11)} &
215: \colhead{(12)} &
216: \colhead{(13)} &
217: \colhead{(14)} &
218: \colhead{(15)} \\
219: }
220:
221: \startdata
222: LMC HV883 & LMC & $05:00:08.6$ & $-68:27:03$ & $133.6$ & $12.12$ & $1.09$ & $9.34$ & $0.14$ & $18.50$ & $-6.83$ & $0.91$ & $-9.16$ & $8.39\pm0.12$ & 1,2,3 \\
223: LMC HV2447 & LMC & $05:19:31.4$ & $-68:41:12$ & $118.7$ & $11.99$ & $1.12$ & $9.13$ & $0.14$ & $18.50$ & $-6.96$ & $0.94$ & $-9.37$ & $8.39\pm0.12$ & 1,2,3 \\
224: LMC HV2883 & LMC & $04:56:27.0$ & $-64:41:26$ & $109.2$ & $12.41$ & $1.07$ & $9.68$ & $0.14$ & $18.50$ & $-6.54$ & $0.89$ & $-8.82$ & $8.39\pm0.12$ & 1,2,3 \\
225: LMC HV5497 & LMC & $04:55:40.0$ & $-66:25:39$ & $98.6$ & $11.92$ & $1.11$ & $9.09$ & $0.14$ & $18.50$ & $-7.03$ & $0.93$ & $-9.41$ & $8.39\pm0.12$ & 1,2,3 \\
226: SMC HV1956 & SMC & $01:04:15.9$ & $-72:45:20$ & $210.4$ & $12.28$ & $0.83$ & $9.95$ & $0.09$ & $18.93$ & $-6.94$ & $0.71$ & $-8.98$ & $7.98\pm0.10$ & 5,2,3;4 \\
227: SMC HV821 & SMC & $00:41:43.5$ & $-73:43:24$ & $127.5$ & $11.92$ & $1.03$ & $9.29$ & $0.09$ & $18.93$ & $-7.30$ & $0.92$ & $-9.64$ & $7.98\pm0.10$ & 1,6,3;4 \\
228: SMC HV829 & SMC & $00:50:28.9$ & $-72:45:09$ & $84.4$ & $11.97$ & $0.91$ & $9.65$ & $0.09$ & $18.93$ & $-7.25$ & $0.80$ & $-9.28$ & $7.98\pm0.10$ & 1,6,3;4 \\
229: NGC 6822-1 & NGC 6822 & $19:45:02.0$ & $-14:47:33$ & $123.9$ & $17.86$ & $1.40$ & $14.29$ & $0.36$ & $23.31$ & $-6.60$ & $0.94$ & $-9.02$ & $8.11\pm0.10$ & 7,8,9 \\
230: NGC 55-1 & NGC 55 & $00:14:13.0$ & $-39:08:42$ & $175.9$ & $19.25$ & $0.84$ & $17.11$ & $0.13$ & $26.43$ & $-7.60$ & $0.68$ & $-9.33$ & $8.05\pm0.10$ & 10,11,12 \\
231: NGC 55-2 & NGC 55 & $00:15:12.0$ & $-39:12:18$ & $152.1$ & $19.56$ & $0.95$ & $17.14$ & $0.13$ & $26.43$ & $-7.28$ & $0.79$ & $-9.29$ & $8.05\pm0.10$ & 10,11,12 \\
232: NGC 55-3 & NGC 55 & $00:14:36.6$ & $-39:11:09$ & $112.7$ & $20.18$ & $1.05$ & $17.51$ & $0.13$ & $26.43$ & $-6.67$ & $0.88$ & $-8.92$ & $8.05\pm0.10$ & 10,11,12 \\
233: NGC 55-4 & NGC 55 & $00:15:14.3$ & $-39:13:17$ & $97.7$ & $20.54$ & $1.25$ & $17.35$ & $0.13$ & $26.43$ & $-6.31$ & $1.08$ & $-9.08$ & $8.05\pm0.10$ & 10,11,12 \\
234: NGC 55-5 & NGC 55 & $00:15:10.1$ & $-39:12:26$ & $85.1$ & $20.84$ & $1.38$ & $17.32$ & $0.13$ & $26.43$ & $-6.01$ & $1.22$ & $-9.12$ & $8.05\pm0.10$ & 10,11,12 \\
235: NGC 300-1 & NGC 300 & $00:55:11.6$ & $-37:33:55$ & $115.8$ & $20.13$ & $0.97$ & $17.66$ & $0.10$ & $26.37$ & $-6.55$ & $0.85$ & $-8.71$ & $8.25\pm0.22$ & 13,14,15 \\
236: NGC 300-2 & NGC 300 & $00:54:35.0$ & $-37:35:01$ & $89.1$ & $19.71$ & $1.02$ & $17.12$ & $0.10$ & $26.37$ & $-6.97$ & $0.89$ & $-9.25$ & $8.25\pm0.22$ & 13,14,15 \\
237: NGC 300-3 & NGC 300 & $00:54:54.3$ & $-37:37:02$ & $83.0$ & $19.26$ & $0.77$ & $17.30$ & $0.10$ & $26.37$ & $-7.42$ & $0.65$ & $-9.07$ & $8.25\pm0.22$ & 13,14,15 \\
238: I Zw 18-1 & I Zw 18 & \nodata & \nodata & $129.8$ & $23.56$ & $0.74$ & $21.67$ & $0.03$ & $31.30$ & $-7.84$ & $0.70$ & $-9.63$ & $7.21\pm0.10$ & 16,17\\
239: I Zw 18-2 & I Zw 18 & \nodata & \nodata & $125.0$ & $23.47$ & $0.91$ & $21.15$ & $0.03$ & $31.30$ & $-7.93$ & $0.87$ & $-10.15$ & $7.21\pm0.10$ & 16,17\\
240: \enddata
241:
242: \tablecomments{\label{tab:ceps}ULP Cepheids in our sample grouped by
243: host galaxy. (1): Cepheid Identification. (2): Host galaxy
244: name. (3,4): Right Ascension and Declination in J2000
245: coordinates. (5): Period in days. (6): Apparent mean $V$ magnitude of
246: Cepheid. (7): Apparent $(V-I)$ color of Cepheid. (8): Apparent
247: Wesenheit magnitude (definition in text). (9): Reddening towards host
248: galaxy. (10): Reddening-free distance modulus. (11): Absolute $V$
249: magnitude. (12): Absolute $(V-I)$ color. (13): Absolute Wesenheit
250: magnitude. (14): Metallicity: $12 + \log($O/H$)$. (15): First
251: reference is for photometry, reddening, and distance modulus (except
252: where noted in text). Second reference refers to metallicity. If third
253: reference is present, its reddening and distance modulus measurements
254: supercedes the first.}
255:
256: \tablerefs{
257: References:
258: 1.~\citet{Freedman85};
259: 2.~\citet{Pagel78};
260: 3.~\citet{Udalski99};
261: 4.~\citet{Hilditch05} and \citet{Keller06};
262: 5.~\citet[][ASAS survey]{Pojmanski97};
263: 6.~\citet{Peimbert76};
264: 7.~\citet{Pietrzynski04};
265: 8.~\citet{Peimbert05};
266: 9.~\citet{Gieren06}
267: 10.~\citet{Pietrzynski06};
268: 11.~\citet{Tullmann03};
269: 12.~\citet{Gieren08}
270: 13.~\citet{Gieren04};
271: 14.~\citet{Urbaneja05};
272: 15.~\citet{Gieren05};
273: 16.~\citet{Fiorentino08};
274: 17.~\citet{Skillman93}.
275: }
276: \end{deluxetable*}
277:
278: We have assembled a sample of ULP Cepheids from the literature and
279: list their reported positions, periods, and mean $V$ and $I$
280: magnitudes (see Table~\ref{tab:ceps}). We adopt the periods, reddening
281: values, and distance moduli found in these sources except in the case
282: of the Magellanic Clouds (see below). Our primary criteria for
283: selecting the sample was the existence of $V$ and $I$ data calibrated
284: on the standard Johnson/Kron-Cousins magnitude system using Landolt
285: standards (with the possible exception of the Magellanic Clouds; see
286: below). The ULP distinction is applied to fundamental mode Cepheids
287: with periods greater 80 days. We combed the recent literature for
288: reports of such variable stars.
