by studying variable stars in the small magellanic cloud ( smc ) , henrietta leavitt discovered a linear relation between the pulsation period and magnitudes of @xmath2 cepheids , in the sense of that the brightest cepheids have longer periods @xcite .
this correlation , commonly called period - luminosity ( pl ) relation , was lately renamed as the leavitt law ( ll ) in honor to its discoverer @xcite .
this linear statistical correlation is a cornerstone in the measurement of the extragalactic distances using stellar standard candles .
however , in order to obtain an accurate calibration of this relation , it is important to establish the effects of non - linearities , metallicity and companions on it , as it is mentioned by @xcite ; as well as other effects such as cepheids showing the hertzsprung progression and cepheids exhibiting changes in period .
a brief literature review of these issues is presented below .
* i ) the non - linearity effect : * the first works in this direction began twenty five years after the discovery by henrietta leavitt . in a study of the shape of the pl relation of nearby galaxies
, kukarkin found that this relation has a break around @xmath3 d ( @xcite ; @xcite ) .
three decades later , sandage & tammann ( 1968 , 1969 ) found evidence of curvature in the pl relation , and afterward , @xcite confirmed the break of the pl relation in @xmath3 d. @xcite confirmed again this result based on the statistical @xmath4-test . in the last years , the following studies have confirmed the non - linearity of the ll without proposing an explanation for it : the testimator method @xcite , the approaches of linear regression residuals and additive models @xcite , the multi - phase pl relations @xcite and the multiple least - squares regression @xcite .
* ii ) the metallicity effect : * by using non - linear convective pulsating models , @xcite and @xcite studied synthetic multiband pl relations of populations of cepheids of different chemical compositions , uniformly distributed over the instability strip .
the masses of these stars follow the law @xmath5 , and are distributed in the range of @xmath6 @xmath7 . for a wide range of log @xmath8 , those authors found clear evidence that the optical ll is better represented by a quadratic relationship than by a linear one , showing a dependence with the metallicity and the intrinsic width of the instability strip . for ir bands they showed
that the ll is better fitted by a linear function showing a slightly dependence on the metallicity .
@xcite and @xcite found strong evidence in favor of the universality of the optical pl relation , in the metallicity range from @xmath9 dex to @xmath10 dex . @xcite and @xcite found that the slopes of the pl relations in _
vi@xmath11 _ do not change significantly between the environments of the milky way and the lmc .
* iii ) the companion effects : * physically bound companions to cepheids are difficult to detect at distances of tens of kpc . to produce a detectable effect on the light curve ,
the eclipses should be deep enough and a significant number of points associated with the eclipses should be observed .
the first condition is reached with an adequate combination of radius , luminosity and effective temperature of the primary and secondary stars , jointly with the appropriate inclination and mass ratio of the system .
these eclipsing systems exhibit light curves similar to those of cepheids , showing besides dispersed points below them , which are a signal of the eclipses ( @xcite , fig . 7 ) .
when the cepheid light curve is subtracted , it emerges a typical eclipsing signal ( soszyski et al .
2008 , fig .
@xcite claim to detect a few cepheids in eclipsing systems in the galactic bulge and the magellanic clouds , using a random forest supervised algorithm over the macho catalog of variable stars .
however , due to these variables do not show a clear period of eclipses , it is difficult to affirm that they are binaries .
it is very likely that these stars are blended with near neighbors .
@xcite reported few magellanic clouds cepheids that could be blended , and also others that could be members of binary systems .
detection of cepheid systems whose light curves exhibit eclipsing variations is too important : if the cepheid is a member of a physical binary system , it is possible to determine dynamical masses , radii and distance with a very high accuracy . until now
, spectroscopic studies of double - lined eclipsing binary systems in the lmc have been made by the optical gravitational lensing experiment ( ogle ) in the systems : ogle - lmc - cep-@xmath12 @xcite , ogle - lmc - cep-@xmath13 @xcite , ogle - lmc - cep-@xmath14 @xcite , ogle - lmc - cep-@xmath15 @xcite and ogle - lmc@xmath16 ( @xcite , @xcite ) a system detected in the ogle gaia south ecliptic pole field .    *
iv ) the hertzsprung progression effect : * inspecting light curves of @xmath17 cepheids , @xcite found a relation between the position of a bump feature in the light curve and the pulsation period .
later studies confirmed that this bump feature is present in the light and radial curves of fundamental - mode classical cepheids whose periods are in the range of @xmath18 d @xcite .
this feature is present in the descending branch for pulsations in the range of @xmath19 d. for longer periods , this feature is observed in the ascending branch and disappears for periods longer than @xmath20 d ( @xcite , @xcite ) .
the amplitude bump grows when the period increases , reaching its maximum value for periods near to the maximum light around @xmath21 d. for longer periods , the amplitude bump decreases until it vanishes @xcite .
+ there are two models that explain some of the properties of the observed bump feature . the first one , called the echo mechanism , proposes radial - pressure waves generated in the he ii ionization region @xcite .
the traveling inward wave is reflected in the core and reaches the surface one period later , leading to the formation of the bump @xcite .
however , this model has two points to solve : the contradiction with the acoustic - ray formalism ( @xcite ; aikawa & whitney 1984 , 1985 ) and the difficulty of predicting adequately the christy wave velocity near to the stellar surface ( @xcite , @xcite ) .
the second model , known as the resonance mechanism , proposes that the feature bump arises from a resonance between the fundamental mode and the second overtone @xcite .
by using numerical simulations @xcite studied the nonlinear saturation of the acoustic modes excited by the @xmath22mechanism .
they found that this @xmath23:@xmath24 resonance causes that the bump appears in the ascending branch for @xmath25 .    *
v ) the changing period effect : * the long - term observations detect several thousand oscillation cycles for short period cepheids . this allows to determine , with very high accuracy , changing periods . for the long period cepheids , it is no possible to reach this accuracy , because the data have in the worse cases of sampling , tens of cycles .
there are three scenarios explaining different characteristics of the period change rates .
the first one proposes that the evolutionary changes on the stellar structure of cepheids crossing the instability strip are responsible of the period change rates ( @xcite ; @xcite ) .
the second one proposes that the presence of magnetic fields is a possible explanation for the random changing periods exhibited by some cepheids .
the last one suggests that the amplitude and phase variations of cepheids are caused by an analogous to the blazhko effect , exhibited by rr lyr stars @xcite .
@xcite reported a few cepheids that could be exhibit this blazhko effect , being the number of these cepheids larger in the lmc than in the smc . + the period changes should produce a shift of the phase in the light curve , and as a consequence , a higher scatter in the light curve , detectable on years of observations .
a study of @xmath26 lmc cepheids found period changes in @xmath27 of the fundamental mode , and in @xmath28 of the first overtone ( @xcite , table 3 ) . a visual inspection of the light curves of these ogle cepheids shows , for the most of them , a strong scatter of the points as a consequence of the shift phase .
+ since there are a few studies about magnetic fields on cool radial pulsating stars , it is not clear if the nature of these magnetic fields are fossil or are produced as a consequence of the stellar pulsation @xcite .
based on a solar - like magneto - convective cycle , @xcite could explain the observed period change rates of two short period cepheids : polaris and v473 lyr . as the existence of local magnetic fields on the surface of late - type stars causes spots @xcite , @xcite proposed that convective hot spots can be a possible explanation to the random changes in the pulsation period detected in the single cepheid observed by the kepler mission , v1154 cyg .
