1: % this version is after referee comments Kollath

2: 

3: %% The command below calls the preprint style

4: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

5: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

6: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

7: 

8: 

9: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

10: 

11: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

12: 

13: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

14: 

15: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

16: 

17: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

18: 

19: \slugcomment{submitted to ApJ}

20: 

21: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

22: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

23: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

24: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

25: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.  Running heads

26: %% will not print in the manuscript style.

27: 

28: \shorttitle{LMC Bump Cepheids}

29: \shortauthors{Keller and Wood}

30: 

31: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

32: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

33: 

34: \begin{document}

35: 

36: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

37: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

38: %% you desire.

39: 

40: \title{Large Magellanic Cloud Bump Cepheids: Probing the Stellar Mass-Luminosity Relation }

41: 

42: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

43: %% author and affiliation information.

44: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

45: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

46: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

47: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.

48: 

49: \author{S.\ C.\ Keller}

50: \affil{IGPP, L-413, LLNL, PO Box 505, Livermore, CA 94550}

51: \email{skeller@igpp.ucllnl.org}

52: 

53: \and

54: 

55: \author{P.\ R.\ Wood}

56: \affil{RSAA, Australian National University, Canberra A.C.T.~2600, Australia}

57: \email{wood@mso.anu.edu.au}

58: 

59: 

60: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

61: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

62: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

63: %% affiliation.

64: 

65: 

66: 

67: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

68: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

69: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

70: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

71: %% editorial office after submission.

72: 

73: \begin{abstract}

74: 

75: We present the results of non-linear pulsation modelling of 20 bump

76: Cepheids in the LMC. By obtaining a optimal fit to the observed $V,R$

77: MACHO lightcurves we have placed tight constraints on stellar

78: parameters of $M$, $L$, $T_{eff}$ and well as quantities of distance

79: modulus and reddening. We describe the mass-luminosity relation for

80: core-He burning for intermediate mass stars. The mass-luminosity

81: relation depends critically on the level of mixing within the stellar

82: interior over the course of the main-sequence lifetime. Our sample is

83: significantly more luminous than predicted by classical stellar

84: evolutionary models that do not incorporate extension to the

85: convective core. Under the paradigm of convective core overshoot our

86: data implies $\Lambda_c$ of 0.65$\pm$0.03$l/H_p$. We derive a LMC

87: distance modulus of 18.55$\pm$0.02.

88: \end{abstract}

89: 

90: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

91: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

92: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

93: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

94: 

95: \keywords{Cepheids:pulsation stellar:evolution}

96: 

97: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

98: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

99: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

100: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

101: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

102: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

103: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

104: %% each reference.

105: 

106: \section{Introduction}

107: 

108: Cepheids are classical distance indicators. Their tight conformity

109: to a period-luminosity relationship has made them the fundamental

110: basis of the extra-galactic distance scale and hence integral to

111: observational cosmology. Ideally, we would like to have theoretical

112: models capable of accurately predicting the period-luminosity relation

113: and its metallicity dependence. The regularity of Cepheid pulsation

114: provides a set of well defined observational parameters with which to

115: confront the predictions of theoretical models of stellar

116: pulsations. In this way, Cepheids provide us the ability to closely

117: scrutinise the accuracy of input physics within pulsation models.

118: 

119: Cepheid light curves display a variety of shapes and amplitudes that

120: are period dependent (the \citet{hea26} progression). A

121: feature of the lightcurves of some Cepheids is a pronounced bump

122: either preceding or following maximum. The bump arises from resonance

123: between the fundamental mode and second overtone. This resonance

124: becomes particularly prominent when the period ratio of these two

125: modes ($P_0/P_2$=$P_{02}$) is $\sim 2$.

126: 

127: The bump enables us to break the degeneracy that exists between

128: observable quantities; lightcurve shape, amplitude, period and the

129: intrinsic properties; mass, luminosity and temperature of the

130: Cepheid. Such a technique was first proposed by \citet{sto69}

131: and was demonstrated by \citet{woo97}(hereafter Paper 1) in their

132: non-linear pulsation analysis of the LMC bump Cepheid HV 905.

133: 

134: Through the analysis of bump Cepheids we have a probe of the stellar

135: mass-luminosity (M-L) relation for core He-burning stars. The M-L

136: relation depends critically on the size of the central He core

137: established (largely) during the course of the star's main-sequence

138: lifetime. The size of the He core is in turn, determined by the extent

139: of convection in the vicinity of the convective core.

140: 

141: The treatment of convection remains the weakest point in our

142: description of massive stars. Ongoing debate focuses on the degree of

143: extension to the convective core beyond that predicted by standard,

144: non-rotating stellar evolution models. Extension of the convective

145: core has traditionally been discussed in terms of convective core

146: overshoot (CCO) in the formalism of mixing-length theory. The CCO

147: parameter, $\Lambda_c$, sets the height (as a fraction of the pressure

148: scale height) to which gas packets from the convective core rise into

149: the formally convectively stable region surrounding the core.