289:
290:
291:
292: \textbf{Magellanic Clouds} Our sample includes four LMC and three SMC
293: ULP Cepheids. \citet{Freedman85} calibrated photoelectric observations
294: of these Cepheids and transformed them to the Johnson/Kron-Cousins
295: standard system. The mean flux-weighted photometry for the six
296: Cepheids reported in \citet{Freedman85} agrees with the Landolt
297: standard star calibrated results of \citet{Moffett98} to within $0.04$
298: mag, suggesting that the standard photometric system calibration is
299: robust. Mean flux-weighted photometry for HV1956 is obtained from the
300: All Sky Automated Survey \citep[ASAS;][]{Pojmanski97} and
301: \citet{Moffett98}. The $V$ light curves of six of these ULP
302: Cepheids were obtained from ASAS. HV2883 was not targeted by ASAS,
303: and its $V$ light curve photometry was obtained from \citet{Madore75},
304: \citet{vanGenderen83}, and \citet{Moffett98}. \citet{Moffett98}
305: provide the $I$ light curve data for the entire sample. We applied the
306: analysis of variance technique \citep{Schwarzenberg89} to the seven
307: Harvard Variable light curves in Figure~\ref{fig:lcs} to obtain the
308: periods listed in Table~\ref{tab:ceps}. We adopt total reddening
309: values of $E(B-V)=0.14$ mag and $E(B-V)=0.09$ mag for the LMC and SMC,
310: respectively \citep{Udalski99}. We assume a distance modulus (DM) of
311: $(m-M)_0=18.5$ mag to the LMC for consistency with the sources listed
312: in Table~\ref{tab:ceps}. The SMC DM used is $(m-M)_0=18.93$ mag
313: \citep{Hilditch05, Keller06}. The LMC (SMC) hosts ULP Cepheids with
314: periods of 98.6, 109.2, 118.7, and 133.6 (84.4, 127.5, and 210.4)
315: days. The LMC has gas phase oxygen abundance $12 + \log($O/H$)=
316: 8.39\pm0.10$ \citep{Pagel78} while the SMC is $12 + \log($O/H$)=
317: 7.98\pm0.10$ \citep{Peimbert76}.
318:
319: The Araucaria Project \citep{Pietrzynski02} is a photometric survey of
320: Local and Sculptor Group galaxies and their Cepheid populations. The
321: primary goal is to more accurately determine the distances to these
322: galaxies and to characterize the dependence of various stellar
323: distance indicators on metallicity and age. The Araucaria Project has
324: observed ULP Cepheids in the following galaxies.
325:
326:
327: \textbf{NGC 55} Five ULP Cepheids were found in NGC 55
328: \citep{Pietrzynski06}. Observations were taken with the Optical
329: Gravitation Lensing Experiment (OGLE) detector on the Warsaw 1.3 m
330: telescope at Las Campanas Observatory. They estimate that the
331: calibration procedure used to transform their photometric data from
332: the OGLE filters to the standard system produced errors $\le0.03$
333: mag. Follow up observations in the IR revealed a total reddening of
334: $E(B-V)= 0.13$ mag \citep{Gieren08}. Their multi-wavelength PL
335: analysis produced a DM to NGC 55 of $26.43\pm0.04\pm0.08$ mag
336: (statistical and systematic errors, respectively). NGC 55 hosts ULP
337: Cepheids with periods of 85.1, 97.7, 112.7, 152.1, and 175.9 days. The
338: oxygen abundance of NGC 55 is $12 + \log($O/H$)= 8.05\pm0.10$
339: \citep{Tullmann03}.
340:
341: \textbf{NGC 6822} One ULP Cepheid was found in NGC 6822
342: \citep{Pietrzynski04}. The filters and telescope used are identical to
343: those of NGC 55 \citep{Pietrzynski06}. Similarly, the reported
344: calibration error onto the standard system is $\le0.03$ mag. As in
345: the multi-wavelength follow up study of NGC 6822 \citep{Gieren06}, we adopt a
346: total reddening of $E(B-V)=0.36$ mag. The lone ULP Cepheid in NGC 6822
347: has a period of 123.9 days. \citet{Gieren06} calculate a DM to NGC
348: 6822 of $23.31\pm0.02\pm0.06$ mag (statistical and systematic errors,
349: respectively). NGC 6822 has a similar oxygen abundance to NGC 55 of
350: $12 + \log($O/H$)= 8.11\pm0.10$ \citep{Peimbert05}.
351:
352: \textbf{NGC 300} \citet{Gieren04} found three ULP Cepheids in NGC
353: 300. Again, OGLE filters were used for the observations. Their
354: calibration onto the standard system has a reported error $\le0.03$
355: mag. A multi-wavelength study of NGC 300 \citep{Gieren05} determined a
356: reddening-free DM of $26.37\pm0.05\pm0.03$ mag (statistical and
357: systematic, respectively) using a total reddening of $E(B-V)=0.10$
358: mag. ULP Cepheids of 83.0, 89.1, and 115.8 days are observed in NGC
359: 300. NGC 300 has a strong metallicity gradient; therefore we adopt
360: mean Cepheid radial distance of 4 kpc and apply the averaged gradient
361: of \citet{Urbaneja05} to obtain a mean oxygen abundance value of $12 +
362: \log($O/H$)= 8.25\pm0.22$.
363:
364: \textbf{I Zw 18} \citet{Aloisi07} discovered three ULP Cepheids from
365: the extremely metal poor galaxy I Zw 18, though they could not confirm
366: one candidate. A follow-up study \citep{Fiorentino08} presents flux
367: weighted mean photometry but no data, so the light curves of
368: these objects could not be included in Figure~\ref{fig:lcs}. The ULP
369: Cepheids have periods of $129.8$ and $125.0$ days
370: (Table~\ref{tab:ceps}). After accounting for extinction $E(B-V)=0.032$
371: mag, \citet{Aloisi07} use the red giant branch tip to determine a DM
372: of $31.30\pm0.17$ mag while \citet{Fiorentino08} find a DM of
373: $31.35\pm0.26$ mag via pulsation models. We use the former measurement
374: as it is considered more reliable by the authors. We do not include
375: these two Cepheids in the upcoming PL determination as I Zw 18 is a
376: full dex more metal poor than the other galaxies in this sample ($12 +
377: \log($O/H$)= 7.2\pm0.10$; \citealt{Skillman93}). There is an increasing
378: amount of support for a metallicity dependent PL
379: \citep[\eg][]{Sandage08} and including these Cepheids in our PL
380: analysis would greatly increase the metallicity dispersion of the host
381: galaxies in our sample. We do, however, make use of them to examine
382: the ULP PL relation dependence on metallicity.
383:
384:
385:
386: \subsection{Absolute Photometry}
387:
388: \begin{figure*}
389: %\epsscale{0.80}
390: \figurenum{2}
391: \plotone{f2.eps}
392: \caption{\label{fig:cmd}M$_V$ versus $(V-I)_0$ color CMD of our ULP
393: sample (open symbols) with the OGLE SMC Cepheids (black dots) and OGLE
394: SMC stars (gray dots) for comparison. The legend denotes the host
395: galaxy of each ULP Cepheid. For reference we label the main sequence
396: (MS), blue supergiant (BSG), red supergiant (RSG), and red giant (RG)
397: sequences.}
398: \end{figure*}
399:
400: The ULP Cepheid sample and its mean, flux-weighted photometry in the
401: standard system can be found in Table~\ref{tab:ceps}. We assume that
402: the photometric error associated with each ULP Cepheid is negligible
403: when compared to the intrinsic scatter of the PL relation. We
404: transform these measurements to absolute magnitudes via:
405: \begin{equation}
406: M_i=m_i-DM-A_i,\ i=I,V \label{eq:abs_mag}
407: \end{equation}
408: where $M_i$ is the absolute magnitude in either the $V$ or $I$, $m_i$
409: is the apparent magnitude; $DM$ is the reddening free distance
410: modulus; and $A_i$ is the extinction in the $V$ or $I$. We use the
411: extinction law $A_V=3.24\,E(B-V)$ and $A_I=1.96\,E(B-V)$
412: \citep{Schlegel98}. We define the Wesenheit magnitudes as:
413: W$_I=I-1.55(V-I)$ \citep[\eg,][]{Udalski99}.
