Paper detail

The non-universality of the low-mass end of the IMF is robust against the choice of SSP model

We perform a direct comparison of two state-of-the art single stellar population (SSP) models that have been used to demonstrate the non-universality of the low-mass end of the Initial Mass Function (IMF) slope. The two public versions of the SSP models are restricted to either solar abundance patterns or solar metallicity, too restrictive if one aims to disentangle elemental enhancements, metallicity changes and IMF variations in massive early-type galaxies (ETGs) with star formation histories different from the solar neighborhood. We define response functions (to metallicity and α-abundance) to extend the parameter space of each set of models. We compare these extended models with a sample of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) ETGs spectra with varying velocity dispersions. We measure equivalent widths of optical IMF-sensitive stellar features to examine the effect of the underlying model assumptions and ingredients, such as stellar libraries or isochrones, on the inference of the IMF slope down to ~0.1 solar masses. We demonstrate that the steepening of the low-mass end of the Initial Mass Function (IMF) based on a non-degenerate set of spectroscopic optical indicators is robust against the choice of the stellar population model. Although the models agree in a relative sense (i.e. both imply more bottom-heavy IMFs for more massive systems), we find non-negligible differences on the absolute values of the IMF slope inferred at each velocity dispersion by using the two different models. In particular, we find large inconsistency in the quantitative predictions of IMF slope variations and abundance patterns when sodium lines are used. We investigate the possible reasons for these inconsistencies.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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.