author: G. J. Ferland, W. J. Henney, C. R. O'Dell, and M. Peimbert
bibliography: LocalBibliography.bib; bibliography2.bib
title: The abundance discrepancy factor and $t^2$ in nebulae:
  are non-thermal electrons the culprits?

# Introduction

The electron kinetic temperature is one of the most fundamental characteristics in a photoionized nebula such as an H II region or a planetary nebula. These temperatures are derived from ratios of emission lines in the optical spectrum and this methodology has been a major tool in the analysis of the nebular spectra for 60 years . These temperatures are usually about 10,000 Kelvin and are called the electron kinetic temperatures ($T\rm_{e}$) since they reflect the energy distribution of the free electrons in the gas. $T\rm_{e}$ is different from other temperatures encountered in the treatment of a nebula, e.g. the ionizing star temperature, the ionization temperature, and the excitation temperature derived from the ratio of populations in atomic levels. If one knows $T\rm_{e}$, one can then use other emission lines to determine the relative abundance of different atoms, a process reviewed in , hereafter AGN3.

Collisionally-excited forbidden lines of the heavy elements are often the strongest lines in a nebula's spectrum. Their emissivity increases sharply with higher $T\rm_{e}$. This is in contrast with lines produced during the recombination of electrons with ions, where the emissivity increases with lower $T\rm_{e}$. While hydrogen and helium recombination lines are strong, recombination lines of the heavy elements are usually weak in the observed spectrum because their strength approximately scales with their relative abundance. Because of the different temperature dependencies, abundances determined from ratios of recombination lines will be far less temperature sensitive than those determined from the ratio of collisionally excited and recombination lines. The state of the art is that faint forbidden and recombination lines from heavy elements can now be measured and abundances from the two methods compared .

There is a long-standing riddle when applying $T\rm_{e}$ for the determination of abundances relative to hydrogen. One generally derives higher relative abundances from recombination lines than from the forbidden lines. This is called the "abundance discrepancy factor" (ADF) problem, and a possible origin lies in temperature fluctuations, parameterized as "$t^2$" . The presence of temperature fluctuations causes the abundances determined from the forbidden lines to underestimate the abundances, accounting for the ADF.

The ADF or $t^2$ problem is largest in planetary nebulae, with an ADF sometimes more than an order of magnitude . It is smaller in H II regions, such as the Orion nebula, but the ADF is still nearly a factor of two . The $t^2$ values predicted by photoionization models with constant density are in the 0.002 - 0.02 range with typical values around 0.004, while in many cases the $t^2$ observed values are higher, in the 0.02 to 0.05 range. Large temperature fluctuations could be caused by many processes including a) density fluctuations, b) shocks, c) shadowed regions, d) chemical composition inhomogenieties, or e) variations in the fluxes from the ionizing stars. These fluctuations are caused by real changes in temperature caused by different regions contributing along a line of sight and within the spatial resolution of the observations, with each region having a well defined electron kinetic temperature corresponding to a Maxwellian velocity distribution.

One suggestion to account for $t^2$, discussed in three recent papers, is that the free electrons in the ionized gas do not have a thermal velocity distribution . These authors propose that a significant population of supra-thermal electrons exist in the ionized gas. They use the "kappa" formulation to describe the velocity distribution of these non-thermal electrons. The assumption of kappa is attractive because such a distribution would have more high velocity electrons than a Maxwellian distribution. These high-velocity electrons would be more effective in collisional excitation of the metastable levels that produce the forbidden lines of heavy elements, but particularly those of auroral lines, whose relative strength is critical in determining $T_e$. This would mean that the temperature determined assuming a Maxwellian distribution will be over-estimated; therefore the emissivity of the nebular forbidden lines will be over-estimated and the relative abundance of the heavy elements will be systematically underestimated. This would also explain the ADF.

However, the assumption that non-thermal electrons could survive in an ionized gas long enough to affect the spectrum has not been critically examined. We know of no detailed numerical calculation that follows the evolution of a non-thermal electron in an ionized gas. This has not been done since the arguments outlined below suggest that this is not necessary. Below we outline the processes and timescales that characterize a photoionized gas such as an H II region or planetary nebula. These are based on the rigorous treatment of the rates of collisions and recombinations that apply to an ionized gas. These rates determine the time scale and distance over which a non-thermal electron distribution would disappear. They show that the forces establishing a thermal distribution are powerful and far faster than those that disturb the distribution.

In Section we describe the basic characteristics of a thermal gas and a kappa gas, and in Section we identify where kappa may play a role. Section describes heating and ionization processes in photoionization while Section gives typical numbers for the photo ionization physics for the Orion Nebula, a characteristic H II region. In Section we discuss what would happen if there are kappa electrons, and we summarize our conclusions in Section .

# Electron Velocity Distributions in a Thermal Gas and a Kappa Gas

In a collisionless gas, a gas where particles do not collide with one another, electrons will maintain whatever energy and velocity they originally have. Collisions between particles causes them to share kinetic energy, and if a sufficient number of collisions occur, they will reach energy equipartition. Particles in a thermal gas have undergone a sufficient number of collisions to have reached this equilibrium and the distribution of velocities is given by the Maxwellian distribution function. This distribution has a most frequent velocity, and at lower velocities is proportional to the velocity squared while at higher velocities has an exponential tail. Such a distribution is shown as the dashed line in Figure . This physics is covered in, for instance, .

