text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud is one of the most important distances in astrophysics because it sets the zero point of the extragalactic distance scale. Both Magellanic Clouds harbor large populations of ”major” stellar distance indicators, namely Cepheid and RR Lyr variable stars, red clump giants and red giants reaching the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB). Therefore they are an ideal place for testing their properties and calibrating their brightness. Unfortunately, the distance to the LMC has been a subject of controversy for a long time. After release of the Hipparcos catalog the situation became even more unclear. Large number of papers appeared in literature each claiming determination of the distance to the LMC with high precision and accuracy (see for example the review of Gibson 2000). The range of determined distance moduli, $`(mM)_{\mathrm{LMC}}`$, increased to 18.1–18.7 mag. What worse, even determinations for the same distance indicator considerably differed e.g., for Cepheids from 18.3 mag (Luri et al. 1998) to 18.7 mag (Feast and Catchpole 1997). However, the general feeling is that the Cepheid variables and TRGB stars yield longer distance moduli of $`(mM)_{\mathrm{LMC}}18.5`$ mag or more (”long” distance scale) while RR Lyr and the best calibrated red clump stars give $`(mM)_{\mathrm{LMC}}18.3`$ mag (”short” distance scale). Nevertheless, the opposite conclusions can also be found in literature. The distance modulus to the LMC seemed to diverge rather than converge to one well established value.

Part of this ambiguity could be attributed to the poor photometric coverage of the Magellanic Clouds in the past. Fortunately, the situation in this field considerably changed when microlensing survey programs began regular photometric monitoring of these galaxies. For example the OGLE-II microlensing project covered photometrically large areas of both Magellanic Clouds in the standard BVI-bands (Udalski et al. 1998b, Udalski et al. 2000) very suitable for studying stellar population properties in these galaxies.

In this paper we attempt to clear up the problem of the distance scale resulting from stellar distance indicators. We summarize photometric properties of four ”major” stellar standard candles observed in the Magellanic Clouds and additionally in the Carina dwarf galaxy. The basic properties of Cepheids, RR Lyr and red clump stars were already presented in the earlier OGLE papers. Here we complete the sample of ”major” distance indicators by presenting determination of brightness of TRGB stars.

Extensive and homogeneous photometric material allows us to study the photometric properties of all four distance indicators simultaneously. We present a differential analysis – comparison of ratios of brightness of all combinations of standard candles in each object. It is free from extinction and other systematic uncertainties. Similar approach for selected standard candles was already presented by Udalski (1998a), reanalyzed later by Popowski (2000), and Bersier (2000). Our study clearly indicates that the distance scales resulting from all four standard candles are remarkably consistent. We constrain the possible zero point of this common distance scale and derive the most likely calibrations.

We also perform additional test by calculating the difference of distance moduli between the SMC and LMC. We find that all determinations are in a very good agreement with the standard deviation as low as $`\pm 0.03`$ mag from four independent measurements, confirming again consistency of distance scales of all four distance indicators. Based on this result we may further constrain some photometric properties of the stellar standard candles.

## 2 Observational Data

Observational data of the Magellanic Clouds presented in this paper were collected during the second phase of the OGLE microlensing search with the 1.3-m Warsaw telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory, Chile, which is operated by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The telescope was equipped with the ”first generation” camera with a SITe $`2048\times 2048`$ CCD detector working in drift-scan mode. The pixel size was 24 $`\mu `$m giving the 0.417 arcsec/pixel scale. Observations were performed in the ”slow” reading mode of the CCD detector with the gain 3.8 e-/ADU and readout noise of about 5.4 e-. Details of the instrumentation setup can be found in Udalski, Kubiak and Szymański (1997).

Observations covered significant part of the central regions of both Magellanic Clouds. Practically the entire bars of these galaxies were covered. More than 4.5 square degrees (21 $`14.2\times 57`$ arcmin driftscan fields) in the LMC were monitored regularly from January 1997 through May 2000. In the SMC about 2.4 square degrees (11 fields) were observed from June 1997 through March 2000. Additional fields in the North-West part of the LMC were monitored on 13 nights between November 1998 and January 1999. Collected BVI data were reduced to the standard system. Accuracy of transformation to the standard system was about 0.01–0.02 mag. The photometric data of the SMC were used to construct the BVI photometric maps of the SMC (Udalski et al. 1998b). The reader is referred to that paper for more details about methods of data reduction, tests of quality of photometric data, astrometry, location of the observed fields etc. Quality of the LMC data is similar and it is described in the BVI photometric maps of the LMC (Udalski et al. 2000).

The photometric data of the Carina dwarf galaxy were collected during the 1998 and 1999 observing seasons. Part of this observing material, methods of reductions etc. were described in Udalski (1998a). Altogether 45 frames in the V and 49 frames in the I-band were collected. The accuracy of the zero points of absolute photometry is also about 0.02 mag.

## 3 Distance Indicators in the Magellanic Clouds and Carina Dwarf Galaxy

In the following Subsections we describe the OGLE-II photometric data of four ”major” stellar distance indicators in the Magellanic Clouds most often used for the distance determination to these galaxies.

### 3.1 Cepheid Variable Stars

The photometric data of about 3300 Magellanic Cloud Cepheids collected during the OGLE-II microlensing experiment are described in great detail in the series of catalogs: Udalski et al. (1999b, 1999c). Period–Luminosity and Period–Luminosity–Color relations were analyzed in Udalski et al. (1999a). It should be stressed that after the latter paper was released, the OGLE photometry calibration was slightly revised (see Udalski et al. 2000). Therefore the revised coefficients of the $`PL`$ and $`PLC`$ relations for Cepheids are slightly different than those published in Udalski et al. (1999a). The full set of the updated coefficients, as well as BVI photometry of individual objects can be found in the OGLE Internet archive.http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/~ogle or http://bulge.princeton.edu/~ogle Below we only provide the $`PL`$ relations for VI-bands and $`W_I`$ index for fundamental mode Cepheids we use in further studies:

$`V_0=(2.775\pm 0.031)\times \mathrm{log}P+17.066\pm 0.021`$ (1)
$`I_0=(2.977\pm 0.021)\times \mathrm{log}P+16.593\pm 0.014`$ (2)
$`W_I=(3.300\pm 0.011)\times \mathrm{log}P+15.868\pm 0.008`$ (3)
for the LMC, and

$`V_0=(2.775\pm 0.031)\times \mathrm{log}P+17.635\pm 0.031`$ (4)
$`I_0=(2.977\pm 0.021)\times \mathrm{log}P+17.149\pm 0.025`$ (5)
$`W_I=(3.300\pm 0.011)\times \mathrm{log}P+16.381\pm 0.016`$ (6)
for the SMC. We assumed here the same universal (LMC) slopes of the $`PL`$ relations in both Magellanic Clouds (Udalski et al. 1999a). The dereddened magnitudes of Cepheids of the period $`P=10`$ days with statistical errors in all these bands in the LMC and SMC are listed in Table 1. In the case of $`W_I`$ index we included uncertainties of the zero points of VI photometry. We used extinction maps described in Udalski et al. (1999b) and Udalski et al. (1999c) to deredden the LMC and SMC data. The mean reddening in the observed fields is $`E(BV)=0.143`$ mag and $`E(BV)=0.087`$ mag for the LMC and SMC fields, respectively. It should be stressed that the same reddening was used for all four distance indicators, so unless the reddening is different for different groups of stars (see Section 4.5) the extinction scale is the same for all analyzed distance indicators. We did not apply any correction for the possible population effects because the possible dependence of Cepheid brightness on metallicity is poorly constrained, if present at all (see Section 4.1).

### 3.2 RR Lyrae Variable Stars

Photometric properties of about 6000 RR Lyr variable stars detected in the LMC and about 430 from the SMC are described in detail in Udalski et al. (2000, in preparation). The mean, extinction free magnitudes of this distance indicator in the LMC and SMC are listed in Table 1. The applied extinction correction was based on the same maps as for Cepheids.

33 RR Lyr stars were detected in the observed field of the Carina dwarf galaxy. We determined the mean V-band brightness of these objects in the same manner as that of RR Lyr stars from the Magellanic Clouds. The final, dereddened value with statistical error is listed in Table 1. Reddening of $`E(BV)=0.06`$ ($`A_V=0.19`$ mag) was assumed based on Mighell (1997) determination of $`E(VI)=0.08`$ mag and Schlegel, Finkbeiner and Davis (1998) extinction maps. The final magnitude is in very good agreement with the earlier determination of RR Lyr brightness in the Carina dwarf galaxy (Udalski 1998a) based on much smaller observing material.

It is well known that the V-band brightness of RR Lyr stars is not a perfect brightness reference – it depends on metallicity of stars. Because metallicity of RR Lyr stars is different in all three analyzed objects one has to correct for that effect. Unfortunately, the mean metallicity of RR Lyr stars in the analyzed galaxies is rather poorly known, because of the lack of good spectroscopic determinations for significant samples of these objects. The mean metallicity of RR Lyr stars in the LMC seems to be about $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1.6`$ dex (Alcock et al. 1996, Clementini et al. 2000). In the SMC the mean metallicity is somewhat lower: $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]1.7`$ dex (see Udalski 1998a). Metallicity of RR Lyr stars in the Carina dwarf galaxy is also poorly known. It is likely to be around $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.2`$ dex (Smecker-Hane et al. 1994).

The slope of the brightness–metallicity relation for RR Lyr stars was also a subject of dispute. However, it seems now to be accepted that it is of about 0.2 mag/dex. We assume it to be equal to 0.18 mag/dex as in Udalski (1998a):

$$V_0^{\mathrm{RR}}=(0.18\pm 0.04)\times ([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+1.6)+\mathrm{const}$$
$`(7)`$
RR Lyr stars in metal poor environment are brighter. Therefore we added small corrections of 0.02 mag and 0.11 mag, resulting from differences of metallicity to the mean dereddened magnitudes of the SMC and Carina dwarf galaxy RR Lyr stars, bringing them down, in this manner, to the luminosity of the LMC RR Lyr stars ($`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1.6`$ dex), $`V_0^{\mathrm{RR}}_{[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{LMC}}}`$. Luminosity at that metallicity is most often used in calibrations of RR Lyr stars. Results are also listed in Table 1. The errors of these quantities are larger due to uncertainty of calibration (Eq. 7).

### 3.3 Red Clump Stars

Red clump is one of the most prominent features in the color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of the Magellanic Clouds (e.g., Udalski et al. 2000). The mean photometry of the red clump stars in a few lines of sight in the LMC halo where the reddening is small and well constrained by Schlegel et al. (1998) extinction maps was presented in Udalski (2000). The mean dereddened magnitude $`I_0=17.94`$ mag was found in these fields.

