Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 108 references

X-Shooting ULLYSES: Massive Stars at Low Metallicity X. Physical Parameters and Feedback of Massive Stars in the LMC N11 B Star-Forming Region

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the 25 O-type stars of the LMC star-forming region N11 B collectively emit $\log(\sum Q_\mathrm{H}) = 50.5$ hydrogen-ionizing photons per second, matching the ionizing budget implied by the region's H-alpha glow.

desk verdict Careful per-star PoWR analysis; the region-wide ionizing budget is an unquantified extrapolation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14149 v1 pith:32H5ALMH submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

V.M.A. Gómez-González , L.M. Oskinova , W.-R. Hamann , H. Todt , D. Pauli , S. Reyero Serantes , M. Bernini-Peron , A.C. Sander
show 18 more authors
V. Ramachandran J.S. Vink P.A. Crowther S.R. Berlanas A. ud-Doula A.C. Gormaz-Matamala C. Kehrig R. Kuiper C. Leitherer L. Mahy A.F. McLeod A. Mehner N. Morrell T. Shenar O.G. Telford J. Th. van Loon F. Tramper A. Wofford
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords massivestarsO-typestellarwindsionizingfeedbackLargeMagellanicCloudN11Bstar-formingregionPoWRatmospheremodelsnitrogenabundances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to show that the feedback budget of a low-metallicity star-forming region can be fully accounted for by its ordinary O-type stars alone. Modeling eight benchmark O stars in the LMC region N11 B with PoWR atmosphere models on new UV and optical spectra, the authors obtain stellar and wind parameters, CNO abundances, and individual ionizing photon fluxes. Assigning each of the 25 known O-type stars the ionizing flux of the modeled star with the closest spectral type, they arrive at a total of $\log(\sum Q_\mathrm{H}) = 50.5$ photons per second, which they report as consistent with N11's H-$\alpha$-derived ionizing budget. A sympathetic reader cares because this bridges single-star atmospheric modeling and galaxy-scale emission at half-solar metallicity, where such regions are local proxies for the star-forming galaxies observed at high redshift.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the PoWR (Potsdam Wolf-Rayet) model-atmosphere code, which solves non-LTE radiative transfer and statistical equilibrium simultaneously in a spherically symmetric, stationary, metal-line-blanketed outflow and produces synthetic spectra that are fitted line-by-line to FUSE, HST/COS, HST/STIS, and VLT X-shooter observations. The final converged models yield the ionizing photon rates $Q_\mathrm{H}$, $Q_{\mathrm{He\,I}}$, and $Q_{\mathrm{He\,II}}$ (the model photon fluxes shortward of the hydrogen and helium ionization edges), and these are extrapolated to the full 25-star census by assigning each unobserved star the flux of the modeled star with the closest spectral type.

What would settle it

For the 17 O-type stars lacking UV spectra, obtain ultraviolet spectroscopy or at least pin down the spectral types of the two uncertain objects, PGMW 3173 (O4-O6V) and PGMW 3264 (O3-O6V); the adopted templates differ by up to an order of magnitude in $Q_{\mathrm{He\,II}}$ and by roughly 0.2-0.3 dex in $Q_\mathrm{H}$, so fixing these classifications either preserves or breaks the claimed $\log(\sum Q_\mathrm{H}) = 50.5$ consistency, with the He II ionization budget the most sensitive discriminator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that a population of 25 ordinary O-type stars, with no Wolf-Rayet stars and no supernovae, can supply the full ionizing budget of a star-forming region at half-solar metallicity. From PoWR fits to the eight ULLYSES targets, the paper derives effective temperatures of 33-42 kK, luminosities of $\log L/L_\odot = 5.3\!-\!5.6$, wind mass-loss rates of $\log \dot{M} = -6.7$ to $-6.0$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, ages of 2-4.5 Myr, and masses of 30-60 $M_\odot$. Extending the modeled ionizing fluxes to all 25 O-type stars by nearest spectral type yields $\log(\sum Q_\mathrm{H}) = 50.5$, $\log(\sum Q_{\mathrm{He\,I}}) = 49.6$, and $\log(\sum Q_{\mathrm{He\,II}}) = 44.4$ photons per second (44.8 when X-rays are included), which the paper reports as consistent with the ionizing budget of N11 inferred from its H-$\alpha$ luminosity. The same models show nitrogen enrichment up to a factor of seven in most stars with no correlation to projected rotation.