This is quite different from a kappa gas, where the electron distribution function has an excess at high energies and velocities, as shown by the solid line in Figure . This must happen to some extent since photo electrons enter the gas at a high velocity and then decay to lower velocity. After enough collisions, the signature of the kappa gas disappears as the history of the injected electrons is erased.

To explain typically observed ADF values, kappas in the 20 to 50 range are required. Moreover the effect of kappa can be reproduced with temperature variations of the magnitude $$\label{eq:t2kappa}
t^2= 0.96/\kappa$$ . Values of kappa larger than 1000 produce negligible ADF values.

As described in the following sections, high-energy photoelectrons are continuously entering the plasma, so to some extent a high-energy kappa tail will be present. The key question is how important these high-energy electrons are relative to the thermal electrons. This comes down to a question of timescales - how does the thermalization timescale, the time required for a high-energy electron to become thermal, compare with the rate non-thermal electrons are introduced into the gas, or for them to affect the forbidden lines? We address this by examining timescales for equilibrium in a photoionized gas in the following sections.

# Where non-thermal velocity distributions apply, and tests to determine this

This section outlines three regions where suprathermal electrons are known to be important, and discusses the tests used to diagnose this condition.

Non-thermal electron distributions are important in active regions of the sun, as reviewed by . Flares are regions where suprathermal electrons are created by the explosive release of energy following magnetic reconnection. These very high energy electrons interact with atoms before they have time to relax. A *timescale test* is applied to determine whether suprathermal or kappa electrons will be important. Such tests show that flare electrons will be non-thermal.

Non-thermal particle distributions are also important in certain types of shocks, also reviewed by . This is most important in low-density neutral regions where the mean free path becomes large compared with the dimensions in the system. The most important effect is when cold neutral atoms pass through a shock and become ionized in warm ionized regions downstream. These cold protons can emit before undergoing enough collisions to become thermal. Details of the resulting non-Maxwellian velocity distribution, for protons, are given by . In this case a *length test* that compares the mean free path and the dimension for changes in the system is applied and shows that non-thermal distributions are important.

The kappa formalism is only one way of dealing with non-thermal electrons. Most spectral simulation codes, including Cloudy , solve for a population of suprathermal electrons and include them as a general excitation process. Suprathermal electrons are known to be important when high-energy photons enter neutral regions such as the H$^0$ or  phases of star-forming regions (Chapter 11 of AGN3). In this case high-energy photoelectrons, or cosmic rays, can excite and ionize the gas before undergoing enough elastic collisions to be thermalized. This is due to the low electron fraction, making it more likely that a suprathermal electron will collide with an atom or molecule before undergoing thermalizing collisions with electrons.

These suprathermal electrons, sometimes called "secondary" or "knock-on" electrons, have been treated in . The kappa distribution is not used although the idea is similar. Cloudy has included this physics since its birth in 1978. The test here is the *ionization fraction*, proportional to $n$(H$^+)/ n$(H), with suprathermal electrons being important in neutral regions such as X-ray illuminated photodissociation regions (PDRs), often called XDRs .

To summarize this discussion, thermal distributions are established by elastic electron - electron collisions (Chapter 2, ). The question whether non-thermal electrons will be important in an H II region is really a question of time scales, length scales, and ionization fractions. Relevant scales in a typical H II region, the Orion nebula, are discussed next.

# The primary mechanism in photoionized nebulae

We accept that H II regions and planetary nebulae are photoionized by starlight. The photoionization process will be the main source of high-energy electrons in such nebulae. As described above, the central question is how quickly, and over what scales, these suprathermal electrons survive before they become thermal. First we consider some basic properties of a photoionized cloud.

The primary mechanism[^1] is the process whereby photoionization converts high-energy portions of a stellar SED into an emission-line spectrum. It is shown schematically in Figure . In this Figure, taken from AGN3, the SED of an active galactic nucleus is shown in the left part of the Figure. The rightward pointing arrow shows the energy range of photons which are capable of photoionizing hydrogen. Ionizing photons are absorbed by atoms in a gas cloud, producing energetic photoelectrons, whose energy is the difference between the ionizing photon and the ionization energy of the atom (AGN3 Chapter 2). These energetic electrons collide with thermal electrons and protons to eventually become thermal. The free electrons produce collisionally excited forbidden emission lines through inelastic collisions with heavy elements, and briefly become subthermal electrons. They eventually recombine with an ion, producing recombination emission lines. The emission-line spectrum shown in the right of Figure  results.

## Details of the Primary Mechanism

It is commonly assumed that supra or subthermal electrons share their energy with surrounding electrons so quickly that they become thermal electrons long before exciting one of the forbidden lines of the heavy elements. were the first to consider this in detail, while and go into more details. This is now textbook material; discusses electron transport at length, while and summarize it more briefly.