The mean magnitudes of the red clump stars in the Magellanic Clouds were determined in each of the OGLE-II fields based on BVI maps of these galaxies (Udalski et al. 1998b – SMC and Udalski et al. 2000 – LMC). In total about 1.3 million and 350 000 red giants were used in the LMC and SMC, respectively. The method of determination was described in Paczyński and Stanek (1998) or Udalski et al. (1998a) and Stanek, Zaritsky and Harris (1998) where the first determinations of the red clump distance to the Magellanic Clouds were presented, based, however, on somewhat overestimated interstellar extinction.

The mean, extinction free I-band magnitudes of red clump stars in the LMC and SMC were obtained using the same maps of interstellar extinction as for Cepheids and the remaining distance indicators. They are listed with statistical errors in Table 1. The value for the LMC is very similar to the mean magnitude derived in the LMC halo fields.

The mean derredened I-band magnitude of red clump stars in the Carina dwarf galaxy was already determined in Udalski (1998a). However, we recalculated it based on our entire observing material collected during the OGLE project. We also used more extensive photometric calibrations than before. The new value (Table 1) is about 0.02 mag fainter than in Udalski (1998a).

The mean brightness of red clump stars is also dependent on population effects and therefore some corrections are necessary to be able to compare the brightness of red clump stars from different environments. The dependence of the mean brightness on metallicity was originally studied by Udalski (1998a), and later reanalyzed by Popowski (2000). Calibration based on Hipparcos stars with precise spectroscopic metallicities was presented in Udalski (2000). All these determinations seem to suggest modest dependence on metallicity:

$$I_0^{\mathrm{RC}}=(0.14\pm 0.04)\times ([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+0.5)+\mathrm{const}$$
$`(8)`$
what is also in relatively good agreement with theoretical modeling (Fig. 1, Girardi and Salaris 2000).

The mean metallicity of red giants in the Magellanic Clouds is also poorly known. It seems that the mean metallicity of the LMC red giants is $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.5`$ dex (Bica et al. 1998, Olszewski et al. 1991, Cole, Smecker-Hane and Gallagher 2000). The mean metallicity of the SMC is about 0.5 dex lower what can be deduced from the mean metallicity of intermediate age clusters (Udalski 1998b). The mean metallicity of the Carina red giants is $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]2.0`$ dex based on spectroscopic determinations for 52 stars (Smecker-Hane et al. 1999).

We applied corrections of 0.07 mag and 0.21 mag for the SMC and Carina, respectively, to bring the mean luminosity of the red clump stars to the LMC level, $`I_0^{\mathrm{RC}}_{[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]_{\mathrm{LMC}}}`$. Red clump magnitudes corrected for metallicity differences with errors including uncertainty of calibration (Eq. 8) are also listed in Table 1.

Theoretical modeling of red clump seems to indicate that its mean magnitude also depends on the age of red clump stars. On the other hand observations of star clusters in the LMC and SMC do not show any evident variations larger than 0.05 mag with age in the age range of 2–10 Gyr (Udalski 1998b). Therefore, we do not find necessary to apply any age related correction of the red clump magnitude at this stage. We will discuss this assumption later in Section 4.6.

### 3.4 Tip of the Red Giant Branch

The mean extinction free I-band magnitudes of the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) were determined based on BVI maps of the Magellanic Clouds. First, for each OGLE field interstellar extinction correction according to the OGLE extinction map in the Magellanic Clouds was applied. Then the stars from the range of $`12<I_0<17`$ mag and $`0.7<(VI)_0<3.0`$ mag were extracted. Figs. 1–3 show the upper part of the red giant branch for two fields in the LMC and the SMC. The bar field of the LMC includes all OGLE bar fields except for the eastern fields LMC$`\mathrm{\_}`$SC1 and LMC$`\mathrm{\_}`$SC16–20 where extinction is larger and non-uniform in the field. The NW field of the LMC includes five OGLE fields (LMC$`\mathrm{\_}`$SC22–26) which were observed only a few times for CMDs. These fields overlap with the area of the LMC observed by Zaritsky, Harris and Thompson (1997) so the photometry can be directly compared. The extinction there is smaller: the average values are $`E(BV)=0.110`$ mag and $`E(BV)=0.135`$ mag in the NW field and bar field of the LMC, respectively.

Figs. 1–3 show that the tip of RGB can easily be distinguished in the CMDs of the LMC and SMC from the remaining stars like asymptotic branch stars etc. Its edge is so sharp that the magnitude of TRGB can be determined with a ruler. Nevertheless, we constructed the histograms of luminosity function of stars from the RGB which are presented in Figs. 4–6. Thick solid line in Figs. 1–3 is the boundary of the region used for construction of the histograms. About 215 000, 15 000 and 57 000 stars were used in the LMC bar, NW and SMC fields, respectively.

Figs. 4 and 5 indicate that the magnitude of the TRGB and its statistical error are equal to $`I_0^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=14.33\pm 0.02`$ mag and $`14.35\pm 0.05`$ mag in the bar and NW LMC fields, respectively. In the SMC it is equal to $`I_0^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=14.83\pm 0.02`$ mag (Table 1). It is very encouraging that for both LMC fields, calibrated independently and with different reddening, the $`I_0^{\mathrm{TRGB}}`$ values are almost identical. Determination for the bar field is much more reliable because of order of magnitude better statistic of the stars.

The brightness of the TRGB is believed to be constant in the I-band to better than $`\pm 0.1`$ mag for metal poor populations with metallicity lower than $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]0.7`$ dex and older stars ($`>4`$ Gyr) (e.g., Lee, Freedman and Madore 1993a, Castellani et al. 2000a). For younger or metal richer stars the TRGB brightness is smaller. Metallicity of the intermediate age population in the LMC is dangerously close to that limit, but the LMC also contains quite numerous population of older stars which should fulfill the above limits and therefore the derived TRGB magnitude should be correct. This problem can easily be tested by comparison of the TRGB magnitudes in the Magellanic Clouds, i.e., determining the difference of distance moduli between the SMC and LMC. According to our determinations it is equal to 0.50 mag. This is in excellent agreement with the difference indicated by other distance indicators (see Section 4.4). We are therefore confident that the TRGB magnitude in the LMC corresponds to the older, metal poorer population and is not biased by younger, metal richer stars.

Unfortunately, the field in the Carina dwarf galaxy observed during the OGLE project was too small to allow precise determination of the TRGB magnitude in this galaxy. Therefore we used the TRGB magnitude provided by Smecker-Hane et al. (1994): $`I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=16.15\pm 0.05`$ mag. Although a shift of the photometric zero points between the Smecker-Hane et al. (1994) and our data sets is possible, it must be smaller than about 0.03 mag as indicated by the location of the red clump. The dereddened TRGB magnitude was found by applying the same reddening correction ($`E(BV)=0.06`$ mag, $`A_I=0.12`$ mag), as for other distance indicators in the Carina dwarf galaxy.

## 4 Discussion

Photometry of the Magellanic Clouds collected during the OGLE-II microlensing project provides a unique opportunity to study all four ”major” stellar distance indicators in different environments and to analyze their properties as standard candles with the same homogeneous observational dataset (Table 1). So far the vast majority of comparisons of different distance indicators were based on the final distance determinations. However, such comparisons are usually meaningless because the observations were usually collected in different regions of the Magellanic Clouds, by different observers and different interstellar reddening corrections were used. The number of possible systematic errors is large and difficult to estimate. With the huge OGLE-II photometric dataset we are in position to analyze for the first time all four distance indicators simultaneously.

### 4.1 Ratio of Brightness of Distance Indicators

To compare brightness of ”major” distance indicators in the Magellanic Clouds and Carina dwarf galaxy we calculated the ratios of brightness of all possible pairs of distance indicators. It should be stressed that our analysis, as long as the brightness in the same passbands is compared, is fully differential as it is performed on the same dataset. Therefore all systematic errors, like uncertainty of the zero point of photometry, uncertainty of interstellar extinction (as long as different standard candles are equally reddened – see Section 4.5) etc., cancel.

In Table 2 we list the ratios of brightness (differences of magnitudes) of all possible pairs of four ”major” stellar standard candles. For RR Lyr and red clump stars we used the magnitudes corrected for metallicity effects, i.e., luminosities which the stars would have if they were of the LMC metallicity. For Cepheid comparisons we list the ratios for VI-bands and additionally for extinction insensitive index $`W_I`$ (Udalski et al. 1999a). In the latter case and in all inter-color comparisons the errors are somewhat larger because these comparisons are not fully differential and the zero point uncertainties must be taken into account.

Figs. 7 and 8 present visualization of the data contained in Table 2. Fig. 7 shows the differences of magnitudes between the mean brightness of Cepheids and other standard candles in the LMC and SMC (unfortunately the Carina dwarf galaxy does not host Population I Cepheids) while Fig. 8 – for the remaining combinations of standard candles. The data for the Carina dwarf galaxy are included in Fig. 8. The abscissa in Fig. 8 represents schematically metallicity of the environment. For all populations of stars in these three galaxies the order of increasing metallicities is Carina $``$ SMC $``$ LMC and the difference of metallicity between the Carina dwarf galaxy and SMC is about three times larger than between the SMC and LMC.

If the standard candles were indeed good brightness references then one would expect that their brightness differences should be constant in all considered environments, i.e., their magnitude differences should be parallel to the abscissa axes in Figs. 7 and 8. Figs. 7 and 8 clearly indicate that this is indeed the case (dashed line). All combinations of distance indicators present basically the same picture, i.e., their differences of magnitude in different objects are constant to $`\pm 0.05`$ mag in the worst case.

Looking carefully at Fig. 7 or the Cepheid data in Table 2 one can notice a small systematic trend – the differences of magnitude between the distance indicators and Cepheids seem to be systematically slightly larger in the LMC than in the SMC. This effect could result from a small dependence of Cepheid brightness on metallicity. Therefore to check if the metallicity effect can be real we observed Cepheids in the metal poor galaxy IC1613 (metallicity of IC1613 is smaller than that of the SMC; metallicity of Cepheids in the LMC and SMC is equal to $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.3`$ dex and $`0.7`$ dex respectively, Luck et al. 1998). Although this project is still in progress, preliminary analysis of the data collected so far indicates that the difference of the mean I-band brightness of Cepheids with 10 day period and TRGB stars in the IC1613 galaxy is equal to $`M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}M_I^\mathrm{C}=0.75\pm 0.06`$ mag. Asterisk in the appropriate panel of Fig. 7 marks that value and the horizontal location of points corresponds to the mean metallicity of objects. This result confirms that the brightness of Cepheids does not depend on metallicity to a few hundredths of magnitude in the wide metallicity range of $`1<[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<0.3`$ dex. More detailed analysis of the IC1613 data will be presented when this sub-project of the OGLE search is finished.