Load-bearing premise

The 17 O-type stars without UV spectroscopy are assumed to emit exactly the same ionizing fluxes as the single modeled star with the nearest spectral type, even though two of them (PGMW 3173 and PGMW 3264) have classifications spanning three subtypes, so their true luminosities or temperatures could shift the summed budget.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The O-star population alone explains N11 B's ionization, so H-alpha luminosities can serve as a clean proxy for constraining O-type star content in low-metallicity regions where Wolf-Rayet stars and supernovae have not yet appeared.
  • The absence of a nitrogen-rotation correlation, with most stars nitrogen-enriched up to a factor of seven, undercuts rotational mixing as the default explanation for surface nitrogen enhancement at roughly half-solar metallicity.
  • Measured winds agree with the theoretical wind-momentum-luminosity relation, supporting the mass-loss prescriptions used in models of low-metallicity stellar evolution and feedback.
  • Including X-rays raises the He II ionizing output by about a factor of two, so X-ray emission must be counted when computing He II feedback budgets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The consistency check compares the O-star sum of N11 B ($3\times10^{50}$ ph s$^{-1}$) with the H-alpha budget of the whole N11 complex ($7.3\times10^{50}$ ph s$^{-1}$), so it shows N11 B's stars do not over-ionize N11 but leaves the remaining ionization to other subregions; a sharper test would compare the stellar sum against H-alpha of N11 B alone.
  • By construction, the spectral-type template method transfers ionizing fluxes from eight modeled stars to seventeen unobserved ones; applying the same method across other ULLYSES low-metallicity regions would test whether such templates are portable, with mismatches flagging hidden binaries or unresolved clusters.
  • The three stars whose evolutionary masses fall about 20 $M_\odot$ below their spectroscopic masses, including PGMW 3204 with no binary signature, predict that some apparently single O stars in N11 B are unresolved multiples; high-angular-resolution imaging or long-baseline radial-velocity monitoring would settle this and would correct the ionizing budget downward if confirmed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a multi-wavelength PoWR modeling analysis of eight O-type ULLYSES targets in the LMC star-forming region N11 B, using HST/COS and STIS UV spectra, FUSE far-UV spectra, and VLT/X-shooter optical spectra. For each star the authors determine T⋆, log g, L⋆, Ṁ, v∞, CNO abundances, X-ray parameters, ionizing photon rates QH, QHe I, QHe II, and mechanical luminosity, and they derive masses and ages with BONNSAI. The main new result is the region-wide feedback estimate: by copying ionizing fluxes from the eight modeled stars to the remaining 17 O-type stars by spectral type, the authors report log(ΣQH)=50.5 ph s−1, log(ΣQHe I)=49.6 ph s−1, and log(ΣQHe II)=44.4 ph s−1 (44.8 with X-rays), and state that this is consistent with the total ionizing budget of N11. The paper also reports a wind-momentum–luminosity relation consistent with Vink et al. (2000), nitrogen enrichment up to a factor of 7 with no correlation with v sin i, and X-ray to bolometric luminosity ratios in the range −7.5 to −6.6.

Significance. If the derived parameters are correct, this is a valuable homogeneous reference set for O-type stars at LMC metallicity; the inclusion of UV spectra, the explicit comparison with literature determinations, and the independent X-ray constraints are genuine strengths. The individual stellar and wind parameters, CNO abundances, and the WLR comparison are likely to be citable for years. However, the headline region-wide ionizing budget is not yet as robust as the presentation suggests: the total is dominated by spectral-type extrapolation and by QHe II values that are not determined by spectral type in the paper's own models, and the quoted consistency with the N11 Hα budget is a qualitative comparison rather than a quantitative closure test.