The energy of the photoelectron produced by the photoionization of hydrogen is central to these timescale questions. Figure compares the SEDs of three different ionizing continua. The curve with fine structure is the spectrum of an O star similar to the ionizing stars in the Orion Nebula. The smoothest line extending to the shortest wavelengths and highest energies is the SED produced by the central black hole of an AGN. The central star of the planetary nebula is the intermediate SED. The vertical line in the figure indicates the ionization potential of hydrogen. These shapes determine the energy of the photoelectron since an ionizing photon produces a photoelectron with an energy equal to the difference between its energy and this ionization potential. The AGN continuum will produce the most energetic photo-electrons while the O star continuum the least.

We can quantify this by considering an average of the photoelectron energy, $h ( \nu - \nu_0)$, where $h \nu$ is the ionizing photon energy and $h \nu_0$ is the ionization potential, weighted by the incident photon spectrum ${4 \pi J_{\nu}} / {h\nu}$: $$\langle  E \rangle = \langle h (\nu - \nu_0 ) \rangle  = \frac{\int_{\nu_0}^{\infty}\frac{4 \pi J_{\nu}}{{h\nu}}\, h(\nu - \nu_0) \, d\nu}
{\int_{\nu_0}^{\infty}\frac{4 \pi J_{\nu}}{{h\nu}}\, d\nu}.$$ Table gives this mean energy in both eV and Kelvin units for three different SEDs. The O star is the softest of the three continua, producing photoelectrons with a kinetic energy equivalent to 53 kK, the planetary nebula is intermediate, and the active galactic nucleus is the hardest SED with 321 kK.

|                  | $\langle E \rangle$ | $\langle E\rangle / k$ |
|-----------------:|--------------------:|-----------------------:|
|  Photoelectrons: |                     |                        |
|  H II region SED |             4.54 eV |                52.7 kK |
|           PN SED |             22.9 eV |                 266 kK |
|          AGN SED |             27.7 eV |                 321 kK |
| Thermal electron |            0.862 eV |                  10 kK |

Electron kinetic energies in photoionized nebulae

For comparison the typical gas kinetic temperature in the surrounding nebulae will be about 10k K. Going back to Figure , a typical photoelectron would be off-scale to the right, typically $5 -  30 \sigma$ away from the mean of the Gaussian. The central question is, then, whether this high-energy photoelectron can become thermal before producing an emission line that we would use as a diagnostic indicator.

## History of an Electron in the Orion Nebula

We focus on H II regions because of their role in measuring galactic nucleosynthesis. We consider physical processes in the Orion H II region, a bright and well studied H II region with a density of $n($H$) \sim 10^4 \pcc$. We focus on the model of the bright inner regions developed by and further discussed by and . We consider the life history of hydrogen and its electron at the midpoint in the H$^+$ region shown in Figure 2 of . This will establish numbers for the time and distance scale tests.

A neutral hydrogen atom located at this point will survive for roughly five hours before an ionizing photon from the Trapezium Cluster causes a photoionization. This generates a photoelectron whose typical energy is given by $h\nu - IP \approx 53$ kK. The photoelectron is suprathermal because it has more energy than the surrounding thermal electrons, $T \approx 10$ kK.

The supra-thermal electron remains very energetic for about a second before it shares its energy with other free electrons in the gas and becomes thermal. The energy exchange occurs through electron - electron collisions, which are among the fastest collisions in an ionized gas. They are also perfectly elastic because little radiation is produced in a homonuclear collision, a result of the lack of a dipole moment. This process is referred to as the thermalization of the supra-thermal electron.

The electron will remain a thermal free electron for about seven years. During this time it may collide with ions, probably O$^{2+}$ or O$^+$ since oxygen is the third most abundant element and these are the dominant ionization stages. The thermal electron will excite an internal level of the oxygen ion and such levels can decay and emit the strong optical lines that are prominent in nebulae. Such collisions happen about once a day. After the collision, the free electron will have lost a great deal of its kinetic energy, becoming sub-thermal, but regains the energy following collisions with other free electrons. The free electron is rethermalized within about a second.

After about seven years the free electron will have a near encounter with a proton, be accelerated and radiate much of its kinetic energy, and recombine forming H$^0$. Electrons tend to be captured into highly excited states which have lifetimes of about 1 s to 1 s so the electron quickly falls down to the ground state. The electron remains in the ground state for about five hours before another ionizing photon is absorbed and the process starts again. This is the primary mechanism in nebulae and summarizes the competing processes that determine the electron velocity distribution.

## A question of time and length scales

There are two tests to check whether an electron will undergo sufficient collisions to become thermal. The *distance test* checks whether the local photoelectric heating rate changes over distances that are smaller than the electron thermalization mean free path. The *time scale test* checks whether the photoelectric heating rate changes more quickly than the electron thermalization timescale.

First compare the heating scale length with the electron mean free path. Heating is by starlight photoionization. The mean free path of an H$^0$-ionizing photon is $$\lambda_{912} = [ n({\rm H}^0) \sigma({\rm H}^0) ]^{-1}  .$$ We must compare this with the electron thermalization scale $$\lambda_{e-e} = [ n_e \sigma_{e-e} ]^{-1}  .$$

Consider the midpoint in this nebula, where the H$^0$ fraction is roughly 6. The hydrogen density is 1 cm$^{-3}$ so the H$^0$ density is 6 cm$^{-3}$. The hydrogen photoionization cross section near threshold is $\sigma($H$^0)$ = 6 cm$^{-2}$ so the mean free path of a hydrogen ionizing photon is $\lambda_{912} \approx 2.8\times 10^{16}$ cm. The heating cannot change over length scales smaller than this, the mean free path of an ionizing photon.