414:
415: The color-magnitude diagram (CMD) highlights several important
416: characteristics of the ULP Cepheid data set
417: (Figure~\ref{fig:cmd}). ULP Cepheids are the luminous counterparts to
418: shorter period Cepheids in color magnitude space. Our sample clearly
419: populates the luminous region of the instability strip. Future Cepheid
420: studies can use ULP Cepheids to push Cepheid distance measurements
421: well beyond the current $\sim30$ Mpc limit as our sample's median
422: absolute magnitude is M$_I$(M$_V)=-7.86(-6.97)$ (see
423: Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}). The intrinsic brightness of ULP
424: Cepheids makes them ideal candidates for distance indicators to
425: galaxies where classical Cepheids cannot be observed.
426:
427: \section{Distance Measurements with ULP Cepheids} \label{sec:DM}
428:
429: The Cepheids in our sample have been ignored as distance indicators as
430: they do not follow to the standard period-luminosity relationship
431: \citep[\eg,][]{Freedman92}. In this section, we examine the
432: characteristics of our ULP Cepheid sample in the period-luminosity
433: plane and explore their viability as a distance indicator. We
434: determine PL relations of our sample in the $V$, $I$, and W$_I$ in
435: Section~\ref{sec:PL} while the metallicity dependence of our results
436: is presented in Section~\ref{sec:metal}.
437:
438: \subsection{Period Luminosity Relations} \label{sec:PL}
439:
440: Using the data in Table~\ref{tab:ceps}, we construct PL diagrams in
441: $V$, $I$, and W$_I$ (Figures~\ref{fig:PL_V},~\ref{fig:PL_I},
442: ~\ref{fig:PL}, respectively). In each case, ULP Cepheids are compared
443: to fundamental mode SMC Cepheids (hereafter, this control sample will
444: be referred to as OGLE Cepheids). The \osmc\ sample contains over
445: $1100$ fundamental mode Cepheids with periods ranging from $0.5$ to
446: $\sim50$ days; however, we only plot the 70 Cepheids with periods of
447: greater than 10 days. To quantify our comparison, we perform a linear
448: fit on both samples in each PL diagram: the slopes of the \osmc\ PL
449: relations (hereafter PL$_{SMC}$; dotted lines in the figures) are
450: adopted from \citet{Udalski99} while the intercepts are chosen to
451: minimize chi-square. We employ linear least square fitting of the ULP
452: Cepheid sample to identify their PL relation (hereafter
453: PL$_{ULP}$). We omit errors in distance moduli and extinction in this
454: demonstration as they are small when compared to the overall scatter
455: of the sample. The parameters of these fits and the RMS of each data
456: set in $V$, $I$, and W$_I$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fits}. Despite
457: our sample ranging in period from 83 to 210 days, ULP Cepheids occupy
458: a small region of luminosity space. We note that the ULP Cepheids from
459: I Zw 18 are not included in this analysis for reasons outlined in
460: Section~\ref{sec:sample}.
461:
462: The $V$ PL diagram is Figure~\ref{fig:PL_V}. The \pls\ fit has a
463: slope of $-2.76$ and the RMS of the \osmc\ sample about this fit is
464: $0.25$ mag. The ULP Cepheid sample has $76\%$ more scatter (RMS=$0.44$
465: mag) about the \pls\ fit. This discrepancy in scatter has led to the
466: standard practice of removing ULP Cepheids from PL relation studies
467: \citep[\eg,][]{Freedman85} and the significant increase in RMS
468: suggests that the ULP Cepheids do not conform to the classical PL
469: relation. If we determine the PL relation of ULP Cepheids alone we
470: find \plu\ has a slope ($-1.09\pm0.94$) that is flatter than \pls\
471: (though the slopes are within $2\sigma$ of each other, see
472: Table~\ref{tab:fits}). The RMS of our sample to \plu\ is $0.40$ mag;
473: only marginally better than the ULP Cepheid scatter about the
474: established \pls\ relation. In $V$, the ULP Cepheid sample does not
475: follow a statistically distinct and unique PL.
476:
477: The longer the wavelength the less reddening is a concern. The
478: accuracy of distance measurement with Cepheids increases going from
479: $V$ to $I$ (PL diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:PL_I}). \pls\ has a slope of
480: $-2.96$ and the \osmc\ sample's RMS is $0.19$. The ULP Cepheid scatter
481: about this fit is $116\%$ larger ($0.41$ mag). The RMS of the ULP
482: Cepheids is reduced to $0.31$ mag when using the \plu\ fit
483: (slope$=-0.57\pm0.73$). \plu\ is approximately five times as flat as
484: \pls\ and the two slopes are distinct at the $3\sigma$ level. While
485: ULP Cepheids show the same general trends with regards to period,
486: luminosity, and color as normal Cepheids, significant statistical
487: differences between the two populations are apparent in the $I$-band
488: PL relation.
489:
490: \begin{figure*}%[t]
491: %\epsscale{0.60}
492: \figurenum{3}
493: \plotone{f3.eps}
494: \caption{\label{fig:PL_V}The $V$ Period Luminosity relationship for
495: the OGLE SMC Cepheids (black dots) and ULP Cepheids (open
496: symbols). The dashed line is the PL relation adopted from
497: \citet{Udalski99}, with a slope of $-2.76$. The least square fit of
498: the ULP Cepheid subsample yields a flatter slope of $-1.09\pm0.94$
499: (red line) and the RMS is $0.40\;$mag. The residuals to the \pls\ fit
500: are shown in the bottom panel (black, open squares). Residuals to the
501: \plu\ are given for the ULP Cepheid sample (red symbols).}
502: \end{figure*}
503:
504: \begin{figure*}%[b]
505: %\epsscale{0.60}
506: \figurenum{4}
507: \plotone{f4.eps}
508: \caption{\label{fig:PL_I}The $I$ Period Luminosity relationship for
509: the OGLE SMC Cepheids (black dots) and ULP Cepheids (open
510: symbols). The dashed line has a slope of $-2.96$ and is the PL
511: relation adopted from \citet{Udalski99}. The least square fit to the
512: ULP Cepheid subsample produces a flatter slope of $-0.57\pm0.73$ (red
513: line) and the RMS is $0.31$ mag. The residuals to the \pls\ fit are
514: shown in the bottom panel (black, open squares). Residuals to the
515: \plu\ are given for the ULP Cepheid sample (red symbols).}
516: \end{figure*}
517:
518:
519: To further reduce the uncertainty associated with reddening in our PL
520: analysis, we repeat the procedure using the reddening-free Wesenheit
521: Index (W$_I$) introduced in \citet{Madore91}. The W$_I$ PL diagram
522: illuminates the advantages of this reddening-free index for Cepheid
523: distance measurements (Figure~\ref{fig:PL}). The \osmc\ sample has a
524: very tight relation between period and luminosity; with small scatter
525: about the \pls\ fit (slope of $-3.28$; RMS of only $0.12$ mag). The
526: ULP Cepheid RMS about \pls\ is $0.47$ mag. The $4$-fold increase in
527: scatter implies the ULP Cepheid and the \osmc\ samples do not conform
528: to the same PL relation. The \plu\ fit slope is flatter than its \pls\
529: counterpart at the $6\sigma$ level ($-0.05\pm0.54$ vs. $-3.28$) and
530: the ULP fit slope is consistent with zero slope. The scatter of the
531: ULP Cepheids is only $0.23$ mag about the \plu\ relation. This scatter
532: is still $92\%$ more than that of the \osmc\ sample; however, the ULP
533: sample is relatively small and heterogeneous. We note that the scatter
534: of ULP Cepheids about the \plu\ fit is smaller than that of the \osmc\
535: sample about the nominal PL relation in $V$ and on par with the same
536: in $I$.