The conclusion from our exercise is very straightforward. All four ”major” distance indicators, namely Cepheids, RR Lyr, red clump and TRGB stars are equally good standard candles. It is worth noting that these standard candles represent very different populations of stars from the oldest RR Lyr stars, through somewhat younger TRGB population, intermediate age red clump stars and finally young population of classical Cepheids. The distance scales from all four distance indicators are fully compatible with each other, and all four distance indicators can be equally well used for distance determinations within the domain they are considered to be a standard candle. Fig. 8 strongly suggests that the small corrections for difference of metallicity of RR Lyr and red clump stars (Eqs. 7 and 8) we applied are correct. Otherwise systematic deviations would be observed. It is worth noticing that the consistency of distances determined from the red clump and TRGB stars was already noted by Bersier (2000).

### 4.2 Constraints on the Zero Point

As we showed in Section 4.1 all four distance indicators are fully compatible with each other and, therefore, the distance scales determined from them are fully consistent. Thus, the only important problem related to the distance determination is a proper calibration of the zero point of this common distance scale. Because the brightness ratios of all four indicators are well constrained based on our differential analysis, all four indicators must be treated as an ensemble. The calibration of any of them sets the calibrations of all the remaining indicators. In other words any proposed calibration of any of the ”major” stellar distance indicators must predict reasonable calibrations for the remaining ones. In this way we can put constraints on the possible calibration of the zero point of the common distance scale.

First, let us briefly discuss proposed calibrations of stellar distance indicators. The Cepheid calibrations fall into three categories: bright, medium and faint. Bright calibrations predict $`M_V^\mathrm{C}4.2`$ mag for a Cepheid with the period of $`P=10`$ days (Feast and Catchpole 1997, Lanoix, Paturel and Garnier 1999, Groenewegen and Oudmaijer 2000) and are based on analyses of Hipparcos direct parallaxes of these stars. One should, however, remember that the parallaxes of Cepheids measured by Hipparcos are very small and have very large errors (only a few Cepheids has the relative error smaller than 30%). Medium brightness calibrations give $`M_V^\mathrm{C}4.05`$ mag and are mostly based on Barnes–Evans method (Gieren et al. 1997) and pre-Hipparcos Galactic calibrations (Laney and Stobie 1994). Faint calibrations predict $`M_V^\mathrm{C}3.85`$ mag based on a kind of statistical parallaxes method (Luri et al. 1998). Indirect calibration via Cepheids in the NGC4258 galaxy also indicates faint brightness of Cepheids (Maoz et al. 2000).

Calibrations of RR Lyr stars in the post Hipparcos era were reviewed and summarized by Popowski and Gould (1998). This review concludes that the most likely absolute magnitude of RR Lyr stars is $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}0.70`$ mag at metallicity of $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1.6`$ dex. However, although the majority of empirical determinations seem to point to fainter calibrations of RR Lyr, subdwarf fitting technique results in much higher luminosity of RR Lyr stars, namely $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=0.45`$ mag at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1.6`$ dex (Carretta et al. 2000). The drawbacks of this method when applied to RR Lyr calibration are described in Popowski and Gould (1998). Nevertheless, this calibration is still a possible alternative to the faint RR Lyr calibration.

Two kinds of calibrations are used for distance determination with TRGB stars. The empirical calibration based on Galactic globular clusters data (Lee et al. 1993a) gives $`M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=4.0\pm 0.1`$ mag for metallicities $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<0.7`$ dex. It is, however, based on the old RR Lyr stars calibration predicting $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=0.55`$ mag at $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=1.6`$ dex. This is by about 0.1–0.15 mag brighter than the present, most likely calibration of RR Lyr stars (Popowski and Gould 1998). Therefore, the correction of this order should be taken into account when deriving the distance with TRGB what has never been done. The second calibration is based on the theoretical modeling of TRGB stars and predicts TRGB magnitude brighter by about 0.1 mag than the empirical one (Salaris and Cassisi 1997). However, because the uncertainties related to the modeling are still rather large (Dominguez et al. 1999, Castellani et al. 2000b) we do not consider this calibration as a very strong alternative to the empirical one.

Finally, the calibration of red clump stars is superior to calibration of any other standard candle what is one of the main advantages of this distance indicator. Because these stars are very numerous in the solar neighborhood, the Hipparcos sample of red clump stars with good accuracy parallaxes (relative error less than 10%) and precise photometry is very large (several hundred objects, Paczyński and Stanek 1998). This made it possible to determine the absolute magnitude of red clump stars with high accuracy: $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.23\pm 0.03`$ mag for metallicity of $`[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.0`$ dex (Stanek and Garnavich 1999, Udalski 2000). Unfortunately, the local red clump stars only partially overlap in metallicity with the LMC red clump stars. However, the dependence on metallicity (Eq. 8) is rather modest so the mean I-band magnitude of the red clump stars in the LMC is $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.31\pm 0.04`$ mag. No significant dependence of the red clump magnitude on age was assumed here what, among others, is clearly supported by Fig. 8 (Section 4.6). On the other hand, theoretical modeling of red clump stars indicates that its magnitude depends on both metallicity and age. Girardi and Salaris (2000) claim that the combined effect may reach as much as 0.20 mag in the LMC case. If true, the LMC red clump magnitude would be of $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.43`$ mag.

Having in mind all these calibrations, less and more likely, we may constrain the possible zero point of the common distance scale. First, we may almost immediately exclude the bright calibration of Cepheids. For example, $`M_V^\mathrm{C}=4.21`$ mag and $`M_I^\mathrm{C}=4.94`$ mag (Groenewegen and Oudmaijer 2000) for the Galactic Cepheids would indicate the following magnitudes of the remaining distance indicators: $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=0.39`$ mag, $`M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=4.23`$ mag and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.64`$ mag. The mean magnitude of RR Lyr stars would have to be brighter than the brightest calibration from subdwarf fitting. The TRGB magnitude would be much brighter than indicated by Lee et al. (1993a) calibration but this could be marginally consistent when correction to the TRGB calibration resulting from the appropriate RR Lyr calibration ($`0.15`$ mag brighter) was applied. However, the predicted absolute magnitude of the red clump stars practically rules out the bright Cepheid calibration. The mean magnitude of the red clump stars of the LMC metallicity would have to be by about 0.35 mag brighter than the empirical calibration or 0.2 mag brighter than the theoretical predictions. This large discrepancy could only vanish when the brightness of Cepheids would very strongly depend on metallicity (about 1.0 mag/dex in the I-band) making the Galactic Cepheids much brighter. As we have shown in Section 4.1 our data do not indicate any significant dependence of Cepheid brightness on metallicity. Therefore this calibration can be ruled out with high confidence.

Similar arguments can exclude the bright calibration of RR Lyr stars. $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=0.45`$ mag would indicate $`M_V^\mathrm{C}=4.15`$ mag, $`M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=4.14`$ mag and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.52`$ mag. While Cepheids and TRGB calibrations could be consistent with the bright RR Lyr calibration, the inferred magnitude of red clump stars is again too bright by at least 0.1 mag from theoretical predictions or more than 0.2 mag from the empirical calibration. Because we have already corrected RR Lyr stars magnitude for metallicity it would be extremely difficult to find additional 0.1–0.2 mag that could explain this inconsistency. Therefore the bright calibration of RR Lyr also seems to be unlikely.

On the other hand two of the already discussed calibrations of the distance indicators presented here, namely Hipparcos calibration of red clump stars and faint calibration of RR Lyr, are consistent with all four standard candles. The latter calibration (Popowski and Gould 1998), $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=0.70`$ mag, would indicate: $`M_V^\mathrm{C}=3.90`$ mag, $`M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=3.89`$ mag and $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.27`$ mag. All these predictions are in good agreement with the faint calibration of Cepheids (statistical parallaxes and Cepheids in NGC4258), Lee et al. (1993a) calibration of TRGB (corrected down by 0.15 mag due to fainter RR Lyr brightness scale) and the empirical (Hipparcos) calibration of red clump stars (Udalski 2000), respectively. The empirical calibration of red clump stars of the LMC metallicity, $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=0.31`$ mag (Udalski 2000), leads to very similar predictions: $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=0.66`$ mag, $`M_I^\mathrm{C}=4.61`$ mag and $`M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=3.93`$ mag.

Very consistent results obtained with calibrations of RR Lyr and red clump stars strongly suggest that in the entire range of possible calibrations those two are the most likely. If we adopt the mean results based on the RR Lyr and red clump empirical calibrations and our differential analysis of ”major” stellar standard candles then the following formulae for individual standard candles can be written:
Cepheids:

$`M_V=(2.775\pm 0.031)\times (\mathrm{log}P1)3.92\pm 0.05`$ (9)
$`M_I=(2.977\pm 0.021)\times (\mathrm{log}P1)4.61\pm 0.05`$ (10)
$`M_{W_I}=(3.300\pm 0.011)\times (\mathrm{log}P1)5.67\pm 0.05`$ (11)
TRGB:

$$M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}=3.91\pm 0.05\mathrm{mag}([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]<0.7\mathrm{dex})$$
$`(12)`$
RR Lyr:

$$M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}=(0.18\pm 0.04)\times ([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+1.6)+0.68\pm 0.05$$
$`(13)`$
Red clump stars:

$$M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}=(0.14\pm 0.04)\times ([\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]+0.5)0.29\pm 0.05$$
$`(14)`$
where all zero points refer to the LMC metallicity and their errors are estimated from uncertainty of the Hipparcos calibration of red clump stars ($`\pm 0.04`$ mag) and the consistency of both calibrations. It should be, however, remembered that our differential test cannot exclude somewhat brighter calibrations, i.e., up to $`M_V^{\mathrm{RR}}0.55`$ mag for RR Lyr and $`M_I^\mathrm{C}4.7`$ mag for Cepheids. They could be consistent at least with theoretical predictions for red clump brightness and thus cannot be fully ruled out. These limits go by about 0.1 mag fainter (i.e., to Eqs. 9–14) if the empirical calibration of the red clump is considered.

### 4.3 Distance to the LMC, SMC and Carina Dwarf Galaxy

Eqs. (9)–(14) can be directly applied to the dereddened magnitudes of standard candles provided in Table 1 to determine the distances to the analyzed galaxies. In this case, however, the analysis is no longer differential and any systematic errors can affect the results. While the zero points of the OGLE photometry were tested many times (e.g., Udalski et al. 1998ab, Udalski et al. 2000) and it is unlikely that the systematic uncertainty from this factor is larger than 0.02 mag, the main source of uncertainty remains the interstellar extinction applied to the photometry to deredden the data. Accuracy of the zero points of extinction maps used by OGLE was discussed in Udalski et al. (1999bc). Also as we will show in Section 4.5 there is no indication that the interstellar reddening is different for younger and older populations as suggested by Zaritsky (1999). The mean reddening of $`E(BV)=0.143`$ mag and 0.087 mag in the bar of the LMC and SMC, respectively, seems to be consistent with all determinations in these regions with hot young or older stars (including the recent determination from RR Lyr instability strip colors by Clementini et al. 2000, when correct boundaries of the strip, i.e., bluer by about 0.05 mag, e.g., from Walker 1998, are used). Therefore, it is rather unlikely that the uncertainty of $`E(BV)`$ reddening is larger than 0.02 mag.

Distances to the LMC, SMC and Carina dwarf galaxy calculated with Eqs. (9) –(14) are listed in Table 3. As it can be expected all distances are very similar. This is not surprising as we already showed that all four distance scales are fully consistent. The mean values of distance moduli from four ”major” stellar standard candles are equal to $`(mM)_{\mathrm{LMC}}=18.24`$ mag, $`(mM)_{\mathrm{SMC}}=18.75`$ mag and $`(mM)_{\mathrm{CAR}}=19.94`$ mag. The systematic error is of the order of 0.07 mag and results mostly from the reddening and calibration (Eqs. 9–14) uncertainties while the standard deviation of these measurements is only of 0.02 mag.

The resulting distance to the LMC is in the range of ”short” distances, i.e., it is by about 0.25 mag smaller than the classical distance modulus to the LMC of $`(mM)_{\mathrm{LMC}}=18.5`$ mag. We can summarize that the OGLE photometric data of four ”major” stellar distance indicators clearly indicate that the most likely zero point of the common distance scale which is consistent with all four standard candles is that which gives the ”short” distance scale. Although we are not able to completely exclude calibrations up to 0.15 mag brighter, all the remaining ones seem to be inconsistent with at least one of the four distance indicators. It is worth noting at this point that the recent determinations of the distance to the LMC with independent, largely geometric standard candle, – eclipsing binaries – also provide strong support for the ”short” distance scale to the LMC ($`(mM)_{\mathrm{LMC}}18.3`$ mag, Guinan et al. 1998, Fitzpatrick et al. 2000). This is completely independent confirmation that the calibrations presented in this paper are the most likely. Also, as we already mentioned, the ”short” distance scale to the LMC results from geometric determination of the distance to NGC4258 galaxy (Herrnstein et al. 1999) and photometry of Cepheids in this object (Maoz et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the final solution of the zero point problem will probably have to wait until the next space astrometric missions (FAME, SIM, GAIA) are launched and finished and direct good quality parallaxes of large samples of Cepheids, RR Lyr and TRGB stars are determined.

### 4.4 Difference of Distance Moduli SMC–LMC

The differences of distance moduli between the SMC and LMC resulting from Cepheids, RR Lyr, TRGB and red clump stars are listed in Table 4. They were derived using the extinction free luminosities listed in Table 1.

It is striking that all independent determinations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(mM)_{\mathrm{SMC}\mathrm{LMC}}`$ are very similar. The most reliable one comes from the $`W_I`$ index for Cepheids, because those magnitudes are in principle extinction free. Therefore by comparison with $`W_I`$ Cepheid distance we may assess reliability of other distance indicators as well as the reddening scale used for distance determinations.

The numbers from Table 4 can be affected by systematic error resulting from the uncertainty of extinction in both galaxies. It should, however, affect very similarly all determinations, except for $`W_I`$ index which is extinction independent. Very good agreement of the values from different distance indicators as compared to $`W_I`$ value indicates, however, that this error is probably very small ($`<0.02`$ mag) and the extinction scales in both Magellanic Clouds are correct. The mean difference of distance moduli between the SMC and LMC from all four independent determinations (Cepheids, RR Lyr, TRGB and red clump) is equal to 0.50 mag with very small standard deviation of only 0.03 mag.

### 4.5 Interstellar Extinction in the LMC

Very good agreement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(mM)_{\mathrm{SMC}\mathrm{LMC}}`$ from all distance indicators provides strong constraints on many observables. First, we may practically rule out the possibility that the interstellar reddening is significantly different for different populations of stars in the LMC as suggested by Zaritsky (1999). Based on a new method he determined interstellar extinction in the V-band equal to $`A_V0.4`$ mag for hot young stars and only $`A_V0.1`$ mag for old cool population of stars in a field in the LMC overlapping with our NW field (Section 3.4). The simplest test of reality of Zaritsky (1999) hypothesis is to compare the most sound difference of distance moduli between the SMC and LMC, namely resulting from Cepheid extinction free index $`W_I`$ and equal to 0.51 mag, with that obtained from old populations under the assumption of very small extinction for these groups of stars. Even if we assume the extinction toward the SMC equal to zero (what is an obvious underestimate), $`A_V=0.1`$ mag in the LMC and the mean magnitudes of RR Lyr, TRGB and red clump stars indicate that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(mM)_{\mathrm{SMC}\mathrm{LMC}}`$ from the old population would already be by about 0.1 mag smaller than the extinction free value resulting from Cepheid $`W_I`$ index. When non-zero reddening in the SMC is applied the gap widens. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(mM)_{\mathrm{SMC}\mathrm{LMC}}`$ from the old population converges to that from young Cepheids only when the interstellar extinction is the same for both populations and its value is close to that of the OGLE extinction maps.

Another test of the Zaritsky (1999) hypothesis is provided by Fig. 7. Good agreement of differences of magnitudes of Cepheids and old population standard candles in the LMC and SMC under the assumption that the interstellar extinction is the same for all stars in both Magellanic Clouds practically rules out that hypothesis. Even if the extinction for young population were larger than for the old one, as Zaritsky suggests, it would have to be larger by exactly the same amount in the LMC and SMC. That would imply exactly the same properties and distribution of dust in both these galaxies what is extremely unlikely. Moreover, the interstellar extinction in the SMC is much smaller than in the LMC and simply there is no room for so large extinction difference as Zaritsky (1999) claims in the LMC. Only very unlikely conspiracy could mask the differences of magnitudes of Cepheids and old standard candles so they were exactly the same in both Magellanic Clouds. Both tests rather unambiguously indicate that the interstellar reddening, $`E(BV)`$ in the Magellanic Clouds is to 0.01–0.02 mag similar for young and old populations and results of Zaritsky (1999) are probably an effect of his method of extinction determination for cool stars (because the derived interstellar extinction for hot stars, i.e., those with simple and well known spectra, seems to be reasonable: $`E(BV)0.12`$ mag vs. 0.11 mag from the OGLE maps).

### 4.6 Properties of the Red Clump Stars

The mean extinction free I-band magnitude of red clump stars in the LMC is sometimes a subject of controversy. For example Romaniello et al. (1999) claim that it is by about 0.15 mag dimmer than the value presented in this paper. They determined $`I_0^{RC}=18.12`$ mag in a field of very high and non-uniform extinction around SN1987A, based on HST photometry. Such a value can, however, be easily ruled out by comparison of differences of distance moduli between the SMC and LMC. Only if the extinction in the SMC were equal to zero, the difference of distance moduli inferred from red clump stars with Romaniello et al. (1999) value of $`I_0^{RC}`$ could be consistent with the Cepheid extinction free $`W_I`$ index value (Table 4). With any non-zero extinction in the SMC the difference of distance moduli of red clump stars would be smaller – up to 0.2 mag if the SMC extinction presented in this paper were used. This inconsistency makes the Romaniello et al. (1999) value highly unlikely.

Observational data presented in this paper can also be used for constraining the possible dependence of the mean brightness of the red clump stars on age. Fig. 8, where comparison of the red clump brightness with other distance indicators is presented, clearly shows that the metallicity correction given by Eq. (8) very well corrects the excess of red clump brightness. There are no systematic trends which could suggest other slope in Eq. (8) and the residuals from a straight line, parallel to the abscissa axis, are of the order of $`\pm 0.04`$ mag only. If the excess of brightness of red clump stars in lower metallicity objects is indeed caused by metallicity differences then the very small residuals indicate that the red clump brightness is practically independent on age. It should be noted that on average the red clump in the Carina dwarf galaxy is much older than in the Magellanic Clouds.

On the other hand theoretical modeling of red clump stars by Girardi and Salaris (2000) indicates that its magnitude is dependent on both metallicity and age. Girardi and Salaris (2000) constructed synthetic CMDs using their evolutionary models and assumed star formation rate (SFR) and age-metallicity relations (AMR) for the Magellanic Clouds and Carina dwarf galaxy to analyze the mean properties of red clump stars in these objects. They claim that the most likely assumptions produce, due to combined metallicity and age dependence, the red clump brighter by 0.20, 0.29 and 0.29 mag in the LMC, SMC and Carina dwarf galaxy, respectively, than the local red clump stars measured by Hipparcos. It is, however, extremely difficult to assess reality of these results. Qualitative comparison of the best synthetic CMDs with the empirical ones indicates that the simulations are rather far from reality – in particular the synthetic SMC red clump (Fig. 17, Girardi and Salaris 2000) does not resemble at all very round and featureless red clump observed in this galaxy (Fig. 10; Paczyński et al. 1999). Also the LMC bar and Carina dwarf galaxy synthetic red clumps hardly resemble the empirical ones (Udalski et al. 2000, Udalski 1998a).

The Carina dwarf galaxy simulations are the most clear indication that the modeling is very far from being accurate. Looking at Fig. 1 of Girardi and Salaris (2000) one can find that it is practically impossible to obtain the red clump in Carina dwarf galaxy brighter than 0.1 mag than in the LMC when its age is larger than 3 Gyr, independently of SFR and AMR assumptions. Indeed, Girardi and Salaris (2000) obtain the red clump of only 0.09 mag brighter than the LMC red clump or even fainter if other SFR is assumed. Observations, however, indicate that it is by about 0.2 mag brighter (Fig. 8, Table 1). This is a large discrepancy and it probably gives a realistic information on accuracy of the models and synthetic CMD simulations. Modeling results while reasonably well reproducing qualitative features of stellar populations are not accurate to better than 0.1–0.2 mag (see also Castellani et al. 2000b and discussion in Paczyński et al. 1999).