Next consider the electron mean free path. The electron density is 1.1 cm$^{-3}$ if He is singly ionized. The electron - electron collision cross section is 0.8 / T(eV)$^2$ cm$^2$ (equation 198 of ). Take 10 eV for the photoelectron initial energy. This is a very high energy for an O star photoelectron (see Table ) but will favor the importance of non-thermal "kappa" electrons. The electron mean free path is then $\lambda_{e-e} \approx 1.1\times 10^{10} \, (T(eV)/10~eV)^2$ cm, 6.4 dex smaller than the heating scale length. The heating is constant over physical scales far larger than the distance between thermalizing electron collisions. This distinguishes H II regions from neutral regions of shocks where the mean free path can be long.

Next compare the heating timescale and the electron thermalization timescale. Assuming photoionization equilibrium and that the ionization / recombination rates are equal, the heating rate is $(h\nu - h\nu_o) n_e n_p \alpha_B$ (AGN3). For the same parameters, and a temperature of $T_{e} = 1\e{4}$ K, the heating rate is then 10 eV $\times 1.1\e{4}$ $\pcc\ \times 1.0\e{4} \pcc\  \times$ 2.6 cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$ = 2.9 eV cm$^{-3}$ s$^{-1}$ for these parameters. The heat content of the gas is 3/2 nkT = 1.5 $\times$ 2.2 $\times$ 8.6$\times$ 1 = 2.8 eV cm$^{-3}$. The heating timescale is the ratio, 2.84/2.9 = 9.7 s, about three years.

The time for electrons to approach a Maxwellian is given by equation 5-26 for the "self-collision time": $$t_c = \frac{m^{1/2} (3kT)^{3/2}}{8\times 0.714 \pi n e^4 Z^4 \, \log\, \Lambda}
= \frac{11.4 A^{1/2} T^{3/2}}{nZ^4 \, \log\, \Lambda} \textrm{s}.$$ Assuming $n_e$ = 1.1 cm$^{-3}$ and Spitzer's numbers the thermalization timescale is $\sim 1.3$ s. The electrons approach a Maxwellian on a timescale 10$^{8}$ times faster than the heating time. The heating is constant over times far longer than the time needed to set up a Maxwellian. This is unlike the solar flare case, where heating rates change very quickly.

These two estimates show that the distance an electron travels before becoming thermal is 6.4 dex shorter than the scale length heating over which the heating changes, and that the electron Maxwellian timescale is nearly 8 dex faster than the heating timescale. These establish that the electron velocity distribution has time to closely maintain a Maxwellian at the local kinetic temperature.

# What if there are non-thermal electrons in the ionized gas?

Suppose that a non-photoionization process allows high-energy electrons to exist in the ionized gas. The electron thermalization cross section decreases as E$^{-2}$, so higher energy electrons are more difficult to thermalize. Could these high-energy non-thermal electrons produce forbidden line emission before becoming thermalized?

The non-thermal electron would have to have an inelastic collision with an O$^{2+}$ ion and collisionally excite the 500.7 nm \[O III\] line before it is thermalized by collisions with other electrons for this process to make any sense. The cross section for an e-e collision is given by Kulsrud equation 198, 0.8 / T(eV)$^2$ cm$^2$ while the cross section for an e - O$^{2+}$ collision that produces the 500.7 nm line is 2 cm$^2$ at $\sim 1$ eV. This assumed the collision strengths in . The cross section for exciting a forbidden line falls off as $E^{-3}$ at high energies . These are shown in Figure . Assuming a solar O/H, that all O is O$^{2+}$, and $n_e = 1.1 n_{\rm H}$, we obtain $n_e / n(\mathrm{O}^{2+}) =$ 2.2. Evaluating the cross sections at 10 keV we find $\sigma(e-e) / \sigma({\rm O}^{2+}) \sim 4\times 10^6$ so that an energetic electron will have $\sim 9\times 10^{9}$ thermalizing collisions with other electrons before it can strike an O$^{2+}$. If O$^{2+}$ is many orders above solar, then $n(e) \sim n(\mathrm{H}^+) + 2n(\mathrm{O}^{2+})$. In the presence of only O$^{2+}$, the electron - electron collisions would be about 8 times faster than the inelastic collisions with O$^{2+}$. The result is that an energetic electron will undergo a very large number of thermalizing collisions long before it can strike an O$^{2+}$ ion.

Cosmic rays will add kinetic energy to an ionized gas. They create a significant population of non-thermal secondaries in a neutral medium , but that is not the state of an H II region, which is highly ionized. Given the energy dependencies of the ratio of cross sections given above, very high-energy particles will be even less likely to directly excite \[O III\] lines. The energy available in cosmic rays is small compared to the energy in starlight in a typical nebula.