537:
538: \begin{figure*}%[]
539: %\epsscale{0.60}
540: \plotone{f5.eps}
541: \figurenum{5}
542: \caption{\label{fig:PL}The absolute Wesenheit magnitude Period
543: Luminosity relationship for the OGLE SMC Cepheids (black dots) and ULP
544: Cepheids (open symbols). The dashed line is the PL relation adopted
545: from \citet{Udalski99} and has a slope of $-3.28$. The least square
546: fit to the ULP Cepheid subsample produces a flat slope of
547: $-0.05\pm0.54$ (red line) with a ULP Cepheid RMS $= 0.23$ mag. If we
548: assume that \plu\ has zero slope (intercept of $-9.15$), the RMS stays
549: at 0.23 mag. The residuals to the \pls\ fit are shown in the bottom
550: panel (black, open squares). Residuals to the \plu\ are given for the
551: ULP Cepheid sample (red symbols).}
552: \end{figure*}
553:
554: Several trends in PL space are apparent as one examines the ULP
555: Cepheid sample in $V$, then $I$, and finally in the W$_I$ index. As
556: reddening is reduced, the \plu\ parameters are increasingly different
557: from those of \pls. The \plu\ fit is more shallow as one moves from
558: $V$ to W$_I$. In the W$_I$, the \plu\ relation reveals that ULP
559: Cepheid luminosity becomes statistically independent of period. In
560: essence, ULP Cepheids behave as bright, standard candles in the
561: reddening-free index.
562:
563:
564:
565:
566: \subsection{Metallicity Dependence}\label{sec:metal}
567:
568: An uncertainty of the Cepheid PL and its derived distance measurement
569: is its sensitivity to the metallicity of the stars
570: \citep[\eg,][]{Freedman90, Kennicutt98}. Our sample of ULP Cepheids
571: contains six different host galaxies that span a range of $\sim1.2$
572: dex in $12 + \log($O/H$)$ from 7.22 to 8.39, providing an opportunity
573: to investigate the dependence of the ULP Cepheid PL on metallicity. We
574: plot the residual of each ULP Cepheid to the PL$_{ULP,W_I}$ fit listed
575: in Table~\ref{tab:fits} as a function of metallicity
576: (Figure~\ref{fig:res_OH}). In other studies, linear fits of PL
577: residuals have determined a correction factor, $\gamma$, between $0.0$
578: and $-0.4$ mag dex$^{-1}$ \citep[see Figure 1
579: of][]{Romaniello08}. Recently, \citet{Macri06} used the metallicity
580: gradient in NGC 4258 to determine $\gamma = -0.29\pm0.09\pm0.05$ mag
581: dex$^{-1}$ (random and systematic errors, respectively). We overlay
582: this relation (normalized to our data set) in Figure~\ref{fig:res_OH}
583: for reference. If the I Zw 18 Cepheids are confirmed, it suggests a
584: stronger correlation between PL offset and metallicity than is evident
585: in lower period Cepheids \citep[\eg,][]{Kochanek97, Kennicutt98}.
586: However, we note that we do not take into account any reddening or DM
587: errors in this analysis. As such, we do not claim a specific
588: metallicity dependence for ULP Cepheids. We simply demonstrate that
589: the residuals to the \plu\ fit are broadly consistent with the range
590: of values presented in the literature to date.
591:
592: \tabletypesize{\tiny}
593: \begin{deluxetable}{llllll}[ht]
594: \tablecolumns{6}
595: \tablewidth{3.5in}
596: \tablecaption{Least Square Fit Values: $y = b + a*x$}
597: \tablehead{
598: \colhead{Relation} &
599: \colhead{Subset} &
600: \colhead{Shorthand} &
601: \colhead{Intercept (b)} &
602: \colhead{Slope (a)} &
603: \colhead{RMS}\\
604: \colhead{(1)} &
605: \colhead{(2)} &
606: \colhead{(3)} &
607: \colhead{(4)} &
608: \colhead{(5)} &
609: \colhead{(6)} \\
610: }
611: \startdata
612: Period-Luminosity: $V$ & SMC Cepheids & PL$_{SMC,V}$ & $-1.15$ & $-2.76$ & $0.25$ \\
613: Period-Luminosity: $V$ & ULPs & PL$_{ULP,V}$ & $-4.64\pm1.95$ & $-1.09\pm0.94$ & $0.40$ \\
614: Period-Luminosity: $I$ & SMC Cepheids & PL$_{SMC,I}$ & $-1.71$ & $-2.96$ & $0.19$ \\
615: Period-Luminosity: $I$ & ULPs & PL$_{ULP,I}$ & $-6.58\pm1.50$ & $-0.57\pm0.73$ & $0.31$ \\
616: Period-Luminosity: $W_I$ index & SMC Cepheids & PL$_{SMC,W_I}$ & $-2.57$ & $-3.28$ & $0.12$ \\
617: Period-Luminosity: $W_I$ index & ULPs & PL$_{ULP,W_I}$ & $-9.06\pm1.12$ & $-0.05\pm0.54$ & $0.23$ \\
618: \enddata
619:
620: \tablecomments{\label{tab:fits} The fit values of the PL relationships
621: in $V$, $I$, and W$_I$. For each photometric system, we calculate the
622: PL relation of classical SMC (PL$_{SMC}$) and ULP (PL$_{ULP}$)
623: Cepheids.}
624: \end{deluxetable}
625:
626: At this time we do not apply a metallicity correction to our ULP
627: Cepheid PL relations. Precise gas phase oxygen abundance measurements
628: are difficult to obtain \citep[for a review see][]{Bresolin06} and we
629: adopt a minimum metallicity error of $0.1$ dex. The ULP Cepheid sample
630: must grow in size and the PL analysis must be more detailed to
631: determine if I Zw 18 is an exception and to characterize the
632: functional form of the ULP Cepheid PL sensitivity to metallicity.
633:
634:
635: \begin{figure*}%[b]
636: %\epsscale{0.70}
637: \figurenum{6}
638: \plotone{f6.eps}
639: \caption{\label{fig:res_OH} Residual to the Wesenheit index PL
640: relation (See Table~\ref{tab:fits}, PL$_{ULP,W_I}$) versus
641: metallicity. The open symbols are ULP Cepheids from the sample. The
642: dotted line corresponds to the luminosity correction of $-0.29\pm0.10$
643: mag dex$^{-1}$ determined by \citet{Macri06} and normalized to our
644: sample. The residuals of the sample, minus the two I Zw 18 Cepheids,
645: are consistent with the \citet{Macri06} result.}
646: \end{figure*}
647:
648: \section{Using ULP Cepheids to Probe the Evolutionary Models of Massive Stars} \label{sec:massloss}
649:
650:
651: Most Cepheid variables cross the instability strip three times
652: \citep[\eg,][]{Bono00,Pietrukowicz01}. One can determine which
653: crossing a Cepheid is undergoing by measuring its period change,
654: $dP/dt$. The first and third crossings are associated with positive
655: $dP/dt$ while Cepheids exhibit a decreasing period on their second
656: crossing. We investigated the light curves of our sample for signs of
657: period changes by comparing photometry taken over the last $30$
658: years. One ULP Cepheid, HV829, exhibits a negative period change of
659: about 1.5 days. For this Cepheid, we compiled photometric data taken
660: during 1970-1976 from \citet{Madore75} and \citet{vanGenderen83} and
661: 2000-2004 data from the ASAS catalog (See Figure~\ref{fig:dpdt}). This
662: result is confirmed by a measured period of $87.63$ days in
663: \citet{Payne66} and 85.2 days by \citet{Moffett98}, firmly
664: establishing HV829 as a Cepheid on its second crossing. No other
665: Cepheid in our sample exhibited a measurable period change.