+ the first detection of magnetic fields in variable stars was made on rr lyr @xcite .
measurements of magnetic fields for cepheid stars began later on .
in particular , for @xmath29 car and @xmath30 cyg there were reported values of @xmath31 g @xcite , and from @xmath32 g to @xmath33 g ( @xcite ; @xcite ) , respectively .
the spectropolarimetric works over the bright bump cepheid @xmath34 aql ( @xmath35 , @xmath36 d ) reported controversial results . while @xcite and @xcite measured periodic variations of the longitudinal magnetic field with an amplitude of tens of gauss , @xcite found a non - significant detection of the longitudinal magnetic field at a level of @xmath3 g. + in order to establish whether or not the effects previously described are influential on the ll , we make a study using statistical techniques .
we start - off , in the second section , with a brief description of the lmc ll and the ogle - ii and ogle - iv cepheid data .
the third section is dedicated to review the statistical theory of the linear regression analysis , relevant for this work .
the fourth section presents the results of applying statistical models in order to obtain optical ll of the lmc and smc .
finally , our main conclusions are given in the fifth section .
ogle - ii and ogle - iv observations of cepheid variables of the lmc and smc galaxies were collected with the @xmath37-m warsaw telescope , at las campanas observatory , chile ( @xcite , @xcite , @xcite ) .
while ogle - ii fundamental mode cepheid catalogs contain 771 and 1319 stars for the lmc and smc , respectively , ogle - iv has a nearly complete collection ( 2429 and 2739 for the lmc and smc , respectively ) , covering practically the whole magellanic system area with the time baseline , a little more than five years .
@xcite .
the slope and zero point of the lmc ll in optical _ vi_-bands were computed by @xcite using ordinary least - squares ( ols ) regression , on ogle - ii fundamental - mode cepheids .
points deviating by more than @xmath38 ( outliers ) were removed by applying the sigma - clipping algorithm @xcite .
udalski realized that standard deviation of residuals of the lmc data was almost two times smaller than that of the smc .
this greater dispersion is caused mainly by the spatial distribution of cepheids in the smc bar , whose thickness is placed along the line - of - sight with a typical depth of @xmath39 mag @xcite .
these facts , and the manner in which the ll of the lmc is much better populated for periods longer than @xmath40 d , suggested udalski to adopt as the universal slope value the one obtained for the lmc , notwithstanding that the number of cepheids in the smc was around twice that of lmc . for ogle - iv lmc cepheids the slope and zero point of the ll were determined in analogous approach , but the smc slope was obtained independently , using only cepheids of this galaxy @xcite .
+ with the aim to establish a possible statistical cause of the non - linearity of the ll , we use the dereddened sample of ogle - ii
. fundamental mode cepheids belonging to the lmc and smc galaxies reported by @xcite and @xcite , as well as the nearly complete collection of ogle - iv magellanic clouds cepheids reported by @xcite .
in this section we summarize the topics of the statistical theory of linear regression analysis , most relevant to this paper .
we start explaining what the outliers and influential points are .
then , we present the theory of ordinary least square method and the conditions to apply it .
next , we describe the statistics tools to identify influential points . then , we present the specification test , which verifies if all variables involved in a statistical problem are adequately included and represented by a proposed model . following , we present the structural break test , which looks for unstable parameters . finally , we present the robust @xmath0-regression that allows to do a linear regression of data with no - gaussian error distribution . the @xmath1-regression is applied in order to get a high breakdown point and fit the models in presence of influential points that are outliers at the same time .
an extended statistical discussion of these topics can be found in @xcite .
some applications in the astronomy context can be found in @xcite .
the most common method to estimate parameters in a linear regression model is ols , based on the gauss - markov theorem .
the model is ( in matrix notation ) : @xmath41 where @xmath42 is the dependent variable vector , @xmath43 is the independent variables matrix , @xmath44 is the parameters vector and @xmath45 is the errors vector .
this theorem states that the ols estimators are the best linear unbiased estimators if the expected value of the errors vector is zero ( @xmath46 ) , the variance of the errors is constant ( @xmath47 ) and the errors are uncorrelated
. it can be shown @xcite that ols estimators ( @xmath48 ) are obtained from : @xmath49    notice that : @xmath50 is the nule vector , @xmath51 the identity matrix and @xmath52 indicates @xmath53 matrix is transposed .    once the model is fitted
the adequacy must be checked .
that is : i ) the error term @xmath45 has a constant variance @xmath54 .
ii ) the errors are uncorrelated .
these items are the gauss - markov theorem assumptions .
iii ) the errors are normally distributed .
this is very important for making hypothesis testing and estimating confidence intervals .
iv ) all the observations have approximately the same weight .
it refers to the fact that it is not desirable that model estimators depend more on few observations than on the majority of them .
this could happen if some observations , called influential points , have a disproportional impact in the ols estimations .
v ) there is no specification problems in the model and there is not a structural break , i.e. the parameters are stable .
it refers to the correct functional form of the model .    after fitting the model
, a residual analysis is made to verify its adequacy .
since the residuals are the difference between the original observed values and their fits , they also measure the variability of the dependent variable which is not explained by the model .
therefore , any violations to the assumptions can be detected by analyzing model residuals .
mainly the analysis on residuals is looking for evidence of : i ) errors come from a distribution with heavier tails than normal .
large departures from normality in the error distribution mean that the _ f- _ and _ t- _ test are not longer valid as well as the confidence interval estimations .
ii ) heteroskedasticity , meaning that the errors do not have constant variance .
iii ) influential points .
iv ) specification problems .
v ) autocorrelated errors . in this study
it is not necessary to check if errors are correlated because the data are not time dependent , i.e. they come from a cross - section in the statistical sense .
+ for checking the error distribution a normal probability quantil - quantil ( @xmath55 ) plot is used .
if all the residuals lie along a line , it means that they come from a normal distribution . for more details
see @xcite .
this plot shows if the distribution has heavier or lighter tails or if it is skewed compared to the normal distribution .    for checking the assumption that errors have constant variance ( homoskedasticity ) the white s test @xcite
is used in the following equation : @xmath56 where @xmath57 is the residual from the linear regression defined as : @xmath58 this test does not make the assumption that errors come from a normal distribution .
its null hypothesis is that @xmath59 for all @xmath60 .
since the pl relation can be modeled as a simple linear regression , the test uses the auxiliary model given by @xmath61 where @xmath62 is the error term and @xmath63 is the number of stars .
it can be shown that white s statistic @xmath64 is asymptotic distributed as @xmath65 with g-1 degrees of freedom , where @xmath63 is the number of observations and @xmath66 is the regression coefficient of determination of the equation ( [ eq5 ] ) . because the auxiliary model ( equation [ eq5 ] ) has three parameters ( @xmath67 ) the @xmath65 has @xmath23 degrees of freedom .
+      outliers are points that have an unusual behavior .
let us imagine a scatter plot , outliers are data points that unusually are located out of the pattern or far from the data cloud .
on the other hand , influential points are those data that have a disproportional impact on ols estimators ( slope and zero point ) . as a result , the model estimators depend more on them than on the majority of data .
let us imagine the scatter plot again , a regression line is fitted with all points .
then we delete a point and fit the regression line once more .
if the regression line obtained after removing the point changes a lot ; the deleted observation is an influential point .
what is a lot ?
statistics helps us in this decision , as we shall describe later .
now , let us imagine the scatter diagram with a far point from the cloud of data points , but located along the regression line . if we delete it , the regression line will not change .
therefore , the point is an outlier but not an influential point , because it affects the @xmath68 coefficient and the ols estimator standard errors , but not the ols regression estimators . on the contrary , if the outlier affects the regression coefficient estimators it is also an influential point .
finally , let us imagine that the point is not an outlier ; however , after deleting it , the new regression fitted - line is very different from the obtained with it .
this means that it is an influential point .
in general , influential points can or can not be outliers .
+ * detection of influential points : * in order to look for influential points cook s distance , _ dffits , dfbetas , covratio _ statistics are commonly used @xcite .
the first of them is defined as follows : @xmath69 basically , it measures the square distance between the ols @xmath44 estimate , based on all observations and ols @xmath70 estimate obtained after deleting the @xmath71 observation , where @xmath72 in equation ( [ eq6 ] ) is the number of parameters in equation ( [ eq3 ] ) , i.e. the number of independent variables plus the zero point .
moreover , @xmath73 is an estimate of the mean square error , defined as follows : @xmath74 observations with large cook s distance affect ols estimates of @xmath44 . to know what is a large cook s distance , @xmath75
is compared to the @xmath76 distribution @xcite .
if the @xmath71 observation has a @xmath77 , it is considered an influential point .
