Paper detail

Using the Modified Lognormal Power Law Distribution to Model the Mass Function of NGC 1711

A determination of the mass function (MF) of stellar clusters can be quite dependent on the range of measured masses, the fitting technique, and the analytic function that is being fit to the data. Here, we use HST/WFPC2 data of NGC 1711, a stellar cluster in the Large Magellanic Cloud, as a test case to explore a range of possible determinations of the MF from a single dataset. We employ the analytic modified lognormal power-law (MLP) distribution, a hybrid function that has a peaked lognormal-like body and a power-law tail at intermediate and high masses. A fit with the MLP has the advantage that the resulting best-fit function can be either a hybrid function, a pure lognormal, or a pure power law, in different limits of the function. The completeness limit for the observations means that the data contains masses above $\sim 0.90\,M_{\odot}$. In this case, the MLP fits yield essentially a pure power-law MF. We demonstrate that the nonlinear regression/least-squares approach is not justified since the underlying assumptions are not satisfied. By using maximum likelihood estimation, which is independent of binning, we find a best-fit functional form $dN/d\ln m \propto m^{-α}$, where $α= 1.72 \pm 0.05$ or $1.75 \pm 0.05$ for two different theoretical isochrone models, respectively. Furthermore, we explore the possibility of systematic errors in the determination of the power-law index due to the depth of the observations. When we combine the observational data with artificially generated data from the lognormal Chabrier IMF for masses below $0.90\, M_{\odot}$, the best fit MLP is a hybrid function but with a steeper asymptotic slope i.e., $α= 2.04 \pm 0.07$. This illustrates the systematic uncertainties in commonly used MF parameters that can depend on the range of data that is fitted.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.