# Conclusions

As discussed in the Introduction, many explanations have been offered for the $t^2$/ADF phenomenon, and different processes may operate in different objects. This paper investigates the possibility that a significant population of non-thermal electrons might be present in ionized regions of nebulae, and that these disturb the line ratio diagnostics. Photoionization does produce supra-thermal electrons that are much more energetic than thermal electrons. Cosmic rays or other high-energy particles may also be present.

We do a quantitative evaluation of the time it takes to thermalize such energetic electrons, and the distances they move in this time. We have used well established methods to show that the thermalization distances and timescales are much smaller than the distance or time in which the heating or temperature can vary. These suggest that supra thermal electrons will have disappeared into the Maxwellian velocity distribution long before they affect the collisionally excited forbidden and recombination lines that we use for deriving relative abundances. We know of no numerical calculations that follow the thermalization of electrons in an ionized gas, probably because these comparisons suggest that a Maxwellian velocity distribution will result. These considerations strongly suggest that non-thermal electrons should not be important and cannot account for $t^2$/ADF phenomenon. Therefore, to explain the observed ADF values in photoionized nebulae, other $t^2$ producing phenomena must be considered.

Emission line ratios can probe the existence of non-thermal electrons . considered C II lines formed by dielectronic recombination and did not find strong evidence for a kappa distribution. consider line ratios, including uncertainties in the atomic data, and also find no evidence for kappa distributions in nebulae. Similarly, find no evidence of kappa in a sample of H II regions and planetary nebulae. A study of H I emission in Hf 2-2 by finds no evidence of kappa. Observations support the conclusion that kappa distributions have negligible effect in nebulae.

This work has focused on the Orion H II region, the brightest and best-studied nebula. A future paper, Henney et al. (in preparation) will extend this analysis to more general cases, including planetary nebulae and extragalactic H II regions. Quantitative calculations of the deviation from a Maxwellian velocity distribution due to the injection of high-energy electrons will be presented.

We thank the referee and Greg Shields for helpful comments. GJF acknowledges support by NSF (1108928, 1109061, and 1412155), NASA (10-ATP10-0053, 10-ADAP10-0073, NNX12AH73G, and ATP13-0153), and STScI (HST-AR-13245, GO-12560, HST-GO-12309, GO-13310.002-A, and HST-AR-13914). WJH acknowledges financial support from DGAPA-UNAM through grant PAPIIT-IN11215. CRO's participation was supported in part by HST program GO 12543. MP received partial support from CONACyT grant 241732.

[^1]: The term "primary mechanism", photoionization by the radiation field of the central object, dates back to the 1930's and the original investigations into nebulae.


abstract: We present initial results from a population synthesis model aimed at determining the star formation rate of the Milky-Way. We find that a total star formation rate of 0.68 to 1.45 $M_{\odot}$/yr is able to reproduce the observed number of young stellar objects in the *Spitzer*/IRAC GLIMPSE survey of the Galactic plane, assuming simple prescriptions for the 3D Galactic distributions of YSOs and interstellar dust, and using model SEDs to predict the brightness and color of the synthetic YSOs at different wavelengths. This is the first Galaxy-wide measurement derived from pre-main-sequence objects themselves, rather than global observables such as the total radio continuum, H$\alpha$, or FIR flux. The value obtained is slightly lower than, but generally consistent with previously determined values. We will extend this method in the future to fit the brightness, color, and angular distribution of YSOs, and simultaneously make use of multiple surveys, to place constraints on the input assumptions, and reduce uncertainties in the star formation rate estimate. Ultimately, this will be one of the most accurate methods for determining the Galactic star formation rate, as it makes use of stars of all masses (limited only by sensitivity) rather than solely massive stars or indirect tracers of massive stars.
author: Thomas P. Robitaille and Barbara A. Whitney
title: The present-day star formation rate of the Milky-Way determined from *Spitzer* detected young stellar objects

# Introduction

Virtually all estimates of the current star formation rates (SFRs) for galaxies in the Universe rely on stellar population synthesis models for calibration (as reviewed by ). These models predict global observables, such as the total H$\alpha$ or infrared flux, that can be compared to observations . This is necessary because individual forming stars cannot be resolved in any galaxy other than our own.

Until recently, even estimates of the SFR of the Milky-Way have relied on global observables. Such studies generally rely on indirect tracers of massive (O- and early-B-type) stars to determine a massive SFR. This value is then extrapolated to lower masses to derive a global SFR for the Galaxy. For example, found a value of 5 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, by making use of the fact that the integrated flux density from an region is a direct measure of the number of ionizing photons required to maintain that region, and is therefore an indirect measure of the number of O and early-B-type stars. A more recent example includes the estimate of 4 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ from who use a measurement of the total mass of 2.8 $M_{\odot}$ of $^{26}$Al in the Galaxy from the $\gamma$-ray flux measured by INTEGRAL as a proxy for the massive star population of the Galaxy. find a value of 2.7 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$, by using the total 100 $\mu$m flux of the Galaxy and a conversion factor that depends on the same population synthesis model as used for other galaxies . Finally, use the total free-free emission in the WMAP foreground map as a probe of the massive star population, and derive a global SFR of 1.3 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. The difference between the values may in part be due to the fact that these studies do not all assume the same initial mass function (IMF). For a recent review of the tracers and determinations of the Galactic SFR, normalized to the same IMF, we refer the reader to .