_ dffits _ measures how large is the influence of the @xmath71 observation on its own estimated @xmath78 . in other words , it shows how many standard deviations @xmath78 change due to delete the @xmath71 observation .
it is defined as follows :    @xmath79    @xmath80 and @xmath81 are the fitted values and the standard deviation respectively , obtained without the @xmath71 observation .
the term @xmath82 is the @xmath71 diagonal element of the matrix @xmath83 that is defined as follows : @xmath84    the term @xmath85 is the amount of leverage that the @xmath71 observation has on the @xmath86 fitted value .
a point is considerate influential when @xmath87 . for complementary explanations and references about _ dffits _ and the @xmath88 matrix see @xcite and @xcite .
other statistics that detects influential points is _
dfbetas_. it indicates how much effect has the @xmath71 observation on each @xmath89 , measured in standard deviation units . in order to apply it , the coefficient estimators of @xmath89 obtained using all observations
are compared with the coefficient estimators computed excluding the @xmath71 observation ( @xmath90 ) . as a result , a measure for each @xmath89 is obtained .
the _ dfbetas _
statistics is defined as follows : @xmath91    where @xmath92 , so that @xmath93 is the @xmath86 diagonal element of the matrix @xmath94 and @xmath95 is the square root of the regression mean square error fitted without the @xmath71 observation .
an observation is considered an influential point if @xmath96 .
+ the last statistics used to detect influential points is _ covratio _ , that measures how the covariance matrix is affected by the @xmath71 observation .
it compares the generalized variance of the parameters estimators , obtained without the @xmath71 observation , with that obtained using all observations .
+ the variance - covariance matrix of parameters estimators with all observations is : @xmath97    the generalized variance is the determinant of the equation ( [ eq11 ] ) : @xmath98    given this , _ covratio _ is defined as follows : @xmath99    the @xmath71 observation is considered influential if its _ covratio _ lies out of the following interval @xmath100 , where @xmath72 is the number of parameters in the equation ( [ eq3 ] ) and @xmath63 is the total number of observations .
the reported ll in this work are obtained by rejecting from the sample the influential points , and cepheids exhibiting the communalities , explained later .
however , two questions arise that require detailed answers : why is it important to identify these influential points and give them an statistical treatment ? why is it necessary to apply robust techniques to make a linear regression instead of applying a well - known algorithm as sigma - clipping ? in the next paragraphs , we answer these questions , illustrating the associated statistical problem .
outliers are observations with anomalous behavior .
when they are caused by human errors or instrumental failures , they can be recognized and excluded from the analysis .
moreover , they can be rejected from the analysis only if there are strong non - statistical reasons that support such decision . in this work it is possible to reject them based on astronomical reasons .
however , the usual practice of deleting outliers without making a further analysis looking for reasons that could explain their behavior , could imply serious consequences in the estimators precision , because they are adjusted artificially @xcite .    as a result , when there are not astronomical reasons that support excluding those points and/or there are influential points , robust estimation methods are needed .
to validate that there is no evidence of specification errors in the model , we use tests to look if a non - linear combination of the fitted values are significant to explain the response variable .
one of them is the ramsey s test given by the equations ( [ eq15 ] ) to ( [ eq17 ] ) @xcite .
the other one , is a variant proposed by godfrey and orme that uses only the model given by equation ( [ eq15 ] ) @xcite .
these auxiliary models and their respectively hypotheses used in this work are the following : @xmath101    the null and alternative hypothesis are @xmath102 and @xmath103    @xmath104    the null and alternative hypothesis are @xmath105 and @xmath106    @xmath107    the null and alternative hypothesis are @xmath108 and @xmath109 : at least one @xmath110 ; @xmath111 . + if any of these tests are significant because there is evidence to reject the null hypothesis @xmath112 , then there is enough evidence of misspecification .
in fact , it means that a non - linear combination of the fitted values are significant to explain the variability in the dependent variable , i.e the functional form is incorrect .
+      to verify if there are structural breaks , dummy variables are used . before explaining what a dummy variable is , it is necessary to give a brief explanation about qualitative variables .
qualitative or categorical variables are those that do not have a natural scale of measurement . in this study
two categorical variables are used .
the first variable indicates which data set the observation belongs to when data are divided in two sets , to make structural tests to the models .
this variable has two categories : data set @xmath24 and data set @xmath23 .
the second variable is the galaxy name where the cepheid is located , which also has two categories : lmc and smc .
+ dummy variables are used to indicate which category from a qualitative variable the observations belong to .
each dummy variable takes two possible values : @xmath24 if the observation belongs to the category that the dummy variable is representing , and @xmath113 if not .
if a qualitative variable has @xmath114 categories , it can be represented by @xmath114 dummy variables , one for each category .    however , only @xmath115 dummy variables are used in the regression model . besides , it does not matter which @xmath115 dummy variables are used since @xmath116 matrix is the same , independently of which dummy variable is taken out to fit the model .
in fact , dummy variables representing the categories of a qualitative variable are linked between each other because when one of them takes a value of @xmath24 for an observation , the others take @xmath113 for the same observation .
therefore , when all the @xmath115 dummy variables in the model take a value of @xmath113 , they are representing the dummy variable that is no present in the model . for more details
see @xcite .
+ the process of verifying the existence of structural breaks is made as follows : the data are divided in two data sets by dummy variables .
then , a model that includes the dummy variables is estimated to verify if the estimated parameters associated with dummies are significant or not
. if they are significant , the parameters are unstable , thus there are structural breaks .
+ to contrast hypothesis the @xmath117value is used .
it means the lowest level of significance that leads to reject null hypothesis when it is true .
therefore , if @xmath117value is greater than the significance level , there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis . on the contrary , if the @xmath117value is less than or equal to the significance level there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative one , which means the test is significant .
sometimes ols assumptions are not accomplished ; for example , errors have a distribution with heavier tails than normal distribution and/or there are influential points .
an alternative to fit a linear model in these kinds of scenarios is a robust regression , in which the residuals can be defined as follows : @xmath118 it is convenient to scale the residuals by using median absolute deviation : @xmath119 therefore the scaled residuals @xmath120 can be expressed as follows : @xmath121 if scaled residuals are not dependent between them , and all of them have the same distribution @xmath122 , the maximum likelihood @xmath44 estimators are those that maximize the likelihood function : @xmath123 in @xcite is shown that this condition is equivalent to minimize the equation ( [ eq22 ] ) .
therefore , a class of robust estimator that minimizes this equation is called @xmath0-estimator and the regression based on it is called @xmath0-regression .
@xmath0 comes from maximum - likelihood since function @xmath124 is related to equation ( [ eq21 ] ) for a proper choice of the error distribution .    besides , @xmath124 weights the scaled residuals @xmath62 in the sum : @xmath125 there are more than one suggestion for @xmath124 in the literature , the function used in this work is the tukey s bi - square , with parameter equal to @xmath126 @xcite . for further information about this function and other choices
see @xcite . to minimize the equation ( [ eq22 ] ) the first partial derivative of @xmath124
must be calculated : @xmath127 as a result , the following equation is obtained : @xmath128 @xmath72 is the number of parameters in the model . multiplying the equation ( [ eq24 ] ) by @xmath129
, it is obtained : @xmath130 where @xmath131 @xmath132 @xmath133 , otherwise is @xmath24 .
+ the determination of @xmath0-estimator is an iterative process , thus , the @xmath0-estimator for @xmath44 is : @xmath134 this iterative process stops when a convergence criteria is reached , i.e. when the estimators change less than a preselected amount in the @xmath135 iteration .
notice that the equation ( [ eq27 ] ) is the weighted least square estimator where @xmath136 is a diagonal @xmath137 matrix of weights whose elements are @xmath138 .
see @xcite and @xcite for a wider discussion .      in the context of @xmath0-regression
it is important to check that there are no bad influential points , i.e. observations that are outliers in the * x * space and influential points at the same time . in this scenario
the @xmath1-estimator @xcite should be used because it has a high breakdown point ( bdp ) . in a finite - sample
the bdp is the smallest fraction of contaminated data causing a divergence of the estimator from the value that it would take if data were not contaminated @xcite .
+ the @xmath1-estimator combines the asymptotic efficiency of @xmath0-estimator with the high bdp estimators such as @xmath139estimators and least treammed squares .
@xmath1-regression is obtained in three steps .
first , a high bdp parameter estimators model is calculated to compute the residuals of the model .
second , based on residual computed in the previous step , a @xmath0-estimate of scale with high bdp is calculated . finally , the model parameters are estimated using @xmath0-estimators and the scale estimation computed in the previous step . +
neither normal errors nor homoskedasticity are assumptions in @xmath0-regression and @xmath1-regression .
however , these regressions assume that errors are uncorrelated , which is not an issue when data come from a cross - section , meaning that data are not time dependent . + robust regressions are based on asymptotic results .
this means they could lead to wrong results when they are used with small data sets .
@xcite say that small to moderate sample size could be less than @xmath140 points . in our case , the smallest data set has about @xmath141 observations .
hence , we have enough data to apply these techniques without problems .
in particular , ogle - iv has around two and three times of observations for the smc and the lmc than ogle - ii , respectively .
the statistical theory explained previously are applied for each one of the lmc and smc galaxies .
the following models are fitted by ols : @xmath142 @xmath143 @xmath144 @xmath145 is @xmath146 and @xmath8 is the pulsation period of a cepheid . in general , these models have violations to the ols assumptions , as it will be shown below .
influential points are data that truly affect the linear regression results , although they can or can not be outliers .
it is very important that the studies of the ll make an appropriate treatment of those points .
deleting a subset of influential points does not prevent the appearance of new influential points , as will be shown below .
+ the sigma - clipping algorithm is an iterative procedure commonly used in astronomy in order to reject the outliers in ols regression .
however , to apply the ols regression its assumptions must be accomplished . in order to investigate
if the ogle - ii data do not fulfill these conditions , we make an experiment in v - band using the whole sample of @xmath147 ogle - ii lmc fundamental mode cepheids .
we apply the sigma - clipping algorithm using five iterations and an optimum threshold of @xmath148 .
these values are the same used in the studies of the ll made by @xcite and @xcite .
simultaneously , we apply the white s test to check if the assumption of homoskedasticity is fulfilled .
+ before the first sigma - clipping iteration , the white s test finds enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of homoskedasticity with a
_ _ p-__value of @xmath149 at @xmath150 of significance .
a number of @xmath151 influential points are detected using some of the cook s distance , _ dffits , dfbetas , _ and _ covratio_. on the other hand , by applying the criteria of the sigma - clipping algorithm , @xmath152 points are rejected in the first iteration , not all of them identified as influential points . during second iteration , the white s test finds again enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of homoskedasticity with a _
_ p-__value of @xmath153 at @xmath150 of significance and @xmath154 influential points are identified . by using sigma - clipping algorithm @xmath155 points
are rejected . in the following three iterations
influential points are detected again .
taking into account these facts , we notice that the main problems of applying the sigma - clipping algorithm in the context of the ll are :    \i ) ols estimators obtained by using this procedure are not adequate since their precision are adjusted artificially @xcite .
\ii ) in the two initial iterations , the models have no a constant error variance , i.e. , they show heteroskedasticity . in the remaining iterations ,
the models show homoskedasticity , as a result of deleting points using the sigma - clipping criterium .
\iii ) the residuals in each iteration have distributions with heavier tails than the normal distribution .
\iv ) influential points are detected on each iteration .
_ summarizing , rejecting outliers using the sigma - clipping algorithm is not adequate in this case , since there are violations of ols assumptions . without strong reasons to support the rejection of points ,
this method is invalid in the ll linear regression context . _
as we mentioned before , models ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) have violations to the ols assumptions : for cepheids belonging to the lmc galaxy , white s test ( explained in  3.1 ) finds enough evidence of heteroskedasticity with @xmath117values of @xmath149 and @xmath156 for models ( [ eq28 ] ) and ( [ eq29 ] ) at @xmath157 of significance . on the contrary , for model ( [ eq30 ] ) , white s test does not find enough evidence to reject its null hypothesis because of its @xmath117value of @xmath158 , that is greater than the same fixed level of significance . for cepheids belonging to the smc galaxy
, white s test does not find enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of homoskedasticity with @xmath117values of @xmath159 , @xmath160 and @xmath161 for models ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) respectively , at @xmath150 of significance . +
another problem is the influential points that are found in all models in both galaxies .
as we have mentioned above , this fact makes necessary to search for communalities in the influential points to understand the causes of this behavior . to do that
, the @xmath162-band light curves of all cepheids in the lmc and smc are visually inspected many times . as a result , we identify two main morphological characteristics in them : the dispersion and the shape .
using these communalities we perform a bi - dimensional classification of the cepheids in some of the following groups : light curves with small ( 1 ) , moderate ( 2 ) , or large ( 3 ) dispersion . and light curves whose morphological shapes are sinusoidal - like ( a ) , sawtooth - like ( b ) or exhibit bumps , i.e. showing the hertzsprung progression ( c ) .
dispersion of light curves of cepheids classified as 2 and 3 seem to be caused in several cases by blending , since a visual inspection of the finding charts of these cepheids , shows neighbors near to the stars .
representative examples of this classification are shown in figure [ fig1 ] .
the bi - dimensional classification of all ogle - ii lmc and smc fundamental mode cepheids is given in table [ tab1 ] .
the last column reports our bi - dimensional classification : morphological shape is given by a , b or c , and the grade of dispersion is measured by the discrete scale : @xmath24 , @xmath23 or @xmath163 , the last one being the corresponding to light curves with larger dispersion .
an appended i letter indicates that this star is detected as influential point by at least one of the dffits , dfbetas or covratio statistics , computed from @xmath164 data . in table
[ tab0 ] , the number of cepheids belonging to each sub - class is reported .
.**morphological classification of ogle - ii cepheids * * [ cols="^,^,^,^,^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     when the influential points are correlated with our bi - dimensional classification , an interesting fact arises : around one third of the lmc cepheids and one fifth of the smc cepheids , classified with a grade of dispersion moderate and large are influential points .
taking this fact into account , and in order to avoid violations of ols assumptions , we propose the following hypothesis : if cepheids with light curves of moderate and large dispersion , exhibiting characteristics suggesting blending , bumps , eclipses and period changes , are excluded from the ols linear regression , and the remaining data do not present violations of ols assumptions , it is possible to affirm that a cause of non - linearities of the ll is due to the inclusion of a fraction of these stars , that despite to be cepheids are influential points . + for testing this hypothesis , we fit the models given by equations ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) by ols using only cepheids with small dispersion .
the results confirm the hypothesis , as it will be described below .
for this reason , we consider appropriate to summarize here the communalities of these influential cepheids :    \i ) the scatter exhibited by light curves of some cepheids classified as a2 or a3 can be associated with phase shifts , suggesting changes in the pulsational period . this effect produces a dispersion of the mean magnitudes , which moves the locus cepheid in the pl relation .
\ii ) the b2 light curves exhibit a behavior that could be explained by period changes or blending effects .
the dispersion of these light curves do not allow to directly establish which of these effects could be present in these types of cepheids . in this work it is not clear which of them is more likely to be the best explanation .
however , this point is out of the scope of this paper .
this interesting fact could be investigated in more detail in future works .
a small fraction of the light curves classified as b3 have characteristics suggesting eclipses or blending . in the first case , the main effect of the companion on the pl relation is to move the cepheid locus .
due to that , the total mean brightness out - of - eclipse includes the companion contribution , adding scatter in some cases up to @xmath165 mag .
