pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2602.06196 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-05 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: no theorem link

Compact HII Regions as Clocks of Massive-Star Formation: Evidence for Long Formation Timescales

Paolo Padoan , Mark Gieles
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 06:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords compact HII regionsmassive star formationluminosity functioninertial inflow modelinitial mass functionformation timescalesMilky Way
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compact HII regions act as clocks showing massive stars form over Myr timescales that increase with final mass.

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

The paper reinterprets the luminosity function of compact HII regions by including ongoing stellar accretion during the ionizing phase. It shows that the apparent short lifetime of these regions actually measures the extended time massive stars spend growing. Fitting revised Galactic luminosity functions from the Red MSX Source survey and Alma Luminous Star catalogue with a forward model based on stellar tracks yields a formation time of about 4 Myr for a 60 solar mass star, scaling roughly as the square root of mass. The same fit requires the stellar initial mass function to be a broken power law that steepens above 18 solar masses. Readers would care because this turns a classic puzzle into direct evidence that massive star formation is a slow, mass-dependent process consistent with the inertial-inflow model.

Core claim

The central claim is that once stellar growth during the ionizing phase is included, the compact-HII-region luminosity function compared to the OB-star luminosity function constrains massive-star formation timescales to follow a square-root mass dependence, reaching about 4 Myr for a 60 solar mass star, as predicted by the inertial-inflow model. Revised luminosity functions derived from the Red MSX Source survey and the Alma Luminous Star catalogue are fitted jointly with a deterministic forward model based on stellar evolutionary tracks. The model simultaneously requires the field initial mass function to be a broken power law with a slope close to Salpeter's at low masses and significantly

What carries the argument

The inertial-inflow model, which supplies the mass-dependent formation timescale used to predict the duration of the compact HII phase for a star of given final mass.

If this is right

  • Massive-star formation times increase with mass, reaching several Myr for the most massive stars.
  • The stellar initial mass function steepens significantly above approximately 18 solar masses.
  • The maximum stellar mass scales with the mass of the parent molecular cloud.
  • The numbers of compact HII regions reflect the length of the accretion phase rather than a brief static lifetime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Observers could test the growth law by searching for ongoing accretion signatures in massive young stellar objects at ages of a few Myr.
  • Such long timescales would reduce the impact of early stellar feedback on dispersing the parent cloud.
  • The same luminosity-function method applied to HII regions in other galaxies could check whether the mass-dependent formation law is universal.
  • Numerical simulations of turbulent clouds should be checked to see whether they produce similar mass-dependent accretion histories.

Load-bearing premise

The lifetime of the compact HII region phase is set solely by the time the star spends above a given ionizing luminosity while still accreting.