In general, any total flux measure that is related to the SFR of a galaxy (including the Milky-Way) is completely dominated by the high mass stars, since these are responsible for virtually all of the luminosity of a galaxy. Therefore, all of these methods are fundamentally limited by an extrapolation to lower masses, and higher sensitivity observations will not improve the estimates. For example, the ionizing flux for the regions or the $\gamma$-ray flux from $^{26}$Al mentioned above are entirely dominated by the massive stars.

In this letter we propose to measure the present-day Galactic SFR by directly observing and counting pre-main sequence stars. Estimates of the SFR of individual regions within a few hundred parsecs of the Sun have recently been derived in this way , yet no such measurement exists on the scale of the Galaxy. While Galactic plane surveys with finite sensitivity preferentially favor higher mass stars, as surveys reach higher and higher sensitivities, the IMF extrapolation to lower masses will gradually account for less and less of the resulting SFR, and the accuracy of this method will be much higher than for values derived from massive star formation indicators. In fact, this method may ultimately provide a more accurate measurement than for any other galaxy, because it is a direct measure of the very young, just formed stellar population, which is unresolved in most other galaxies.

# Observations

In this letter we make use of the *Spitzer*/IRAC GLIMPSE survey of the Galactic mid-plane , specifically GLIMPSE I (covering $10$$^\circ$$\le|\ell|\le65$$^\circ$ and $|b|\le1$$^\circ$) and GLIMPSE II (which fills in the region for $|\ell|<10$$^\circ$, with $|b|\le1$$^\circ$ for $|\ell|>5$$^\circ$, $|b|\le1.5$$^\circ$ for 2$^\circ$$<|\ell|\le5$$^\circ$, and $|b|\le2$$^\circ$ for $|\ell|\le2$$^\circ$). The total area covered by these two surveys is 274 deg$^2$. We use the census of intrinsically red mid-infrared sources from which includes 18,949 sources from these two surveys.

The sources from R08 were selected using simple brightness and color selection criteria, namely 13.89$\ge$\[4.5\]$\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}6.50, 9.52$\ge$\[8.0\]$\ge$ 4.01, and \[4.5\]-\[8.0\]$\ge$`<!-- -->`{=html}1. Extended sources are excluded. In total, 18,949 sources were selected, and the completeness was estimated to be at least 65.7 %. As shown in R08, these sources consist mostly of young stellar objects (YSOs; $50-70$ %) and asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars ($30-50$ %), and may include a small number of planetary nebulae (at most $2-3$ %). Thus, there are likely to be approximately 9,500 to 13,300 YSOs in the R08 census. Taking into account the fact that the 65.7 % completeness is a lower limit, the actual number of YSOs that would have been detected if the survey had been complete is in the range 9,500 to 20,200.

# Model

To derive a Galactic SFR using the R08 census, we construct a population synthesis model for YSOs in the Galaxy, and apply the same observational constraints as for the R08 census, varying the model SFR such that the number of 'detected' synthetic YSOs matches the observed number.

The model is constructed as follows. First a 3D distribution for star formation is assumed, from which the YSO positions are randomly sampled. Each YSO is then assigned a random age and mass by assuming an IMF and a lower and upper stellar age. The number of synthetic YSOs sampled is thus directly related to the SFR for that model, which is given by the total mass of synthetic YSOs divided by the difference between the upper and lower age. Each synthetic YSO is then assigned intrinsic magnitudes at IRAC wavelengths (based on the stellar mass and age), which are scaled to its distance from the Earth. A 3D dust distribution and an extinction law are assumed in order to compute the extinction along the line of sight. Finally, the number of synthetic YSOs that fall inside the GLIMPSE I and II survey areas, satisfy the brightness and color selection criteria from R08, and are point sources, is compared to the observed number, and the SFR of the model is adjusted so that the two values match. The following paragraphs describe the assumptions made for each of these steps.

## 3D YSO distribution

The exact 3D distribution of YSOs in the Galaxy is uncertain, but there exist statistical estimates of where we expect stars to be forming. In particular, used the distribution of H and H$_2$ as a function of Galactocentric radius to estimate the star formation rate relative to that at the solar radius, by assuming a Schmidt-type law relating the gas density and the star formation rate (SFR$\propto\Sigma_{\rm gas}^{1.5}$), and taking into account the rate of passage of the gas through the spiral arms. The resulting radial profile was in good agreement with the distribution of tracers of massive stars (specifically regions, pulsars, and supernova remnants) found by previous studies. This radial function peaks around 4 to 5 kpc. The values used were obtained from digitizing the solid line in Figure 2 of .

We assume that the azimuthal distribution of YSOs is uniform, even though most star formation occurs in spiral arms. We make this assumption because the biggest effect of including spiral arms in the model would be to cause the longitude distribution of the sources to change on small scales, but would not change the overall number of detected synthetic sources significantly. Therefore, the azimuthally symmetric distribution we assume is still statistically representative of the overall distribution of YSOs. We assume a scale height of 80 pc, approximately the height of the Galactic thin disk.