, as it was reported by @xcite and @xcite .
the second case is more probable to occur , since a visual inspection of the finding charts of the b3 cepheids , shows that most of them are blended .
\iii ) light curves classified as c1 or c2 are bump cepheids , i.e. they exhibit the hertzsprung progression .
the amplitude bump affects the cepheid mean magnitude .
this effect is stronger for periods near to the maximum light , shifting the cepheid position in the pl relation .    in order to use the ols regression ,
the white s test is applied .
this test does not find enough evidence to reject its null hypothesis of homoskedasticity , with a @xmath150 of significance , since the @xmath117values associated with each model test are @xmath166 , @xmath167 and @xmath168 for the lmc , and @xmath169 , @xmath170 and @xmath171 for the smc , respectively .
however , two issues are noted : the first one is again the presence of influential points .
the second fact is that the residual distributions for @xmath164 lmc data ( and only for the @xmath11 smc data ) have heavier tails with respect to the normal distribution .
+ since there is neither an astronomical nor statistical reason to delete those influential points or a fraction of them , a new approach to estimate the parameters given in the models ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) is needed instead of ols .
besides , if these influential points were deleted , new ones may appear . + we fit the models by using the @xmath0-regression .
the @xmath172 function used is the bi - square . since no evidence of bad influential points is found , we check each model beginning with the slope test , which is a robust version equivalent to the @xmath173-test in ols .
the null and alternative hypotheses are : @xmath174 and @xmath175 .
+ for each model fitted in both galaxies , the robust slope test has a @xmath8-value less than @xmath176 , so at @xmath150 of significance they are significant .
the lmc @xmath177-band fitted model ( [ eq28 ] ) has a @xmath66 value ( the coefficient of determination ) of @xmath178 , meaning that the model explains about the @xmath179 of the variability of @xmath177 . for the lmc @xmath162-band model ( [ eq29 ] ) and the lmc @xmath11 model ( [ eq30 ] ) ,
they explain about @xmath180 and @xmath181 respectively of the observed variability .
we also use the robust ramsey s test @xcite , given by the following equations : @xmath182 the null ( @xmath112 ) and alternative ( @xmath109 ) hypotheses are @xmath102 and @xmath103 .
@xmath183 the null and alternative hypotheses are @xmath184 and @xmath185 at least one @xmath186 .
@xmath187 the null and alternative hypotheses are @xmath108 and @xmath185 at least one
@xmath188 .    in equations ( [ eq31 ] ) to ( [ eq33 ] ) , @xmath189 is any of the magnitude vectors @xmath177 , @xmath162 or the @xmath11 index .
moreover , values of @xmath190 and @xmath191 are different for each photometric band .
this test shows that there is not enough evidence to reject @xmath112 due to its @xmath117values at @xmath150 of significance .
this implies that there is no evidence of specification problems in the lmc models . on the contrary , for the smc models
there is enough evidence to reject @xmath112 due to @xmath117values obtained by the test at the same level of significance .
in particular , when equation ( [ eq31 ] ) is used , the lmc ( smc ) @xmath117values are @xmath192 ( @xmath193 ) for @xmath177-band , @xmath194 ( @xmath195 ) for @xmath162-band and @xmath196 ( @xmath197 ) for the @xmath11 index . by using equation ( [ eq32 ] ) ,
the lmc ( smc ) @xmath117values are @xmath198 ( @xmath199 ) for @xmath177-band , @xmath200 ( @xmath195 ) for @xmath162-band and @xmath201 ( @xmath202 ) for the @xmath11 index .
finally , when equation ( [ eq33 ] ) is used , the lmc ( smc ) @xmath117values are @xmath203 ( @xmath197 ) for @xmath177-band , @xmath204 ( @xmath205 ) for @xmath162-band and @xmath206 ( @xmath207 ) for the @xmath11 index .      in order to verify
if there are structural breaks ( explained in  3.4 ) in model equations ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) , we fit the following model : @xmath208 each data set is split in two parts using a dummy variable represented by @xmath209 , where @xmath210    the lmc ( smc ) data are split around @xmath211 @xmath212 d , in order to secure that each data set has enough observations to avoid problems due to asymptotic results in robust regressions . as a result , each data set has @xmath213 ( @xmath214 ) and
@xmath215 ( @xmath216 ) points .
the hypotheses to contrast are : @xmath217 and @xmath185 some @xmath218 .
the @xmath219 and @xmath220 parameters are associated with @xmath209 in order to detect structural breaks in the zero point @xmath221 and/or the slope @xmath222 of the ll , if these parameters are not significant there is not enough evidence of structural breaks . on the contrary , if both or some of them are significant there is enough evidence of structural breaks .
+ the obtained lmc @xmath117values are @xmath223 for @xmath224band , @xmath225 for @xmath226band , and @xmath227 for the @xmath11 index .
whereby , no evidence of structural breaks is found , hence the parameters obtained using @xmath0-estimators are stable at @xmath150 of significance .
we use the @xmath0-regression to estimate the lmc ll throughout the following equations : @xmath228 @xmath229 @xmath230 models explain about @xmath179 , @xmath180 and @xmath181 of the variability in @xmath177-band , @xmath162-band and @xmath11 , respectively . the confidence interval at @xmath231 for each @xmath0-estimator for the lmc zero point @xmath232 and slope @xmath221
are reported in table [ tab2 ] .
it is worth to say that the estimators for zero point and slope obtained by ols are included between the confidence intervals obtained by @xmath0-regression .
+ _ to summarize , the robust tests have shown that there is no evidence to have doubts about lmc models adequacy ; as a result they are acceptable . _    @ccccc + & @xmath233 & @xmath234 & zp    & @xmath34 + @xmath235 & 17.005 @xmath236 0.064 & -2.683 @xmath236 0.108 & 17.066 @xmath236 0.021 & -2.775 @xmath236 0.031 + @xmath237 &
16.549 @xmath236 0.044 & -2.930 @xmath236 0.074 & 16.593 @xmath236 0.014 & -2.977 @xmath236 0.021 + @xmath11 & 15.839 @xmath236 0.029 & -3.315 @xmath236 0.049 & 15.868 @xmath236 0.008 & -3.300 @xmath236 0.011 +    @ccccc + & @xmath233 & @xmath234 & @xmath238 & zp + @xmath235 & 17.444 @xmath236 0.097 & 0.135 @xmath236 0.069 & -2.551 @xmath236 0.147 & 17.635 @xmath236
0.031 + @xmath237 & 17.019 @xmath236 0.074 & 0.107 @xmath236 0.053 & -2.869 @xmath236 0.110 & 17.149 @xmath236 0.025 + @xmath11 & 16.353 @xmath236 0.052 & 0.063 @xmath236 0.037 & -3.342
@xmath236 0.079 & 16.381 @xmath236 0.016 +    @cccc + & @xmath233 & @xmath234 & @xmath238 + @xmath235 & 17.037 @xmath236 0.047 & 0.554 @xmath236 0.030 & -2.732 @xmath236 0.074 + @xmath237 & 16.590 @xmath236 0.034 & 0.540 @xmath236 0.022 & -2.995 @xmath236 0.054 +    for the smc model the @xmath8-value obtained by the test of structural breaks is less than @xmath239 for all bands , implying enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis and accept @xmath109 at @xmath150 of significance ; i.e. there are structural breaks .    because of the problems already detected in model equations ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) for smc
, further models analysis is needed using equation ( [ eq34 ] ) .
therefore the individual significance of the parameters is analyzed .
to do that , the following hypotheses are contrasted : @xmath240 and @xmath241 .
the individual robust test for @xmath219 shows it is significant at @xmath150 of significance , due to @xmath117values of @xmath242 in @xmath224band , @xmath199 in @xmath226band and @xmath243 in the @xmath11 index . on the contrary ,
the same test for @xmath220 is not significant at @xmath150 of significance since associated @xmath117values are @xmath244 in @xmath224band , @xmath245 in @xmath226band and @xmath246 in the @xmath11 index .
there is not enough evidence to reject @xmath112 , i.e. @xmath247 .
it means that the model has different zero point for each data set but the same slope .
taking into account the specification problems and structural breaks detected in models ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) , we fit the following model for smc based on the previous individual significance analysis using ( [ eq34 ] ) : @xmath248 using ogle - iii cepheids , @xcite determined the inclination of the smc galaxy s disk in @xmath249 .
the geometrical distribution of the cepheids across this disk could explain the behavior of the ll in the smc , observed in equation ( [ eq50a ] ) : linear regressions with the same slope and different zero points for each data set .