What would settle it

An observed compact-HII luminosity function that deviates from the distribution predicted by the fitted square-root growth law and broken power-law IMF, or direct age measurements of massive protostars showing formation completed in far less than 4 Myr for 60 solar mass stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06196 by Mark Gieles, Paolo Padoan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the mass growth and luminosity mapping assumed in the classical interpretation of compact H II regions (left) and in the IIM picture explored in this work (right). In both panels the stellar mass m increases with time until it reaches the final mass mf, after which the star evolves on the main sequence (horizontal segment). Ionising emission turns on when the growing star crosses … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic mapping between stellar growth tracks in the luminosity–time plane and the observed LFs in the IIM. Left: example evolutionary tracks for stars of different final masses mf. During the growth phase (blue), the luminosity increases as the star accretes; once the ionization threshold is reached (dotted horizontal line at log10(L/L⊙) = 3), the source is counted as a compact H II region (blue shading… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Left: OB-star LF from the ALS III catalog (blue circles with 1σ error bars) for d ≤ 6 kpc. The lower axis shows the bolometric luminosity, and the upper axis gives the corresponding main-sequence mass using the L(m) relation (see Section 4.1 for details). Number densities assume an exponential vertical distribution with scale height h = 39 pc. The M11 LF (gray squares) has been rescaled from h = 45 pc used… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the observed OB-star and compact H ii-region LFs (green squares and red circles respectively) and the model predictions (orange and blue lines). Both model LFs shown here are derived from the same broken power–law IMF giving the best fit to the observed OB-star LF. The blue curve is the best fit to the observed H ii-region LF corresponding to the best-fitting growth-law parameters α = 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Constraints on the massive-star growth–law pa￾rameters α and τ0. Top: ∆χ 2 map from the fit of the com￾pact H ii-region LF using the best–fitting IMF. Filled con￾tours show the joint 1, 2, and 3σ confidence regions for two parameters (∆χ 2 = 2.30, 6.17, 11.8). The red star marks the best–fit point, with 1D profiled errors α = 0.48+0.07 −0.07 and τ0 = 1.90+0.18 −0.14 Myr. Bottom: effective ∆χ 2 post obtaine… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We revisit the luminosity function (LF) of compact HII regions in the context of the inertial--inflow model (IIM), in which massive stars assemble over extended, mass-dependent timescales. The comparison of the compact-HII-region LF with that of OB stars has been used to estimate the compact-HII-phase lifetime and is often cited as evidence for the classical ``lifetime problem'' of HII regions. We show that once stellar growth during the ionizing phase is included, the LF comparison instead constrains massive-star formation timescales, so the lifetime problem turns into evidence for prolonged growth. We illustrate the principle with a simple analytic model, derive revised Galactic LFs for compact HII regions and OB stars from the Red MSX Source survey and the Alma Luminous Star catalogue, and fit the LFs jointly with a deterministic forward model based on stellar evolutionary tracks. The joint LF constraints imply a growth law in which the formation time is about 4 Myr for a $60\,M_\odot$ star, with an approximately square-root dependence on mass, as predicted by the IIM and supported by the numerical simulations from which it was derived. They also require the field stellar initial mass function to be a broken power law, with a slope close to Salpeter's at low masses and significantly steeper above approximately $18\,M_\odot$, as expected from the model prediction that the maximum stellar mass scales with the mass of the parent cloud. We conclude that massive stars in the Milky Way form over Myr timescales that increase with their final mass.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that incorporating stellar growth during the compact HII phase into the inertial-inflow model (IIM) transforms the classic luminosity-function (LF) comparison between compact HII regions and OB stars from a 'lifetime problem' into a constraint on massive-star formation timescales. Using revised LFs derived from the Red MSX Source (RMS) and Alma Luminous Star (ALS) catalogues, the authors perform a joint fit with a deterministic forward model based on stellar evolutionary tracks. The fit yields a growth law with formation time ~4 Myr for a 60 M⊙ star and an approximately square-root mass dependence, together with a broken power-law IMF that steepens above ~18 M⊙.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work supplies direct observational support for extended, mass-dependent formation timescales of massive stars, consistent with the IIM and the simulations that motivated it. It also provides a revised high-mass IMF slope and demonstrates how survey-based LFs can serve as clocks for the assembly process rather than merely bounding phase lifetimes. The approach is internally consistent and offers a falsifiable prediction for the mass dependence of formation times.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (forward model): the deterministic mapping assumes the compact-HII phase duration equals exactly the time a star spends above the ionizing-luminosity threshold while still accreting. No quantitative estimate is given for the possible shortening of this phase by dust absorption or dynamical disruption; if either effect is non-negligible, the inferred formation timescale (~4 Myr at 60 M⊙) would be systematically overestimated to reproduce the observed LF ratio.
  2. [§4] §4 (joint LF fit): the growth-law normalization is determined by fitting the same RMS/ALS LF data that the model is then used to explain. While the square-root mass dependence is motivated by prior simulations, the normalization remains a free parameter, so the claimed 4 Myr timescale for 60 M⊙ stars carries a moderate circularity burden that should be tested against an independent observable (e.g., protostellar outflow lifetimes or cluster age spreads).
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The notation for the ionizing luminosity threshold and the exact definition of the compact-HII selection criterion should be stated explicitly in the text (currently only referenced to the survey papers) to allow readers to reproduce the LF construction without external lookup.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (LF comparison) would benefit from an additional panel showing the model prediction when the growth law is replaced by a constant formation time, to illustrate the improvement quantitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and positive review. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (forward model): the deterministic mapping assumes the compact-HII phase duration equals exactly the time a star spends above the ionizing-luminosity threshold while still accreting. No quantitative estimate is given for the possible shortening of this phase by dust absorption or dynamical disruption; if either effect is non-negligible, the inferred formation timescale (~4 Myr at 60 M⊙) would be systematically overestimated to reproduce the observed LF ratio.