Another empirical confirmation of very weak and shallow dependence of the mean I-band magnitude of the red clump on age within the age range of 2–10 Gyr provides comparison of red clump and TRGB magnitudes. Bersier (2000) presented such a comparison for the Magellanic Clouds, Carina and Fornax dwarf galaxies and found that the magnitude correction for metallicity (Eq. 8) makes these two distance indicators very consistent. His results are fully confirmed in this paper (Fig. 8). As we mentioned, small residuals indicate that the age dependence must be weak. Because of large brightness, the TRGB magnitude is relatively easy to determine in many even quite far located objects (similar brightness Cepheids require at least 20–30 epochs to determine their mean magnitudes). Therefore, we attempted to extend the comparison of the mean red clump and TRGB magnitudes to the Local Group galaxies with populations suitable for such comparisons (low metallicity, older stars for TRGB and intermediate age stars for red clump). Beside the Magellanic Clouds and Carina dwarf galaxy data presented in this paper we found in literature data for nine additional objects whose CMDs include both TRGB and red clump stars. We limited ourselves to objects in which the red clump is reasonably above the limit of photometry so that its mean magnitude is not affected. The data for all objects are listed in Table 5 in order of decreasing metallicity of the object, as well as $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}`$ calculated with the red clump magnitude converted to the LMC metallicity (i.e., with correction, LMC$`{}_{\mathrm{COR}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{RC}}`$, listed in the fifth column in Table 5 and obtained from Eq. 8). Unfortunately, in all but one cases (NGC147) we did not have the original data, so that we had to rely on authors’ determinations or in a few cases to determine the mean magnitudes from CMD plots. Therefore, the presented exercise is not fully homogeneous. Nevertheless, the magnitudes presented in Table 5 should be accurate to about 0.05 mag. We usually used the same photometry to determine the difference of red clump and TRGB magnitudes to avoid systematic errors. In a few cases, however, we had to use additional source for TRGB magnitude – the HST fields where photometry reached red clump stars were too small for reliable TRGB magnitude determination. In these cases we first verified whether both photometric data sets were on the same scale.

Differences $`M_I^{\mathrm{RC}}M_I^{\mathrm{TRGB}}`$, listed in the sixth column of Table 5, indicate that except for two of twelve objects they all fall in the narrow range of $`3.62\pm 0.08`$ mag. This sample includes objects with younger intermediate age population like LMC and older objects – Fornax, M32 ($`8.5`$ Gyr) or Leo II ($`9`$ Gyr). One should note that the Girardi and Salaris (2000) modeling (their Fig. 1) predicts red clump fainter by about by 0.25 mag in the latter cases. Clearly, the dependence on age is very weak.

Two deviating cases in Table 5 can easily be explained. In the case of Leo A the vast majority of red clump population are the young stars of 0.9–1.5 Gyr age (Tolstoy et al. 1998). It is not surprising that they are brighter making the difference of red clump and TRGB magnitudes smaller. NGC147 is on the opposite end. The vast majority of its population is older than 10 Gyr, so that it is not surprising that the red clump magnitude drops, making the difference much larger. The NGC147 case is very similar to the NGC121 cluster case in the SMC (Udalski 1998b), also possessing old ($`12`$ Gyr) population and the red clump by about 0.4 mag fainter than that of younger clusters. Results of comparison of red clump and TRGB magnitudes in the nearby Local Group galaxies are in fact very consistent with results of the analysis of clusters in the LMC and SMC (Udalski 1998b) also indicating that in the 2–10 Gyr range the dependence of the red clump brightness on age is very weak.

Concluding, presently we do not find any convincing arguments on reality of significant dependence of the red clump brightness on age, and on the contrary the empirical data presented in this paper rather unambiguously seem to indicate that such a dependence is marginal for ages within 2–10 Gyr. This confirms our earlier results from analysis of the Magellanic Cloud star clusters (Udalski 1998b). That analysis, in particular of the SMC clusters, was criticized by Girardi and Salaris (2000) because of applying geometric corrections resulting from the spatial extent of the SMC (these corrections result, however, from our current picture of the SMC geometry). Nevertheless, we would like to point attention to the fact that at least two clusters of very different age from the Udalski’s (1998b) sample are located very close to each other on the sky (Kron 3 – 7.5 Gyr and L11 – 3.5 Gyr) so their photometry can be compared differentially. The mean magnitude of red clump in these objects is similar to $`\pm 0.02`$ mag after correcting for a small metallicity difference. Girardi and Salaris (2000, Fig. 1) models predict the red clump brighter by about 0.15 mag in younger L11. The brightness is also very similar to the mean magnitude of red clump of field stars indicating that the clusters are located at the same distance as the bulk of SMC stars in that direction. This is the only pair of clusters of different age allowing direct comparison of red clump magnitude. Other comparisons, for example those of Galactic clusters (Girardi and Salaris 2000), suffer from uncertainties of distance much larger than the geometric correction uncertainties in the SMC and very small number statistics of red clump stars.

Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Drs. B. Paczyński, K.Z. Stanek, and M. Szymański for comments and remarks on the paper. The paper was partly supported by the Polish KBN grant 2P03D00814 to A. Udalski and 2P03D00916 to M. Szymański. Partial support for the OGLE project was provided with the NSF grant AST-9820314 to B. Paczyński.

## REFERENCES

* Alcock, C., et al.  1996, Astron. J., 111, 1146.
* Aparicio, A. 1994, Astrophys. J. Letters, 437, L27.
* Bersier, D. 2000, Astrophys. J. Letters, in press; astro-ph/0009180.
* Bica, E., Geisler, D., Dottori, H., Clariá, J.J., Piatti, A.E., and Santos Jr, J.F.C. 1998, Astron. J., 116, 723.
* Carretta, E., Gratton, R., Clementini, G., and Fusi Pecci, F. 2000, Astrophys. J., 533, 215.
* Castellani, V., Bono, G., Cassisi, S., Marconi, G., and Piersimoni, A. 2000a, astro-ph/0008080.
* Castellani, V., Degl’Innocenti, S., and Prada Moroni, P.G. 2000b, MNRAS, in press; astro-ph/0009019.
* Clementini, G., Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., and Di Fabrizio, L. 2000, astro-ph/0007471.
* Cole, A.A., Smecker-Hane, T.A., and Gallagher III, J.S. 2000, Astron. J., in press; astro-ph/0006327.
* Dominguez, I., Chieffi, A., Limongi, M., and Straniero, O. 1999, Astrophys. J., 524, 226.
* Gallagher, J.S. et al.  1998, Astron. J., 115, 1869.
* Gibson, B.K. 2000, Mem. S. A. It., in press; astro-ph/9910574.
* Gieren, W.P., Fouqué, P., and Gómez, M. 1998, Astrophys. J., 496, 17.
* Girardi, L., and Salaris, M. 2000, astro-ph/0007343.
* Grillmair, C.J. et al.  1996, Astron. J., 112, 1975.
* Groenwagen, M.A.T., and Oudmaijer, R.D. 2000, Astron. Astrophys., 356, 849.
* Guinan, E.F. et al.  1998, Astrophys. J. Letters, 509, L21.
* Han, M. et al.  1997, Astron. J., 113, 1001.
* Herrnstein, J.R. et al.  1999, Nature, 400, 539.
* Holland, S., Fahlman, G., and Richer, H. 1996, Astron. J., 112, 1035.
* Feast, M.W., and Catchpole, R.M. 1997, MNRAS, 286, L1.
* Fitzpatrick, E.L., Ribas, I., Guinan, E.F., DeWarf, L.E., Maloney, F.P., and Massa, D.L. 2000, BAAS, 196, 2806.
* Laney, C.D, and Stobie, R.S. 1994, MNRAS, 266, 441.
* Lanoix, P., Paturel, G., and Garnier, R. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 969.
* Lee, M.G., Freedman, W.L., and Madore, B.F. 1993a, Astrophys. J., 417, 553.
* Lee, M.G., Freedman, W., Mateo, M., and Thompson, I. 1993b, Astron. J., 106, 1420.
* Lee, M.G. 1995, Astron. J., 110, 1155.
* Luck, R.E, Moffett, T.J., Barnes, T.G., and Gieren, W.P. 1998, Astron. J., 115, 605.
* Luri, X., Gómez, A.E., Torra, J., Figueras, F., and Mennessier, M.O. 1998, Astron. Astrophys., 335, L81.
* Maoz, E., et al.  1999, Nature, 401, 351.
* Martínez-Delgado, D., Gallart, C., and Aparicio, A. 1998, Astron. J., 118, 862.
* Mighell, K.J. 1997, Astron. J., 114, 1458.
* Mighell, K.J., and Rich, R.M. 1996, Astron. J., 111, 777.
* Olszewski, E.W., Schommer, R.A., Suntzeff, N.B., and Harris, H.C. 1991, Astron. J., 101, 515.
* Paczyński B., and Stanek, K.Z. 1998, Astrophys. J. Letters, 494, L219.
* Paczyński B., Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 1998b, Acta Astron., 49, 319.
* Popowski, P. 2000, Astrophys. J. Letters, 528, L9.
* Popowski, P., and Gould, A. 1998, in ”Post-Hipparcos Cosmic Candles, Eds. A.Heck and F.Caputo, Kluwer Academic Publ. Dordrecht; p. 53; astro-ph/9808006.
* Romaniello, M., Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., and Panagia, N. 1999, Astrophys. J., 530, 738.
* Salaris, M., and Cassisi, S. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 406.
* Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., and Davis, M. 1998, Astrophys. J., 500, 525.
* Smecker-Hane, T.A., Stetson, P.B., Hesser, J.E., and Lehnert, M.D. 1994, Astron. J., 108, 507.
* Smecker-Hane, T.A., Mandushev, G.I., Hesser, J.E., Stetson, P.B., Da Costa, G.S., and Hatzidimitriou, D. 1999, in ”Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and Galaxies”, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 192, Eds. Hubeny, I., Heap, S.R., and Cornett, R.H., p. 159.
* Stanek, K.Z, Zaritsky, D., and Harris, J. 1998, Astrophys. J. Letters, 500, L141.
* Stanek, K.Z., and Garnavich, P.M. 1998, Astrophys. J. Letters, 503, L131.
* Tolstoy, E. et al.  1998, Astron. J., 116, 1244.
* Udalski, A. 1998a, Acta Astron., 48, 113.
* Udalski, A. 1998b, Acta Astron., 48, 383.
* Udalski, A. 2000, Astrophys. J. Letters, 531, L25.
* Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., and Szymański, M. 1997, Acta Astron., 47, 319.
* Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 1998a, Acta Astron., 48, 1.
* Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 1998b, Acta Astron., 48, 147.
* Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 1999a, Acta Astron., 49, 201.
* Udalski, A., Soszyński, I., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 1999b, Acta Astron., 49, 223.
* Udalski, A., Soszyński, I., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 1999c, Acta Astron., 49, 437.
* Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M.,Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., Woźniak, P., and Żebruń, K. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 307.
* Walker, A.R. 1998, Astron. J., 116, 220.
* Zaritsky, D., Harris, J., and Thompson, I. 1997, Astron. J., 114, 1002.
* Zaritsky, D. 1999, Astron. J., 118, 2824.


format: text

text:
# Scientific impact of large telescopes

## 1 Introduction

New telescopes are funded on the basis of the expected yield in terms of new science, so it is of interest to compare the current scientific impact of different kinds of telescope, e.g. small vs large, optical vs radio, ground-based vs space. Scientific impact can be measured in a number of ways, including (1) counting published papers, (2) counting publications in high-impact journals, and (3) counting citations to published papers. (1) Counts of papers are easy to make, and several observatories maintain lists of papers based on data obtained with their telescopes, but such counts give equal credit to papers of different scientific merit. (2) Alternatively, one can look at the origin of only the highest-cited papers, or of papers appearing in journals with the highest impact, but the statistical noise is then higher. Lamb (1990) used this approach to chart the changing strength of biological research in different countries. (3) Citation counts provide a fairer measure of the amount of interest generated by papers, and are often used to assess the performance of individuals and organisations, but suffer from a number of biases:
$``$ Geographical bias arises from the tendency of each community to over-cite its own results e.g. through reading and citing national journals (Abt & Liu 1989, Schoonbaert & Roelants 1998), or e.g. through prefentially citing results first heard at regional conferences.
$``$ Language bias arises from the tendency of English-speaking scientists not to read or cite papers written in other languages (noted e.g. by Rees 1997) and, more subtly, from citation errors (Abt 1992, Kotiaho et al 1999) which may cause non-English citations to be missed more often by automatic searches.
$``$ Different scientific disciplines cite at different rates (Abt 1987), and this may be true of different sub-disciplines within astronomy as well. Also, minority fields may be under-cited, and popular topics over-cited, relative to real scientific impact.
$``$ High citation rates for technical papers may reflect usefulness rather than scientific impact.
$``$ Self-citations (Trimble 1986) are included in citation databases, although for highly-cited papers they are only a small fraction of the total. Mutual-citation networks (Coghlan 1991) can also bias the statistics.
Another disadvantage of citation statistics is the long time lag between data being taken at the telescope, and citations being made. Citation rates peak about 5 years after publication, according to Abt (1998), and it might take much longer for the significance of seminal results to be widely recognised.

Finally, scientific impact is not the only measure of success for a telescope. Continued funding, whether by the taxpayer or from private sources, depends in part on public interest in individual telescopes, as reflected e.g. in articles in popular journals.

### 1.1 Previous studies

Abt (1985) compared counts of citations of papers generated by two telescopes run by national observatories (the CTIO and KPNO 4-m) with those from two telescopes run by private observatories (the Lick 3-m and Palomar 5-m), and found them to be statistically indistinguishable.

Trimble (1995) compared the impacts of large US optical telescopes, using the 1993 citation rates of papers published in 1990-91, and extended this analysis in Trimble (1996) to include 29 telescopes worldwide. The telescopes yielding the most citations were, in decreasing order, the AAT 3.9-m, CTIO 4-m, KPNO 4-m, CFHT 3.6-m, Palomar 5-m and Isaac Newton 2.5-m (see Table 4 for a list of abbreviations), with a factor of 2 between the first and sixth ranked.

Leverington (1996) looked at samples of the 15% most-cited papers in ApJ and MNRAS taken every 4 years between 1958 - 1994, and found the six most productive ground-based optical telescopes to be the Palomar 5-m, AAT, Lick 3-m, KPNO 4-m, CTIO 4-m and Palomar Schmidt. The VLA, and the Einstein, IUE, CGRO and ROSAT satellites were comparably productive. He found that paper counts for space telescopes peak about 4 years after launch, and fall to half that rate about 9 years after launch. In Leverington (1997a), he showed that 4-m-class ground-based telescopes were about 50% more cost-effective (in terms of cost per paper) than 2-m-class telescopes. Leverington (1997b) extended this analysis to radio and space telescopes, finding that ground-based optical telescopes were (up to 1994) 2 - 3 times as cost-effective as space telescopes. HST appears particularly inefficient when judged by this metric, but as Pasachoff (1997) pointed out, this may highlight the limitations of paper-counting rather than indicate a poor return on investment.

Gopal-Krishna & Barve (1998) analysed astronomy papers published in Nature 1993-5 and found that of the 51 based on data from ground-based optical telescopes, 45% used only data from telescopes with mirror diameter $`<`$ 2.5 m. They concluded that much front-rank science is still done by modest-sized telescopes, and that the productive life of optical telescopes is long.

Bergeron & Grothkopf (1999) ranked selected telescopes by publication counts, and found the order for 1997/8 to be WHT, ESO 3.6-m, NTT, AAT, ESO 2.2-m, INT, CFHT, CTIO 4-m, KPNO 4-m.

Massey et al (2000) used counts of papers from the KPNO 4-m and WIYN telescopes to compare the scientific impact of classical and queue observing, and found no evidence that the latter has higher impact.

Citation analyses of the productivity of US, UK and Dutch astronomers of different standing were made by Trimble (1993a), Trimble (1993b) and Spruit (1996) respectively.

### 1.2 This paper

We made two independent analyses of the scientific impact of telescopes of different sizes and types. (1) For a citations-based metric, we drew on a list of the 125 most-cited astronomy papers published in each year 1991-8 (1000 papers in all), calculating the fraction of citations attributable to papers based on data from each telescope. (2) For a metric which is free of some of the biases affecting citation counts, and which responds faster to scientific trends (but which may still be affected by regional and subject biases), we analysed counts of papers in the journal Nature, to which much of the best science is submitted. Nature has the highest impact factor (citations/article) of any journal, about 8 times greater than that of MNRAS or ApJ. In addition, for a metric reflecting public interest, we counted mentions in the journal Sky & Telescope.

Throughout, we use the word ‘impact’ (unless otherwise qualified) to refer to the normalised fraction of citations to the 1000 most-cited papers.

## 2 Data

A list of the 125 most-cited astronomy/space papers for each year 1991-8, 1000 papers in all, was obtained from David Pendlebury of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia.

The ISI list covers 21 journals, including A&A, A&AS, ApJ, ApJS, AJ, ARA&A, MNRAS, Nature, PASP, Science, and Solar Physics (using the standard abbreviations). For each paper the list gives the name of the first author, an abbreviated title, and the count of citations to that paper up to June 1999. We added the names of the telescopes which furnished the data on which each paper was based, and a subject code: sun, solar system, exoplanets, cool stars, hot stars (including gamma-ray bursts), the Galaxy, galaxies, active galaxies or cosmology. 450 of the 1000 papers were not classified by telescope, being theoretical (27%), or reviews (6%) or using data from many ($`>`$ 5) telescopes (8%) or telescopes which could not be identified (5%). The fraction of theoretical papers is similar to that found by Abt (1993) for US astronomical journals as a whole, 28%. Citations of reviews comprise about 1% of all citations (Abt 1995).

The number of citations decreases with increasing year of publication (Fig. 1, see also Abt 1981), e.g. the 20th ranked paper of 1998 has only 26 citations, whereas the 20th ranked in 1991 has 158. In order to give equal weight to similarly-ranked papers published in different years, we expressed the citation count for each paper as a fraction of the total of citations for the 125 top papers published that year. With this normalisation, the highest-cited paper of 1991-8 is that by Smoot et al (1992) (COBE results).

For each telescope, we summed the number of papers, and calculated the average citation fraction, for the periods 1991-4, 1995-8 and 1991-8. About 1/3 of the observational papers are based on data from more than one telescope (this figure rises to 2/3 for papers based on data from 4-m telescopes). In each of these cases, the count of papers for each telescope $`i`$ was incremented by a weight $`w_i`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }w_i`$ = 1, and where the relative weights used for different types of telescope were 1 for 1-m ground-based optical/IR, 4 for 2-m, 10 for 4-m, 50 for 10-m, 10 for sub-mm, 10 for radio, 100 for HST, and 30 for other space telescopes. E.g. if a paper used data from a 4-m class telescope and from ASCA (space telescope), the count of papers for the 4-m telescope was incremented by 0.25, that of ASCA by 0.75 (and similarly for the citation count). The relative weights of optical ground-based telescopes were estimated assuming that scientific impact $``$ collecting area, justified by examination of Fig. 2. The relative weights of ground-based optical and other telescopes were based on average impacts deduced from Fig. 3. Initially, the counts were calculated with all weights set to 1. The weights were then estimated from Figs. 2 and 3 and the analysis repeated, this time with weighting. The new versions of Figs. 2 and 3 were then found to be consistent with the applied weighting. It should be emphasised that that changing all the weights to 1 significantly changes the counts for only a few small telescopes. The weights were used principally to avoid over-estimation of the contribution from 1-m telescopes, since these are often cited in conjunction with larger telescopes. The other conclusions of this paper are not affected by the choice of weighting.

For none of the large ground-based or space telescopes are the counts dominated by citations to only one or two papers. Nor are the citation statistics much affected by technical papers and catalogues receiving unusually large numbers of citations. A rare example is Landolt’s (1992) paper on photometric standards, the second most-cited paper of that year, which accounts for the high 1991-4 impact of the CTIO 1-m.

Impacts as measured by counts of papers in the ISI database, and counts of citations to those papers, are similar, since there is only a weak dependence of citation count on rank in the ISI database (e.g. a factor of two between 20th and 125th ranked).

We made a similar analysis of the 452 observational astronomy/space papers (including letters, articles and reviews) published in Nature during the 10 years 1989-98, again distributing counts between telescopes where more than one contributed to a given paper. The number of astronomy papers published in Nature each year did not change significantly during this period. The slightly earlier start date than for the citations analysis allows coverage of a similar sample of new science, since publication in Nature is rapid. Approximately 100 of the Nature papers appear also in the sample of the most-cited 1000 papers.

Finally, in order to gauge public interest in different telescopes, we counted mentions in the ‘News Notes’ section of Sky & Telescope during 1989-98.

## 3 Results

For each telescope, counts of papers from the 1000 most-cited, average citation fractions (to these papers) for 1991-4 and 1995-8, and counts of papers in Nature and of mentions in Sky & Telescope are given in Tables 1 (ground-based optical), 2 (other ground-based) and 3 (space). The tables include all telescopes with a total of more than 1.0 paper in the top-cited 1000, or in the Nature sample, or generating more than 0.1% of citations in either period. For reference, Table 1 also lists all ground-based optical (non-military) telescopes with primary-mirror diameter $`>`$ 3.5 m which had been commissioned by 1996. The numbers of theoretical and review papers (and citations to them) are included at the bottom of Table 1. The counts in Tables 1 - 3 are sums of fractions (as discussed in Section 2 above). Fractional statistical errors on the telescope citation counts are thus $`<1/\sqrt{N}`$, where $`N`$ is the number of papers to which citations are made.

The relationship between 1995-8 citation count and telescope diameter for optical telescopes is shown in Fig. 2. A comparison between 1991-4 and 1995-8 counts, for all telescopes, is shown in Fig. 3. The fractional contribution of different types of telescope to the totals, for each period, is shown in Fig. 4. The ground-based optical telescopes can conveniently be divided into four classes: 1-m (diameter $`<`$ 2 m); 2-m (2.0 $``$ diameter $`<`$ 3.0 m); 4-m (3.0 $``$ diameter $`<`$ 7 m, mostly 3.5 - 4.2 m); and 10-m (mirror diameter $``$ 7 m, i.e. Keck I/II, the only ones in this class commissioned by 1996).

Of the 14 4-m-class optical telescopes (i.e. excluding IRTF, UKIRT), 8 have similar 1995-8 impacts, between 0.55 and 0.95% of citations. They are the AAT 4-m, CTIO 4-m, ESO 4-m, Hale 5-m (50 years old), Lick 3-m (40 years old), KPNO 4-m, MMT 6-m and WHT 4-m telescopes. We confirm Abt’s (1985) finding that the impacts of privately run telescopes (Hale, Lick) are not significantly different from those of national facilities. The CFHT 4-m has particularly high impact, with 1.8% of citations. The WHT ranks second. The CFHT citations are to a total of 18 papers, 10 with first authors at Canadian institutions, 6 US, 1 French, and 1 UK. The Calar Alto 4-m yields a factor of $``$ 4 fewer citations than the average. The ARC and WIYN 4-m telescopes have low impact, perhaps because they were not commissioned until 1993, 1994, and citations have yet to appear in the literature. The other telescopes were all in regular use by 1990 (MMT was in its multi-mirror incarnation throughout this period). No papers from the Mt. Pastukhov 6-m telescope appear in the citations database. In Fig. 3, $``$ 0.2 of the scatter in log10 is due to small-number statistics, but the impact of several telescopes has changed significantly between 1991-4 and 1995-8 (Figs. 5, 6).

The Keck I 10-m telescope, which has been in use since 1993, has an impact of 6% of all 1995-8 citations, 8 times that of typical 4-m telescopes. This factor is similar to the ratio of collecting areas. The (noisier) statistics for Keck II are consistent with similar impact per unit time. 29 of the 34 cited Keck papers are on extragalactic topics. No papers from other 8-m - 10-m telescopes appear in the citations database (most were commissioned after 1998).

The mean citation impact of 2-m class telescopes is a factor $``$ 4 lower than that of 4-m telescopes, again reflecting the ratio of collecting areas. Comparison of individual telescopes is difficult because the numbers involved are small (Table 1).

Little can be said about the mean impact of 1-m telescopes because of poor statistics, but the distribution in Fig. 2 is consistent with mean impact being roughly proportional to collecting area. Citation counts may underestimate the scientific usefulness of small telescopes because they often provide uncited survey material on which are based discoveries (e.g. of high-redshift objects) made by large telescopes.

The 1-m and 2-m telescopes together contributed one half as much science (4.4%) as the 4-m telescopes (8.5%) during 1995-8 (the ratio was similar in 1991-4; Fig 4). Three of the top 40 most-cited papers are based on data from 1-m telescopes only, including two from the microlensing survey carried out with the Mt. Stromlo 1.3-m (hence its high impact, Figs. 2, 3). Extrasolar planets were also discovered using a small telescope: the Haute Provence 1.9-m (Mayor & Queloz 1995, the 9th most-cited paper of 1995).

The capital costs of telescopes of primary mirror diameter $`D`$ scale approximately as $`D^{2.6}`$, for $`D<`$ 7 m (Schmidt-Kaler & Rucks, 1997). 8-m - 10-m telescopes currently cost about 1/3 as much as predicted by this scaling. Running costs dominate total cost, and scale as a similar (slightly smaller) power of $`D`$ as do capital costs (Abt 1980, although he only explored the relation for $`D<`$ 2.1 m). The year-2000 capital costs of 2-m (median size 2.5 m), 4-m and 10-m class telescopes are $``$ $`\$`$5M, 18M and 80M, while the citation rates are in the approximate ratio 1:3:25 (Fig. 2). Therefore 2-m telescopes are roughly as cost-effective as 4-m telescopes. Keck I (10 m) is twice as cost-effective, but is the first of its size, and may have a bigger scientific impact than any of the 11 8-m - 10-m telescopes now coming online: 4 VLT, 2 Gemini, Subaru, LBT, HET, SALT and Grantecan.

The citation counts for the UKIRT 3.8-m and IRTF 3.0-m IR telescopes are a factor $``$ 3 lower than for the ground-based 4-m optical telescopes, perhaps reflecting a smaller user community (fewer citers), see later discussion of Fig. 7.

The sub-mm telescope JCMT generated 1.3% of 1995-8 citations, nearly twice as much as a typical 4-m, due largely to 6 1997/8 papers based on data from SCUBA, the innovative sub-mm imager. No papers from ESO’s SEST appear in the citations database. The mm telescope IRAM is highly productive, with 0.8% of citations.

The VLA generated 1.5% of 1995-8 citations. It cost $``$ $`\$`$80M in the 1970s. All other radio telescopes combined generated 0.6% of 1995-8 citations (but 1.4% in 1991-4). Radio telescopes are more prominent in the counts of Nature papers (see discussion below of Fig. 7). No papers from the ATCA, Effelsberg, MOST or WSRT radio telescopes appear in the citations database. The VLBI observations were typically made with $``$ 10 - 20 telescopes across the globe, but the contributing telescopes are often not identified in the published papers.

HST, launched in 1990, generates 15 times as many citations as a 4-m telescope (11% of the 1995-8 total), but cost $``$ 100 times as much, $``$ $`\$`$2000M (a lot more, if the cost of servicing missions is taken into account). ASCA, BeppoSax, CGRO, COBE, Hipparcos, ROSAT all yielded citation fractions between 2.6 and 3.8% of the total, $``$ 4 times higher than a 4-m telescope, but cost $``$ 15 - 30 times as much. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of ground-based and space telescopes is not straightforward. Some space telescopes (e.g. COBE, Hipparcos) are launched to solve a specific scientific problem which can’t be tackled from the ground and they may have a short-lived community of citers, so it’s not clear that citation counts are a fair measure of scientific impact. Others, such as HST, compete more directly with ground-based facilities (particularly now, with the advent of adaptive optics), and can be used to tackle similar problems, so a citation-based comparison of cost-effectiveness is fairer. In HST’s case, the cost per citation is probably $``$ 10 - 20 times that for a ground-based optical telescope. The citation shares of ASCA, CGRO, COBE and HST peaked respectively 3, 2, 3 and 6 years after launch.

In Fig. 7 the citation counts are compared with counts of papers in Nature. Most of the telescopes contributing more than one paper to the top-cited 1000 have also generated Nature papers. There is a positive correlation between citation fraction and Nature counts, and a line of slope 1 is shown. However the constant of proportionality is different for different kinds of telescope. The line shows the approximate relation for ground-based optical telescopes. The ratio between citation fraction and number of Nature papers is $``$ twice as high for space telescopes as for optical telescopes. For radio telescopes, the ratio is lower than for optical telescopes. For the VLA, the ratio is a factor of $``$ 3 lower, while for ATCA, Effelsberg, MOST, Parkes, VLBA, VLBI and WSRT, the factor is $`>`$ 10. This is not due to a regional bias in publishing practice, because the counts for optical telescopes from all countries cluster closely about the line in Fig. 7. If one assumes that publication in Nature is a reliable measure of scientific worth, this result indicates that citation counts undervalue radio work relative to optical work (alternatively, radio work may be over-represented in Nature). This highlights the risk of incurring metric-specific biases when comparing the scientific impacts of telescopes of different kinds.

For IR, sub-mm and mm telescopes (UKIRT, IRTF, JCMT, IRAM, Nobeyama, Owens Valley), the relation between citation fraction and Nature counts lies between those of optical and radio telescopes.

In terms of Nature papers, the most productive 4-m class optical telescope during 1989-98 was the WHT (11.5 papers), followed by the AAT (8.5).

Counts of mentions in Sky & Telescope and counts of papers in Nature are proportional (with a tighter correlation than that of Fig. 7), suggesting that the editors of Nature and of Sky & Telescope agree on what makes interesting science.

The citations database can also be used to break down scientific impact by region (of institution hosting first author), subject and journal. 61% of the citations to the 1000 most-cited papers are to papers with first authors at US institutions, 11% UK, 20% European (non-UK) and 8% other (mainly Australia, Canada, Japan). A detailed breakdown by country is reported elsewhere (Sánchez & Benn, in preparation). Breakdowns by subject and by journal are given below.

### 3.1 Citation counts by subject

Counts of citations to the 1000 most-cited papers, broken down by subject and date, are shown in Table 5. Papers on hot stars, galaxies and cosmology account for most of the citations to papers in the top 1000. There was a significant decline of interest in AGN between 1991-4 and 1995-8. 80% of the solar-system papers (excluding those on the sun) were published from the USA. Regionally, citations to work on cool stars, hot stars and our galaxy, each break down approximately as: 62% to papers from the USA, 2% UK and 36% other countries. For papers on galaxies, the split is 56% USA, 21% UK, 23% other. For papers on AGN and cosmology the split is 65% USA, 12% UK, 23% other. The USA is relatively strongest in cosmology, the UK in studies of galaxies, other countries (mainly Europe) in studies of cool stars.

For the 4-m telescopes whose users are predominantly from North America, 98 of the 134 cited papers (73%) are on extragalactic topics. For the UK (WHT, AAT), the fraction is 28 out of 33 (85%). At the 4-m telescopes whose users are predominantly from continental Europe, i.e. the Calar Alto 3.5-m, NTT 3.5-m and ESO 3.6-m, only 8 of the 18 cited papers (44%) are extragalactic. These regional (or cultural) differences in preferred subject area are also reflected in the extragalactic fraction in different journals: 62% for ApJ, 83% for MNRAS, 30% for A&A, 47% for Nature. If galactic and extragalactic astronomers had different citation practices, these differences could induce a regional bias in the citation counts. To test this, we counted the number of references in 25 of the papers in the database from each of the US, extragalactic and European (non-UK), stellar communities. The extragalactic papers had between 37 and 79 references (range excluding smallest and largest 1/6, i.e. approximating $`\pm `$ 1 standard deviation for a gaussian), the galactic ones 24 - 78. This suggests that any difference in citing rate between the two communities is small, and that the regional difference of subject area won’t bias the citation count.

The subject breakdown for Nature is broadly similar to that given in Table 5, except that a larger fraction ($``$ 20%) is devoted to solar-system work.

### 3.2 Citation counts by journal

Counts of citations to the 1000 most-cited papers, broken down by journal and date, are shown in Table 6. The US journals (ApJ/S, AJ, PASP) receive 60% of the citations, MNRAS 9%, A&A/S 10%, Nature 10%, Science 2%. Most of the journals publish papers on a broad range of astronomical themes, but 22 of the 26 papers from Science are on solar-system work (nearly all based on data from space probes). Most of the technical papers are published in ApJS, A&AS or PASP.

The citation shares of most of the journals have not changed significantly with time. The ApJS share dropped from 10 to 2% between 1991 and 1998. Nature’s share of the top 10 papers each year was 2% in 1984-9 (1 paper), 20% in 1990-8 (17 papers). Since there are $``$ 50 space and astronomy papers published each year in Nature, 4% of them are amongst the top 10 most-cited. About 5% of the citations in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics are to Nature.

## 4 Conclusions

The scientific impacts of telescopes worldwide have been compared on the basis of their contribution to (a) the 1000 most-cited astronomy/space papers published 1991-8 (citation fraction), and (b) the 452 astronomy/space papers published in Nature 1989-98 (paper count). The conclusions below are subject to the caveats about citation bias made in the introduction.
$``$ During the period 1991-8, approximately 5% of the citations were generated by 1-m and 2-m ground-based optical telescopes, 10% by 4-m, 4% by Keck I/II, 4% by sub-mm and radio, 8% by HST and 23% by other space telescopes. Most of the remainder were to theoretical papers and reviews. The strong showing by small optical telescopes suggests that cutting-edge science doesn’t always require the largest aperture available, and this augurs well for the continued scientific impact of 4-m telescopes in the era of 8-m telescopes.
$``$ Most 4-m optical telescopes have citation-fraction and Nature-paper impacts within 30% of the median for telescopes of this size. For 1995-8, CFHT is the most-cited (and joint-third most prominent in Nature). WHT is the most prominent in Nature (and the second most-cited).
$``$ Citation counts correlate with counts of papers published in Nature, but the ratio is a factor 3 smaller for radio telescopes than for optical telescopes, suggesting either that the former are under-cited relative to scientific impact, or that radio work is over-represented in the pages of Nature.
$``$ The citation impact of ground-based optical telescopes is proportional to collecting area and approximately proportional to capital cost. Space telescopes are less cost-effective in terms of citation counts.
$``$ There is a strong correlation between counts of papers in Nature and counts of mentions of a telescope in Sky & Telescope.
$``$ 61% of citations are to papers with first authors at US institutions, 11% UK, 20% European, 8% other.
$``$ 52% of citations are to extragalactic papers, 34% stellar/galactic, 7% solar-system, 7% technical. At 4-m telescopes whose users are predominantly from North America or the UK, 75% of the cited papers are on extragalactics topics. For European (non-UK) telescopes, the fraction is 44%. The citations to ApJ are 62% extragalactic; to MNRAS 83%; to A&A 30%.
$``$ The shares of the citation count by journal are: ApJ 44%, MNRAS 9%, A&A/S 10%, Nature 11%, others 29%.

Acknowledgments
The scans of Nature and Sky & Telescope were made by 1999 ING summer students Ed Hawkins, Samantha Rix and Dan Bramich. We are grateful to the ING and IAC librarians, Javier Mendez and Monique Gomez, for their help, to Paul Rees for advice on telescope costs, and to Rene Rutten, Danny Lennon and Dennis Crabtree (the referee) for helpful suggestions.


text:
# A Dynamical System with Two Strange Attractors.

### Introduction.

The Rössler  and Lorenz  equations are textbook examples of chaotic dynamical systems. Each is three-dimensional, continuous-time, smooth and autonomous, with a single strange attractor for certain parameter values.

This paper draws attention to a six-dimensional hybrid with two coexistent attractors, one or both of which may be strange.

The attractors evidently stem from the constituent Rössler and Lorenz systems, but each requires and occupies the larger phase space.

The new system may well have potential for physical modelling, but its discovery is the result of curiosity.

### Construction.

Start with the Lorenz equations

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma (yx)`$
$`\dot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`(rz)xy`$ (1)
$`\dot{z}`$ $`=`$ $`xy\beta z`$
in a chaotic regime with

$$\sigma =10,r=28,\beta =\frac{8}{3}.$$
(2)
Fig. 1(a) shows a corresponding solution trajectory on the familiar \[3, p. 283\] two-winged strange attractor.

Consider replacing $`z`$ on the right-hand side in the last component by some external excitation $`w(t)`$:

$$xy\beta zxy\beta w.$$
(3)
The response may be regular or irregular, depending on $`w`$.

For instance, with $`w=\mathrm{cos}t`$, there is steady oscillation about values

$$x=y=0,z=r=28.$$

If instead the excitation $`w(t)`$ is an isolated pulse then the response is a sudden excursion of $`z(t)`$ followed later by sudden relaxation — each change accompanied by spikes of $`x(t)`$ and $`y(t)`$.

Now, the chaotic Rössler system

$`\dot{u}`$ $`=`$ $`vw`$
$`\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`u+av`$ (4)
$`\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`b+(uc)w`$
with parameters

$$a=0.2,b=0.2,c=5.7$$
(5)
has solution trajectories on a well-known \[3, p. 287\] twisted-band strange attractor — as Fig. 1(b) shows.

Evidently its third component $`w(t)`$ provides an irregular sequence of isolated pulses. Such a sequence, via eq. (3), provokes the Lorenz $`(x,y,z)`$ variables into ragged oscillation about $`(0,0,r)`$.

This chaotic ringing, however, does not have composite properties. For delay-coordinate reconstruction  from $`z(t)`$ reveals a Rössler-like twisted-band attractor in three embedding dimensions. Lorenz adds nothing.

Higher-dimensional and richer structure is possible — but needs feedback from Lorenz to Rössler. And one amoung many options is to mix the oscillations of the $`x`$$`y`$ pair into those of $`u`$ and $`v`$.

Experiments eventually lead to linear driving of $`v`$ by $`x`$ and $`y`$ — with further linear coupling from $`u`$ to $`x`$ — as follows:

$`\dot{u}`$ $`=`$ $`vw`$
$`\dot{v}`$ $`=`$ $`x+ay`$
$`\dot{w}`$ $`=`$ $`b+(uc)w`$
$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma (yx)+\mu u`$ (6)
$`\dot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`(rz)xy`$
$`\dot{z}`$ $`=`$ $`xy\beta w.`$
This is the system of interest. With other parameters fixed, adjustments of $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma `$ give one or two strange attractors, or a cycle plus a strange attractor, or two cycles, or a single cycle.

### Properties.

If parameters $`r`$, $`\sigma `$, $`\beta `$, $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ take the values in eqs. (2) and (5), phase-space volumes shrink rapidly.

For $`\sigma =10`$, the system of eq. (6) has two coexisting attractors if $`\mu `$ is between about $`0`$ and $`13`$. They have the following properties.

* The two attractors centre approximately around $`u=x=y=0`$ and $`z=r=28`$ but are displaced in $`v`$ and $`w`$. See Figs. 2 and 3. Rectangular phase-space boxes just sufficient to enclose them differ in volume by a factor of typically $`10^5`$.
* The larger attractor exists for $`\mu 13`$, where it is always strange. Its toadstool-like $`xyz`$ projection — Fig. 2(a) — is reminiscent of the Lorenz attractor in Fig. 1(a). For this reason it is labelled $`L`$.
* The smaller one exists for $`\mu 0`$ and is strange for $`\mu 3.26`$ — see Fig. 3. As $`\mu `$ increases beyond $`3.26`$ (through 50 and beyond) it alternates between regular — i.e., a cycle — and strange, bifurcating by period-doubling. This parallels the behaviour of the Lorenz attractor as $`r`$ increases .
* Its twisted-band $`uvw`$ projection — Fig. 3(b) — persists with changing $`\mu `$. Because it is similar to the Rössler attractor in Fig. 1(b) this attractor is labelled $`R`$.
* The two attractors have $`v_L<v_R`$ and $`w_L>w_R`$ and, where they coexist, trajectories move much faster round $`L`$ than around $`R`$ — see Fig. 4.
* Fig. 4 also shows more variability of period and amplitude on $`R`$ than on $`L`$, and trajectories on $`R`$ and $`L`$ with $`\mu =1`$ are found to have maximum Lyapunov exponent of about $`1.4`$ and $`0.45`$ respectively.
* Both attractors, where they are strange, are higher-dimensional objects. For delay-coordinate reconstruction  of $`R`$ and $`L`$ from samples of components $`u,v,\mathrm{},z`$ shows that they need about 5 embedding dimensions.

These properties depend in different ways on $`r`$, $`\beta `$, $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`\sigma `$.

* A change of $`r`$, for instance, shifts $`R`$ and $`L`$ bodily along the $`z`$-axis. And while minor variations in $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`\beta `$ affect other numerical details, there are larger changes with $`\sigma `$.
* With $`\mu =1`$, $`L`$ is a cycle for $`2.8\sigma 4.5`$ — and then $`R`$ is also a cycle for $`\sigma 3.7`$ — see Fig. 5.
* As Fig. 5(a) suggests, both cycles bifurcate to strange attractors by period-doubling. In this regime they overlap in all but their $`v`$ component — they still have $`v_L<v_R`$.

Note that when $`R`$ and $`L`$ vanish with parameter changes it is because their basins of attraction shrink. No examples have been found where they coalesce.

Thorough exploration of six-dimensional phase space, varying seven parameters, is a formidable task. However, investigation of the $`\mu `$-$`\sigma `$ plane is promising, and some further illustrations are available elsewhere .

### Conclusion.

As it stands, the system of eq. (6) is no more than an interesting construction without direct physical origin. It is just one in a range of possible Rössler-Lorenz hybrids.

Its immediate value is to show that six-dimensional phase space is roomy enough to accommodate two attractors not connected by (e.g.) symmetry — and that all combinations of chaotic and regular oscillation may coexist.

Dynamical models that use in the order of six effective dimensions occur in for instance physiology (e.g. ), meteorology (e.g. ) and economics (e.g. ) — where the possibility of such coexistent modes could be very interesting.

### Acknowledgement.

The trajectory calculations used XPPAUT . Lyapunov exponents and embedding dimension were determined with NDT . The authors are applauded for the functionality and availability of their software.

## Figure captions

(a) Solution of the Lorenz system eq. (1) with parameters as in eq. (2) — a trajectory on its two-winged strange attractor. (b) Solution of the Rössler system eq. (4) with parameters as in eq. (5) — a trajectory on its twisted-band strange attractor.

System of eq. (6) at $`\mu =1`$ with other parameters as in eqs. (2) and (5). The $`L`$-attractor — (a) $`xyz`$-projection of a trajectory; (b) $`uvw`$-projection of a trajectory.

System of eq. (6) at $`\mu =1`$ with other parameters as in eqs. (2) and (5). The $`R`$-attractor — (a) $`xyz`$-projection of a trajectory; (b) $`uvw`$-projection of a trajectory.

System of eq. (6) at $`\mu =1`$ with other parameters as in eqs. (2) and (5). Component $`z(t)`$ of trajectories on (a) the $`L`$-attractor and (b) the $`R`$-attractor. Compare the time scales and variability of period and amplitude.

System of eq. (6) at $`\mu =1`$ with $`\sigma =3.7`$ and otherwise parameters as in eqs. (2) and (5). (a) The $`L`$-attractor — $`xyz`$-projection of a trajectory. (b) The $`R`$-attractor — $`uvw`$-projection of a trajectory. Both attractors are cycles, and $`L`$ is doubled.