666:
667: ULP Cepheids occupy a mass range that is ideal to probe high mass
668: evolutionary models along the instability strip. We plot the CMD of
669: our ULP Cepheid sample and overlay the evolutionary tracks of
670: \citet{Lejeune01} (Figure~\ref{fig:mass}). The location of ULP
671: Cepheids in the color magnitude diagram suggest masses between $13$
672: and $20 M_{\odot}$, depending on the assumed metallicity (here, we
673: choose SMC metallicity). Our sample clearly probes a mass range
674: unexplored by current Cepheid studies. Note the evolutionary tracks at
675: $15$ and $20 M_{\odot}$ only cross the instability strip once,
676: regardless of assumed mass-loss rate. However, we have shown and
677: confirmed that HV829 is undergoing its \emph{second} crossing; a
678: result at odds with the models. We note that the evolutionary model
679: represents some ``mean'' behavior based on assumptions of stellar
680: chemical composition, overshooting, and other
681: parameters. Nevertheless, our result is one of the few observational
682: constraints on high mass stellar evolutionary models. HV829 may
683: indicate that massive stars behave differently than expected. Future
684: stellar evolutionary models in this mass regime should take this into
685: account.
686:
687:
688: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:conclusion}
689:
690: We have presented, for the first time, a collection of Ultra Long
691: Period ($P>80\;$days) Cepheids from the literature and demonstrated
692: their viability as a distance indicator. In the past, ULP Cepheids
693: have been ignored as distance indicators, and in fact many stellar
694: variability searches did not extend their cadence and search strategy
695: to allow for their discovery.
696:
697: In $V$, $I$, and especially reddening-free W$_I$ magnitude, ULP
698: Cepheids have a relatively flat PL relation compared to the respective
699: relations for classical Cepheids \citep{Udalski99}. The dispersion in
700: both the classical and ULP Cepheid populations about their respective
701: PL relationships becomes smaller as one moves from $V$ to $I$ to
702: W$_I$, and the discrepancy between the slopes increases. Most notably,
703: the slope of the ULP Cepheid W$_I$ PL relation is significantly
704: shallower than the standard SMC PL relation (slope is $-0.05$
705: vs. $-3.28$). The reddening-free Wesenheit index produces the tightest
706: ULP PL relation, with RMS residual of only $0.23$ mag (See
707: Figure~\ref{fig:PL}). Other papers \citep[\eg][]{Kanbur07} have found
708: non-linearites in the PL relationship at lower periods. However, the
709: change in slope seen here is much more dramatic and it is unlikely
710: that it shares a physical connection with the PL changes at lower
711: periods.
712:
713:
714: Our ULP PL scatter in W$_I$ is already less than that of the initial
715: peak brightness vs. absolute magnitude relation for Type Ia Supernova
716: ($\sim 0.3$ mag; \cite{Phillips93}). A huge amount of effort has
717: been necessary to increase the number of observed Type Ia SNe,
718: refine the calibration technique \citep[\eg,][]{Prieto06}, and to obtain
719: the low $0.15$-$0.20$ mag scatter in the relation seen today
720: \citep[\eg,][]{Jha07}. We expect future observational and theoretical
721: studies of ULP Cepheids will further decrease the already fairly small
722: scatter found in this first analysis.
723:
724: We strove to find all the known ULP Cepheids in the literature, but
725: our sample is likely not a complete census of ULP Cepheids. We note
726: that the Araucaria Project found ULP Cepheids in three of the five
727: galaxies they observed at the time of this analysis, so the ULP
728: Cepheid sample should grow at a reasonable rate as Cepheid studies are
729: extended to more galaxies and previous data sets are reanalyzed with
730: longer period searches. There is also evidence ULP Cepheids exist in a
731: broad range of metallicities, as preliminary data analysis of a M81
732: variability survey with the Large Binocular Telescope has already
733: discovered at least one ULP Cepheid (Kochanek, private communication).
734:
735: In addition to following a fairly tight PL relation, the ULP Cepheids
736: are also very luminous, with a median absolute magnitude in $I$($V$)
737: for our sample of $-7.86(-6.97)$. Using WFPC3, {\em HST}\/ can obtain
738: $10\%$ photometry at $V=28$ or $I=27$ (DM $= 35$ --- distance of
739: $100\;$Mpc for the median ULP Cepheid) in about 10 orbits, while only
740: two orbits are needed to reach a DM of $34$. As one would only need a
741: few orbits per epoch, one could detect the median ULP Cepheid (with a
742: period of $\sim121$ days) at 100 Mpc and the brightest ULP Cepheids
743: at $\sim150$ Mpc in a reasonable amount of time. Since the luminosity
744: of an ULP Cepheid is a weak function of its period, relatively
745: accurate distances would not require as precise period measurements as
746: is needed for classical Cepheids. We encourage future variability
747: proposals to search for Cepheids with periods greater than 100 days.
748:
749: We note two concerns in using ULP Cepheids for distance
750: measurements. It is obvious from our sample size that ULP Cepheids are
751: far less common than classical Cepheids. The relatively small ULP
752: Cepheid population will make precision distance measurements less
753: practical. As the sample size grows and the ULP Cepheid PL relations
754: become established, a single ULP Cepheid observation may yield
755: distance measurements accurate to $10-20\%$. Blending is always a
756: concern in Cepheid studies. Blending can compromise Classical Cepheid
757: measurements as stars of comparable brightness are likely to lie
758: within a single PSF \citep{Mochejska00}, especially at larger
759: distances. We expect blending to be less of a problem for our ULP
760: Cepheids even at large distances simply because they are so bright and
761: there are very few stars of comparable brightness in a given
762: galaxy. The effect of blending on ULP Cepheid observations will need
763: to be investigated further as the sample is increased.
764:
765: \begin{figure*}[p]
766: \figurenum{7}
767: %\epsscale{0.80}
768: \plotone{f8.eps}
769: \caption{\label{fig:dpdt} $V$-band photometry of SMC HV829 taken from
770: 1970-1976 (left panel) and 2000-2004 (right panel; see text for data
771: references). Each set of data was phased with the period shown at the
772: top of each pane. The pulsation period has clearly decreased, from
773: 85.9 days to 84.4 days over approximately 30 years.}
774: \end{figure*}
775:
776: \begin{figure*}[p]%[b]
777: \epsscale{0.80}
778: \figurenum{8}
779: \plotone{f7.eps}
780: \caption{\label{fig:mass} CMD of OGLE SMC Cepheids (small blacks dots)
781: and ULP Cepheids (large open symbols) overlaid with 12 M$_{\odot}$, 15
782: M$_{\odot}$, and 20 M$_{\odot}$ evolutionary models of
783: \citet{Lejeune01}. The metallicity chosen for the models is similar to
784: the SMC. For each mass, models incorporating ``normal'' (solid line)
785: mass loss and ``double'' (dashed line) mass loss are plotted. The two
786: mass loss models produce essentially the same evolutionary track for
787: each mass plotted. The large arrow denotes that the pulsation period
788: of HV829 is becoming smaller; therefore the star is undergoing its
789: second crossing of the instability strip.}
790: \end{figure*}
791:
792: The data set and analysis herein provides meaningful constraints on
793: theoretical work on Cepheids in this mass and period range. We have
794: shown that ULP Cepheids show strong evidence for a different, flatter
795: PL relation than their lower period cousins. Several papers have
796: modeled Cepheid pulsations and mapped these to theoretical PL relations
797: \citep[\eg,][]{Bono02}. However, this work has not been reliably
798: extended to the period range of our sample. Pulsation models in this
799: period range would also help determine the intrinsic scatter to the
800: PL$_{ULP}$ relation.
801:
802: Our current sample is not large enough to constrain the sensitivity of
803: the ULP Cepheid PL to metallicity. The PL residuals as a function of
804: metallicity are consistent with the results for shorter period
805: Cepheids \citep[$\gamma= -0.29 \pm0.09\pm 0.05$ mag
806: dex$^{-1}$;][]{Macri06}. Note that the median $12 + \log($O/H$)$ value
807: for a galaxy in our sample is about $0.5\;$dex lower than the
808: corresponding value for the {\em HST}\/ Key Project Cepheid hosts.
809:
810: Period changes of ULP Cepheids have powerful implications for stellar
811: evolutionary models in this mass regime. We examined photometry from
812: two epochs separated by thirty years to check for evidence of period
813: changes in seven Magellanic Cloud ULP Cepheids. Only one, SMC HV829,
814: showed a significant period change--- from $85.9\pm0.3$ to $84.4\pm0.4$
815: days. The negative period derivative indicates that
816: the Cepheid is undergoing its second crossing. Assuming the
817: metallicity of the SMC, many current evolutionary models do not
818: predict second crossings for Cepheids in this mass range (See
819: Figure~\ref{fig:mass}). Future models should incorporate this
820: observational result as it should place limits on several key input
821: parameters. In addition to their potential as distance indicators, ULP
822: Cepheids provide observational constraints on high mass stellar
823: evolution models.
