# The Mass Function of Young Star Clusters in the “Antennae” Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

The luminosity functions of the young star clusters in merging galaxies, including the “Antennae” (NGC 4038/39), have roughly power-law form, $`\varphi (L)L^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 2`$, and no sign of a peak or turnover down to the limiting magnitudes of the observations (Whitmore & Schweizer 1995; Schweizer et al. 1996; Miller et al. 1997; Carlson et al. 1998; Whitmore et al. 1999; Zepf et al. 1999). These are similar to the luminosity functions of open clusters in the Milky Way (van den Bergh & LaFontaine 1984) and M33 (Christian & Schommer 1988) and the populous clusters in the LMC (Elson & Fall 1985) and starburst galaxies (Meurer et al. 1995). In contrast, the luminosity functions of the old globular clusters in the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy, and elliptical galaxies have peaks at $`L_V10^5`$ $`L_{}`$ and decline toward both higher and lower luminosities. These functions are often represented by lognormal distributions of luminosities, corresponding to Gaussian distributions of magnitudes (e.g., Harris 1991).

This immediately raises the question of whether the mass functions of the young star clusters in merging galaxies have power-law or lognormal forms. The mass functions are of greater relevance to our understanding of the physical processes involved in the formation and disruption of the clusters. If the star clusters of any population formed at the same time and with the same stellar initial mass function (IMF), then the luminosity function of the clusters would always have the same shape as the mass function, the two being related by a time-dependent shift along the luminosity axis. However, if the spread in ages within a population is comparable to the mean age, as seems likely for the young star clusters in some recent mergers, one might then worry about the effects of fading, which could cause the shape of the luminosity function to differ substantially from the shape of the mass function (Hogg & Phinney 1997). Based on simulations of this effect, Meurer (1995) concluded that the power-law luminosity function in the Antennae derived by Whitmore & Schweizer (1995) from observations with the WFPC1 before the refurbishment of HST may be consistent with an underlying lognormal mass function. Furthermore, Fritze-von Alvensleben (1999) estimated the mass function of young star clusters in the Antennae directly from these WFPC1 observations and found a lognormal form, similar to that of old globular clusters.

The purpose of this Letter is to determine the mass function of the young star clusters in the Antennae from images taken with the WFPC2 after the refurbishment of HST; these extend about two magnitudes fainter than the earlier images taken with the WFPC1. The data reduction and luminosity functions are described in detail by Whitmore et al. (1999). The novelty of our approach to determine the mass function is that we use reddening-free parameters and a comparison with stellar population synthesis tracks to estimate the intrinsic luminosity and age and hence the mass of each cluster.

## 2 Observations and Selection of Clusters

The Antennae galaxies were observed with the WFPC2 in 1996 January for 2000–4500 s with each of the broad-band filters F336W, F439W, F555W, and F814W. Point-like objects were identified and their magnitudes measured with the IRAF task DAOPHOT; photometry in this system was then transformed to the Johnson $`UBVI`$ system. About 11,000 objects were detected with $`17.4<V<25.4`$, corresponding to $`14<M_V<6`$ at the adopted distance of 19.2 Mpc (for $`H_0`$ = 75 km s<sup>-1</sup> Mpc<sup>-1</sup>). Much of our analysis is based on the reddening-free parameters

$`Q_1=(UB)0.72(BV),`$ (1)   
$`Q_2=(BV)0.80(VI).`$ (2)   
The first of these is the standard reddening-free parameter in the $`UBV`$ system, while the second is a direct extension to the $`UBVI`$ system. Other reddening-free parameters can be defined analogously, but they are all linear combinations of $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$. Equations (1) and (2) are based on the Galactic extinction curve but would be virtually the same for other familiar extinction curves, such as those of the Magellanic Clouds. For objects with $`M_V=9`$, the photometric errors in $`U,B,V,`$ and $`I`$ (0.04–0.07) lead to $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties of 0.12 in $`Q_1`$ and 0.11 in $`Q_2`$.

We identify cluster candidates and estimate their extinctions and ages by comparing them with population synthesis tracks in the $`Q_1Q_2`$ diagram, shown here as Figure 1. In the presence of reddening by dust, this approach has significant advantages over methods based on the more familiar two-color diagrams. For the population synthesis track, we use the Bruzual & Charlot (1996, hereafter BC96) model with the Salpeter IMF truncated at 0.1 and $`125M_{}`$ and with solar metallicity. We regard all point-like objects brighter than $`M_V=9`$ as cluster candidates, irrespective of their $`Q`$ parameters, because nearly all known stars are fainter than this limit (Humphreys 1983). Furthermore, we regard fainter point-like objects as cluster candidates if they lie within $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=(\mathrm{\Delta }Q_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }Q_2^2)^{1/2}=0.3`$ of the population synthesis track (except for a few objects with extremely large photometric errors). This procedure eliminates some but not all stars from our sample (see Figs. 13 and 14 of Whitmore et al. 1999). However, as shown below, stellar contamination has little effect on the mass function we derive because this is based mainly on the brightest objects.

