1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: \usepackage{graphicx,amsfonts,natbib}

3: \shorttitle{The Mass Spectra of GMCs}

4: \shortauthors{Rosolowsky}

5: \citestyle{apj}

6: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

7: \begin{document}

8: \title{The Mass Spectra of Giant Molecular Clouds in the Local Group}

9: \author{E. Rosolowsky\altaffilmark{1}}

10: \affil{Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St. MS-66, Cambridge, MA 02138}

11: \email{erosolow@cfa.harvard.edu}

12: \altaffiltext{1}{National Science Foundation (NSF) Astronomy and Astrophysics

13: Postdoctoral Fellow}

14: \begin{abstract}

15: We reanalyze the catalogs of molecular clouds in the Local Group to

16: determine the parameters of their mass distributions in a uniform

17: manner.  The analysis uses the error-in-variables method of parameter

18: estimation which accounts not only for the variance of the sample when

19: drawn from a parent distribution but also for errors in the mass

20: measurements.  Testing the method shows that it recovers the

21: underlying properties of cumulative mass distribution without bias

22: while accurately reflecting uncertainties in the parameters.  Clouds

23: in the inner disk of the Milky Way follow a truncated power-law

24: distribution with index $\gamma=-1.5\pm 0.1$ and maximum mass of

25: $10^{6.5}~M_{\odot}$.  The distributions of cloud mass for the outer

26: Milky Way and M33 show significantly steeper indices

27: ($\gamma_{\mathrm{OMW}}=-2.1\pm 0.2$ and

28: $\gamma_{\mathrm{M33}}=-2.9\pm 0.4$) with no evidence of a cutoff.

29: The mass distribution of clouds in the Large Magellanic Cloud has a

30: marginally steeper distribution than the inner disk of the Milky Way

31: ($\gamma=-1.7\pm 0.2$) and also shows evidence of a truncation with a

32: maximum mass of $10^{6.5}~M_{\odot}$.  The mass distributions of

33: molecular clouds vary dramatically across the Local Group, even after

34: accounting for the systematic errors that arise in comparing

35: heterogeneous data and catalogs.  These differences should be

36: accounted for in studies that aim to reproduce the molecular cloud

37: mass distributions or in studies that use the mass spectrum as a

38: parameter in a model.

39: \end{abstract}

40: \keywords{ISM:clouds --- methods:data analysis}

41: 

42: \section{Introduction}

43: The mass distribution of molecular clouds is one of the primary

44: characteristics of the their population.  In the inner disk of the

45: Milky Way, the mass distribution follows a power law with $dN \propto

46: M^{\gamma} dM$, $\gamma \sim -1.5$.  More recent surveys of molecular

47: clouds throughout the Local Group find that the mass spectrum also

48: follows a power-law, but the indices are steeper than in inner Milky

49: Way \citep[e.g.~][]{eprb03,nanten}.  Indeed, the mass

50: spectrum may be the {\it only} feature of the molecular cloud

51: population that varies between systems, since other cloud properties

52: (e.g.~cloud radius and line width) obey the relationships

53: established in the Milky Way \citep{ws90,rpeb03,nanten}.  Careful

54: attention to accurately determining the parameters of the mass

55: spectrum is critical in using the mass spectrum to quantify

56: differences between cloud populations.  In addition, the empirically

57: derived mass distribution is an important parameter for theoretical

58: and modeling work.  Several studies aim to reproduce the mass

59: distribution of molecular clouds

60: \citep{kwan79,fractal-mspec,vs97,stutzki98,wada00} or use the mass spectrum

61: as inputs to models \citep{mw97,tan00,krumholz05}.  Most of these

62: studies focus on the canonical value of $\gamma\approx-1.5$ adopted

63: from the inner Milky Way, neglecting any variation in the

64: distribution.  Judging from the scope of these other studies,

65: measuring the mass distribution of molecular clouds is essential for

66: understanding both cloud formation and the importance of star-forming

67: clouds in regulating large scale star formation.

68: 

69: Since the parameters of the cloud mass distribution are widely used in

70: the study of the star-forming interstellar medium, this paper outlines

71: some of the pitfalls associated with the standard methods of

72: estimating the parameters of power-law distributions and suggests

73: improvements to minimize inaccuracy (\S\ref{fitting}).  With these

74: improvements, we reanalyze data from existing catalogs of molecular

75: clouds (\S\ref{datasec}) and note interesting results

76: (\S\ref{discussion}).  This work stresses the importance of accounting

77: for the observational uncertainties and systematic effects that

78: bedevil the study of molecular clouds.  Accurately deriving the index

79: of a power-law distribution is also useful for studying populations of

80: other objects.  In particular, the derived mass spectrum of clumps

81: within molecular clouds is subject to identical systematics as the

82: mass distributions studied in this work.  The methods developed in

83: this study as well as their attendant cautions are directly

84: applicable to the study of clump mass distributions and their

85: relevance in the formation on individual stars

86: \citep[e.g.~][]{clumpfind,gaussclumps}.  Luminosity and mass

87: distributions of stars and galaxies are characterized by non-linear

88: distributions and the techniques presented in this paper readily

89: extend to the study of these objects.

90: 

91: \section{Fitting Mass Spectra}

92: \label{fitting}

93: The mass distribution of a population of molecular clouds is usually

94: expressed in differential form, namely the number of clouds that would

95: be found in a range of masses.  In the limit of a small mass bin, this

96: is expressed as

97: \begin{equation}

98: \label{diff}

99: \frac{dN}{dM} = f(M).

100: \end{equation}

101: This expression can be integrated to give the cumulative mass

102: distribution 

103: \begin{equation}

104: \label{cum}

105: N(M' > M) = \int_{M_{max}}^{M'} f(M) dM = g(M),

106: \end{equation}

107: which gives the number of clouds with masses greater than a reference

108: mass as a function of that reference mass.  For molecular clouds, both

109: forms of the mass spectrum obey power-laws: $f(M)\propto M^{\gamma}$

110: and $g(M)\propto M^{\gamma+1}$ with $\gamma<-1$ in all known cases.