major comments (5)
  1. [4.6, Table 8] The aggregate ionizing fluxes are presented without propagated uncertainty even though they are dominated by extrapolation. The eight modeled stars contribute approximately 1.0×10^50 s−1 of the reported ΣQH=3.0×10^50 s−1, so about two-thirds of the headline number comes from copying values to the 17 unmodeled stars. The caveat in Sec. 4.6 ('this estimate relies on the assumption that our stars share the physical properties of a given spectral type') is never quantified. Please provide a table of the assigned spectral types and the adopted template values for all 25 stars, assign a realistic range of Q values (for example from all modeled stars compatible with each subtype or from a subtype temperature and luminosity spread), and propagate that range into ΣQH, ΣQHe I, and ΣQHe II.
  2. [Table 4 and Table 8] The extrapolated QHe II is internally inconsistent. In Table 4, PGMW 3061 and PGMW 3204 have identical T⋆=42.0 kK but QHe II values that differ by 2.9 dex (40.8 vs. 43.7), while the cooler stars PGMW 3168 (33.3 kK) and PGMW 3223 (34.0 kK) have QHe II≈40.8 and 40.7. Table 8 nevertheless assigns QHe II=43.7 to the O6 V star PGMW 3070 and to the O6.5 V stars PGMW 3073 and PGMW 3126. Those four entries contribute roughly 2×10^44 s−1 of the total ΣQHe II=2.97×10^44 s−1; if these stars instead have QHe II near 40–41, as the paper's own late-type and 42-kK templates imply, log ΣQHe II decreases by about 0.3 dex. A spectral-type-based He II budget therefore needs either a physically motivated justification for copying the extreme value or a removal of QHe II from the headline claims.
  3. [Appendix C, Figs C.3 and C.11] X-shooter spectra for PGMW 3061 and PGMW 3204 required ad hoc scaling factors of 2.5/2.3/2.0 and 1.8/1.6/1.4 (UVB/VIS/NIR), respectively, but the text never explains these factors. Since L⋆ and E(B−V) are derived from the SED and the optical spectra are used to fit Hα and He ii wind diagnostics, an unexplained factor up to 2.5 is a direct source of systematic error in L⋆, Ṁ, and all derived Q values. The paper should state whether the scaling is a flux-calibration correction, a slit-loss correction, or a data-quality flag, and re-derive or conservatively renormalize the affected parameters.
  4. [3.7, PGMW 3120a] The luminosity of PGMW 3120a, used as the O5.5 V template and for PGMW 3173 and PGMW 3264 in Table 8, is set to one-third of the cluster luminosity on the basis of equal F220W brightness among three stars. No uncertainty on the partition is given, and the assumption directly enters the template Q values. Please quote photometric errors for the three F220W measurements and quantify how L⋆ and QH/QHe II change under an alternative partition, for example if the brightest member carries one-half of the total flux.
  5. [4.6, comparison with Pellegrini et al. (2012)] The consistency claim in the abstract and Sec. 4.6 rests on a single comparison with L(Hα) of the entire N11 complex (Pellegrini et al. 2012, QH=7.27×10^50 s−1), which includes LH 9 and its WC star, whereas the paper's sum is for N11 B only. A factor 2.4 gap between 7.27×10^50 and 3.0×10^50 s−1 is called 'consistent' without a quantitative closure criterion, so this comparison cannot by itself validate the aggregate. The authors should either compare to an N11 B-specific Hα measurement or state an explicit fractional contribution of N11 B to the N11 budget and test whether the sum falls within it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [4.4] The text states that CNO abundances are reported in Table 3, but the CNO abundances are actually given in Table 5; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [3.7] The text refers to 'PGMW 312005c' where the context and Fig. 2 imply PGMW 3120c; please fix this typo.
  3. [2 and Abstract] Some of the spectra described as 'novel' are archival, for example the X-shooter data for PGMW 3061 from 2009 and the GIRAFFE data from 2003; the wording should distinguish the new ULLYSES observations from previously archived data.
  4. [4.6] The text reports that including X-rays raises QHe II by a factor of 'about 2', while the quoted values 44.4 and 44.8 correspond to a factor of about 2.5; please harmonize the numerical statement with the tabulated values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: stellar parameters are fitted to independent spectra and checked against external benchmarks; the spectral-type extrapolation of the ionizing budget is an acknowledged assumption, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is non-circular: observed HST/VLT UV-optical spectra and Gaia photometry are fitted with PoWR model atmospheres to obtain T*, log g, L*, Mdot, and v_inf; the ionizing fluxes QH, QHeI, and QHeII are outputs of those models, not quantities used as fitting constraints. The summed N11 B ionizing budget is an extrapolation: for the 17 O-type stars without UV spectra, Table 8 copies the Q values of the modeled star with the closest spectral type, an assumption the paper states explicitly: 'this estimate relies on the assumption that our stars share the physical properties of a given spectral type' (Section 4.6). Crude as that assumption is, and particularly fragile for QHeII, which the authors' own models show scatters by about 2.9 dex at