For each cluster candidate, we estimate the intrinsic colors, age $`t`$, and mass-to-light ratio $`M/L`$ from the nearest point on the population synthesis track in the $`Q_1Q_2`$ diagram. A comparison of the intrinsic with the observed colors gives the extinction $`A_V`$, and the intrinsic luminosity $`L_V`$ and mass $`M`$ then follow from $`V`$ and $`A_V`$. The mean value of $`A_V`$ varies from 1.5 for the youngest clusters ($`t<10`$ Myr) to 0.3 for the oldest clusters ($`t>100`$ Myr). Because the BC96 population synthesis track stops evolving in the $`Q_1Q_2`$ diagram at $`\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})=6.4`$, no objects can be assigned ages smaller than this by our procedure. Instead, the youngest clusters are all assigned ages in the interval $`6.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<6.8`$. Furthermore, because the track bends sharply at $`\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})6.9`$ and has a zigzag at $`\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})7.2`$, there is some ambiguity in the assignment of ages in this region of the $`Q_1Q_2`$ diagram. For these reasons, we exclude the intervals $`\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<6.4`$ and $`6.8<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<7.4`$ from our determination of the mass function.

We have verified by simulations that the scatter of cluster candidates away from the population synthesis track in the $`Q_1Q_2`$ diagram is mostly accounted for by photometric errors. However, for the youngest objects ($`t<10`$ Myr), the scatter is slightly larger, probably because they are affected by nebular emission and residual extinction. (While our approach is designed to correct for extinction, this is never perfect, especially in the dusty regions where the youngest clusters are often found.) The errors in the $`Q`$ parameters lead to typical uncertainties of a factor of 2 in the ages and factors that vary from 1.1 to 1.7 in the luminosities. Fortunately, these uncertainties tend to cancel out in estimates of the masses, because younger clusters have lower mass-to-light ratios but higher extinctions. As a result, the uncertainties in the masses of most cluster candidates are smaller than 50%.

Figure 2 shows the luminosity-age relation for the objects in our sample along with the BC96 population synthesis tracks for $`\mathrm{log}(M/M_{})=`$ 6.0, 5.5, 5.0, 4.5, and 4.0. Evidently, the masses of the cluster candidates range from well below $`10^4M_{}`$ to just above $`10^6M_{}`$. The apparent gaps in the luminosity-age relation at $`\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<6.4`$ and $`7.0<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<7.2`$ are artifacts caused by little or no evolution of the population synthesis track in the $`Q_1Q_2`$ diagram in these intervals of age (discussed above). Stellar contamination can be neglected above the horizontal dotted line in Figure 2 at $`M_V^c=9`$, an extinction-corrected magnitude that excludes all but the very brightest stars. For reference, the Large Magellanic Cloud, with about 4% of the total blue luminosity of the Antennae, has two stars with $`M_V^c=9`$, three with $`10<M_V^c<9`$, and none with $`M_V^c<10`$ (Humphreys 1983). Thus, we might expect $`100`$ stars (mostly blue supergiants) brighter than $`M_V^c=9`$ in our sample of cluster candidates, corresponding to contamination at the $`5\%`$ level.

## 3 Mass Function of Clusters

We construct the mass function of cluster candidates in two intervals of age: $`6.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<6.8`$ and $`7.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<8.2`$, corresponding to $`2.5<t<6.3`$ Myr and $`25<t<160`$ Myr. These intervals, which are indicated by the bars at the top of Figure 2, were chosen to avoid the problems discussed in the previous section. The first allows us to estimate the mass function down to relatively low masses with a relatively large number of objects, while the second provides a check on the consistency of our procedure. In constructing the mass function, we must correct for incompleteness in our sample. This depends on the brightness of the objects, whether they are on the PC or WF chips, and the local background and/or crowding. For each cluster candidate, we adopt the completeness factor determined by Whitmore et al. (1999) using a false-star method. Our sample as a whole is about 50% complete at $`V=24`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{log}(M/M_{})3.9`$ for $`6.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<6.8`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(M/M_{})4.4`$ for $`7.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<8.2`$. Above these limits, the younger and older subsamples contain 1140 and 477 objects, respectively.

Figure 3 shows the completeness-corrected mass functions of the cluster candidates in the two intervals of age. The stellar contamination limits are marked by S’s, while the completeness limits are marked by C’s. Stellar contamination is negligible for the younger subsample, but it could begin to affect the older subsample for $`\mathrm{log}(M/M_{})4.7`$. Evidently, the mass functions for the two subsamples are nearly indistinguishable above the completeness limits. They can be represented by a power law, $`\psi (M)M^\beta `$, with $`\beta =1.95\pm 0.03`$ for $`6.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<6.8`$ and $`\beta =2.00\pm 0.08`$ for $`7.4<\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})<8.2`$. These are based on weighted least-square fits of the form $`\mathrm{log}\psi =\beta \mathrm{log}M+\mathrm{const}`$.