150: 

151: Mixing in the vicinity of the convective core produces a number of

152: important evolutionary changes that are expressed in a stellar

153: population. It expands the amount of H available to the core and hence

154: extends the main-sequence lifetime. The star consequently develops a

155: more massive He core and the subsequent post-main-sequence evolution

156: occurs at a more rapid pace and at higher luminosities. That is, the

157: M-L relation is significantly more luminous than that of classical models.

158: 

159: Numerous studies have attempted to ascertain the efficiency of CCO

160: from a theoretical basis with results that range from negligible to

161: substantial (see e.g.~\citet{bre81}). An analytical approach appears

162: limited given the complexity of the phenomenon. Laboratory fluid

163: dynamics shows that an understanding of convective mixing requires a

164: description of the turbulence field at all scales, a problem that will

165: require detailed hydrodynamical modelling.

166: 

167: Observations are required to ascertain the amount of CCO to apply in

168: stellar evolutionary models. Many studies have sought to do so through

169: the study of young cluster populations (most recently

170: \citet{bar02,kel01}) and from the broader field population

171: \citep{bea01,cor02} of the Magellanic Clouds. Whilst large

172: uncertainties exist in the derived values of $\Lambda_c$, the broad

173: consensus of these studies is the necessity of some level of

174: CCO. 

175: 

176: Another way of quantifying $\Lambda_c$ is to use masses and

177: luminosities of Cepheids. Dynamical masses for Cepheids are presented

178: by \citet{eva97,eva98} and \citet{boh97a,boh97b}. Derived masses have

179: considerable uncertainties but the combined sample \citep{eva98}

180: indicates the necessity for some level of CCO.

181: 

182: This study aims to quantitatively establish the level of CCO by an

183: examination of the M-L relation of a sample of bump Cepheids from the

184: LMC. A consistent result of pulsation modelling is that the M-L

185: relation for Cepheids is significantly brighter than predicted by

186: classical stellar evolution. The study of the bump Cepheid HV905 in

187: Paper 1 found a bump mass 29\% lower than that required by

188: evolutionary models without CCO. Recently, \citet{bon02} applied

189: non-linear modelling techniques that incorporate turbulent convection

190: to two LMC bump Cepheids. They found that an acceptable match between

191: model and observed lightcurves required a mass-luminosity relation in

192: which stars are $\sim$15\% lower in mass than predicted by

193: evolutionary models that neglect convective core overshoot. Linear

194: pulsation analyses \citep{seb95,kan94} similarly require pulsation

195: masses for Cepheids that are significantly lower than evolution

196: masses.

197: 

198: \section{Observations}

199: 

200: Photometry for the LMC bump Cepheids considered here is taken from the

201: MACHO photometric database. Stars are only considered from the

202: central bar region (the top 22 MACHO fields) in which

203: standardised photometry exists. Magnitudes in the MACHO B and R

204: passbands have been converted to Kron-Cousins $V$ and $R$ using

205: existing transofromations described in \citet{alc99}. Photometric

206: uncertainties are quoted as $\pm0.035$ mag in zero point and $V$$-$$R$

207: colour. The observed Cepheids are listed in Table

208: \ref{tbl-1}.

209: 

210: \section{Model Details}

211: 

212: Details of the non-linear pulsation code are given in Paper 1.  The

213: opacities have been updated to OPAL~96 \citep{igl96}, supplemented at

214: low temperatures by those of \citet{ale94}. Convective energy

215: transport was included by means of mixing-length theory with the

216: assumption of a mixing length of 1.6 pressure scale heights. A linear

217: non-adiabatic code was used to derive the starting model for each

218: simulation. Models contained 460 mass points outside an inner radius

219: of 0.3 R$_{\odot}$. Transformation of $L$ and $T_{eff}$ into $V$ and

220: $V$$-$$R$ of our observations was made through interpolation into a

221: grid of synthetically derived colours and bolometric corrections. The

222: colors were computed for the revised \citet{kur93} fluxes used in

223: \citet{bes98} and described in more detail in

224: \citet{cas99}. Magnitudes were computed through energy integration

225: using the passbands of \citet{bes90}. We computed non-linear models at

226: a fixed composition of Y=0.27 and Z=0.008 found for young objects in

227: the LMC \citep{rus89}.

228: 

229: In contrast to \citet{bon02}, our method uses only stellar

230: pulsation and stellar atmosphere theory, we do not make recourse to

231: existing mass-luminosity (M-L) relations. Once abundance is assumed

232: three parameters, $M$, $L$ and $T_{eff}$ remain to characterise the

233: the pulsating envelope of each Cepheid. Thus three conditions are

234: required to determine these quantities.

235: 

236: The first condition is that the fundamental pulsation period of the

237: starting linear models must satisfy the observed period of the

238: Cepheid. The other two conditions come from fitting non-linear model

239: lightcurves to the observations. The two parameters we chose as

240: independent variables for the lightcurve fit were $T_{eff}$ and

241: P$_{02}$, the ratio of the fundamental to second overtone periods. The

242: amplitude of pulsation is dependent on the star's temperature relative

243: to the blue edge of the IS. Hence the amplitude of pulsation is a

244: strong constraint on $T_{eff}$. The phase of the bump is dependent on

245: P$_{02}$ and furthermore, is independent of the pulsation amplitude

246: \citep{sim81}.

247: 

248: To commence the modelling process values of $T_{eff}$ and P$_{02}$ were

249: specified and parameters $L$ and $M$ were iterated until the required

250: linear period and P$_{02}$ were produced. Once model parameters were

251: determined, the static model was perturbed with the eigenfunction of the

252: linear adiabatic fundamental mode. The perturbed model was run until

253: the kinetic energy of the pulsation reached a limit cycle.

254: 

255: Our models incorporate convective energy transfer through the mixing

256: length approximation. This is known to be only a partial description

257: of the internal physics in a Cepheid atmosphere. In particular, at

258: cooler temperatures as the convective regions become larger and the

259: dynamical timescale becomes a significant fraction of the pulsation

260: period our models are expected to become increasingly divergent. This

261: is a well known shortcoming of models that implement the

262: mixing-length approximation. Whilst our models can match the blue edge

263: of the instability strip (IS) they can not reproduce its red edge. In

264: the vicinity of the red edge the amplitude of pulsation is too

265: high, a feature that can not be circumvented by modification of

266: artificial viscosity parameters. To produce a physical red edge an

267: additional form of energy dissipation is required. Convective

268: processes are the likely cause of this. \citet{yec98}

269: shows that models with a parametrised formulation of turbulent

270: convective mixing are able to match the fundamental and first overtone

271: instability strips through a fine tuning of parameters.

272: 

273: Yecko et al.\ consider the case of a 5M$_{\odot}$ star modeled both

274: with mixing-length approximation and with turbulent

275: convection. Consideration of the model growth rates (their figure 11)

276: shows insignificant differences over the bluest 1/4 of the IS,

277: becoming increasingly divergent thereafter. In order to avoid as much

278: as possible the short comings of the mixing-length approach we have

279: sought bump Cepheids close to the blue edge of the IS (see

280: Fig.~\ref{sample}). 

281: 

282: 

283: \section{Results}

284: 

285: In figures \ref{figstar1} \& \ref{figstar2} we show the effects of

286: variation of the two parameters $T_{eff}$ and P$_{02}$. As we change

287: P$_{02}$ we modify the phase at which the bump is located. Similarly,

288: as $T_{eff}$ is varied the amplitude is changed. The best fit to the

289: observed light curve is shown in the central panel. Here for the

290: purpose of illustration we show five models widely separated in

291: parameter space. In the determination of the best model, however, we

292: use a iterative chi-squared minimisation technique.

293: 

294: The offset of the model M$_{V}$ and observed $V$ light curves gives the

295: apparent distance modulus. Having obtained a model that matches the

296: $V$ light curve of each bump Cepheid, the observed $V$-$R$ colour

297: curve was shifted onto the model intrinsic $V$-$R$ colour curve. The shift

298: required to do so is the colour excess, E$_{V-R}$, which can be

299: converted to visual absorption, A$_{V}$, using a standard reddening

300: curve (A$_{V}$=1.78E(${V-R}$) was used). The true distance modulus can

301: then be obtained from the apparent distance modulus. The best fit

302: parameters for the Cepheids in our sample are given in Table

303: \ref{tbl-2}.

304: 

305: Limits of {\emph{internal}} accuracy in the determination of the best

306: model solution arises from cycle-to-cycle variations in the model

307: output. By monitoring on the order of 30 cycles we can quantify the

308: uncertainty introduced by these model variations. The errors in the

309: determined parameters are dominated by the uncertainty in

310: P$_{02}$. This becomes problematic towards lower masses as the bump

311: amplitude diminishes. {\emph{Systematic}} uncertainties dominate the

312: total uncertainty however. The quoted photometric uncertainties for

313: the MACHO photometry account for $\pm$0.1M$_{\odot}$ in mass and

314: $\pm$0.002 dex in luminosity. Error bars shown in

315: figure~\ref{mlrelfig} are the quadrature sum of systematic and

316: internal uncertainties.

317: 

318: As stated above, a value of metallicity is adopted in our analysis. It

319: is important to remark on the effects that varying this metallicity

320: has on our models. An exploration of this has been presented by us in

321: Paper 1. In this work, models were additionally constructed for solar

322: and SMC metallicities. It was found that the models cannot be used to

323: distinguish the abundance of the Cepheid with any meaningful

324: uncertainty. If the abundance of our sample is assumed to lie in the

325: range Z=0.006-0.01 and Y=0.25-0.29 the resulting error in the derived

326: parameters from the uncertainty due to abundance is of similar

327: magnitude as that reported from P$_{02}$ and T$_{eff}$.

328: 

329: A less constrainable systematic effect may arise from our treatment of

330: convection. We note the work of \citet{buc96} and \citet{feu00} who

331: find that the effects of convection are important even in the vicinity

332: of the blue edge. Whilst a large degree of freedom is available in the

333: internal parameters of turbulent convection models the magnitude of

334: this possible systematic effect remains uncertain.

335: 

336: \subsection{Reddenings and Distance Modulus}

337: 

338: Another independent prediction of the bump Cepheid models is the

339: reddening to each object. In figure \ref{reddmfig} we present the

340: histogram of determined reddenings. Our derived mean reddening is

341: 0.08.

342: 

343: A number of studies of line-of-sight redddening to LMC stars have been

344: presented in the literature. \citet{bes91} showed that the

345: historically low values for reddening to the LMC

346: ($<E$($B$$-$$V$)$>\sim$0.03) were too low and used the Johnson \&

347: Morgan reddening-free $Q$ index and spectroscopic temperatures to show

348: that the $<$E($B$$-$$V$)$>\sim$0.12. \citet{har97}

349: use $Q$ to form a histogram of E($B-V$) from a 2.8\arcdeg$^2$ region of the

350: LMC. They find a mean reddening of 0.20 with a non-gaussian tail

351: extending to higher E($B-V$). \citet{lar00} report

352: $<$E($B$$-$$V$)$>=0.085$. \citet{zar99} revisits the data of Harris et

353: al.\ and reports a strong dependence of $<$E($B$$-$$V$)$>$ on the spectral

354: type of objects used to define it. Namely, low extinctions result from

355: red clump stars, high extinction from OB stars. Zaritsky proposes that

356: is the result of a larger scale height for older stars, placing them

357: statistically in lower reddening regions than the OB stars that

358: reside in the dusty disk. With this background we find that our

359: reddenings are applicable for objects within the LMC. 

360: 

361: The mean LMC distance modulus shown in Figure \ref{reddmfig} is

362: 18.55$\pm$0.02. This in good agreement with recent analysis

363: (18.57$\pm$0.14 from the compilation of Gibson 2000).

364: 

365: The consistency of our derived reddening and distance modulus with

366: previous studies provides a validation to the input of our model. It

367: means that the results we present here will be consistent with results

368: derived from linear pulsation models. Linear pulsation models that

369: utilize the observed colours, reddenings, apparent luminosity and

370: distance modulus by \citet{seb95} do indeed show pulsation masses

371: for LMC Cepheids that are similarly lower than evolution masses. This

372: gives us confidence in the consistency of the linear and non-linear pulsation

373: theory as well as the bolometric corrections and colour

374: transformations.

375: 

376: \subsection{The Mass-Luminosity Relation}

377: 

378: By modelling the bump Cepheid sample we have independently determined

379: both $L$ and $M$ for each object. We use these values to construct the

380: mass-luminosity relation for core-He burning stars in the LMC. Figure

381: \ref{mlrelfig} shows the mass-luminosity relationship described by our

382: sample. Overlaid are the M-L relations (due to \citet{fag94} and

383: \citet{bre01}) for three levels of convective core overshoot

384: efficiency with Z=0.008 and Y=0.25.

385: 

386: The data are significantly more luminous than the predictions of

387: standard ``mild'' convective core overshoot

388: (i.e.~$\Lambda_c=0.5$). Figure \ref{mlrelfig} recommends a degree of

389: convective core overshoot of $\Lambda_c=0.65\pm0.03 l/H_p$. Put

390: another way, our results favour a mass 19.5$\pm1.0$\% lower than

391: classical evolutionary models.

392: 

393: The problem of reconciling mass determinations from the various

394: techniques available has been a problem that has plagued the

395: field. The many phases of debate, and their convergence, have been

396: extensively discussed in the literature (see e.g. \citet{cox80}). The

397: longest standing of these, the bump and beat Cepheid mass discrepancy,

398: has to a large part been resolved by \citet{mos92} through the

399: introduction of OPAL opacities. The discrepancy between pulsation and

400: evolutionary mass has not been removed by improvements in input

401: physics.

402: 

403: One possibility that has been suggested by \citet{bon02} is that

404: mass loss is responsible for the reduction in mass. As opposed to the

405: evolutionary models used in the study of Bono et al.\ that neglect

406: mass loss, the models shown in figure \ref{mlrelfig} incorporate the

407: mass loss prescription of \citet{dej88}. This is largely

408: responsible for the curvature of the M-L relation towards higher

409: masses. Furthermore, mass loss during the Cepheid phase does not

410: appear to be enhanced from that expected from the de Jager description

411: \citep{dea88}. We conclude that mass loss alone can not explain the Cepheid

412: mass discrepancy.

413: 

414: One Cepheid (MACHO~2.4661.3597: HV 905) has been the target of

415: previous analysis in Paper 1. However, the current work uses updated

416: OPAL opacities and improved low temperature opacities from

417: \citet{ale94}, and replaces bolometric corrections of \citet{kur93}

418: with those of \citet{cas99}. The results from this previous work were

419: $M$=5.15$\pm$0.35M$_{\odot}$ and $log(L/L_{\odot})$=3.69$\pm$0.01

420: (uncertainties determined post-fact from the details presented in

421: Paper 1). Here we find $M$=5.62$\pm$0.22M$_{\odot}$ and

422: $log(L/L_{\odot})$=3.701$\pm$0.004. 

423: 

424: In their description of their non-linear pulsation models that

425: incorporate turbulent convection, \citet{bon99} compare

426: their model output for HV 905 with that of Paper 1. They use the mass,

427: luminosity, T$_{eff}$ and abundance in Paper 1 and retrieve a limit

428: cycle lightcurve that is very similar in shape to that of Paper 1. In

429: addition, the P$_{02}$ differs by only 1\% and the luminosity

430: amplitude differs by 0.06-0.08 mag from that presented in Paper

431: 1. This gives us confidence that our study is unaffected by our

432: treatment of convection under the mixing length approximation.

433: 

434: Future refinement of the technique described here is possible through

435: the comparison of observed radial velocity variations of bump Cepheids

436: to those predicted by our model.  This has the benefit of limiting

437: systematic errors.  At present, the accuracy of our technique is

438: limited by systematic photometric uncertainties (in particular

439: transformations of MACHO bandpasses and zeropoints). The radial

440: velocity curve is a more robust output of the non-linear pulsation

441: model. Radial velocities are more closely related to the dynamical

442: processes within the stellar atmosphere than that of photometry which

443: is more affected by temperature changes than dynamical effects. Work

444: is currently underway by us to use radial velocity curves for bump

445: Cepheids as a stringent test on our pulsation models. Models should be

446: able to accurately reproduce all observational constraints (period,

447: shapes of light \emph{and} velocity curves). Such a critical

448: examination of the dynamics of Cepheid pulsation offers the potential

449: of further model refinement.

450: 

451: We note that demonstrating the convective core is of greater extent

452: than the core defined by the Schwarzschild criterion does not

453: determine its causation. Recent studies have shown that rotation can provide a

454: natural way to bring about increased internal mixing and hence a

455: larger core \citep{heg00,mey00}.

456: 

457: Attention to rotational mixing has been promoted by the findings of

458: chemical abundance studies of A supergiants \citep{ven95}, B

459: supergiants \citep{duf00}, and main-sequence B stars

460: \citep{daf01,gie92} which imply a broad range of enhancements. This

461: behavior is interpreted as arising from self-contamination with

462: CN-cycled material prior to the first dredge-up. Such surface

463: modifications can not be achieved through CCO.

464: 

465: Furthermore, the CNO abundances for a set of 10 SMC A supergiants have

466: been studied by \citet{ven99}. These stars show a large range in N

467: abundance enhancements ranging from negligible to levels greater than first

468: dredge-up. The magnitude of enhancement is much greater than that

469: found for a similar sample of Galactic A supergiants \citep{ven95} which

470: suggests a possible metallicity effect in the underlying physics of

471: internal mixing.

472: 

473: Bump Cepheids of the SMC offer the opportunity to investigate the

474: metallicity dependence of internal mixing. A greater level of internal

475: mixing such as would be produced by generally higher stellar rotation

476: velocities in the SMC \citep{ven99} should result in a clear

477: modification of the M-L relation. Work is underway to look for such effects.

478: 

479: \section{Conclusions}

480: 

481: In this study we have applied non-linear pulsation models to match the

482: observed light and colour curves of 20 LMC bump Cepheids. We have been

483: able to place tight constraints on the stellar parameters mass,

484: luminosity and effective temperature as well as individual

485: reddenings. We have described the mass-luminosity relation over the

486: mass range of bump Cepheids. We find our sample is $\sim$20\% more

487: luminous for their mass predicted by stellar evolution models that do

488: not incorporate extension to the convective core. Under the paradigm

489: of convective core overshoot this amounts to $\Lambda_c$ of

490: 0.65$\pm$0.03$l/H_p$. The models yield an LMC distance modulus of

491: 18.55$\pm$0.02.

492: 

493: 

494: \acknowledgments

495: 

496: We thank A.\ Bressan et al.\ for providing us with unpublished

497: evolutionary models for $\Lambda_c$=1.0. We thank our referee

498: Dr.~Z.~Kollath for his comments and personal calculations regarding

499: systematic effects due to turbulent convection. Work performed by SCK

500: was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy,

501: National Nuclear Security Administration by the University of California,

502: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-47.

503: 

504: \begin{thebibliography}{}

505: \bibitem[Alexander \& Ferguson(1994)]{ale94} Alexander, D. R. \& Ferguson, J. W. 1994, \apj, 437, 879

506: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1999)]{alc99} Alcock, C.~et al.\ 1999, 

507: \pasp, 111, 1539

508: \bibitem[Barmina et al.(2002)]{bar02} Barmina, R., Girardi, L.,Chiosi, C.\ 2002, \aap accepted, astro-ph/0202128 

509: \bibitem[Beaulieu et al.(2001)]{bea01} Beaulieu, J.P., Buchler, J.R. \& Kollath, Z.\ 2001, A\&A, 373, 164

510: \bibitem[Bessell(1990)]{bes90} Bessell, M.~S.\ 1990, \pasp, 102, 1181

511: \bibitem[Bessell(1991)]{bes91} Bessell, M.~S.\ 1991, \aap, 242, L17

512: \bibitem[Bessell, Castelli, \& Plez(1998)]{bes98} Bessell, M.~S., Castelli, F., \& Plez, B.\ 1998, \aap, 333, 231

513: \bibitem[Bohm-Vitense et al.(1997b)]{boh97b} B\"ohm-Vitense, E., Evans, N.~R., Carpenter, K., Morgan, S., Beck-Winchatz, B., \& Robinson, R.\ 1997b, \aj, 114, 1176. 

514: \bibitem[Bohm-Vitense et al.(1997a)]{boh97a} B\"ohm-Vitense, E., Remage Evans, N., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., \& Robinson, R.\ 1997a, \apj, 477, 916. 

515: \bibitem[Bono, Castellani, \& Marconi(2002)]{bon02} Bono, G., Castellani, V., \& Marconi, M.\ 2002, \apjl, 565, L83

516: \bibitem[Bono, Marconi, \& Stellingwerf(1999)]{bon99} Bono, G., Marconi, M., \& Stellingwerf, R.~F.\ 1999, \apjs, 122, 167

517: \bibitem[Bressan, Chiosi, \& Bertelli(1981)]{bre81} Bressan, A.~G., Chiosi, C., \& Bertelli, G.\ 1981, \aap, 102, 25

518: \bibitem[Bressan(2001)]{bre01} Bressan, A.~G., 2001, priv.\ comm.

519: \bibitem[Buchler et al.(1996)]{buc96} Buchler, J.~R., Kollath, Z., Beaulieu, J.-P. \& Goupil, M.~J.,  ApJ, 462, L83

520: \bibitem[Castelli(1999)]{cas99} Castelli, F. 1999, A\&A 346, 564

521: \bibitem[Chiosi et al.(1993)]{chi93} Chiosi, C., Wood, P.R., \& Capitanio, N. 1993, A\&AS, 86, 541

522: \bibitem[Cordier et al.(2002)]{cor02} Cordier, D., Lebreton, Y., Goupil, M.-J., Lejeune, T., Beaulieu, J.-P. \& Arenou, F.\ 2002, A\&A submitted

523: \bibitem[Cox(1980)]{cox80} Cox, A.~N.\ 1980, \araa, 18, 15

524: \bibitem[Daflon et al.(2001)]{daf01} Daflon, S., Cunha, K., Butler, K., \& Smith, V.~V.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 325

525: \bibitem[de Jager et al.(1988)]{dej88} de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., \& van der Hucht, K.~A.\ 1988, \aaps, 72, 259 

526: \bibitem[Deasy(1988)]{dea88} Deasy, H.~P.\ 1988, \mnras, 231, 

527: \bibitem[Dufton et al.(2000)]{duf00} Dufton, P.~L., McErlean, N.~D., Lennon, D.~J., \& Ryans, R.~S.~I.\ 2000, \aap, 353, 311

528: \bibitem[Evans et al.(1998)]{eva98} Evans, N.~R., B\"ohm-Vitense, E., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., \& Robinson, R.\ 1998, \apj, 494, 768

529: \bibitem[Evans et al.(1997)]{eva97} Evans, N.~R., B\"ohm-Vitense, E., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., \& Robinson, R.\ 1997, \pasp, 109, 789

530: \bibitem[Fagotto et al.(1994)]{fag94} Fagotto, F., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C.\ 1994, \aaps, 105, 29

531: \bibitem[Feuchtinger, Buchler \& Kollath(2000)]{feu00} Feuchtinger, M., Buchler, J.~R. \& Kollath, Z.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 1056 

532: \bibitem[Freedman et al.(2001)]{fre01} Freedman, W.~L.~et al.\ 2001, \apj, 553, 47

533: \bibitem[Gibson(2000)]{gib00} Gibson, B.\ 2000, Mem.\ Ast.\ It., astro-ph/9910574

534: \bibitem[Gies \& Lambert(1992)]{gie92} Gies, D.~R.~\& Lambert, D.~L.\ 1992, \apj, 387, 673

535: \bibitem[Harris, Zaritsky, \& Thompson(1997)]{har97} Harris, J., Zaritsky, D., \& Thompson, I.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1933

536: \bibitem[Heger, Langer, \& Woosley(2000)]{heg00} Heger, A., Langer, N., \& Woosley, S.~E.\ 2000, \apj, 528, 368 

537: \bibitem[Hertzsprung(1926)]{hea26} Hertzsprung, E. 1926, Bull. astronom. Inst. Netherl., 3, 115

538: \bibitem[Iglesias \& Rogers(1996)]{igl96} Iglesias, C.A. \& Rogers, F.J. 2996, \apj, 464, 943 

539: \bibitem[Kanbur \& Simon(1994)]{kan94} Kanbur, S.~M.~\& Simon, N.~R.\ 1994, \apj, 420, 880

540: \bibitem[Keller, Da Costa, \& Bessell(2001)]{kel01} Keller, S.~C., Da Costa, G.~S., \& Bessell, M.~S.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 905 

541: \bibitem[Kurucz(1993)]{kur93} Kurucz, R.L.\ 1993, CD-ROM No.~13.\  Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

542: \bibitem[Larsen, Clausen, \& Storm(2000)]{lar00} Larsen, 

543: S.~S., Clausen, J.~V., \& Storm, J.\ 2000, \aap, 364, 455

544: \bibitem[Meynet \& Maeder(2000)]{mey00} Meynet, G.~\& Maeder, A.\ 2000, \aap, 361, 101 

545: \bibitem[Moskalik, Buchler, \& Marom(1992)]{mos92} Moskalik, P., Buchler, J.~R., \& Marom, A.\ 1992, \apj, 385, 685

546: \bibitem[Russell \& Bessell(1989)]{rus89} Russell, S.~C.~\& Bessell, M.~S.\ 1989, \apjs, 70, 865 

547: \bibitem[Sebo \& Wood(1995)]{seb95} Sebo, K.~M.~\& Wood, P.~R.\ 1995, \apj, 449, 164

548: \bibitem[Simon \& Lee(1981)]{sim81} Simon, N.~R.~\& Lee, A.~S.\ 1981, \apj, 248, 291 

549: \bibitem[Stobie(1969)]{sto69} Stobie, R.~S.\ 1969, \mnras, 144, 511.

550: \bibitem[Stothers \& Chin(1992)]{sto92} Stothers, R.~B.~\& Chin, C.\ 1992, \apj, 390, 136 

551: \bibitem[Venn(1999)]{ven99} Venn, K.~A.\ 1999, \apj, 518, 405 

552: \bibitem[Venn(1995)]{ven95} Venn, K.~A.\ 1995, \apj, 449, 839

553: \bibitem[Wood, Arnold, \& Sebo(1997)]{woo97} Wood, P.~R., Arnold, A., \& Sebo, K.~M.\ 1997, \apjl, 485, L25 (Paper 1)

554: \bibitem[Yecko, Kollath, \& Buchler(1998)]{yec98} Yecko, P.~A., Kollath, Z., \& Buchler, J.~R.\ 1998, \aap, 336, 553

555: \bibitem[Zaritsky(1999)]{zar99} Zaritsky, D.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 

556: 2824 

557: \end{thebibliography}

558: 

559: \clearpage

560: 

561: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include 

562: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

563: 

564: \begin{figure}

565: \plotone{f1.eps}

566: \caption{The $V$, $V$$-$$R$ colour-magnitude diagram for fundamental

567: Cepheids in the MACHO catalogue. The bump Cepheids of the present

568: study are shown in bold. Overlaid are the blue and red edge of the

569: instability strip described by Chiosi, Wood \& Capitano (1993)

570: assuming E($B$$-$$V$)=0.12 \label{sample}}

571: \end{figure}

572: 

573: \begin{figure}

574: \plotone{f2.eps}

575: \caption{Model fits for MACHO~2.4661.3597. The numbers in each panel are: the period ratio P$_{02}$ and log T$_{eff}$ in the upper part, and M/M$_{\odot}$, log L/L$_{\odot}$, and the true distance modulus in the lower part. Each panel contains light and color curves (dereddened). Observations are shown as dots and models as lines. The panels in the vertical section show the effect of changing T$_{eff}$, this affects the amplitude (in the upper panel T$_{eff}$ is too large, the resulting amplitude is too low). The horizontal section shows the effect of a changing P$_{02}$ this affects the phase of the bump (in the left panel P$_{02}$ is too small, the phase of the bump is too ``late''). The central panel is the best model.}\label{figstar1}

576: \end{figure}

577: 

578: \begin{figure}

579: \plotone{f3.eps}

580: \caption{As in Fig.~\ref{figstar1}, model fits for MACHO~79.5139.13.\label{figstar2}}

581: \end{figure}

582: 

583: \begin{figure}

584: \plotone{f4.eps}

585: \caption{The mass-luminosity relation for the present sample of 20

586: bump Cepheids. Error bars are as discussed in the text. Overlaid are

587: the M-L relations for core-He burning stars from Fagotto et al.\

588: (1994) and Bressan (2001) for three assumptions of the efficiency of

589: convective core overshoot and Z=0.008 and Y=0.25. The solid line

590: represent the best match to the data ($\Lambda_c$=0.65

591: $l/H_p$). }\label{mlrelfig}

592: \end{figure}

593: 

594: \begin{figure}

595: \plotone{f5.eps}

596: \caption{Histograms of the derived reddenings (top) and distance moduli (bottom) for the 20 Cepheids of our sample.\label{reddmfig}}

597: \end{figure}

598: 

599:  

600: \begin{table}

601: \begin{center}

602: \caption{The selected MACHO bump Cepheid sample\label{tbl-1}}

603: \begin{tabular}{lccccl}

604: \tableline\tableline

605: {\it{MACHO}} star id & RA (J2000) & Dec (J2000) & $<V>$ & $<V$$-$$R>$ & $P$[d] \\

606: \tableline

607: 

608: 1.3441.15 & 05 01 52.0 & -69 23 22 & 14.45 &0.37& 10.4136\\

609: 1.3692.17 & 05 02 51.4 & -68 47 06 & 14.53 &0.39&10.8552\\

610: 1.3812.15 & 05 03 57.3 & -68 50 25 & 14.61 & 0.39&9.7118\\

611: 1.4048.6  & 05 05 08.8 & -69 15 12 & 14.77 & 0.36& 7.7070\\

612: 1.4054.15 & 05 05 42.1 & -68 51 06 & 14.93 &0.37 & 7.3953 \\

613: 2.4661.3597 & 05 09 16.0 & -68 44 30 & 14.32& 0.39& 11.85911\\

614: 6.6456.4346 & 05 20 23.1 & -70 02 33 & 15.16& 0.36& 6.4816\\

615: 9.4636.3 & 05 09 04.5 & -70 21 55 & 14.16 & 0.41&  13.6315\\

616: 9.5240.10 & 05 13 10.1 & -70 26 47 & 15.11 & 0.38& 7.3695\\

617: 9.5608.11 & 05 15 04.7 & -70 07 11 & 14.81 & 0.35& 7.0693\\

618: 18.2842.11 & 04 57 50.2 & -68 59 23 & 14.83 & 0.38& 8.8311\\

619: 19.4303.317 & 05 06 39.8& -68 25 13 & 14.65 & 0.37& 8.7133\\

620: 19.4792.10 & 05 09 36.9 & -68 02 44 & 14.96 & 0.36& 6.8628\\

621: 77.7670.919 & 05 27 55.1 & -69 48 05 & 14.85&  0.34 & 7.4423\\

622: 77.7189.11 & 05 24 33.3 & -69 36 41 & 14.73 &  0.39& 7.7712\\

623: 78.6581.13 & 05 20 56.0 & -69 48 19 & 14.97 & 0.36& 6.9302\\

624: 79.4657.3939 & 05 08 49.4 & -68 59 59 & 14.23 & 0.43& 13.8793\\

625: 79.4778.9 & 05 09 56.3 & -68 59 41 & 14.56 & 0.33& 8.1868\\

626: 79.5139.13 & 05 11 53.1 & -69 06 49 & 14.59 &0.38&  8.7716\\

627: 79.5143.16 & 05 12 18.8 & -68 52 46 & 14.61 &0.34&  8.2105\\

628: \tableline

629: \end{tabular}

630: \end{center}

631: \end{table}

632: 

633: \begin{table}

634: \begin{center}

635: \caption{The details of our sample\label{tbl-2}}

636: \begin{tabular}{lrcccccc}

637: \tableline\tableline

638: {\it{MACHO}} star id & $P$[d] & P$_{02}$ & log($T_{eff}$) & E($B-V$) & $\mu_{obj}$ & log(L/L$_{\odot}$) & M/M$_{\odot}$\\

639: \tableline

640: 

641: 1.3441.15 & 10.4136& 2.005& 3.757& 0.078 & 18.554 & 3.649 & 5.698\\

642: 1.3692.17 & 10.8552& 2.012& 3.756& 0.072 & 18.622 & 3.653 & 5.793 \\

643: 1.3812.15 & 9.7118& 1.980& 3.762& 0.076 & 18.569 & 3.639 & 5.778\\

644: 1.4048.6  & 7.7070& 1.938& 3.765& 0.060 & 18.626 & 3.455 & 5.093\\

645: 1.4054.15 & 7.3953& 1.940& 3.767& 0.065 & 18.563 & 3.472 & 4.988\\

646: 2.4661.3597 & 11.8591& 2.030& 3.755& 0.088 & 18.548 & 3.701 & 5.623\\

647: 6.6456.4346 & 6.4816& 1.940& 3.770& 0.093 & 18.665 & 3.267 & 4.368\\

648: 9.4636.3 &  13.6315& 2.035& 3.756& 0.078 & 18.478 & 3.851 & 6.501\\

649: 9.5240.10 & 7.3695& 1.952& 3.767& 0.082 & 18.477 & 3.439 & 4.606\\

650: 9.5608.11 & 7.0693& 1.92& 3.765& 0.155 & 18.735 & 3.460 & 5.249\\

651: 18.2842.11 & 8.8311& 1.973& 3.762& 0.049 & 18.431 & 3.563 & 5.317\\

652: 19.4792.10 & 6.8628& 1.924& 3.766& 0.051 & 18.548 & 3.424 & 4.886\\

653: 19.4303.317 & 8.7133& 1.958& 3.763& 0.068 & 18.564 & 3.597 & 5.663\\

654: 77.7670.919 & 7.4423& 1.936& 3.765& 0.078 & 18.543 & 3.491 & 5.244  \\

655: 77.7189.11 & 7.7712& 1.940& 3.764& 0.092 & 18.501 & 3.509 & 5.355 \\

656: 78.6581.13 & 6.9302& 1.930& 3.764& 0.084 & 18.540 & 3.385& 4.920\\

657: 79.4657.3939 & 13.8793& 2.032& 3.758& 0.112 &  18.528 & 3.815& 6.742\\

658: 79.4778.9 &  8.1868& 1.953& 3.762& 0.071 & 18.643 & 3.527& 5.364\\

659: 79.5139.13 &  8.7716& 1.968& 3.763& 0.068 & 18.509 & 3.570 & 5.417\\

660: 79.5143.16 &  8.2105& 1.95& 3.763& 0.114 & 18.571 & 3.540 & 5.465\\

661: \tableline

662: \end{tabular}

663: \end{center}

664: \end{table}

665: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text

666: %% that appears after it.

667: 

668: \end{document}

669: 

670: %%

671: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

672: