Paper detail

On the shape of the mass-function of dense clumps in the Hi-GAL fields. II. Using Bayesian inference to study the clump mass function

Context. Stars form in dense, dusty clumps of molecular clouds, but little is known about their origin, their evolution and their detailed physical properties. In particular, the relationship between the mass distribution of these clumps (also known as the "clump mass function", or CMF) and the stellar initial mass function (IMF), is still poorly understood. Aims. In order to better understand how the CMF evolve toward the IMF, and to discern the "true" shape of the CMF, large samples of bona-fide pre- and proto-stellar clumps are required. Two such datasets obtained from the Herschel infrared GALactic Plane Survey (Hi-GAL) have been described in paper I. Robust statistical methods are needed in order to infer the parameters describing the models used to fit the CMF, and to compare the competing models themselves. Methods. In this paper we apply Bayesian inference to the analysis of the CMF of the two regions discussed in Paper I. First, we determine the Bayesian posterior probability distribution for each of the fitted parameters. Then, we carry out a quantitative comparison of the models used to fit the CMF. Results. We have compared the results from several methods implementing Bayesian inference, and we have also analyzed the impact of the choice of priors and the influence of various constraints on the statistical conclusions for the preferred values of the parameters. We find that both parameter estimation and model comparison depend on the choice of parameter priors. Conclusions. Our results confirm our earlier conclusion that the CMFs of the two Hi-GAL regions studied here have very similar shapes but different mass scales. Furthermore, the lognormal model appears to better describe the CMF measured in the two Hi-GAL regions studied here. However, this preliminary conclusion is dependent on the choice of parameters priors.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.