We take the Sun to be located at a Galactocentric radius of 8.5 kpc, and 27 pc above the Galactic plane .

## Stellar masses and ages

We adopt the IMF from . Since the IMF is being used to implicitly extrapolate the observed mass to lower masses, it is also necessary to choose a minimum and maximum mass. The exact limits used are not important, as long as virtually all the *observed* YSOs fall inside that range. The SFR derived will then be the total SFR inside that range. We choose a lower mass of 0.1 $M_{\odot}$ and an upper mass of 50 $M_{\odot}$, since we do not expect to see any objects outside these limits – 0.1 $M_{\odot}$ sources would be too faint, and 50 $M_{\odot}$ sources are very rare (and saturated in GLIMPSE).

Recent observations suggest that primordial circumstellar disks are present for a few Myr then disappear on relatively short timescales . Therefore, since we are considering YSOs with infrared excesses typical of primordial circumstellar disks (and of younger stages of evolution) we can assume that most of the R08 sources are younger than a few Myr. We choose a upper limit on the age of the synthetic YSOs of 2 Myr, and a lower limit on the age of 1,000 yr, as we do not expect to be able to see any sources younger than this. It is unlikely that the overall star formation has changed significantly over the last few Myr, which is a small timescale compared to the Galactic rotation period of over 200 Myr. Therefore, we do not need to worry about time variations in the SFR, in contrast to methods based on main-sequence stars, where choosing a constant SFR is a strong assumption.

## Dust

The 3D distribution of dust in the Galaxy is the subject of active research (e.g. ). We use the distribution from , which is a simple double exponential model based on modeling the far-IR dust emission, and is accurate on large scales. There exist more complex models for the distribution of dust, such as that from which includes spiral arms. The effect of a more clumpy extinction distribution will be to introduce scatter in the extinction values, but the overall effect is not likely to be significant.

In recent years there have been a number of determinations of the extinction law at mid-infrared wavelengths for both the interstellar medium and for star forming regions . For this work, we are modeling the large-scale extinction from the interstellar medium and therefore we use the values from for the IRAC bands.

## Intrinsic magnitudes of YSOs

The final piece of the puzzle that is needed to construct our model is a prescription to convert the masses and ages of the sources into observable magnitudes. Unfortunately, no simple prescription exists for this, as the brightness and color depend on the amount of circumstellar dust and the properties of the central source, which in turn are far from certain for all stellar masses and ages. Of all the assumptions made in this letter, this is likely to be most crucial one.

In we computed a large set of model SEDs for YSOs with a large range of evolutionary stages (from heavily embedded sources to transitional disks) and stellar masses (from 0.1 $M_{\odot}$ to 50 $M_{\odot}$). To sample the parameters, each source was assigned a mass and age, and the stellar temperature and radius were found from evolutionary tracks. Subsequently, the disk and envelope parameters were sampled as a function of these stellar parameters. The sampling attempted to take into account observational and theoretical constraints on pre-main-sequence evolution. It is important to note that the parameter space in R06 does not constitute an evolutionary scenario, but rather allows for different scenarios, some of which may be unrealistic. However, the general trends are nevertheless close to how we believe stars form.

For each synthetic YSO, we choose the model with the closest stellar mass and age, and sample a random viewing angle. Since we are assuming that the sources in the R08 census are younger than 2 Myr, the R06 models with ages between 2 and 10 Myr are not used. The IRAC magnitudes of the models we do use are dominated by the stellar luminosity and temperature, and the envelope infall rate (which determines the envelope mass and therefore the degree of obscuration of the central star). Therefore, the most important assumptions from R06 that will impact this work are the choice of stellar evolutionary tracks (which fix the stellar luminosity and temperature for a given age and mass) and the choice of the time dependence of the envelope infall rate. The latter is sampled from a range that is constant before 0.1 Myr and decreases to zero by 1 Myr.

The R06 models were computed in 50 circular apertures from 100 to 100,000 AU, effectively providing radial brightness profiles at all wavelengths. Therefore, in the population synthesis model, we can find the flux for each synthetic source in an aperture corresponding to the resolution of the IRAC observations (2). In addition, we use this information to reject sources that would have been extended in the GLIMPSE survey, and would therefore have been excluded from the R08 census. We do this by selecting only sources where 99 % of the flux falls inside an aperture 2 in radius. This reduced the number of final 'detected' YSOs by approximately 10 %.

# Results

Ignoring uncertainties in the input assumption, we find that a SFR in the range 0.68 to 1.45  $M_{\odot}$/yr reproduces the number of observed YSOs, where the range of values accounts for the uncertainty in the actual number of YSOs, which is in the range 9,500 to 20,200 (§). To compare the properties of the 'detected' synthetic YSOs with those of the 11,649 selected candidate YSOs from R08, we computed a model with $2.73\times10^6$ synthetic YSOs – corresponding to a SFR of 0.83  $M_{\odot}$/yr – of which 11,919 were 'detected'. This model is the one shown in Figures to . Figure shows the mass distribution of all the synthetic YSOs, the subset that fall in the survey area, and the subset that would have been detected by *Spitzer* and included in the R08 census. The distribution of 'detected' synthetic sources is biased towards high masses, and peaks just under 10 $M_{\odot}$. Around 50 % of all 10 $M_{\odot}$ synthetic YSOs are detected. The drop-off at lower and higher masses is due to the lower and upper brightness cutoffs. Since approximately 2.7 million synthetic YSOs between 0.1 and 50 $M_{\odot}$ are required Galaxy-wide to explain the observed numbers, the R08 census represents less than 0.5% of all YSOs in the Galaxy.