    Authors: We agree that the forward model equates the compact HII phase duration with the time a star spends above the ionizing-luminosity threshold while accreting. The manuscript does not provide quantitative estimates for possible shortening by dust absorption or dynamical disruption. In the revised version we will add a new subsection in §3 that reviews literature estimates for these effects and states explicitly that, if they prove significant, the derived formation timescales represent upper limits. This addition will not change the central results but will clarify the assumption. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (joint LF fit): the growth-law normalization is determined by fitting the same RMS/ALS LF data that the model is then used to explain. While the square-root mass dependence is motivated by prior simulations, the normalization remains a free parameter, so the claimed 4 Myr timescale for 60 M⊙ stars carries a moderate circularity burden that should be tested against an independent observable (e.g., protostellar outflow lifetimes or cluster age spreads).

    Authors: The referee is correct that the growth-law normalization is obtained by fitting the same LF data used to test the model. The square-root mass dependence is taken directly from the IIM and the simulations that motivated it; only the overall normalization is adjusted to the observations. We regard the procedure as a self-consistent calibration rather than circular reasoning, because the model then predicts the detailed shape of both LFs. Nevertheless, following the suggestion, the revised manuscript will include a short paragraph in §4 outlining how the derived timescales could be tested independently with protostellar outflow lifetimes and cluster age spreads. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Growth law parameters fitted to LF data then presented as matching IIM prediction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "The joint LF constraints imply a growth law in which the formation time is about 4 Myr for a 60 M⊙ star, with an approximately square-root dependence on mass, as predicted by the IIM and supported by the numerical simulations from which it was derived."

    The growth-law parameters are obtained by fitting the forward model directly to the observed compact-HII and OB-star LFs; the reported match to the IIM square-root dependence is therefore produced by the fit itself rather than by an a-priori prediction confronted with independent data.

full rationale

The paper constructs a deterministic forward model linking stellar evolutionary tracks to compact-HII lifetimes (assumed equal to accretion time above a luminosity threshold) and fits this model jointly to revised RMS and ALS luminosity functions. The resulting growth law (normalization ~4 Myr at 60 M⊙ and approximate square-root mass dependence) is then stated to agree with the IIM. Because the functional form and normalization are adjusted to reproduce the same LF data used to derive the timescales, the claimed confirmation of the IIM prediction reduces to a fitted outcome rather than an independent test. No other circular steps are present; the underlying stellar tracks and LF measurements are external.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the inertial-inflow model growth law, stellar evolutionary tracks, and survey selection functions. Two free parameters (growth-law normalization and high-mass IMF slope) are fitted to the data.

free parameters (2)
  • growth-law normalization
    Sets the absolute formation time for a reference mass; fitted to match the observed LF ratio.
  • high-mass IMF slope
    Fitted above ~18 M⊙ to reproduce the observed drop-off in the OB-star LF.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolutionary tracks accurately predict ionizing luminosity as a function of current mass and age.
    Invoked when mapping the growth law to the compact-HII LF.
  • domain assumption Compact HII regions are observed only while the central star is still accreting and above a minimum ionizing luminosity.
    Core modeling assumption that converts the lifetime problem into a formation-time constraint.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5584 in / 1484 out tokens · 61404 ms · 2026-05-16T06:28:25.651901+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 674, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243813

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Sordo, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243813

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243813 2023

  2. [2]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., & Pringle, J. E. 2001a, MNRAS, 323, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04270.x 2001

  3. [3]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., Bate, M. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2001b, MNRAS, 324, 573, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04311.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04311.x 2001

  4. [4]

    J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Saxena, A., Cameron, A. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346159

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159 2023

  5. [5]

    2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88 2024

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 673, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346410

    Charbonnel, C., Schaerer, D., Prantzos, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346410

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346410 2023

  7. [7]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936612 2019

  8. [8]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  9. [9]

    2002, ARA&A, 40, 27

    Churchwell, E. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 27

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/3

    Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/3 2014

  11. [11]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3283

    Colombo, D., Rosolowsky, E., Duarte-Cabral, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4291, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3283

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3283 2019

  12. [12]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  13. [13]

    Nitrogen enhancement of GN-z11 by metal pollution from supermassive stars

    Ebihara, S., Fujii, M. S., Saitoh, T. R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04344, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.04344

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.04344 2026

  14. [14]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1425

    Nguyen-Luong, Q., & Merello, M. 2021, ApJ, 920, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1425

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1425 2021

  15. [15]

    M., Lada, C

    Faesi, C. M., Lada, C. J., & Forbrich, J. 2018, ApJ, 857, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad60 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Peters, T., Keto, E. R., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 416, 1033, doi: 10.111...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaad60 2018

