Erratum: ``A Bayesian Analysis of the Cepheid Distance Scale'' (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003])

Because of a numerical error in the conversion of mean angular radii to mean linear radii, Tables 4, 5, and 6 were in error in our original paper. The sense of the error is that the published radii and their uncertainties are 6.5% too large. No other quantity in the paper is changed. Corrected versions of the tables are included here.

After correction, the discussion in § 6.2 is modified as follows. A least-squares fit to our results, weighted by the variance in log and excluding SZ Tau and EU Tau as possible overtone pulsators, gives the fundamental-mode period-radius (PR) relation from 11 Cepheidslog=0.679(+/-0.050)(logP-1.2)+2.016(+/-0.065). (1)If we include SZ Tau and EU Tau in the PR relation with their equivalent fundamental-mode periods, we obtain for 13 Cepheidslog=0.693(+/-0.037)(logP-1.2)+2.014(+/-0.047). (2)We adopt this as our best estimate for the PR relation.

In Table 5 we have revised the first line, which leads to a very small change in the weighted mean solution. The weighted mean PR relation from Table 5 islog=0.690(+/-0.018)(logP-1.2)+1.978(+/-0.005). (3)

G. Bono et al. (ApJ, 592, 539 [2003]) have computed theoretical PR relations for first-overtone pulsators with and without convective overshoot. Table 6 compares our observed radii (from Table 4) for EU Tau and SZ Tau with those predictions and with the consensus fundamental-mode PR relation (eq. [3]). Our radii are more consistent with overtone pulsation than with fundamental-mode pulsation for both stars. However, these radii no longer permit a distinction between first-overtone pulsation with and without convective overshoot.