fixed T*, it is an extrapolation, not a definitional equivalence. The consistency checks are external: the wind-momentum relation is compared with Vink et al. (2000) and Mokiem et al. (2007b), X-ray ratios with Nazé et al. (2014), and the nebular H-alpha budget with Pellegrini et al. (2012). Self-citations to PoWR-related papers are methodological references to a public model code, and co-authorship of Vink et al. (2000) does not make the theoretical WLR a product of this paper. No fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise is imported from the authors' prior work. The headline Q values therefore carry a risk of systematic error due to spectral-type copying, but they are not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's results rest on a chain of standard astrophysical modeling assumptions (PoWR atmosphere physics, wind parameters, LMC distance and abundances, evolutionary tracks) plus two ad hoc assumptions specific to this work: the spectral-type matching for unobserved stars (which directly sets the headline total QH) and the equal-brightness split for PGMW 3120. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Per-star bolometric luminosity L* = log(L*/Lsun) 5.3-5.6 (Table 4)
    Scaled to match the SED normalized at an assumed LMC distance of 50 kpc; sets the overall flux scale.
  • Per-star extinction E(B-V) = 0.15-0.26 mag (Table 2)
    Adjusted to match the SED slope, particularly in the UV.
  • Per-star effective temperature T* and log g = T* 33.3-42.0 kK, log g 3.5-4.3 (Table 4)
    Adjusted to reproduce the He I/He II line ratios and Balmer line wings.
  • Per-star mass-loss rate log Mdot and terminal velocity v_inf = log Mdot -6.7 to -6.0 Msun/yr; v_inf 1900-3200 km/s (Table 4)
    Adjusted to fit H-alpha, He II 4686, and UV P-Cygni lines (C IV, N V).
  • Per-star CNO abundances (XC, XN, XO) = e.g., XN 8e-5 to 5.5e-4 (Table 5)
    Adjusted to match C III, N III, N V, O III lines in the UV and optical.
  • Per-star X-ray parameters (xfill, T_X, r_min) = e.g., xfill 0.01-1.0, T_X 0.5-1.0 MK, r_min 1.1 R* (Table 6)
    Adjusted to reproduce N V 1238,1242 and O VI 1032,1038 UV features; reported LX/Lbol is a derived product.
  • Per-star projected rotational velocity v sin i and macroturbulence v_mac = v sin i 55-143 km/s (Table 3)
    Measured with iacob-broad from metal absorption lines; used as fixed inputs in the spectral fitting.
  • X-shooter fudge scaling factors for PGMW 3061 and PGMW 3204 = 2.5/2.3/2.0 and 1.8/1.6/1.4 (Figs C.3, C.11)
    Ad hoc multiplicative flux scalings applied to the X-shooter spectra; origin not explained in the text.
  • Equal-brightness partition for PGMW 3120 cluster members = one-third of cluster luminosity for 3120a
    Assumed after iraf photometry of the F220W image showed the three sources at 14.07, 14.07, 14.09 mag; used to set L* for 3120a.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption PoWR atmosphere models (non-LTE, spherical, stationary, line blanketing) are an adequate description of these O-star atmospheres.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 3.4; the derived parameters depend on the model's physics.
  • domain assumption Adopted wind parameters: beta=0.8 velocity law, clumping factor D=10 (fV=0.1), microturbulence xi=14 km/s, v_mic=20 km/s.
    Adopted from prior O-star studies (Sec. 3.4); not derived in this paper, but standard choices.
  • domain assumption LMC distance modulus of 18.5 mag (50 kpc) and LMC/SMC extinction laws.
    Used to convert observed fluxes to luminosities in Sec. 3.1; from Pietrzynski et al. (2013) and Trundle et al. (2007).
  • domain assumption Initial LMC abundances (H, He, C, N, O, Mg, Si, P, S, Fe) from Trundle et al. (2007) and Asplund et al. (2009).
    Adopted as starting point for abundance fitting in Sec. 3.4; some are subsequently adjusted.
  • domain assumption BONNSAI evolutionary models (Brott et al. 2011; Kohler et al. 2015) assume single-star evolution, Salpeter IMF slope -2.35, and a fixed parameter space for L*, T*, log g, v sin i.
    Used to derive ages and evolutionary masses in Sec. 3.6; several stars (3120, 3204, 3223) fall near or outside the grid, and the paper notes the resulting mass discrepancy.
  • ad hoc to paper All O-type stars in N11 B share the physical properties of the modeled star with the closest spectral type.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the total ionizing budget in Sec. 4.6 and Table 8; it is stated in the text and footnote but not independently tested.
  • ad hoc to paper For PGMW 3120, the three cluster members have equal brightness, so the target's luminosity is one-third of the cluster total.
    Assumed in Sec. 3.7 from F220W photometry; if wrong, the star's T*, log g, and N abundance change.
  • domain assumption Stars classified as single have no unrecognized companions affecting the spectrum.
    GIRAFFE multi-epoch data show no evidence over days to weeks (Sec. 3.2), but the paper itself notes a star cannot be proven single; this affects parameters for all sample stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of X-Shooting ULLYSES: Massive Stars at Low Metallicity X. Physical Parameters and Feedback of Massive Stars in the LMC N11 B Star-Forming Region." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/32H5ALMH