+ model ( [ eq50a ] ) is fitted by @xmath0-regression and no evidence of bad influential points is found .
robust ramsey s test is applied again to check if there are specification problems in model ( [ eq50a ] ) .
the equations and hypotheses of the test are : @xmath250 the null and alternative hypothesis are : @xmath102 and @xmath103 . @xmath251
the null and alternative hypothesis are : @xmath184 and @xmath252 . @xmath253
the null and alternative hypothesis are : @xmath108 and @xmath254 .
the test does not find enough evidence of specification problems because the @xmath117values obtained at @xmath255 of significance . in particular , for model ( [ eq51a ] ) the smc @xmath117values are @xmath256 for @xmath177-band , @xmath257 for @xmath162-band and @xmath258 for the @xmath11 index . for model ( [ eq52a ] ) ,
smc @xmath117values are @xmath259 for @xmath224band , @xmath260 for @xmath226band and @xmath261 for the @xmath11 index . for equation ( [ eq53a ] ) , smc @xmath117values are @xmath262 for @xmath177-band , @xmath263 for @xmath162-band and @xmath264 for the @xmath11 index .
@xmath0-regression estimations for the smc ll are shown in the following equations : @xmath265 @xmath266 @xmath267 these models explain about @xmath180 , @xmath268 and @xmath181 of the variability in @xmath177 , @xmath162 and the @xmath11 index , respectively .
the confidence intervals at @xmath231 for each @xmath0-estimator in the equations ( [ eq54a ] ) to ( [ eq56a ] ) are reported in table [ tab3 ] .
besides , it is interesting that the confidence intervals for @xmath0-estimators include the values obtained by ols , although there are slightly differences .
+ _ to summarize , robust tests show specification problems and structural break points in the smc models ( [ eq28 ] ) to ( [ eq30 ] ) ; therefore , analysis leads to model ( [ eq50a ] ) as a better choice . _
the universality hypothesis of the ll implies that the slope of the linear regression observed in the same filter in different galaxies has the same value , and shows a negligible dependence with the metallicity ( @xcite , and references therein . ) in order to test the universality of the ll , a linear model to fit simultaneously the data from the lmc and smc is proposed .
this model is given by : @xmath269 that is fitted in @xmath177 , @xmath162 and the @xmath11 index after deleting the points previously discussed .
the dummy variable @xmath209 indicates if the observation is from the lmc or the smc : @xmath270 if a cepheid is from the smc and @xmath271 otherwise .
a number of @xmath272 cepheids from the smc and 487 from the lmc are used to fit this model .
+ the model ( [ eq73 ] ) is fitted by ols .
white s test finds enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of homoskedasticity , at @xmath150 of significance , since the @xmath8-value is @xmath273 in @xmath177 , less than @xmath239 in @xmath162 and less than @xmath176 in the @xmath11 index .
as happened before , ols regression is not adequate due to heteroskedasticity problems and the presence of influential points .
besides , the residuals distribution has a heavier tail than the normal distribution .
therefore , model ( [ eq73 ] ) is fitted by @xmath0-regression using bi - square function .
no evidence of bad influential points is found ; thus , the process to check the adequacy of the model continues .
+ the @xmath117values of the slope test are less than @xmath176 in @xmath177 , @xmath162 and for the @xmath11 index , so the models are significant at @xmath150 of significance .
the hypotheses contrasted are : @xmath274 and @xmath275 .    to test if both galaxies have the same zero point and slope the following hypotheses are contrasted : @xmath276 and @xmath185 some @xmath218 .
+ the @xmath117values obtained by the robust test are less than @xmath176 in @xmath177 , @xmath162 and for the @xmath11 index ; therefore , there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis at @xmath150 of significance .
hence , the individual significance of each parameter must be analyzed .
to do that , the following hypotheses are contrasted again : @xmath277 and @xmath241 .
+ the individual significance robust test for @xmath219 , shows it is significant at @xmath150 of significance , since its associated @xmath117values are less than @xmath176 in @xmath278 and the @xmath11 index .
the same test for @xmath220 is not significant at @xmath150 of significance because its associated @xmath117values are @xmath279 and @xmath280 in @xmath177 and @xmath162 , respectively .
this means that the model has different zero points , as we expect due to the galaxies are at different distances , but it has the same slope . as a result ,
the final equations fitted by the @xmath0-regression in @xmath177 and @xmath162 bands , after deleting @xmath220 are : @xmath281 @xmath282 confidence radius are reported in table [ tab4 ] . models ( [ eq76 ] ) and ( [ eq77a ] ) make an adjustment to the zero point when cepheids are from the smc but have the same slope for both galaxies at @xmath150 of significance .
moreover , they explain about the @xmath283 and @xmath284 of the variability in @xmath177 and @xmath162 , respectively .
the individual significance robust test for @xmath220 in the @xmath11 index is significant at @xmath150 of significance because its associated @xmath8-value is @xmath285 .
it implies that each galaxy has its own regression line with different zero point and slope .
it explains about @xmath181 of the @xmath11 variability .
following equation gives the model fitted for the @xmath11 index : + @xmath286 the confidence intervals at @xmath231 for estimated parameters in equation ( [ eq78a ] ) are : @xmath287 for zero point , @xmath288 for zero point adjustment when cepheids are from smc , @xmath289 for slope , and @xmath290 for slope adjustment when cepheids are from smc .
+ _ as a general result of this work , robust tests have shown that the ll of the lmc and smc are universal in @xmath177 and @xmath162 bands .
there are enough evidence of two parallel egression lines , with the same slope at @xmath150 of significance but different zero points , as it is shown by models ( [ eq76 ] ) and ( [ eq77a ] ) .
however , for the @xmath11 index , it has been shown that there are not a universal ll : the lmc and smc have two completely different regression lines , as it is shown by equation ( [ eq78a ] ) . _      based on the experience obtained by fitting the models ( [ eq28 ] ) and ( [ eq29 ] ) , they are fitted for all @xmath278 mean magnitudes of fundamental mode cepheids observed by the ogle - ii project .
we also fit these models using the ogle - iv fundamental mode cepheids , reported by @xcite .
it is worthy to say that the published ogle - iv mean magnitudes are not corrected for extinction .
all following models are fitted with the @xmath1-regression because of its high bdp of @xmath291 .
the least treammed squares and tukey function are used .