We have checked that our results are robust with respect to the adopted population synthesis tracks. First, we repeated the entire analysis with the BC96 models but with a different IMF (Scalo vs. Salpeter) and different metallicities ($`0.4Z_{}`$ and $`2.5Z_{}`$ vs. $`1.0Z_{}`$). Second, we repeated the analysis with the Leitherer et al. (1999) models with the Salpeter IMF and solar metallicity. In the first case, the mass function was virtually the same; in the second case, it was slightly steeper, with $`\beta =2.1`$. We have also checked that our results are not biased by observational errors by randomly re-assigning ages to all cluster candidates younger than $`\mathrm{log}(t/\mathrm{yr})=6.8`$. In this case, we obtain $`\beta =1.9`$.

Figure 3 shows a comparison between the mass function of the young star clusters in the Antennae determined here and the mass function of old globular clusters (indicated by the dash curves). The latter was derived from the usual Gaussian distribution of magnitudes and a fixed mass-to-light ratio, $`M/L_V=2`$. Within the observational uncertainties, it appears that the two mass functions may be similar for $`M2\times 10^5M_{}`$. However, for $`M2\times 10^5M_{}`$, they are completely different; that for the young clusters in the Antennae increases rapidly, while that for the old globular clusters decreases rapidly. Whitmore et al. (1999) found that the luminosity function of the star clusters in the Antennae could be be described by two power-laws joined by a weak bend (with $`\alpha _1=1.7`$ and $`\alpha _2=2.6`$), and there may also be hints of curvature in the mass function we have derived. However, any such deviations in the latter from a single power law have low statistical significance ($`<2\sigma `$). Alternatively, the bend in the luminosity function may result from the fading of clusters that formed over a period of a few hundred Myr with a power-law mass function truncated near $`10^6M_{}`$.

Our results differ substantially from those based on earlier observations of the Antennae with the WFPC1 on HST (Meurer 1995; Fritze-von Alvensleben 1999). To understand this difference, we have performed two tests. First, we artificially truncated our sample at $`M_V=9.6`$, the same limit adopted by Fritze-von Alvensleben, and then repeated the entire analysis described above. (Note: after corrections for extinction, $`M_V=9.6`$ corresponds approximately to $`M_V^c=9.9`$ to $`11.1`$). In this case, we obtained a mass function similar to the lognormal one found by Fritze-von Alvensleben. Second, we performed a simulation in which clusters were drawn from a power-law mass function (with $`\beta =2`$) and a uniform age distribution. The luminosities of the clusters were then computed from the BC96 population synthesis models. For simulated clusters brighter than $`M_V=9.6`$, the mass function again resembled the one found by Fritze-von Alvensleben. The reason for this is that, because the clusters fade, those with high masses can be observed over a wide range of ages, whereas those with low masses can be observed only when they are young. As a result, low-mass clusters are underrepresented in the observed mass function, which therefore declines toward both high and low masses.

## 4 Discussion

We have found that the mass function of young star clusters in the Antennae is well represented by a power law, $`\psi (M)M^2`$, over the range $`10^4M10^6M_{}`$. This is similar to the power-law mass function of diffuse and molecular clouds in the Milky Way (Dickey & Garwood 1989; Solomon & Rivolo 1989). However, it differs radically from the lognormal mass function of old globular clusters, which peaks at a $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^5M_{}`$ and declines rapidly toward both higher and lower masses. It is widely believed that galaxies formed hierarchically by the merging of smaller galaxies and/or subgalactic fragments. Thus, our results have potentially important implications concerning the origin of globular clusters during the early phases of galactic evolution. In this connection, it is worth emphasizing that a power-law mass function is “scale free,” whereas a lognormal mass function has a “preferred scale.”

One explanation for the different mass functions is that the conditions in ancient galaxies and protogalaxies were such as to imprint a characteristic mass of a $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^5M_{}`$ but that these conditions no longer prevail in modern galaxies. For example, the minimum mass of newly formed star clusters, set by the Jeans mass of interstellar clouds, will be high when the gas cannot cool efficiently and low when it can, which in turn will depend on the abundances of heavy elements and molecules, the strength of any heat sources, and so forth. These effects favor the formation of clusters in a narrower range of masses in the past than at present (Fall & Rees 1985; Kang et al. 1990). Another explanation for the different mass functions is that populations of stars clusters were born scale free, but later acquired a preferred scale by the selective disruption of low-mass clusters (Fall & Rees 1977; Gnedin & Ostriker 1997, and references therein). In this case, a power-law mass function might evolve into a lognormal mass function (Okazaki & Tosa 1995; Elmegreen & Efremov 1997; Baumgardt 1998; Vesperini 1998). Whether this occurs, however, depends on other aspects of the initial conditions, especially how the mass-radius plane is populated. We plan to address this issue in a future paper.

We thank Claus Leitherer and Brad Whitmore for valuable discussions. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant number GO-07468 from STScI.