@misc{pith2026241114149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: X-Shooting ULLYSES: Massive Stars at Low Metallicity X. Physical Parameters and Feedback of Massive Stars in the LMC N11 B Star-Forming Region},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/32H5ALMH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14149}
}
abstract

Massive stars lead the ionization and mechanical feedback within young star-forming regions. The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is an ideal galaxy for studying individual massive stars and quantifying their feedback contribution to the environment. We analyze eight exemplary targets in LMC N11 B from the Hubble UV Legacy Library of Young Stars as Essential Standards (ULLYSES) program, using novel spectra from HST (COS and STIS) in the UV, and from VLT (X-shooter) in the optical. We model the spectra of early to late O-type stars by using state-of-the-art PoWR atmosphere models. We determine the stellar and wind parameters (e.g., $T_\star$, $\log g$, $L_{\star}$, $\dot{M}$, $v_\infty$) of the analyzed objects, chemical abundances (C, N, O), ionizing and mechanical feedback ($Q_\mathrm{H}$, $Q_\mathrm{He{\small{I}}}$, $Q_\mathrm{He{\small{II}}}$, $L_\mathrm{mec}$) and X-rays. We report ages of $2-4.5$ Myr and masses of $30-60$ $M_\odot$ for the analyzed stars in N11 B, consistent with a scenario of sequential star formation. We note that the observed wind-momentum luminosity relation is consistent with theoretical predictions. We detect nitrogen enrichment in most of the stars, up to a factor of seven. However, we do not find a correlation between nitrogen enrichment and projected rotational velocity. Finally, based on their spectral type, we estimate the total ionizing photons injected from the O-type stars in N11 B into its environment. We report $\log$ ($\sum$ $Q_\mathrm{H}$)$=50.5$ ph s$^{-1}$, $\log$ ($\sum$ $Q_\mathrm{He{\small{I}}}$)$=49.6$ ph s$^{-1}$ and $\log$ ($\sum$ $Q_\mathrm{He{\small{II}}}$)$=44.4$ ph s$^{-1}$, consistent with the total ionizing budget in N11.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Massive stars in the N11 B star forming region in the LMC. The colour-composite image covers most of the stellar complex, and is formed using HST/WFPC2 filters in F656N (Hα), pseudo-green, and F502N ([O iii]) as red, green, and blue components, respectively. We indicate the location of the complete sample of stars from Parker et al. (1992), identified as O-type stars (cyan), B-type (magenta), and unclassified object… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images of the LMC N11 B O-type stars, from HST/WFPC2 in the F656N filter (Hα), except for PGMW 3120 (HST/ACS/F220W). The ULLYSES targets are identified with their respective IDs from Parker et al. (1992, PGMW #) and Evans et al. (2006, N11 #). The slits from different instruments are indicated, including their shapes, sizes and position angles: FUSE FUV/MRDS (dashed magenta; 4 × 20 arcsec); HST COS (dashed cyan; D2.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graphical output from the iacob-broad semi-automatized tool to determine projected rotational velocity (3sin i) and non-rotational broad￾ening. In this particular case for the star PGMW 3053, using the metal line of N iii λ4515 in absorption. Five panels are displayed: (upper left) the line profile of the line; (upper right) the Fourier transform (FT) of the line; (lower right) 2D χ-distributions resulting from Good… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PoWR model for the star PGMW 3053. The observed spectrum is shown by a blue line and the model by a red dashed line. (first panel) SED with photometric magnitudes (colour boxes). The UV spectra better constrain the E(B − V) and L⋆ of the star (also indicated at the upp…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PoWR model for PGMW 3053. Several windows are displayed to show the Balmer lines present in the observed spectrum in detail: Hα, Hβ, Hγ, Hδ, Hϵ and H10–H17, in comparison with the final model of the star. The surface gravity (log g) parameter of the star is determined …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PoWR model for PGMW 3053. Several windows are displayed to show the most important He i and He ii lines, as well as some metals, in comparison with the final model of the star. The temperature (T⋆) of the star is determined by modeling the He i-He ii ratios (e.g., He i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: H-R diagram for the sample of ULLYSES target O-type stars in N11 B. Evolutionary tracks (continuous lines) and isochrones (dotted lines) from Brott et al. (2011) and Köhler et al. (2015) with LMC com￾position are displayed. The ULLYSES targets (cyan circles) are iden￾t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: , we note an increasing trend between the mass-loss rates and the luminosities of the O-type stars in N11 B. We determined log M˙ values in the range of −6.7 to −6.0 M⊙ yr−1 . Among our sample of stars, PGMW 3061 and PGMW 3053 have the high￾est mass-loss rates and are …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Modified wind momentum (Dmom) vs. luminosity (log L⋆) for the O-type stars analyzed in N11 B. An increasing trend is observed. Two exemplary wind momentum-luminosity relations (WLR) are dis￾played: the one predicted by Vink et al. (2000) (dashed line) and the empirica…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Surface nitrogen abundances (log (N/H) + 12) by mass vs. projected rotational velocity (3sin i) for the O-type stars analyzed in N11 B. Most of the objects are nitrogen-enriched, up to a factor of seven. A standard nitrogen abundance in the LMC (log (N/H) + 12 = 6.88)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, , 119, 161101

    2017

  4. [4]

    Z., Berg , D

    Arellano-C \'o rdova , K. Z., Berg , D. A., Chisholm , J., et al. 2022, , 940, L23

    2022

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    2009

  6. [6]

    Bartzakos , P., Moffat , A. F. J., & Niemela , V. S. 2001, , 324, 18

    2001

  7. [7]

    R., Herrero , A., Comer \'o n , F., et al

    Berlanas , S. R., Herrero , A., Comer \'o n , F., et al. 2020, , 642, A168

    2020

  8. [8]

    Bernini-Peron , M., Sander , A. A. C., Ramachandran , V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14216

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Z., Massa , D

    Bonanos , A. Z., Massa , D. L., Sewilo , M., et al. 2009, , 138, 1003

    2009

  2. [10]

    C., Hillier , D

    Bouret , J. C., Hillier , D. J., Lanz , T., & Fullerton , A. W. 2012, , 544, A67

    2012

  3. [11]

    E., Cantiello , M., et al

    Brott , I., de Mink , S. E., Cantiello , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A115

    2011

  4. [12]

    I., Abbott , D

    Castor , J. I., Abbott , D. C., & Klein , R. I. 1975, , 195, 157

    1975

  5. [13]

    Cioni , M. R. L., Clementini , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2011, , 527, A116

    2011

  6. [14]

    S., Garmany , C

    Conti , P. S., Garmany , C. D., De Loore , C., & Vanbeveren , D. 1983, , 274, 302

    1983

  7. [15]

    Crowther , P. A. 2007, , 45, 177

    2007

  8. [16]

    Crowther , P. A. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 88

    2019

  9. [17]

    A., Broos , P

    Crowther , P. A., Broos , P. S., Townsley , L. K., et al. 2022, , 515, 4130

    2022

  10. [18]

    Crowther , P. A. & Castro , N. 2024, , 527, 9023

    2024

  11. [19]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  12. [20]

    2022, , 517, 4497

    Dom \' nguez-Guzm \'a n , G., Rodr \' guez , M., Garc \' a-Rojas , J., Esteban , C., & Toribio San Cipriano , L. 2022, , 517, 4497

    2022

  13. [21]

    I., Crowther , P

    Doran , E. I., Crowther , P. A., de Koter , A., et al. 2013, , 558, A134

    2013

  14. [22]

    Eldridge , J. J. & Stanway , E. R. 2022, , 60, 455

    2022

  15. [23]

    J., Lennon , D

    Evans , C. J., Lennon , D. J., Smartt , S. J., & Trundle , C. 2006, , 456, 623

    2006

  16. [24]

    J., Taylor , W

    Evans , C. J., Taylor , W. D., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al. 2011, , 530, A108

    2011

  17. [25]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1988, , 335, 703

    1988

  18. [26]

    W., Massa , D

    Fullerton , A. W., Massa , D. L., & Prinja , R. K. 2006, , 637, 1025

    2006

  19. [27]

    2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/345

    Gaia Collaboration . 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/345

    2018

  20. [28]

    2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    Gaia Collaboration . 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/350

    2020

  21. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  22. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  23. [31]

    Gr \"a fener , G., Koesterke , L., & Hamann , W. R. 2002, , 387, 244

    2002

  24. [32]

    C., Froning , C

    Green , J. C., Froning , C. S., Osterman , S., et al. 2012, , 744, 60

    2012

  25. [33]

    Groenewegen , M. A. T. & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 1989, , 79, 359

    1989

  26. [34]

    2019, , 621, A85

    Hainich , R., Ramachandran , V., Shenar , T., et al. 2019, , 621, A85

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hamann , W. R. & Gr \"a fener , G. 2003, , 410, 993

    2003

  28. [36]

    Hamann , W. R. & Koesterke , L. 1998, , 335, 1003

    1998

  29. [37]

    M., Pauldrach , A

    Haser , S. M., Pauldrach , A. W. A., Lennon , D. J., et al. 1998, , 330, 285

    1998

  30. [38]

    L., Woosley , S

    Heger , A., Fryer , C. L., Woosley , S. E., Langer , N., & Hartmann , D. H. 2003, , 591, 288

    2003

  31. [39]

    Henize , K. G. 1956, , 2, 315

    1956

  32. [40]

    P., Vilchez , J

    Herrero , A., Kudritzki , R. P., Vilchez , J. M., et al. 1992, in The Atmospheres of Early-Type Stars, ed. U. Heber & C. S. Jeffery , Vol. 401, 21

    1992

  33. [41]

    H., et al

    Holgado , G., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Barb \'a , R. H., et al. 2018, , 613, A65

    2018

  34. [42]

    J., et al

    Hunter , I., Brott , I., Lennon , D. J., et al. 2008, , 676, L29

    2008

  35. [43]

    L., Smartt , S

    Hunter , I., Dufton , P. L., Smartt , S. J., et al. 2007, , 466, 277

    2007

  36. [44]

    I., Guseva , N

    Izotov , Y. I., Guseva , N. G., Fricke , K. J., & Henkel , C. 2019, , 623, A40

    2019

  37. [45]

    J., Bothun , G

    Kennicutt , Robert C., J., Bresolin , F., Bomans , D. J., Bothun , G. D., & Thompson , I. B. 1995, , 109, 594

    1995

  38. [46]

    2015, , 573, A71

    K \"o hler , K., Langer , N., de Koter , A., et al. 2015, , 573, A71

    2015

  39. [47]

    P., Pauldrach , A., Puls , J., & Abbott , D

    Kudritzki , R. P., Pauldrach , A., Puls , J., & Abbott , D. C. 1989, , 219, 205

    1989

  40. [48]

    & Puls , J

    Kudritzki , R.-P. & Puls , J. 2000, , 38, 613

    2000

  41. [49]

    2012, , 50, 107

    Langer , N. 2012, , 50, 107

    2012

  42. [50]

    S., Clausen , J

    Larsen , S. S., Clausen , J. V., & Storm , J. 2000, , 364, 455

    2000

  43. [51]

    Lucke , P. B. & Hodge , P. W. 1970, , 75, 171

    1970

  44. [52]

    2009, Communications in Asteroseismology, 158, 72

    Maeder , A., Meynet , G., Ekstr \"o m , S., & Georgy , C. 2009, Communications in Asteroseismology, 158, 72

    2009

  45. [53]

    A., Sana , H., et al

    Mahy , L., Almeida , L. A., Sana , H., et al. 2020, , 634, A119

    2020

  46. [54]

    Mahy , L., Rauw , G., De Becker , M., Eenens , P., & Flores , C. A. 2015, , 577, A23

    2015

  47. [55]

    C., Hillier , D

    Martins , F., Bouret , J. C., Hillier , D. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.01267

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J., & Rauw , G

    Martins , F., Mahy , L., Hillier , D. J., & Rauw , G. 2012, , 538, A39

    2012

  49. [57]

    W., Sonneborn , G., & Hutchings , J

    Massa , D., Fullerton , A. W., Sonneborn , G., & Hutchings , J. B. 2003, , 586, 996

    2003

  50. [58]

    2003, , 41, 15

    Massey , P. 2003, , 41, 15

    2003

  51. [59]

    R., de Koter , A., Evans , C

    Mokiem , M. R., de Koter , A., Evans , C. J., et al. 2007 a , , 465, 1003

    2007

  52. [60]

    R., de Koter , A., Vink , J

    Mokiem , M. R., de Koter , A., Vink , J. S., et al. 2007 b , , 473, 603

    2007

  53. [61]

    W., Cash , W

    Moos , H. W., Cash , W. C., Cowie , L. L., et al. 2000, , 538, L1

    2000

  54. [62]

    J., Puls , J., Lanz , T., & Martins , F

    Najarro , F., Hillier , D. J., Puls , J., Lanz , T., & Martins , F. 2006, , 456, 659

    2006

  55. [63]

    2009, , 506, 1055

    Naz \'e , Y. 2009, , 506, 1055

    2009

  56. [64]

    I., Rauw , G., et al

    Naz \'e , Y., Antokhin , I. I., Rauw , G., et al. 2004, , 418, 841

    2004

  57. [65]

    D., Chu , Y.-H., Gruendl , R., & Oskinova , L

    Naz \'e , Y., Wang , Q. D., Chu , Y.-H., Gruendl , R., & Oskinova , L. 2014, , 213, 23

    2014

  58. [66]

    Oskinova , L. M. 2005, , 361, 679

    2005

  59. [67]

    M., Kub \'a tov \'a , B., & Hamann , W.-R

    Oskinova , L. M., Kub \'a tov \'a , B., & Hamann , W.-R. 2016, , 183, 100

    2016

  60. [68]

    W., Garmany , C

    Parker , J. W., Garmany , C. D., Massey , P., & Walborn , N. R. 1992, , 103, 1205

    1992

  61. [69]

    2002, The Messenger, 110, 1

    Pasquini , L., Avila , G., Blecha , A., et al. 2002, The Messenger, 110, 1

    2002

  62. [70]

    M., Hamann , W

    Pauli , D., Oskinova , L. M., Hamann , W. R., et al. 2023, , 673, A40

    2023

  63. [71]

    W., Oey , M

    Pellegrini , E. W., Oey , M. S., Winkler , P. F., et al. 2012, , 755, 40

    2012

  64. [72]

    Penny , L. R. & Gies , D. R. 2009, , 700, 844

    2009

  65. [73]

    Petrovic , J., Langer , N., & van der Hucht , K. A. 2005, , 435, 1013

    2005

  66. [74]

    2013, , 495, 76

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gieren , W., et al. 2013, , 495, 76

    2013

  67. [75]

    S., & Najarro , F

    Puls , J., Vink , J. S., & Najarro , F. 2008, , 16, 209

    2008

  68. [76]

    R., et al

    Ramachandran , V., Hainich , R., Hamann , W. R., et al. 2018, , 609, A7

    2018

  69. [77]

    R., Oskinova , L

    Ramachandran , V., Hamann , W. R., Oskinova , L. M., et al. 2019, , 625, A104

    2019

  70. [78]

    M., & Hamann , W

    Ramachandran , V., Oskinova , L. M., & Hamann , W. R. 2021, , 646, A16

    2021

  71. [79]

    H., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Sana , H., et al

    Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Sana , H., et al. 2013, , 560, A29

    2013

  72. [80]

    2004, , 415, 349

    Repolust , T., Puls , J., & Herrero , A. 2004, , 415, 349

    2004

  73. [81]

    G., Puls , J., Najarro , F., & Brott , I

    Rivero Gonz \'a lez , J. G., Puls , J., Najarro , F., & Brott , I. 2012, , 537, A79

    2012

  74. [82]

    R., Taylor , J

    Roman-Duval , J., Proffitt , C. R., Taylor , J. M., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 205

    2020

  75. [83]

    J., Moos , H

    Sahnow , D. J., Moos , H. W., Ake , T. B., et al. 2000, , 538, L7

    2000

  76. [84]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161

    1955

  77. [85]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  78. [86]

    H., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al

    Sana , H., Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al. 2022, , 668, L5

    2022

  79. [87]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16987

    Sana , H., Tramper , F., Abdul-Masih , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16987

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    2015, , 577, A13

    Sander , A., Shenar , T., Hainich , R., et al. 2015, , 577, A13

    2015

  81. [89]

    Schneider , F. R. N., Langer , N., de Koter , A., et al. 2014, , 570, A66

    2014

  82. [90]

    Seaton , M. J. 1979, , 187, 73

    1979

  83. [91]

    2023, , 676, A85

    Serebriakova , N., Tkachenko , A., Gebruers , S., et al. 2023, , 676, A85

    2023

  84. [92]

    2016, , 591, A22

    Shenar , T., Hainich , R., Todt , H., et al. 2016, , 591, A22

    2016

  85. [93]

    2017, , 597, A22

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Godart , M., Castro , N., et al. 2017, , 597, A22

    2017

  86. [94]

    & Herrero , A

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S. & Herrero , A. 2014, , 562, A135

    2014

  87. [95]

    L., Hunter , I., et al

    Trundle , C., Dufton , P. L., Hunter , I., et al. 2007, The VLT-FLAMES survey of massive stars: evolution of surface N abundances and effective temperature scales in the Galaxy and Magellanic Clouds , Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 471, Issue 2, August IV 2007, pp.625-643

    2007

  88. [96]

    1997, , 317, 487

    Vanbeveren , D., van Bever , J., & De Donder , E. 1997, , 317, 487

    1997

  89. [97]

    2011, , 536, A105

    Vernet , J., Dekker , H., D'Odorico , S., et al. 2011, , 536, A105

    2011

  90. [98]

    S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H

    Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2000, , 362, 295

    2000

  91. [99]

    S., Mehner , A., Crowther , P

    Vink , J. S., Mehner , A., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2023, , 675, A154

    2023

  92. [100]

    R., Howarth , I

    Walborn , N. R., Howarth , I. D., Evans , C. J., et al. 2010, , 139, 1283

    2010

  93. [101]

    R., Lennon , D

    Walborn , N. R., Lennon , D. J., Haser , S. M., Kudritzki , R.-P., & Voels , S. A. 1995, , 107, 104

    1995

  94. [102]

    R., Morrell , N

    Walborn , N. R., Morrell , N. I., Howarth , I. D., et al. 2004, , 608, 1028

    2004

  95. [103]

    2021, , 500, 2908

    Wofford , A., Vidal-Garc \' a , A., Feltre , A., et al. 2021, , 500, 2908

    2021

  96. [104]

    C., Strom , S

    Wolff , S. C., Strom , S. E., Dror , D., & Venn , K. 2007, , 133, 1092

    2007

  97. [105]

    E., Kimble , R

    Woodgate , B. E., Kimble , R. A., Bowers , C. W., et al. 1998, , 110, 1183

    1998

  98. [106]

    & Janka , T

    Woosley , S. & Janka , T. 2005, Nature Physics, 1, 147

    2005

  99. [107]

    Woosley , S. E. & Bloom , J. S. 2006, , 44, 507

    2006

  100. [108]

    T., Girard , T

    Zacharias , N., Finch , C. T., Girard , T. M., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/322A

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.