+ as no evidence is found of skewness in the models for both galaxies , we proceed with the analysis . beginning with the lmc ,
model slope tests are significant , as it can be seen in the @xmath117values obtained : less than @xmath176 in @xmath224 and @xmath226band ( ogle - ii , ogle - iv ) .
then , the test proposed by @xcite is performed obtaining @xmath117values of @xmath292 ( ogle - ii ) and @xmath293 ( ogle - iv ) in @xmath224band and @xmath294 ( ogle - ii ) and @xmath295 ( ogle - iv ) in @xmath226band ; therefore , there is evidence of specification problems in ogle - iv @xmath226band model at @xmath255 of significance .
this could be due to blending problems and also to the lack of extinction correction in ogle - iv data . to perform stability tests ,
the data are split in two data sets around @xmath296 d ( ogle - ii ) and @xmath297 d ( ogle - iv ) , to have about half of observations in each set , by dummy variables .
no evidence of structural breaks is found , because the @xmath117values obtained , by testing @xmath298 vs the hypothesis that at least one of them is not @xmath113 in equation ( [ eq34 ] ) , are @xmath299 ( ogle - ii ) and @xmath300 ( ogle - iv ) in @xmath224band , and @xmath301 ( ogle - ii ) and @xmath302 ( ogle - iv ) in @xmath226band .
models explain about @xmath303 and @xmath304 of variability in @xmath224 and @xmath226bands respectively ( ogle - ii ) ; and @xmath305 and @xmath306 of variability in @xmath224 and @xmath226bands respectively ( ogle - iv ) .
the estimated parameters of the models and their confidence intervals are reported in table [ tab6 ] .
results for @xmath226band are shown only for information purposes because of their specification problems .
the ogle - iv lmc data were also split in around @xmath307 d by equation ( [ eq34 ] ) .
no evidence of structural break is found in the slope , because the @xmath8-value obtained is @xmath308 .
however , the zero point adjustment is significative . as a result
, there is evidence of two parallel regression lines .
+ the smc slope tests for models ( [ eq28 ] ) and ( [ eq29 ] ) are significant because the @xmath117values obtained are less than @xmath176 for @xmath224 and @xmath226bands ( ogle - ii , ogle - iv ) .
however , these models show problems .
godfrey and orme test finds enough evidence of specification problems because of @xmath309values obtained are less than @xmath176 for @xmath224 and @xmath226bands ( ogle - ii , ogle - iv ) . to perform stability tests ,
data are split around @xmath310 d ( ogle - ii ) and @xmath311 d ( ogle - iv ) to have about half of observations in each data set .
enough evidence of structural breaks is found : @xmath117values are less than @xmath176 in both bands ( ogle - ii ) , for testing @xmath298 vs the hypothesis that at least one of them is not @xmath113 in equation ( [ eq34 ] ) . besides , when individual significance tests are performed for @xmath219 and @xmath220 , @xmath117values obtained are less than @xmath176 for @xmath219 in both bands ; @xmath312 and @xmath313 for @xmath220 in @xmath224band and @xmath226band respectively . as a result , in both bands there are two regression lines at @xmath150 of significance ( ogle - ii )
. + unlike smc ogle - ii models , there is not enough evidence to support that ogle - iv slope model parameters are unstable with @xmath117values @xmath314 and @xmath315 in @xmath224 and @xmath226bands respectively , while zero point adjustment , @xmath219 ( equation ( [ eq34 ] ) ) , is still significant with @xmath117value less than @xmath176 in both bands . as a result ,
stability tests show that there are two parallel regression lines in both bands . based on the individual significance analysis using model ( [ eq34 ] ) for @xmath224 and @xmath226bands ,
new models are fitted .
however , godfrey and orme test shows that specification problems persist . nevertheless , only for information purposes
, we report the slope estimated values at @xmath231 confidence intervals for the ogle - iv data:@xmath316 for @xmath224band and @xmath317 for @xmath226band . + _ summarizing , the lmc models fitted with ogle - ii and ogle - iv data are adequate except for the @xmath226band model ( ogle - iv ) .
the ogle - ii models adequacy could be explained because only @xmath318 of cepheids in the lmc has intermediate and large dispersion .
therefore , as cepheids with small dispersion are the largest fraction , excluding intermediate and large dispersion cepheids has no significant impact on the estimated slope value , because confidence interval for slope ( @xmath234 ) , showed in table [ tab6 ] , includes the slope estimation ( @xmath234 ) showed in table [ tab2 ]
. moreover , lmc fitted models with all ogle - iv data have confidence intervals for slope that contain estimation obtained by using the models fitted with all ogle - ii data ( see @xmath234 values in table [ tab6 ] ) _ .
+ _ on the other hand , there is enough evidence showing that smc models are not adequate . unlike lmc ,
the largest fraction of ogle - ii smc data @xmath319 are intermediate and large dispersion cepheids ; as a result , when models are fitted with all data , those cepheids are majority in the sample .
the presence of a large fraction of intermediate and large dispersion cepheids in the smc galaxy can be explained by the geometry of this galaxy , as it was discussed in the section @xmath320 .
it is interesting that smc models improve when they are fitted with ogle - iv data because , despite of specification problems , there is not enough evidence of unstability of the slope parameter in both bands . _
our main conclusions can be summarized as follows :    by applying the traditional ols and robust statistical linear regression models to optical ogle - ii and ogle - iv data , it is possible to affirm that the problems of break and non - linearity of the ll disappear for the lmc when @xmath0- or @xmath1-regressions are used . in that case , the ll is obtained without slope breaks , as it is shown in equations ( [ eq76 ] ) and ( [ eq77a ] ) , and it is not needed to exclude or reject points from the data sample .
the models in this case are adequate and do not present specification problems or structural breaks , except in the ogle - iv @xmath162-band , probably due to the lack of extinction correction among others causes .
these facts allow to conclude that the non - linearity of the lmc ll is a consequence of using a non - adequate statistical method . + for the smc , despite to use the robust regressions , specification , structural breaks and adequacy problems are found .
this could be caused in part by blending problems due to the geometry of this galaxy , that could be generating a large fraction of intermediate and large dispersion cepheids , as it was discussed in section @xmath320 .
this astronomical reason seems to imply that cepheid variables in galaxies with elongated structures like this of the smc are not appropriate to fit a reliable ll . in particular , for the smc , we found that excluding the intermediate and large dispersion cepheids , i.e. stars that exhibit the communalities of influential cepheids , leads to avoid the adequacy and specification problems .
this could be indicating that this kind of cepheids really has influence in the fitting of the ll for galaxies with similar geometry to this of the smc .
however , from a statistical point of view , there is no reason to exclude these stars from the analysis .
+ the ols method has violations to its assumptions for the lmc and smc galaxies , with ogle - ii and ogle - iv data , as it was discussed at the beginning of section @xmath321 .
in particular , two important problems are worthy of mentioning here .
the first one is the fact that rejecting outliers using the sigma - clipping algorithm is not adequate because the precision of the parameters is adjusted artificially , besides there are violations of ols assumptions . without strong non - statistical reasons to support the rejection of points ,
this method is invalid in the ll linear regression context .
the second problem is the presence of influential points , that implies the necessity to find communalities in them . in this work we found that a fraction of cepheids with a grade of moderate and large dispersion are influential points .
the communalities exhibited by them suggest in their light curves bumps , i.e. cepheids showing the hertzsprung progression , or eclipsing variations , or evidence of period changes .
the exclusion of these influential cepheids from the sample using ols regression was made to solve adequacy problems ; however , new influential points appear that imply again violations to the ols assumptions .
+ although the obtained @xmath0-estimators ( slope and zero point ) and their respective confidence intervals include the ols estimators reported by @xcite , the relevance of using the @xmath0-estimators is that they allow to make a reliable statistical inference , since none of their assumptions are violated , unlike the ols estimations .
+ when cepheids from the lmc and smc are combined to fit a single model , in each one of the @xmath224 and @xmath226bands , the linear relations remain to be valid , after deleting the cepheids already discussed .
the @xmath0-model shows that each galaxy has its own regression line differing only in the zero point .
this implies that the ogle - ii leavitt law is universal in the range of metallicities of the magellanic clouds . on the contrary , the combined model for @xmath11 shows
that each galaxy has its own linear regression with the expected difference in zero point , but with unexpected difference in slope . this result has already been reported in the literature , but its causes are not yet clear .
lmc models fitted by using all ogle - ii and ogle - iv data by @xmath1-regression are adequate , but ogle - iv @xmath226band has specification problems .
these problems could be due to blending and the lack of extinction correction in these data .
there is no evidence of unstability in their zero point and slope parameters . on the other hand , despite of the specification problems in smc models for ogle - ii and ogle - iv data , there is not enough evidence of unstability in the slope parameters when they are fitted with ogle - iv data that have more observations compared to ogle - ii .
however , when ogle - iv data are split in @xmath307 d , there is evidence of two parallel regression lines .
+ it is clear from our results that influential cepheids do not have an important effect on the ll for the lmc .
however , they could have impact in the case of galaxies with similar geometry to this of the smc .
the effect of these cepheids in the measurement of distances to these galaxies , will be studied in a forthcoming paper .
+ finally , based on the results of this work , we suggest to use the ll relations given by equations ( [ eq76 ] ) and ( [ eq77a ] ) as a universal law for the smc and lmc galaxies .
we also suggest to use the slope and zero point for @xmath177-band , obtained for lmc using ogle - iv data , shown in table [ tab6 ] .
for the smc using ogle - ii without the influential cepheids , we suggest to use the equations ( [ eq54a ] ) and ( [ eq55a ] ) .
+ authors thank the referee , dr . pawel pietrukowicz , for his important recommendations and suggestions that have improved this manuscript .
agv , bes and jrm acknowledge support from facultad de ciencias , universidad de los andes , through proyecto semilla .
svd acknowledges the physics department , universidad de los andes , for the fellowship supporting the postdoctoral position held within the astronomy group .
aikawa , t. , & whitney , c. , 1984 , apj , 282 , 527 aikawa , t. , & whitney , c. , 1985 , apj , 296 , 165 alcock , c. , allsman , r. , alves , d. , et al .
, 2002 , apj , 573 , 338 babcock , h. , 1958 , apjs , 3 , 141 bono , g. , marconi m. , & stellingwerf , r. , 2000 , a&a , 360 , 245 butkovskaya , v. , plachinda , s. , baklanova , d. , & butkovskyi , v. , 2014 , iaus , 301 , 393 caputo , f. , marconi , m. , & musella , m. , 2000 , a&a , 354 , 610 christy , r. , 1968 , quarterly journal of the royal astronomical society , 9 , 13 drapper , n. , & smith , h. , 1998 , applied regression analysis ( 3th ed . ; john wiley & sons publication ) fadeyev , y. , 2013 , astronomy letters , 39 , 746 fernie , j. d. , 1969 , pasp , 81 , 707 fouqu , p. , arriagada , p. , storm , j. , et al .
, 2007 , a&a , 476 , 73f freedman , w. , & madore , b. , 2010 , ara&a , 48 , 673 feigelson , e. d. , & babu , g. j. , 2012 , modern statistical methods for astronomy with r applications ( 1st ed . ; cambridge ; cambridge university press ) garca - varela , a. , sabogal , b. , & ramrez - tannus , m. , 2013 , mnras , 431 , 2278 gastine , t. , & dintrans , b. , 2008 , a&a , 490 , 743 gieren , w. , storm , j. , barnes , t. , et al . , 2005 ,
apj , 627 , 224 g gieren , w. , pilecki , b. , pietrzyski , g. , et al . , 2014 ,
apj , 786 , 80 gieren , w. , pilecki , b. , pietrzyski , g. , et al . , 2015 , apj , 815 , 28 g godfrey , l. g. , & orme , c. d. , 1994 , international economic review , 48 , 489 harris , j. , & zaritsky , d. , 2006 , aj , 131 , 2514 hertzsprung , e. , 1926 , bulletin of the astronomical institutes of the netherlands , 3 , 115 kafadar , k. , 1983 , journal of reseach of the national bureau of standards , 88 , 105 kanbur , s. m. , & ngeow , c - c . , 2004 , mnras , 350 , 962k kanbur , s. m. , ngeow , c - c . , nanthakumar , a. , & stevens , r. , 2007 , pasp , 119 , 512 karp , a. , 1975 , apj 199 , 448 keller , s. , & wood , p. , 2006 ,
apj , 642 , 834 koen , c. , kanbur , s. m. , & ngeow c - c . , 2007 , mnras , 380 , 1440 kukarkin , b. , 1937 , astr .
zhurnal u.s.s.r . , 14 , 125 leavitt , h. s. , & pickering , e. c. , 1912 , harvard college observatory circular , 173 , 1 madore , b. , & freedman , w. , 1991 , pasp , 103 , 933 marconi , m. , musella , m. , & fiorentino , g. , 2005 , apj , 632 , 590 molnr , l. , & szabados , l. , 2014 , mnras , 442 , 3222 montgomery , d. c. , peck , e. e. , & vining , g.g . , 2012 ,
introduction to linear regression analysis ( 5th ed . ;
john wiley & sons publication ) neilson , h. , & ignace , r. , 2014 , a&a , 563 , l4 ngeow , c - c .
, kanbur , s. m. , bellinger , e. p. , et al . , 2012 , ap&ss , 341 , 105 nun , i. , pichara , k. , protopapas , p. , et al . , 2014 , apj , 793 , 23 pietrzyski , g. , gieren , w. , udalski , a. , et al . , 2004 , aj , 128 , 2815p pietrzyski , g. , thompson , i. , gieren , w. , et al . , 2010 , nature , 468 , 542 pietrzyski , g. , thompson , i. , graczyk , d. , et al . , 2011 ,
apj , 742 , 20 pilecki , b. , graczyk , d. , gieren , w. , apj , 2015 , 809 , 29 plachinda , s. , 1990 , krymskaia astrofizicheskaia observatoriia , 81 , 112 plachinda , s. , 2000 , a&a , 360 , 642 poleski , r. , 2008 , acta astron . , 58 , 313 ramsey , j. b. , 1969 , journal of the royal statistical society series b , 31(2 ) , 350 ramsey , j. b. , 1974 .
frontiers in econometrics .
p. zarembka .
nueva york ; academic press ) sandage , a. , & tammann , g. , 1968 , apj , 151 , 531 sandage , a. , & tammann , g. , 1969 , apj , 157 , 683 schwarzenberg - czerny , a. , 1989 , mnras , 241 , 153 severny , a. , kuvshinov , v. , & nikulin , n. , 1974 , krymskaia astrofizicheskaia observatoriia , izvestiia obs .
50 , 3 simon , n. , & schmidt , e. , 1976 , apj , 205 , 162 soszyski , i. , poleski , r. , udalski , a. , et al . , 2008 , acta astron . , 58 , 163 soszyski , i. , udalski , a. , poleski , r. , et al . , 2012 , acta astron . , 62 , 219 soszyski , i. , udalski , a. , szymaski m. , et al
. , 2015 , acta astron . , 65 , 279 strassmeier , k. , 2009 , a&arv , 17 , 251 stothers , r. , 2009 , apj , 696 , l37 submramanian , s. , & subramanaiam , a. , 2015 , a&a , 573 , a135 tammann , g. a. , sandage , a. , & reindl , b. , 2003 , a&a , 404 , 423 turner , d. , abdel - sabour abdel - latif , m. , & berdnikov , l. , 2006 , pasp , 118 , 410 udalski , a. , soszyski , i. , szymaski , m. , et al . , 1999a , acta astron . , 49 , 223 udalski , a. , soszyski , i. , szymaski , m. , et al . , 1999b , acta astron . , 49 , 437 udalski , a. , szymaski , m. , kubiak , m. , et al . ,
1999c , acta astron .
, 49 , 201 udalski , a. , 2000 , acta astron . , 50 , 279 udalski , a. , wyrzykowski ,  . ,
pietrzyski , g. , et al . , 2001 ,
acta astron . ,
51 , 221 udalski , a. , szymaski , m. , & szymaski , g. , 2015 , acta astron . , 65 , 1 wade , g. , chadid , m. , shorlin , s. , et al . , 2002 , a&a , 392 , l17 weiss , w. , 1986 , a&a , 160 , 243 white , h. , 1980 , econometrica , 48 , 817 whitney , c. , 1983 , apj , 274 , 830 yohai , v. , 1987 , the annals of statistics , 15 , 642