824:
825: To summarize, ULP Cepheids, while often dismissed in the past, are
826: potentially a powerful distance indicator, probe of PL metallicity
827: sensitivity, and also a probe of massive star evolutionary
828: models. ULP Cepheids could provide the first direct stellar distance
829: measurements to galaxies in the 50-150 Mpc range, extending the
830: cosmological distance ladder well into the Hubble flow.
831:
832:
833: \acknowledgements{ We would like to thank Chris Kochanek for his
834: thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We thank the referee for
835: improving this work with helpful comments. This work was supported by
836: NSF grant AST-0707982.}
837:
838:
839: \bibliographystyle{apj}
840: \begin{thebibliography}{55}
841: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
842:
843: \bibitem[{{Aloisi} {et~al.}(2007){Aloisi}, {Clementini}, {Tosi}, {Annibali},
844: {Contreras}, {Fiorentino}, {Mack}, {Marconi}, {Musella}, {Saha}, {Sirianni},
845: \& {van der Marel}}]{Aloisi07}
846: {Aloisi}, A., {Clementini}, G., {Tosi}, M., {Annibali}, F., {Contreras}, R.,
847: {Fiorentino}, G., {Mack}, J., {Marconi}, M., {Musella}, I., {Saha}, A.,
848: {Sirianni}, M., \& {van der Marel}, R.~P. 2007, \apjl, 667, L151
849:
850: \bibitem[{{Baade}(1956)}]{Baade1956}
851: {Baade}, W. 1956, \pasp, 68, 5
852:
853: \bibitem[{{Bessel}(1839)}]{Bessel1839}
854: {Bessel}, F.~W. 1839, Astronomische Nachrichten, 16, 65
855:
856: \bibitem[{{Bono} {et~al.}(2000){Bono}, {Caputo}, {Cassisi}, {Marconi},
857: {Piersanti}, \& {Tornamb{\`e}}}]{Bono00}
858: {Bono}, G., {Caputo}, F., {Cassisi}, S., {Marconi}, M., {Piersanti}, L., \&
859: {Tornamb{\`e}}, A. 2000, \apj, 543, 955
860:
861: \bibitem[{{Bono} {et~al.}(2002){Bono}, {Groenewegen}, {Marconi}, \&
862: {Caputo}}]{Bono02}
863: {Bono}, G., {Groenewegen}, M.~A.~T., {Marconi}, M., \& {Caputo}, F. 2002,
864: \apjl, 574, L33
865:
866: \bibitem[{{Bresolin}(2006)}]{Bresolin06}
867: {Bresolin}, F. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astroph/0608410
868:
869: \bibitem[{{Chiosi} {et~al.}(1993){Chiosi}, {Wood}, \& {Capitanio}}]{Chiosi93}
870: {Chiosi}, C., {Wood}, P.~R., \& {Capitanio}, N. 1993, \apjs, 86, 541
871:
872: \bibitem[{{Fiorentino} {et~al.}(2008){Fiorentino}, {Clementini}, {Contreras},
873: {Marconi}, {Musella}, {Tosi}, {Aloisi}, {Annibali}, \& {Saha}}]{Fiorentino08}
874: {Fiorentino}, G., {Clementini}, G., {Contreras}, R., {Marconi}, M., {Musella},
875: I., {Tosi}, M., {Aloisi}, A., {Annibali}, F., \& {Saha}, A. 2008, Memorie
876: della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 79, 461
877:
878: \bibitem[{{Freedman} {et~al.}(1985){Freedman}, {Grieve}, \&
879: {Madore}}]{Freedman85}
880: {Freedman}, W.~L., {Grieve}, G.~R., \& {Madore}, B.~F. 1985, \apjs, 59, 311
881:
882: \bibitem[{{Freedman} \& {Madore}(1990)}]{Freedman90}
883: {Freedman}, W.~L. \& {Madore}, B.~F. 1990, \apj, 365, 186
884:
885: \bibitem[{{Freedman} {et~al.}(2001){Freedman}, {Madore}, {Gibson}, {Ferrarese},
886: {Kelson}, {Sakai}, {Mould}, {Kennicutt}, {Ford}, {Graham}, {Huchra},
887: {Hughes}, {Illingworth}, {Macri}, \& {Stetson}}]{Freedman01}
888: {Freedman}, W.~L., {Madore}, B.~F., {Gibson}, B.~K., {Ferrarese}, L., {Kelson},
889: D.~D., {Sakai}, S., {Mould}, J.~R., {Kennicutt}, Jr., R.~C., {Ford}, H.~C.,
890: {Graham}, J.~A., {Huchra}, J.~P., {Hughes}, S.~M.~G., {Illingworth}, G.~D.,
891: {Macri}, L.~M., \& {Stetson}, P.~B. 2001, \apj, 553, 47
892:
893: \bibitem[{{Freedman} {et~al.}(1992){Freedman}, {Madore}, {Hawley}, {Horowitz},
894: {Mould}, {Navarrete}, \& {Sallmen}}]{Freedman92}
895: {Freedman}, W.~L., {Madore}, B.~F., {Hawley}, S.~L., {Horowitz}, I.~K.,
896: {Mould}, J., {Navarrete}, M., \& {Sallmen}, S. 1992, \apj, 396, 80
897:
898: \bibitem[{{Gieren} {et~al.}(2006){Gieren}, {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Nalewajko},
899: {Soszy{\'n}ski}, {Bresolin}, {Kudritzki}, {Minniti}, \&
900: {Romanowsky}}]{Gieren06}
901: {Gieren}, W., {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Nalewajko}, K., {Soszy{\'n}ski}, I.,
902: {Bresolin}, F., {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Minniti}, D., \& {Romanowsky}, A. 2006,
903: \apj, 647, 1056
904:
905: \bibitem[{{Gieren} {et~al.}(2005){Gieren}, {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Soszy{\'n}ski},
906: {Bresolin}, {Kudritzki}, {Minniti}, \& {Storm}}]{Gieren05}
907: {Gieren}, W., {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Soszy{\'n}ski}, I., {Bresolin}, F.,
908: {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Minniti}, D., \& {Storm}, J. 2005, \apj, 628, 695
909:
910: \bibitem[{{Gieren} {et~al.}(2008){Gieren}, {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Soszy{\'n}ski},
911: {Bresolin}, {Kudritzki}, {Storm}, \& {Minniti}}]{Gieren08}
912: {Gieren}, W., {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Soszy{\'n}ski}, I., {Bresolin}, F.,
913: {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Storm}, J., \& {Minniti}, D. 2008, \apj, 672, 266
914:
915: \bibitem[{{Gieren} {et~al.}(2004){Gieren}, {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Walker},
916: {Bresolin}, {Minniti}, {Kudritzki}, {Udalski}, {Soszy{\'n}ski}, {Fouqu{\'e}},
917: {Storm}, \& {Bono}}]{Gieren04}
918: {Gieren}, W., {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Walker}, A., {Bresolin}, F., {Minniti},