  16. [16]

    S., & Ram´ ırez-Galeano, L

    Gieles, M., Padoan, P., Charbonnel, C., Vink, J. S., & Ram´ ırez-Galeano, L. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 544, 483, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1314

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1314 2025

  17. [17]

    J., et al

    Gratier, P., Braine, J., Rodriguez-Fernandez, N. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116612

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116612 2012

  18. [18]

    H., Carpenter, J

    Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852, doi: 10.1086/320218

    work page doi:10.1086/320218 2001

  19. [19]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 703, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556713

    Holgado, G., Sim´ on-D´ ıaz, S., & Herrero, A. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 703, A175, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556713

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556713 2025

  20. [20]

    1994, ApJ, 428, 654, doi: 10.1086/174276 14

    Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., & Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 428, 654, doi: 10.1086/174276 14

    work page doi:10.1086/174276 1994

  21. [21]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, 980, doi: 10.1086/343794

    Keto, E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 580, 980, doi: 10.1086/343794

    work page doi:10.1086/343794 2002

  22. [22]

    L., Hoare, M

    Lumsden, S. L., Hoare, M. G., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 11 Ma´ ız-Apell´ aniz, J., Walborn, N. R., Galu´ e, H.´A., & Wei, L. H. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 151, 103, doi: 10.1086/381377

    work page doi:10.1086/381377 2013

  23. [23]

    Martins, F., Schaerer, D., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 436, 1049, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042386

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042386 2005

  24. [24]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2002, Nature, 416, 59, doi: 10.1038/416059a

    work page doi:10.1038/416059a 2002

  25. [25]

    F., & Tan, J

    McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, ApJ, 585, 850, doi: 10.1086/346149 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    work page doi:10.1086/346149 2003

  26. [26]

    C., Hoare, M

    Mottram, J. C., Hoare, M. G., Lumsden, S. L., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 525, A149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014591

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014591 2011

  27. [27]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.11263, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.11263

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11263 2025

  28. [28]

    2024, A&A, 687, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449279

    Nony, T., Galv´ an-Madrid, R., Brouillet, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449279

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449279 2024

  29. [29]

    2012, ApJL, 759, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2012, ApJL, 759, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/l27 2012

  30. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T., Nordlund, ˚A., & Frimann, S. 2017, ApJ, 840, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa 2017

  31. [31]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/40 2011

  32. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47

    Padoan, P., Pan, L., Juvela, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2020, ApJ, 900, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47 Pantaleoni Gonz´ alez, M., Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Barb´ a, R. H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 63, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1409 Pantaleoni Gonz´ alez, M., Reed, B. C., Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., & Barb´ a, R. H. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2968, doi: 10.1093/m...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaa47 2020

  33. [33]

    Pedersen, M. G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 3909

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    S., et al

    Peters, T., Banerjee, R., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 711, 1017, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1017

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/711/2/1017 2010

  35. [35]

    Reed, B. C. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 125, 2531, doi: 10.1086/374771

    work page doi:10.1086/374771 2003

  36. [36]

    Reed, B. C. 2005, AJ, 130, 1652

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    M., Heyer, M., Rathborne, J., & Simon, R

    Roman-Duval, J., Jackson, J. M., Heyer, M., Rathborne, J., & Simon, R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 492, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/492

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/1/492 2010

  38. [38]

    2005, PASP, 117, 1403, doi: 10.1086/497582

    Rosolowsky, E. 2005, PASP, 117, 1403, doi: 10.1086/497582

    work page doi:10.1086/497582 2005

  39. [39]

    K., et al

    Rosolowsky, E., Hughes, A., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1218, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab085

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab085 2021

  40. [40]

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

    work page 1955

  41. [41]

    S., Busfield, A

    Urquhart, J. S., Busfield, A. L., Hoare, M. G., et al. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 487, 253, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809415

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809415 2008

  42. [42]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/16

    Utomo, D., Blitz, L., Davis, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/16 2015

  43. [43]

    S., & Aharonian, F

    Weidner, C., & Kroupa, P. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1333, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09824.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09824.x 2006

  44. [44]

    Wood, D. O. S., & Churchwell, E. 1989a, ApJS, 69, 831, doi: 10.1086/191329

    work page doi:10.1086/191329

  45. [45]

    Wood, D. O. S., & Churchwell, E. 1989b, ApJ, 340, 265, doi: 10.1086/167390

    work page doi:10.1086/167390