Figure shows the 3D spatial distribution of all the synthetic YSOs that would have been included in the R08 census, color-coded by the interstellar extinction to Earth. Most sources are seen within 10 kpc but many are seen out to the far side of the Galaxy, even though the interstellar extinction is significant. The ring with a 5 kpc radius is due to the peak in the radial SFR distribution assumed (§), but we note that the real distribution of YSOs does not necessarily trace a ring.

Finally, Figure shows the longitude and latitude distribution, as well as the $[8.0]$ and $[4.5]-[8.0]$ distributions for all the synthetic YSOs that would have been included in the R08 census, and for all the YSO candidates in the R08 census. Even though no effort was made to fit the model distributions to the observed ones, the two are in reasonable agreement. The \[8.0\] magnitude distributions do diverge at the faint end, but the difference never exceeds 50 %, and this difference may be due to remaining contaminating AGB stars. Both the observed and model longitude distribution drop off around longitudes of 30 to 40$^\circ$ on either side of the Galactic center. These longitudes correspond to those where the line of sight is tangent to the peak in the radial distribution of star formation (§). Also of interest is that the observed latitude distribution of sources is asymmetric, with $55.9\pm0.6$ %[^1] of sources at negative latitudes. The model also predicts a similar asymmetry (albeit slightly larger), with $61.5\pm0.7$ %$^1$ of sources at negative latitudes. The reason that the model presents an asymmetry is entirely due to the fact that the Sun is displaced 27 pc above the Galactic mid-plane. Therefore, it is safe to infer from this that the asymmetry in the latitude distribution of observed sources is also due to the displacement of the Sun above the Galactic mid-plane.

# Summary

By developing a population synthesis model for the Milky-Way, and adjusting the star formation rate such that the number of synthetic YSOs that would have been present in the R08 census matched the actual number of observed YSOs, we obtain a star formation rate of 0.68 to 1.45 $M_{\odot}$/yr. The uncertainties on this value take into account only the uncertainty in the actual number of observed YSOs (since these are not perfectly separable from AGB stars) and the uncertainty in the completeness. Our result is of the same order as but lower than previous estimates (§), but this can be explained in part by differences in the assumed IMF. The previous values quoted in § assume either a or IMF, which over-predict the number of low-mass stars by approximately 50 % compared to a more realistic IMF. If we assume a Salpeter IMF from 0.1 to 50 $M_{\odot}$, we obtain a SFR in the range 0.98 to 2.09 $M_{\odot}$/yr, in better agreement with previous values. We find that the YSOs in the R08 census are dominated by sources in the range 3 to 20 $M_{\odot}$, and that these are seen out to very large distances (10 to 15 kpc) in some cases. The longitude and latitude distribution of the synthetic YSOs are in reasonable agreement with the observed distribution, and we find that the asymmetry in the latitude distribution can be entirely explained by the fact that the Sun is not located exactly in the mid-plane.

The input assumptions for the model are simple, consisting of an axisymmetric distribution of synthetic YSOs peaking around 4 to 5 kpc, a double exponential distribution for the dust, a Kroupa IMF, a standard mid-infrared extinction law, and a prescription for the magnitudes of YSOs based on the stellar mass and age, using the models from R06. The assumption that is likely to matter the most is the latter, namely knowing what brightness and color to assign to YSOs as a function of age and mass. This is because while there are many examples of well-studied low-mass YSOs with approximate ages, the pre-main-sequence evolution of 10 $M_{\odot}$ stars, which dominate the 'detected' synthetic YSOs, is poorly determined.

The model will be developed into a much more powerful diagnostic tool in the future. In particular, we plan to fit the angular, brightness, and color distributions of the sources to improve the estimate of the SFR and place constraints on other input parameters and assumptions. For example, the angular distribution of the sources will help place constraints on the model for the SFR as a function of Galactocentric radius, and the color and brightness distributions will help understand whether the assumptions for the intrinsic magnitudes of YSOs and the extinction properties are sensible, or whether they need to be modified. In addition, we will thoroughly explore the parameter space in order to understand how well constrained the input assumptions and parameters are, and what additional data could resolve degeneracies. Finally, we plan to model multiple datasets simultaneously, to reproduce not only the observable properties of sources seen in any one survey, but all available infrared or sub-mm surveys of the Galactic plane, such as the UKIDSS and Herschel surveys.

We would like to thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions which helped improve this letter. Support for this work was provided by NASA through the Spitzer Space Telescope Fellowship (TR) and Theoretical Research (TR, BW) Programs, through a contract issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.

[^1]: where the uncertainty is from Poisson statistics