919: D., {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Udalski}, A., {Soszy{\'n}ski}, I., {Fouqu{\'e}}, P.,
920: {Storm}, J., \& {Bono}, G. 2004, \aj, 128, 1167
921:
922: \bibitem[{{Grieve} {et~al.}(1985){Grieve}, {Madore}, \& {Welch}}]{Grieve85}
923: {Grieve}, G.~R., {Madore}, B.~F., \& {Welch}, D.~L. 1985, \apj, 294, 513
924:
925: \bibitem[{{Hilditch} {et~al.}(2005){Hilditch}, {Howarth}, \&
926: {Harries}}]{Hilditch05}
927: {Hilditch}, R.~W., {Howarth}, I.~D., \& {Harries}, T.~J. 2005, \mnras, 357, 304
928:
929: \bibitem[{{Jha} {et~al.}(2007){Jha}, {Riess}, \& {Kirshner}}]{Jha07}
930: {Jha}, S., {Riess}, A.~G., \& {Kirshner}, R.~P. 2007, \apj, 659, 122
931:
932: \bibitem[{{Kanbur} {et~al.}(2007){Kanbur}, {Ngeow}, {Nanthakumar}, \&
933: {Stevens}}]{Kanbur07}
934: {Kanbur}, S.~M., {Ngeow}, C., {Nanthakumar}, A., \& {Stevens}, R. 2007, \pasp,
935: 119, 512
936:
937: \bibitem[{{Keller} \& {Wood}(2006)}]{Keller06}
938: {Keller}, S.~C. \& {Wood}, P.~R. 2006, \apj, 642, 834
939:
940: \bibitem[{{Kennicutt} {et~al.}(1998){Kennicutt}, {Stetson}, {Saha}, {Kelson},
941: {Rawson}, {Sakai}, {Madore}, {Mould}, {Freedman}, {Bresolin}, {Ferrarese},
942: {Ford}, {Gibson}, {Graham}, {Han}, {Harding}, {Hoessel}, {Huchra}, {Hughes},
943: {Illingworth}, {Macri}, {Phelps}, {Silbermann}, {Turner}, \&
944: {Wood}}]{Kennicutt98}
945: {Kennicutt}, Jr., R.~C., {Stetson}, P.~B., {Saha}, A., {Kelson}, D., {Rawson},
946: D.~M., {Sakai}, S., {Madore}, B.~F., {Mould}, J.~R., {Freedman}, W.~L.,
947: {Bresolin}, F., {Ferrarese}, L., {Ford}, H., {Gibson}, B.~K., {Graham},
948: J.~A., {Han}, M., {Harding}, P., {Hoessel}, J.~G., {Huchra}, J.~P., {Hughes},
949: S.~M.~G., {Illingworth}, G.~D., {Macri}, L.~M., {Phelps}, R.~L.,
950: {Silbermann}, N.~A., {Turner}, A.~M., \& {Wood}, P.~R. 1998, \apj, 498, 181
951:
952: \bibitem[{{Kochanek}(1997)}]{Kochanek97}
953: {Kochanek}, C.~S. 1997, \apj, 491, 13
954:
955: \bibitem[{{Leavitt}(1908)}]{Leavitt1908}
956: {Leavitt}, H.~S. 1908, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 60, 87
957:
958: \bibitem[{{Lejeune} \& {Schaerer}(2001)}]{Lejeune01}
959: {Lejeune}, T. \& {Schaerer}, D. 2001, \aap, 366, 538
960:
961: \bibitem[{{Macri}(2005)}]{Macri05}
962: {Macri}, L.~M. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0507648
963:
964: \bibitem[{{Macri} {et~al.}(2006){Macri}, {Stanek}, {Bersier}, {Greenhill}, \&
965: {Reid}}]{Macri06}
966: {Macri}, L.~M., {Stanek}, K.~Z., {Bersier}, D., {Greenhill}, L.~J., \& {Reid},
967: M.~J. 2006, \apj, 652, 1133
968:
969: \bibitem[{{Madore}(1975)}]{Madore75}
970: {Madore}, B.~F. 1975, \apjs, 29, 219
971:
972: \bibitem[{{Madore} \& {Freedman}(1991)}]{Madore91}
973: {Madore}, B.~F. \& {Freedman}, W.~L. 1991, \pasp, 103, 933
974:
975: \bibitem[{{Mochejska} {et~al.}(2000){Mochejska}, {Macri}, {Sasselov}, \&
976: {Stanek}}]{Mochejska00}
977: {Mochejska}, B.~J., {Macri}, L.~M., {Sasselov}, D.~D., \& {Stanek}, K.~Z. 2000,
978: \aj, 120, 810
979:
980: \bibitem[{{Moffett} {et~al.}(1998){Moffett}, {Gieren}, {Barnes}, \&
981: {Gomez}}]{Moffett98}
982: {Moffett}, T.~J., {Gieren}, W.~P., {Barnes}, III, T.~G., \& {Gomez}, M. 1998,
983: \apjs, 117, 135
984:
985: \bibitem[{{Pagel} {et~al.}(1978){Pagel}, {Edmunds}, {Fosbury}, \&
986: {Webster}}]{Pagel78}
987: {Pagel}, B.~E.~J., {Edmunds}, M.~G., {Fosbury}, R.~A.~E., \& {Webster}, B.~L.
988: 1978, \mnras, 184, 569
989:
990: \bibitem[{{Payne-Gaposchkin} \& {Gaposchkin}(1966)}]{Payne66}
991: {Payne-Gaposchkin}, C. \& {Gaposchkin}, S. 1966, Smithsonian Contributions to
992: Astrophysics, 9, 1
993:
994: \bibitem[{{Peimbert} {et~al.}(2005){Peimbert}, {Peimbert}, \&
995: {Ruiz}}]{Peimbert05}
996: {Peimbert}, A., {Peimbert}, M., \& {Ruiz}, M.~T. 2005, \apj, 634, 1056
997:
998: \bibitem[{{Peimbert} \& {Torres-Peimbert}(1976)}]{Peimbert76}
999: {Peimbert}, M. \& {Torres-Peimbert}, S. 1976, \apj, 203, 581
1000:
1001: \bibitem[{{Phillips}(1993)}]{Phillips93}
1002: {Phillips}, M.~M. 1993, \apjl, 413, L105
1003:
1004: \bibitem[{{Pietrukowicz}(2001)}]{Pietrukowicz01}
1005: {Pietrukowicz}, P. 2001, Acta Astronomica, 51, 247
1006:
1007: \bibitem[{{Pietrzy{\'n}ski} {et~al.}(2002){Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Gieren},
1008: {Fouqu{\'e}}, \& {Pont}}]{Pietrzynski02}
1009: {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Gieren}, W., {Fouqu{\'e}}, P., \& {Pont}, F. 2002, \aj,
1010: 123, 789
1011:
1012: \bibitem[{{Pietrzy{\'n}ski} {et~al.}(2006){Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Gieren},
1013: {Soszy{\'n}ski}, {Udalski}, {Bresolin}, {Kudritzki}, {Mennickent}, {Walker},
1014: {Garcia}, {Szewczyk}, {Szyma{\'n}ski}, {Kubiak}, \&
1015: {Wyrzykowski}}]{Pietrzynski06}
1016: {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Gieren}, W., {Soszy{\'n}ski}, I., {Udalski}, A.,
1017: {Bresolin}, F., {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Mennickent}, R., {Walker}, A., {Garcia},
1018: A., {Szewczyk}, O., {Szyma{\'n}ski}, M., {Kubiak}, M., \& {Wyrzykowski},
1019: {\L}. 2006, \aj, 132, 2556
1020:
1021: \bibitem[{{Pietrzy{\'n}ski} {et~al.}(2004){Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, {Gieren},
1022: {Udalski}, {Bresolin}, {Kudritzki}, {Soszy{\'n}ski}, {Szyma{\'n}ski}, \&
1023: {Kubiak}}]{Pietrzynski04}
1024: {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G., {Gieren}, W., {Udalski}, A., {Bresolin}, F.,
1025: {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Soszy{\'n}ski}, I., {Szyma{\'n}ski}, M., \& {Kubiak}, M.
1026: 2004, \aj, 128, 2815
1027:
1028: \bibitem[{{Pojmanski}(1997)}]{Pojmanski97}
1029: {Pojmanski}, G. 1997, Acta Astronomica, 47, 467
1030:
1031: \bibitem[{{Prieto} {et~al.}(2006){Prieto}, {Rest}, \& {Suntzeff}}]{Prieto06}
1032: {Prieto}, J.~L., {Rest}, A., \& {Suntzeff}, N.~B. 2006, \apj, 647, 501
1033:
1034: \bibitem[{{Riess} {et~al.}(2004){Riess}, {Strolger}, {Tonry}, {Casertano},
1035: {Ferguson}, {Mobasher}, {Challis}, {Filippenko}, {Jha}, {Li}, {Chornock},
1036: {Kirshner}, {Leibundgut}, {Dickinson}, {Livio}, {Giavalisco}, {Steidel},
1037: {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, \& {Tsvetanov}}]{Riess04}
1038: {Riess}, A.~G., {Strolger}, L.-G., {Tonry}, J., {Casertano}, S., {Ferguson},
1039: H.~C., {Mobasher}, B., {Challis}, P., {Filippenko}, A.~V., {Jha}, S., {Li},
1040: W., {Chornock}, R., {Kirshner}, R.~P., {Leibundgut}, B., {Dickinson}, M.,
1041: {Livio}, M., {Giavalisco}, M., {Steidel}, C.~C., {Ben{\'{\i}}tez}, T., \&
1042: {Tsvetanov}, Z. 2004, \apj, 607, 665
1043:
1044: \bibitem[{{Romaniello} {et~al.}(2008){Romaniello}, {Primas}, {Mottini},
1045: {Pedicelli}, {Lemasle}, {Bono}, {Fran{\c c}ois}, {Groenewegen}, \&
1046: {Laney}}]{Romaniello08}
1047: {Romaniello}, M., {Primas}, F., {Mottini}, M., {Pedicelli}, S., {Lemasle}, B.,
1048: {Bono}, G., {Fran{\c c}ois}, P., {Groenewegen}, M.~A.~T., \& {Laney}, C.~D.
1049: 2008, \aap, 488, 731
1050:
1051: \bibitem[{{Sandage} {et~al.}(2008){Sandage}, {Tammann}, \&
1052: {Reindl}}]{Sandage08}
1053: {Sandage}, A., {Tammann}, G.~A., \& {Reindl}, B. 2008, ArXiv e-prints
1054:
1055: \bibitem[{{Schlegel} {et~al.}(1998){Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, \&
1056: {Davis}}]{Schlegel98}
1057: {Schlegel}, D.~J., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., \& {Davis}, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1058:
1059: \bibitem[{{Schwarzenberg-Czerny}(1989)}]{Schwarzenberg89}
1060: {Schwarzenberg-Czerny}, A. 1989, \mnras, 241, 153
1061:
1062: \bibitem[{{Skillman} \& {Kennicutt}(1993)}]{Skillman93}
1063: {Skillman}, E.~D. \& {Kennicutt}, Jr., R.~C. 1993, \apj, 411, 655
1064:
1065: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2003){Spergel}, {Verde}, {Peiris}, {Komatsu},
1066: {Nolta}, {Bennett}, {Halpern}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Kogut}, {Limon},
1067: {Meyer}, {Page}, {Tucker}, {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}}]{Spergel03}
1068: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Verde}, L., {Peiris}, H.~V., {Komatsu}, E., {Nolta}, M.~R.,
1069: {Bennett}, C.~L., {Halpern}, M., {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Kogut}, A.,
1070: {Limon}, M., {Meyer}, S.~S., {Page}, L., {Tucker}, G.~S., {Weiland}, J.~L.,
1071: {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright}, E.~L. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
1072:
1073: \bibitem[{{Stanek} \& {Udalski}(1999)}]{Stanek99}
1074: {Stanek}, K.~Z. \& {Udalski}, A. 1999, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,
1075: astro-ph/9909346
1076:
1077: \bibitem[{{Tegmark} {et~al.}(2004){Tegmark}, {Strauss}, {Blanton}, {Abazajian},
1078: {Dodelson}, {Sandvik}, {Wang}, {Weinberg}, {Zehavi}, {Bahcall}, {Hoyle},
1079: {Schlegel}, {Scoccimarro}, {Vogeley}, {Berlind}, {Budavari}, {Connolly},
1080: {Eisenstein}, {Finkbeiner}, {Frieman}, {Gunn}, {Hui}, {Jain}, {Johnston},
1081: {Kent}, {Lin}, {Nakajima}, {Nichol}, {Ostriker}, {Pope}, {Scranton},
1082: {Seljak}, {Sheth}, {Stebbins}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Xu}, {Annis},
1083: {Brinkmann}, {Burles}, {Castander}, {Csabai}, {Loveday}, {Doi}, {Fukugita},
1084: {Gillespie}, {Hennessy}, {Hogg}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Lamb}, {Lee},
1085: {Lupton}, {McKay}, {Kunszt}, {Munn}, {O'Connell}, {Peoples}, {Pier},
1086: {Richmond}, {Rockosi}, {Schneider}, {Stoughton}, {Tucker}, {vanden Berk},
1087: {Yanny}, \& {York}}]{Tegmark04}
1088: {Tegmark}, M., {Strauss}, M.~A., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Abazajian}, K., {Dodelson},
1089: S., {Sandvik}, H., {Wang}, X., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Zehavi}, I., {Bahcall},
1090: N.~A., {Hoyle}, F., {Schlegel}, D., {Scoccimarro}, R., {Vogeley}, M.~S.,
1091: {Berlind}, A., {Budavari}, T., {Connolly}, A., {Eisenstein}, D.~J.,
1092: {Finkbeiner}, D., {Frieman}, J.~A., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Hui}, L., {Jain}, B.,
1093: {Johnston}, D., {Kent}, S., {Lin}, H., {Nakajima}, R., {Nichol}, R.~C.,
1094: {Ostriker}, J.~P., {Pope}, A., {Scranton}, R., {Seljak}, U., {Sheth}, R.~K.,
1095: {Stebbins}, A., {Szalay}, A.~S., {Szapudi}, I., {Xu}, Y., {Annis}, J.,
1096: {Brinkmann}, J., {Burles}, S., {Castander}, F.~J., {Csabai}, I., {Loveday},
1097: J., {Doi}, M., {Fukugita}, M., {Gillespie}, B., {Hennessy}, G., {Hogg},
1098: D.~W., {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Lamb}, D.~Q., {Lee}, B.~C.,
1099: {Lupton}, R.~H., {McKay}, T.~A., {Kunszt}, P., {Munn}, J.~A., {O'Connell},
1100: L., {Peoples}, J., {Pier}, J.~R., {Richmond}, M., {Rockosi}, C., {Schneider},
1101: D.~P., {Stoughton}, C., {Tucker}, D.~L., {vanden Berk}, D.~E., {Yanny}, B.,
1102: \& {York}, D.~G. 2004, \prd, 69, 103501
1103:
1104: \bibitem[{{T{\"u}llmann} {et~al.}(2003){T{\"u}llmann}, {Rosa}, {Elwert},
1105: {Bomans}, {Ferguson}, \& {Dettmar}}]{Tullmann03}
1106: {T{\"u}llmann}, R., {Rosa}, M.~R., {Elwert}, T., {Bomans}, D.~J., {Ferguson},
1107: A.~M.~N., \& {Dettmar}, R.-J. 2003, \aap, 412, 69
1108:
1109: \bibitem[{{Udalski} {et~al.}(1999){Udalski}, {Szymanski}, {Kubiak},
1110: {Pietrzynski}, {Soszynski}, {Wozniak}, \& {Zebrun}}]{Udalski99}
1111: {Udalski}, A., {Szymanski}, M., {Kubiak}, M., {Pietrzynski}, G., {Soszynski},
1112: I., {Wozniak}, P., \& {Zebrun}, K. 1999, Acta Astronomica, 49, 201
1113:
1114: \bibitem[{{Urbaneja} {et~al.}(2005){Urbaneja}, {Herrero}, {Bresolin},
1115: {Kudritzki}, {Gieren}, {Puls}, {Przybilla}, {Najarro}, \&
1116: {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}}]{Urbaneja05}
1117: {Urbaneja}, M.~A., {Herrero}, A., {Bresolin}, F., {Kudritzki}, R.-P., {Gieren},
1118: W., {Puls}, J., {Przybilla}, N., {Najarro}, F., \& {Pietrzy{\'n}ski}, G.
1119: 2005, \apj, 622, 862
1120:
1121: \bibitem[{{van Genderen}(1983)}]{vanGenderen83}
1122: {van Genderen}, A.~M. 1983, \aaps, 52, 423
1123:
1124: \end{thebibliography}
1125:
1126: \end{document}
1127: