![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 354, 77-85 (2000) 4. Results4.1. Dependence of the
|
![]() |
Fig. 2. ![]() |
The values of effective models
present substantial differences between different color pairs, and
indeed the values attained for
colors are at least a factor of three smaller than the values for
colors. However, we note that radius
evaluations based on colors which present large
values are not a priori more
reliable than the evaluations based on colors with small
values. In fact, in the following we
show that radii based on
colors are
more in agreement with theoretical radii than the radii based on
colors. At the same time, large
values do not a priori imply
that the CORS method is a major breakthrough in radius evaluations
when compared to the BW method. In fact, radius estimates based on the
BW method in
and on the CORS method
in
are in very good agreement with
theoretical radii, and the discrepancy for both of them is smaller
than 10%.
The radius estimates of effective models in different photometric
bands are plotted in Fig. 3. Left and right panels show the radii
evaluated by neglecting (pure BW method) and by including (revised
CORS method) the term respectively.
To evaluate the accuracy of radius estimates based on different
methods, in this figure we plotted the ratio between "computed" and
"theoretical" radii. Data plotted in the left panels show quite
clearly that BW estimates based on
and
bands are in very good agreement
with theoretical radii, and indeed the discrepancy is systematically
smaller than 10%. On the other hand, the radius evaluations in
are systematically smaller than the
predicted ones and the discrepancy is of the order of 30% close to
. Thus confirming the empirical
evidence originally pointed out by Welch (1994) and by Laney &
Stobie (1995) that the use of
colors
or infrared bands ensures more accurate measurements of Cepheid
radii.
![]() |
Fig. 3. Ratio between "computed" and "theoretical" radii as a function of the logarithmic period. The left panels display the radius evaluations based on a pure BW method, while the right ones the radius evaluations based on the revised CORS method. The radius estimates plotted in this figure refer to models transformed by adopting ![]() |
This result is further strengthened by radius estimates obtained by
means of the revised CORS method (left panels). In fact, the
discrepancy between "computed" and "theoretical" radii is generally
smaller than 10% when both and
bands are adopted. At the same time,
it is worth noting that radius determinations based on optical bands
-
- present a discrepancy smaller or
equal to 20% over the entire period range. The results of our
numerical experiments suggest that by adopting NIR bands the radii
evaluated through the revised CORS method present on average the same
accuracy of the radii based on the pure BW method. However, the former
method supplies more accurate radius determinations than the latter
one when optical bands are adopted. Thus supporting the plausibility
of physical and numerical assumptions adopted in the revised CORS
method.
We will now focus our attention on the choice of the photometric
bands which should be adopted for providing accurate radius
determinations. Fig. 4 shows the comparison between "computed"
and "theoretical" radii in the
plane. Data plotted in the top and in the bottom panels display radius
estimates based on the pure BW and on the revised CORS method
respectively. The main outcomes of this comparison are the following:
1) the slope of the PR relation, as already noted by Laney &
Stobie (1995), becomes steeper when moving from optical to NIR bands.
2) Radius estimates based on NIR/optical bands
overestimate/underestimate theoretical radii. These results apply to
radius evaluations based on the pure BW method and on the revised CORS
method, thus supporting the evidence that this "photometric drift" is
not an artifact of the method adopted for estimating the radius. At
the same time, data in the bottom panel of Fig. 4 suggest that
radii obtained by averaging the estimates in the
and in the
bands are much less affected by
systematic errors than the radius evaluations only based on NIR bands
or on optical bands.
![]() |
Fig. 4. "Computed" and "theoretical" Cepheid radii as a function of the pulsation period in a ![]() |
Even though previous results supply useful suggestions for
improving the accuracy of radius measurements, the collection of both
NIR and optical data for a large Cepheid sample is not a trivial
observational effort. As a consequence, we decided to improve the
approach suggested by RBMR for evaluating the
term. Since
is the area of the loop performed by
each variable in the
-color plane,
the idea is to compute
along the
pulsation cycle directly from observations. However, the surface
brightness depends on both
and
, and therefore two relations should
be inverted for deriving
:
where and
are two arbitrary colors.
Unfortunately this problem does not admit a general solution over the
whole parameter space, since the same color can be obtained for
different pairs of
and
values. This notwithstanding, it is
still possible to find a local solution. Fig. 5 shows the surface
covered by synthetic models in the 3D spaces
and
respectively. Data plotted in these
figures show quite clearly that theoretical models populate a
well-defined region of the quoted space. Therefore by performing a
degree polynomial fit to the data it
is possible to invert the two relations governing the
and the
colors as a function of temperature
and gravity. The results of the polynomial approximations are
presented in the appendix.
![]() |
Fig. 5. Top plot: surface covered by the sample of theoretical models adopted in this investigation in the 3D space ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
On the basis of these relations we can estimate the surface
brightness directly from the
following equation:
where the symbols have their usual meaning. The constant term depends on the photometric system used, but in our application it is not relevant, since the surface brightness in Eq. (6) appears as a derivative.
By taking into account this new theoretical calibration we applied once again the CORS method to the sample of synthetic models for estimating the Cepheid radii. Fig. 6 and 7 show the results of these calculations. Data plotted in these figures support the evidence that:
1) the theoretical calibration of the surface brightness we
developed is intrinsically correct. In fact, the discrepancy between
"computed" and "theoretical" Cepheid radii is systematically smaller
than 7%. The only exception to this behavior is the radius of the
model at 7 and
K which shows a well-defined bump
along the rising branch. This evidence suggests that CORS estimates of
Bump Cepheid radii could be affected by systematic errors. However,
data plotted in Fig. 1 show that the outermost layers of this model
undergo sudden gravity changes close to the bump phases. During these
pulsation phases the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium is no
longer valid and therefore both the bolometric corrections and the
colors obtained by adopting static atmosphere models should be
regarded as suitable average estimates of the actual properties. It
can be easily shown (Bono 1994) that this limit is mainly due to the
effective gravity, since this quantity is estimated by assuming both
radiative and hydrostatic equilibrium. The effective temperature only
depends on the assumption of radiative equilibrium but the departures
from the radiative equilibrium are, under the typical conditions of a
pulsation cycle, quite small. These leading physical arguments suggest
that the bump phases should be neglected in the CORS analysis.
2) In comparison with "theoretical" radii the "computed" radii do
not show any systematic shift. This result suggests that the
terms evaluated by adopting the
theoretical calibration -based on the polynomial approximations of
and
in the color-color plane
and of the BC in the
[
] plane- are more accurate than the
terms obtained by means of the
empirical calibration.
3) Accurate radius determinations can be obtained by adopting photometric data in three optical bands.
![]() |
Fig. 6. Top panel: ![]() |
![]() | Fig. 7. Period-Radius relation in a log-log plane. The radius estimates have been obtained by adopting the revised CORS method and the theoretical calibration of the surface brightness. See text for further details. |
Finally, we mention that following a referee's suggestion we
applied the revised CORS method to theoretical curves which mimic real
observations. In particular, we performed several numerical
experiments by sampling the theoretical
,
,
, and radial velocity curves with
20-30 phase points randomly distributed along the pulsation cycle. To
account for observational uncertainties the points were spread out by
assuming typical photometric and spectroscopic errors and then fitted
with up to 7 Fourier terms. Interestingly enough, we find that radius
estimates based on these curves still present a discrepancy
7% when compared with theoretical
radii. Therefore this uncertainty can be assumed as a plausible upper
limit to the intrinsic accuracy of radius determinations based on the
revised CORS method.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 2000
Online publication: January 31, 2000
helpdesk.link@springer.de