111: Some mass distributions lack clouds above some maximum mass $M_0$.  To

112: account for this feature, we adopt a truncated power-law distribution

113: as suggested by \citet{wm97} and alter their formalism to our

114: notation.  The full form of the cumulative distribution is

115: \begin{equation}

116: N(M'>M)= N_0 \left[\left(\frac{M}{M_0}\right)^{\gamma+1}-1\right],

117: \label{cumdist}

118: \end{equation}

119: where $M_0$ the maximum mass in the distribution. $N_0$ is the number

120: of clouds more massive than $2^{1/(\gamma+1)}M_0$, the point where the

121: distribution shows a significant deviation from a power law.  If

122: $N_{0} \sim 1$, there is no such deviation.  For this

123: form of the cumulative mass distribution,

124: \begin{equation}

125: \frac{dN}{dM}=(\gamma+1)\frac{N_0}{M_0}\left(\frac{M}{M_0}\right)^{\gamma},~

126: M<M_0.

127: \end{equation}

128: In most studies, only the index $\gamma$ is reported since $N_0$ is

129: assumed to be 1 and $M_0$ is the maximum mass cloud in the sample.

130: The index is the most important parameter since it describes how the

131: integrated mass is distributed between the high and low mass members

132: of the cloud population.  For values of $\gamma > -2$, the majority of

133: the mass is contained in the high mass clouds and the reverse is true

134: for $\gamma < -2$.  When $\gamma < -2$, the integrated mass diverges

135: as $M\to 0$, implying a break in the power-law behavior of the mass

136: spectrum at or below the completeness limit to ensure a finite

137: integrated mass.  Distributions with $N_0>1$ are also physically

138: interesting since they have a characteristic feature in an otherwise

139: featureless mass distribution.  In the Milky Way, \citet{wm97} report

140: evidence that $N_0$ is significantly different from unity, implying a

141: cutoff at high mass ($3\times 10^6~M_{\odot}$) in the Galaxy.  The

142: parameters of the mass distribution are important both as predictions

143: of theories as well as inputs to models. It is critical to estimate

144: these parameters with minimum bias from the mass measurements of a

145: cloud population.

146: 

147: \subsection{Binned Mass Spectra}

148: Most studies of the mass spectrum of giant molecular clouds (GMCs)

149: estimate the slope of the mass spectrum by fitting an approximation of

150: the differential version.  They generate this approximation by

151: separating the mass measurements into logarithmically spaced bins.

152: Then, the number in each bin ($N_{bin}$) is divided by the width of

153: the bin $\Delta M$: $dN/dM \approx N_{bin}/\Delta M$.  The

154: uncertainties in these bins are then assumed to arise from counting

155: errors, so $\sigma_{bin} = \sqrt{N_{bin}}/\Delta M$.  Studies using

156: this technique include \citet{srby87,wm97,eprb03,nanten,hc01} and many

157: others.

158: 

159: There are two principal drawbacks to this technique: (1) it is

160: sensitive to the selected values of bin size and bin spacing and (2)

161: it neglects errors in the mass determination of the clouds, which can

162: be substantial. Figure \ref{binsuck} shows the variation in the

163: derived index of the mass spectrum for different choices of bin size

164: and bin position.  To generate these figures, we used the mass data

165: from \citet[][SRBY]{srby87} with the same completeness limit of

166: $7\times 10^{4} M_{\sun}$ as is quoted in their paper.  For a given

167: set of bin parameters, we fit a power-law differential mass spectrum

168: to the results to all data that are at least one full bin above the

169: completeness limit.  We follow the method of \citet{wm97} for the fit

170: and the determination of errors in the mass distribution.  The

171: systematic error in the parameters is comparable the errors typically

172: quoted in these studies.  Such errors become negligible in the limit

173: of large numbers of clouds.  In the study of

174: \citet[][HCS]{hc01}, there are over 1300 clouds above the completeness

175: limit as opposed to only 200 in the SRBY study.  When the same

176: experiment is performed on this much larger sample, the variation in

177: the derived index reduces to $\pm 0.05$ and agrees with the $-1.8$

178: quoted in the HCS paper.  To use binned mass spectra in estimating the

179: parameters of the mass distribution, the sample should have $N_{clouds}

180: > 500$ to reduce errors to less than 0.1 in the index.

181: 

182: 

183: \begin{figure*}

184: \begin{center}

185: \plottwo{fg1a.eps}{fg1b.eps}

186: \caption{Demonstration that fitting binned mass spectra is sensitive to

187: choice of bin size and offset.  The left panel shows the derived

188: index of the mass spectrum for the clouds in \citet{srby87} as a

189: function of the width of the logarithmic bins (in dex) used in

190: fitting.  The fits used the same completeness limit as the original

191: study ($7\times 10^{4} M_{\odot}$).  The bin size ranged from a quarter

192: octave $0.25\log_{10}(2)$, to a full octave, $\log_{10}(2)$.  The

193: right panel shows the variation in mass spectrum for half octave bins

194: and different bin positions.  The bins are shifted in log-space by the

195: quoted bin offset.  Both variations in parameters show significant

196: variation in the derived index. \label{binsuck}}

197: \end{center}

198: \end{figure*}

199: 

200: In addition to large variations in derived bin parameters, the binning

201: method also neglects the principal source of uncertainty, namely the

202: mass measurement itself.  The mass of a molecular cloud is notoriously

203: difficult to calculate.  The principal methods for deriving the mass

204: are using the CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor and using the virial

205: theorem.  The conversion factor linearly scales the integrated CO

206: surface brightness to a column density along a line of sight.  With a

207: distance measurement, the column density of the cloud and the area on

208: the sky are combined to calculate the cloud mass.  The conversion

209: factor is empirically tested to trace H$_2$ column density across a

210: variety of environments \citep{bloemen} though variation is reported

211: among galaxies \citep{xfac96}.  Within a single galaxy, however, the

212: conversion factor has been found to be constant despite changes in the

213: galactic environment \citep{rpeb03}.  The virial mass measurement

214: assumes that clouds are virialized and uses the resolved cloud sizes

215: ($R_e$) and line widths ($\sigma_v$) to convert to a virial mass:

216: $M_{\mathrm{VT}} = 5 R_e \sigma_v^2/(\alpha G)$ where $\alpha$ is the

217: virial parameter, which depends on the mass distribution within the

218: cloud as well as the influence of magnetic fields and external

219: pressure on the energy balance of the cloud.  HCS present evidence

220: that molecular clouds with $M<10^4~M_{\odot}$ are not virialized and

221: the virial mass measurement overestimates the masses of these clouds.

222: 

223: Both of these methods for measuring cloud masses are subject to large

224: ($\lesssim 50\%$) errors.  Absolute flux calibration of CO data is

225: rarely accurate to better than 10\%.  The variations of the conversion

226: factor with physical conditions remain poorly understood, despite many

227: attempts to quantify them \citep{xfac-wolfire,xfac-dickman}.  Finally,

228: the distances to most molecular clouds are difficult to measure.  For

229: Milky Way molecular clouds, most distances are determined

230: kinematically with the distance degeneracy for the inner Galaxy being

231: broken by angular scale, displacement above the plane, and association

232: with other objects of known distance (SRBY).  Distance measurements

233: are also important in measuring virial masses since the physical size

234: of the cloud is determined by converting an angular scale to a

235: physical length.  In addition, small or distant clouds are often

236: poorly resolved and great care must be taken to measure the radius of

237: an intensity distribution that has been convolved with the telescope's

238: beam.  The largest pitfall in the virial method is the question of its

239: applicability.  Mass measurements nearly always neglect other

240: contributions that are present in the full virial theorem, such as

241: external pressure, changing moment of inertia, magnetic fields, the

242: degree of virialization and the measurement of a single size for a

243: triaxial system.  These deviations are frequently parameterized using

244: the virial parameter (see above) which is surprisingly constant for

245: massive molecular clouds ($\alpha \sim 1.5$, SRBY, HCS).  Thus, the

246: virial mass estimate provides a reasonable measurement of a cloud's

247: dynamical mass.  With all these potential sources of error, the

248: masses of molecular clouds are highly uncertain, often to 50\%, and

249: this uncertainty should be included in the determination of the mass

250: spectrum parameters.

251: 

252: \subsection{Cumulative Mass Spectra}

253: When a sample contains only a small number of clouds ($N_{clouds} <

254: 500$), it is still possible to derive the parameters of a mass

255: spectrum by fitting the cumulative distribution of masses.  Recent

256: work by \citet{nanten-mspec} demonstrated the utility of this method

257: for clouds in the LMC.  The principal difficulty in using this method

258: arises in assessing errors to the data in the cumulative mass

259: spectrum. Uncertainties appear both in the mass of the cloud and in

260: the variance of a random sample being drawn from an infinite parent

261: distribution.  Practically, this results in fitting a truncated

262: power-law function to data with errors in both coordinates.  The mass

263: coordinate has an uncertainty from the measurement error and the

264: cumulative number has an uncertainty characterized by a counting

265: error, equal to $\sqrt{N}$.

266: 

267: To fit the data, we use the ``error-in-variables'' method for

268: parameter estimation in non-linear functions that have uncertainties

269: in both coordinates.  The method was developed by \citet{errinvar}

270: which, in turn, is the full development of a method originally

271: suggested by \citet{deming}.  An equivalent method was developed into

272: an algorithm by \citet{errinvar-alg} which has been incorporated into

273: StatLib\footnote{\url{http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/}}.  It is this

274: algorithm upon which the present work is based although the

275: error-in-variables method was also presented to the astronomical

276: community with the work of \citet{jefferys1}. The method maximizes the

277: likelihood that a set of data $(M,N)$ with associated uncertainties

278: $(\sigma_M,\sigma_N)$ can be drawn from a distribution with parameters

279: $\{N_0,M_0,\gamma\}$.  Since the equations of condition cannot be

280: solved algebraically for the parameters (as they can in the linear

281: case), the minimization is performed iteratively in two interleaved

282: phases.  First, the true values of the data ({\it i.e.}~without

283: measurement errors) are estimated by maximizing the likelihood of

284: being drawn from a distribution with some initial guess of parameters.

285: Then, using the estimate of the true values of the data, the optimal

286: values of the parameters are determined.  The process is iterated

287: until estimates of both the true data values and the parameters are

288: determined. 

289: 

290: Instead of performing the fit to the data with the model given by

291: equation \ref{cumdist}, we use the algebraically equivalent expression

292: \begin{equation}

293: y_i = \theta_1 x_i^{\theta_2}+\theta_3

294: \end{equation}

295: to improve independent estimates of $M_0$ and $N_0$ which are highly

296: covariant in the original formulation.  Once the algorithm has

297: converged on a vector of parameters, $\mathbf{\theta}$, we transform

298: the elements of $\mathbf{\theta}$ back to the parameters of interest.

299: We use a bootstrapping technique to estimate uncertainties in the

300: derived parameters, using 100 trials to sample the distribution of

301: derived parameters which is often non-Gaussian.  The quoted values of

302: the uncertainties in the parameters are the median absolute deviations

303: of the transformed parameter distribution from the bootstrapping

304: trials.  Examination of the parameter distributions using a large

305: number of bootstrap trials shows that the medians adequately

306: characterize the uncertainties. For some distributions, there are more

307: high-mass clouds than expected from the distribution at lower mass

308: (i.e.~the opposite of a truncation).  In this case, the parameter

309: $\theta_3$ converges to zero.  When this occurs, we fit a power law to

310: the distribution of form

311: \begin{equation}

312: N(M'>M)= \left(\frac{M}{M_0}\right)^{\gamma+1}

313: \label{purepl}

314: \end{equation}

315: and report only $M_0$ and $\gamma$.

316: 

317: We validated our method by fitting the model to random data drawn from

318: power-law distributions with known parameters.  The trial data have

319: normal deviates of known dispersion added to them that simulate the

320: effects of measurement error.  In these simulations, we find that the

321: method both recovers the properties of the distribution without bias

322: and produces error estimates from bootstrapping that agree well with

323: the scatter in derived parameters around the known parameters.  This

324: implies that we are properly accounting for the error in the sample as

325: well as recovering the properties of the underlying distribution.

326: These tests demonstrate that the error-in-variables fit to the

327: cumulative mass distribution should be favored over a fit to the

328: binned mass distribution.

329: 

330: \subsection{Systematic Effects}

331: In addition to the errors in the mass measurement, there are also

332: systematic errors in the generation of mass spectra.  The two dominant

333: contributions to the systematic errors are choice of the mass

334: measurement (virial vs.~luminous) and the method used to generate the

335: cloud catalog.  SRBY report $M_{VT}\propto M_{LUM}^{0.8}$ in their

336: sample which implies that determinations of the index $\gamma$ can

337: vary by $10\%$ depending on the mass measurement.

338: 

339: The process used to generate the catalogs is likely the dominant

340: systematic in measuring the parameters of the mass distribution.  In

341: particular, the resulting parameters of mass distributions depend on

342: the algorithm which assigns flux into the physically significant

343: substructures for which the masses are determined.  Such

344: decompositions include (1) human assignment into clouds

345: \citep[{e.g.~}][]{ws90} (2) assignment by grouping neighboring pixels

346: above a cut in brightness (SRBY, HCS) and (3) computer algorithms such

347: as CLUMPFIND \citep{clumpfind} or GAUSSCLUMPS \citep{gaussclumps}.

348: Assigning multiple distinct structures into a single cloud

349: artificially drives the index of the mass spectrum towards more

350: positive values.  Such blending is most likely to occur when using

351: kinematic data to detangle emission in the inner Milky Way.

352: Conversely, overzealous decomposition of objects can erroneously split

353: high mass objects into lower mass objects, decreasing the value of the

354: index or creating an artificial truncation in the distribution.

355: Predicting the quantitative impact of these systematics is beyond the

356: scope of this work.

357: 

358: Ideally, the mass distribution should be derived using the same

359: decomposition algorithms and mass determinations from both

360: observations and simulations to minimize these systematic effects.

361: However, the magnitude of these systematic effects can be estimated by

362: analyzing the same data set with different methods.  Using the derived

363: parameters from the heterogeneous data sets in this study, we find

364: that the index can be robustly determined, in spite of these

365: systematic effects.  Identifying truncations and maximum masses are

366: complicated by these systematic effects and require care to accurately

367: recover (see below).

368: 

369: \section{Local Group Mass Spectra}

370: \label{datasec}

371: Using fits to the cumulative mass distribution, we have reanalyzed the

372: catalogs of GMCs in the Local Group.  Our results show significant

373: differences in the mass distributions of the GMC populations.  For

374: each of the catalogs discussed below, we fit a power-law to the

375: cumulative mass distribution, including a truncation if appropriate

376: (see above).  Unless otherwise stated, when both virial and luminous

377: measurements of the mass are reported, we use an error equal to half

378: the difference between the two mass measurements plus a 10\% flux

379: calibration error added in quadrature.  The results of the new fits to

380: the Local Group mass distributions are summarized in Table \ref{data}.

381: The reported errors are the median absolute deviation of the derived

382: parameters for 100 bootstrapping trials.  To illustrate a fit to the

383: data, we plot the results of the fit to the virial mass data of

384: \citet[][SRBY]{srby87} in Figure \ref{srby-example}.

385: 

386: \begin{figure}

387: \begin{center}

388: \plotone{fg2.eps}

389: \caption{ The mass distribution of the SRBY virial mass measurements.

390: A truncated power-law fit to the data using the methods of

391: this study is shown as a solid line.  The data show a significant

392: break around $N=50$ and the fit recovers this feature well. 

393: \label{srby-example}}

394: \end{center}

395: \end{figure}

396: 

397: 

398: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}

399: \tablecaption{\label{data}Parameters of Mass Spectra for GMCs 

400: in Local Group Studies}

401: \tablewidth{0pt}

402: \tablehead{

403: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Type} & 

404: \colhead{Num.} & \colhead{$\gamma$} & \colhead{$N_0$} & \colhead{$M_0/(10^5~M_\odot)$}}

405: \startdata

406: Inner MW & SRBY & VT &  190 & $-1.53 \pm 0.07$ & $36. \pm 12.$ & $29. \pm 5.0$ \\

407: Inner MW & SRBY & CO &  173 & $-1.53 \pm 0.06$ & $27. \pm 11.$ & $41. \pm 9.5$ \\

408: Inner MW & SYSCW & VT &  107 & $-1.58 \pm 0.15$ & $14. \pm 10.$ & $26. \pm 7.6$ \\

409: Inner MW & SYSCW & CO &  97 & $-1.41 \pm 0.12$ & $21. \pm 13.$ & $29. \pm 7.2$ \\

410: Outer MW\tablenotemark{a} & HCS & VT &  227 & $-2.56 \pm 0.11$ & \nodata & $3.2 \pm 0.78$ \\

411: Outer MW\tablenotemark{a} & HCS & CO &  81 & $-2.06 \pm 0.15$ & \nodata & $6.3 \pm 3.1$ \\

412: Outer MW & BKP & VT &  336 & $-2.29 \pm 0.08$ & $4.5 \pm 3.5$ & $2.9 \pm 1.0$ \\

413: Outer MW & BKP & CO &  81 & $-2.16 \pm 0.17$ & $2.7 \pm 2.9$ & $2.0 \pm 1.0$ \\

414: M33 & EPRB & CO &  58 & $-2.85 \pm 0.36$ & $2.5 \pm 2.7$ & $8.6 \pm 3.3$ \\

415: LMC & NANTEN & VT &  44 & $-1.71 \pm 0.19$ & $10. \pm 6.5$ & $23. \pm 4.6$ \\

416: LMC & NANTEN & CO &  55 & $-1.72 \pm 0.12$ & $6.1 \pm 3.6$ & $82. \pm 32.$ \\

417: \enddata

418: \tablenotetext{a}{The mass distribution shows an excess of clouds at

419: high mass, implying there is no truncation in the sample.  A pure

420: power law has been fit to the data (Equation \ref{purepl}).}

421: \end{deluxetable*}

422: 

423: 

424: 

425: \subsection{The Inner Milky Way}

426: There are two major studies of GMCs in the inner Milky Way.  Both SRBY

427: and \citet[][SYSCW]{syscw} analyzed FCRAO survey data from the first

428: quadrant of the Galaxy decomposing the emission into clouds using

429: different algorithms.  Comparing the results of these two studies

430: highlights the systematic effects of using different decomposition

431: algorithms.  Both studies identified clouds as contiguous regions

432: above a fixed antenna temperature cutoff but chose different

433: thresholds and methods for decomposing substructure.  We use their

434: measurements for virial mass and luminous mass, correcting for

435: differences in virial definitions and galactic scales as summarized in

436: \citet{wm97}.  The index of the power-law is unaffected by the choice

437: of conversion factor.  Typical mass errors are factors of $\sim 15$\%.

438: We fit all clouds with masses greater than $1 \times 10^5~M_{\odot}$

439: in the SRBY study, which approximates their reported completeness

440: level.  For the SYSCW study, we compared the virial and luminous mass

441: measurements after scaling the data and we find that the virial mass

442: estimates are a factor of 2 higher than the luminous mass measurements

443: for the high mass clouds.  To place the samples of equal footing, we

444: scaled the luminous mass of the clouds by a factor of two to bring the

445: mass estimates into agreement.  We then examined the distributions and

446: established a completeness limit of $5\times 10^4~M_{\odot}$ based on

447: where the distribution departed from a power law on the low mass end.

448: Fitting to both the virial and luminous masses for both studies finds

449: an index $\gamma\approx -1.5$ and a significant cutoff with $\sim 25$

450: clouds at the cutoff.  For all four fits, $M_0\approx 3\times

451: 10^6~M_{\odot}$.  The relatively small differences between the derived

452: parameters despite the different catalog methods suggests that

453: systematic effects are small in this case.  Since the cataloging

454: methods are conceptually similar in the two studies, this result is

455: not surprising.  The derived value of $N_0$ is slightly higher in the

456: SRBY method than SYSCW suggesting there is some influence of the

457: catalog method on the cutoff values.

458: 

459: The mass distribution for the inner Milky Way is shallower than found

460: for other systems.  Two effects may bias the results to a shallower

461: index.  First, line-of-sight blending will make several less massive

462: clouds appear as a single, more massive cloud shifting the index to

463: shallower values.  The methods used to generate the SRBY and SYSCW

464: catalogs do little to split up blends of emission.  Second,

465: incorrectly resolving the distance ambiguity will also bias the mass

466: distribution to shallow indices.  If every cloud has the same

467: probability of having its distance incorrectly determined, then more

468: low-mass clouds at the near distance will be erroneously counted as a

469: high-mass clouds at the far distance than the reverse, simply because

470: there are more low-mass clouds.  This latter bias can increase the

471: index of the mass distribution by as much as 0.2 for 20\% of clouds

472: being assigned to the wrong distance.  Thus, the index of the mass

473: distribution for the Inner Milky Way very likely is steeper than can

474: be derived from the current observational data.

475: 

476: \subsection{Outer Milky Way}

477: The data used for the Outer Milky Way are from the FCRAO survey of a

478: section of the second quadrant \citep{fcrao-ogs} which were

479: subsequently analyzed by both HCS and \citet[][BKP]{outercat}. HCS

480: used a cloud extraction algorithm similar to SRBY, but defined cloud

481: properties from the intensity distributions slightly differently.  In

482: contrast, BKP used a modified CLUMPFIND algorithm to identify peaks in

483: the emission distribution as the nuclei of distinct clouds.  Their

484: algorithm extracts roughly $\sim 50$\% more sources than the work of

485: HCS.  They assign cloud properties to the emission distribution in a

486: similar fashion as HCS.  Mass errors in the HCS study are given as

487: half the difference between mass measurements plus a flux error and

488: errors in BKP are reported in their study.  Since clouds in the outer

489: Galaxy with masses smaller than $10^4~M_{\odot}$ are not virialized,

490: we set $10^4~M_{\odot}$ as the lower mass limit for the fits to these

491: catalogs.  Adopting this truncation includes many more virial mass

492: measurements than luminous mass measurements since the virial mass

493: tends to overestimate the mass of clouds with

494: $M_{\mathrm{LUM}}<10^4~M_{\odot}$.  Thus, the luminous mass

495: distribution likely represents the underlying mass distribution better

496: than the virial mass distribution.  We also require the kinematic

497: distance to be larger than 2 kpc to minimize errors in the distance

498: determination.  We find that the index of the mass distribution is

499: steeper than reported in HCS, which is due to the improved fitting

500: methods ($\gamma =-2.1\mbox{ vs.~}-1.8 \mbox{ in HCS}$).  Since the

501: luminous mass is likely a better tracer of cloud mass, we also perform

502: a fit to the luminous mass data alone using a lower limit of $2\times

503: 10^3~M_{\odot}$ and derive an index of $\gamma=-2.05\pm 0.06$.

504: 

505: The catalog of HCS shows more clouds than would be expected at high

506: mass given a power-law extrapolation from lower masses.  Such an

507: excess is not seen in the BKP catalog, because of the more aggressive

508: decomposition algorithm employed in the latter study.  Without careful

509: analysis of the individual clouds, it is impossible to say what

510: represents the true distribution of clouds at high mass in the outer

511: Galaxy. Since evidence for a cutoff appears in the BKP catalog but not

512: in the HCS catalog, comparing these two studies illustrates the

513: systematic effects of different catalog methods. There is not the

514: strong evidence for a truncation in the outer Galaxy that is found for

515: the inner Galaxy data.  This is likely because there are too few

516: molecular clouds to populate the distribution up to the truncation

517: mass.  Nonetheless, the index of the mass distribution is

518: well-determined and is significantly steeper than that found in the

519: inner Milky Way.

520: 

521: 

522: \subsection{M33}

523: M33 is the only spiral galaxy for which a catalog of GMCs exists with

524: a known completeness limit \citep[][EPRB]{eprb03}.  Since the galaxy

525: is seen from an external perspective, blending effects are

526: dramatically reduced compared to Milky Way studies.  However, there

527: are only 59 clouds above the reported completeness limit of $1.5\times

528: 10^5 M_{\odot}$, and the clouds have only CO masses reported since the

529: individual clouds are not resolved.  A follow-up study \citep{rpeb03}

530: shows that the virial mass is proportional to the luminous mass for

531: GMCs in M33 and that the $M_{\mathrm{CO}}/M_{\mathrm{VT}}$ does not

532: vary significantly over the galaxy.  We estimate the error in their

533: measurements as the difference between the measured and corrected mass

534: discussed in EPRB plus their quoted 25\% calibration error in the flux

535: scale of the interferometer.  The derived value of the mass index

536: ($\gamma = -2.9$) is very steep.  M33 is also the most distant galaxy

537: in this reanalysis and observational biases may affect the index of the

538: mass distribution.  However, the potential biases would only make the

539: mass spectrum appear shallower than it actually is.  In particular,

540: blending effects will make several less massive clouds appear as a

541: single massive cloud, and underestimates of the completeness limit will

542: cause the number of low-mass clouds to be underestimated.  The

543: influence of either of these effects would imply that the mass index

544: is actually steeper than what is measured: $\gamma \le -2.9$.

545: 

546: It is likely that the extremely steep slope of the mass distribution

547: is actually the tail of a distribution with a cutoff mass below the

548: completeness limit of the survey.  EPRB estimate a characteristic mass

549: between $3-7\times 10^{4}~M_{\odot}$, which could simply be a cutoff

550: mass in a truncated power-law distribution.  To illustrate the effects

551: of fitting a truncated power-law distribution above the cutoff mass,

552: we repeated the analysis of clouds in the inner Milky Way restricting

553: the sample to clouds near the cutoff mass ($M>2\times

554: 10^6~M_{\odot}$).  Fitting to the restricted sample gives

555: $\gamma=-2.2$ with no evidence of truncation instead of $\gamma=-1.5$

556: with a truncation.  This supports our conjecture that the steep slope

557: of the M33 mass distribution can be attributed to fitting a power-law

558: distribution above the mass cutoff.

559: 

560: \subsection{Large Magellanic Cloud}

561: The only other complete survey of GMCs in a galaxy was completed using

562: the NANTEN 4-m telescope to observe the LMC.  \citet{nanten} report

563: the most recent catalog of GMCs, including 55 resolved GMCs for which

564: virial masses can be measured.  A subsequent paper

565: \citep{nanten-mspec} reports an index of $\gamma=-1.9$ using CO and

566: virial masses from a currently unavailable catalog of more GMCs.  All

567: of the resolved clouds have masses above the completeness limit of the

568: survey.  Using the virial masses for the 55 reported clouds, we derive

569: a mass spectrum index consistent with \citet{nanten-mspec} with some

570: evidence of truncation.  The index on the mass distribution derived

571: from the virial masses is likely a lower limit (i.e.~$\gamma > -1.9$)

572: because the reported virial mass measurements do not account for beam

573: convolution.  The error-in-variables fit to the data finds that the

574: mass distribution is shallower ($\gamma=-1.7\pm 0.2$) than reported in

575: \citet{nanten-mspec} with some evidence of a cutoff.

576: The maximum mass in the LMC is similar to that in the inner Milky Way

577: ($3\times 10^6~M_{\odot}$), but the value is poorly constrained by the

578: limited number of clouds in the catalog.

579: 

580: \section{Discussion}

581: \label{discussion}

582: There is a real variation in the mass distribution of GMCs across the

583: Local Group with indices ranging from $\gamma=-2.9$ to $-1.5$. There

584: are cutoffs at a maximum mass of $10^{6.5}~M_{\odot}$ in catalogs from

585: the inner Milky Way and the LMC.  In general, the differences in the

586: mass distributions have been unappreciated or trivialized; but they

587: are, in fact, significant.  In the inner Milky Way, the top-heavy mass

588: distribution means that studying the most massive clouds encompasses

589: most of the star-formation in that part of the Galaxy.  In contrast,

590: low mass clouds contain a substantial fraction of the molecular mass

591: in the outer Milky Way and M33.  In systems with bottom-heavy mass

592: distributions, the star-forming properties of these low mass clouds

593: must be examined to obtain a complete picture of the star-forming ISM.

594: Using $\gamma\approx -1.5$ is appropriate for the inner Milky Way but

595: not for all galaxies.

596: 

597: Since molecular clouds {\it of a given mass} appear to be similar

598: across the Local Group

599: \citep{hc01,rpeb03}, variation among the mass distributions is  

600: one of the only distinguishing features among molecular cloud

601: populations.  Owing to relatively short molecular cloud lifetimes

602: \citep{bs80,mw-cluster-co,nanten-lifetime}, molecular clouds have

603: little time to increase significantly in mass due to cloud collisions

604: and accretion.  However, the destruction of molecular clouds by their

605: stellar progeny will change their mass through photodissociation and

606: hydrodynamic effects.  Observations show that the star formation rate

607: scales roughly with cloud mass in the Milky Way \citep{ms88}.  If this

608: is approximately correct throughout the Local Group, then differences

609: in the mass distribution of molecular clouds are not likely to arise

610: from different star formation rates.  It seems likely that differences

611: observed in the mass distributions must be due primarily to the

612: formation mechanism of molecular clouds.  Since many studies seek to

613: explain the mass distribution of molecular clouds

614: \citep{kwan79,fractal-mspec,vs97,stutzki98,wada00}, these

615: explanations must be expanded in scope to encompass the variety of

616: mass distributions observed in the Local Group.

617: 

618: It is interesting to note that the environment with the steepest index

619: of the mass distribution (M33) is also the region which is most

620: gravitationally stable with respect to gravitational instability

621: \citep{mk01}.  The behavior might be expected if two mechanisms

622: dominated the cloud formation process, each producing different mass

623: distributions and one of the mechanisms was regulated by gravitational

624: instability.  For example, if the molecular clouds that form in spiral

625: arms are more massive than those that form in the field, then a

626: steeper mass index is expected in M33 where the disk is stable.

627: Another possibility is that the galactic environment establishes the

628: cutoff mass for the mass distribution.  In both the inner Milky Way

629: and the LMC where there is reasonably clear evidence for a cutoff

630: mass, that mass is roughly $3\times 10^{6}~M_{\odot}$.  However, in

631: M33, the characteristic mass of molecular clouds must be smaller than

632: the completeness limit in the study ($1.5\times 10^{5}~M_{\odot}$) and

633: is likely $\sim 5\times 10^{4}~M_{\odot}$.  The outer Milky Way

634: does not appear to show a characteristic mass which can be attributed

635: to the absence of sufficient molecular material to populate the

636: distribution at masses near the cutoff.  It remains an open question

637: as to what physics would establish the characteristic mass in these

638: systems and why the characteristic mass in M33 would be two orders of

639: magnitude less massive than in the Milky Way and the LMC.

640: 

641: \section{Conclusions}

642: 

643: This study emphasizes the importance of performing a uniform analysis

644: to generate mass spectra.  Using the error-in-variables method of

645: parameter determination, we reanalyzed the molecular cloud catalogs

646: for the Local Group of galaxies and we report the following

647: conclusions:

648: 

649: 1) Fits to the cumulative mass distribution using the

650: error-in-variables method produce a reliable estimate of the

651: parameters of the mass distribution.  Bootstrapping produces

652: reasonable uncertainties these parameters.  The adopted method is

653: superior to the standard technique of fitting a binned approximation

654: to the differential mass spectrum since it is insensitive to bin

655: selection and it also accounts for uncertainties in the mass estimate.

656: 

657: 2) There is significant variation in the mass distributions of

658: molecular clouds across the Local Group even after accounting for

659: systematic effects and biases.  Differences in the method used to

660: catalog the molecular emission affect the derived parameters of the

661: mass distribution.  In particular, the presence and magnitude of a

662: cutoff in the mass distribution is affected by the decomposition

663: algorithm.  Unless the cutoff is quite significant (as it is in the

664: inner Milky Way), the presence of a truncation should be regarded with

665: some suspicion.  However, the index of the mass distribution is far

666: less sensitive to the particulars of the mass determination and

667: decomposition algorithm, resulting in systematic errors in the index

668: $\gamma$ of $\pm 0.1$. 

669: 

670: 3) The mass distribution in the inner Milky Way has a measured index

671: of $\gamma=-1.5\pm 0.1$ with good evidence for a truncation in the

672: distribution setting a maximum mass of $10^{6.5}~M_{\odot}$.

673: Systematic errors particular to the study of the inner Milky Way

674: suggest that the true mass distribution may be steeper than this

675: derived value.  Using $\gamma\approx -1.5$ is appropriate for the

676: inner Milky Way but does not approximate the mass distribution of

677: molecular clouds across all galaxies.

678: 

679: 4) The mass distribution of molecular clouds in the outer Milky Way is

680: significantly steeper than that found in the inner Galaxy.  The mass

681: distribution has an index of $\gamma=-2.1 \pm 0.2$, steeper than

682: previously claimed, and shows no evidence of a cutoff at high mass.

683: 

684: 5) The GMCs in M33 show the steepest distribution found in this study

685: with no evidence of a cutoff.  It is possible that the distribution

686: actually has a cutoff below the completeness limit of the sample which

687: accounts for the derived index.

688: 

689: 6) The LMC has a mass distribution that is steeper than that of the

690: inner Milky Way ($\gamma_{\mathrm{LMC}}=-1.7\pm 0.2$) but also shows

691: some evidence of a cutoff near $10^{6.5}~M_{\odot}$ which was unknown

692: heretofore.  An expanded catalog of clouds is needed to confirm this

693: result.

694: 

695: \acknowledgements  

696: This work is supported by an NSF postdoctoral fellowship

697: (AST-0502605).  I thank Adam Leroy for lengthy discussions regarding

698: parameter estimation and maximum likelihood.  I am grateful to Leo

699: Blitz for a careful reading of this work which, as always, improved

700: its clarity.  The comments of an anonymous referee helped to clarify

701: the motivation for this work.  This work relied heavily on the use of

702: NASA's Astrophysics Data System and the efforts of the Center for

703: Astrostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania.

704: 

705: \begin{thebibliography}{34}

706: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

707: 

708: \bibitem[{{Arimoto} {et~al.}(1996){Arimoto}, {Sofue}, \& {Tsujimoto}}]{xfac96}

709: {Arimoto}, N., {Sofue}, Y., \& {Tsujimoto}, T. 1996, \pasj, 48, 275

710: 

711: \bibitem[{{Blitz} \& {Shu}(1980)}]{bs80}

712: {Blitz}, L. \& {Shu}, F.~H. 1980, \apj, 238, 148

713: 

714: \bibitem[{{Bloemen} {et~al.}(1986){Bloemen}, {Strong}, {Mayer-Hasselwander},

715:   {Blitz}, {Cohen}, {Dame}, {Grabelsky}, {Thaddeus}, {Hermsen}, \&

716:   {Lebrun}}]{bloemen}

717: {Bloemen}, J.~B.~G.~M., {Strong}, A.~W., {Mayer-Hasselwander}, H.~A., {Blitz},

718:   L., {Cohen}, R.~S., {Dame}, T.~M., {Grabelsky}, D.~A., {Thaddeus}, P.,

719:   {Hermsen}, W., \& {Lebrun}, F. 1986, \aap, 154, 25

720: 

721: \bibitem[{{Britt} \& {Luecke}(1973)}]{errinvar}

722: {Britt}, H. \& {Luecke}, R. 1973, Technometrics, 15, 233

723: 

724: \bibitem[{{Brunt} {et~al.}(2003){Brunt}, {Kerton}, \& {Pomerleau}}]{outercat}

725: {Brunt}, C.~M., {Kerton}, C.~R., \& {Pomerleau}, C. 2003, \apjs, 144, 47

726: 

727: \bibitem[{{Deming}(1943)}]{deming}

728: {Deming}, W.~E. 1943, {Statistical adjustment of data} (New York: Wiley,

729:   |c1943)

730: 

731: \bibitem[{{Dickman} {et~al.}(1986){Dickman}, {Snell}, \&

732:   {Schloerb}}]{xfac-dickman}

733: {Dickman}, R.~L., {Snell}, R.~L., \& {Schloerb}, F.~P. 1986, \apj, 309, 326

734: 

735: \bibitem[{{Elmegreen} \& {Falgarone}(1996)}]{fractal-mspec}

736: {Elmegreen}, B.~G. \& {Falgarone}, E. 1996, \apj, 471, 816

737: 

738: \bibitem[{{Engargiola} {et~al.}(2003){Engargiola}, {Plambeck}, {Rosolowsky}, \&

739:   {Blitz}}]{eprb03}

740: {Engargiola}, G., {Plambeck}, R.~L., {Rosolowsky}, E., \& {Blitz}, L. 2003,

741:   \apjs, 149, 343

742: 

743: \bibitem[{{Fukui} {et~al.}(2001){Fukui}, {Mizuno}, {Yamaguchi}, {Mizuno}, \&

744:   {Onishi}}]{nanten-mspec}

745: {Fukui}, Y., {Mizuno}, N., {Yamaguchi}, R., {Mizuno}, A., \& {Onishi}, T. 2001,

746:   \pasj, 53, L41

747: 

748: \bibitem[{{Heyer} {et~al.}(1998){Heyer}, {Brunt}, {Snell}, {Howe}, {Schloerb},

749:   \& {Carpenter}}]{fcrao-ogs}

750: {Heyer}, M.~H., {Brunt}, C., {Snell}, R.~L., {Howe}, J.~E., {Schloerb}, F.~P.,

751:   \& {Carpenter}, J.~M. 1998, \apjs, 115, 241

752: 

753: \bibitem[{{Heyer} {et~al.}(2001){Heyer}, {Carpenter}, \& {Snell}}]{hc01}

754: {Heyer}, M.~H., {Carpenter}, J.~M., \& {Snell}, R.~L. 2001, \apj, 551, 852

755: 

756: \bibitem[{{Jefferys}(1980)}]{jefferys1}

757: {Jefferys}, W.~H. 1980, \aj, 85, 177

758: 

759: \bibitem[{{Krumholz} \& {McKee}(2005)}]{krumholz05}

760: {Krumholz}, M.~R. \& {McKee}, C.~F. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

761: 

762: \bibitem[{{Kwan}(1979)}]{kwan79}

763: {Kwan}, J. 1979, \apj, 229, 567

764: 

765: \bibitem[{{Leisawitz} {et~al.}(1989){Leisawitz}, {Bash}, \&

766:   {Thaddeus}}]{mw-cluster-co}

767: {Leisawitz}, D., {Bash}, F.~N., \& {Thaddeus}, P. 1989, \apjs, 70, 731

768: 

769: \bibitem[{{Martin} \& {Kennicutt}(2001)}]{mk01}

770: {Martin}, C.~L. \& {Kennicutt}, R.~C. 2001, \apj, 555, 301

771: 

772: \bibitem[{{McKee} \& {Williams}(1997)}]{mw97}

773: {McKee}, C.~F. \& {Williams}, J.~P. 1997, \apj, 476, 144

774: 

775: \bibitem[{{Mizuno} {et~al.}(2001){Mizuno}, {Yamaguchi}, {Mizuno}, {Rubio},

776:   {Abe}, {Saito}, {Onishi}, {Yonekura}, {Yamaguchi}, {Ogawa}, \&

777:   {Fukui}}]{nanten}

778: {Mizuno}, N., {Yamaguchi}, R., {Mizuno}, A., {Rubio}, M., {Abe}, R., {Saito},

779:   H., {Onishi}, T., {Yonekura}, Y., {Yamaguchi}, N., {Ogawa}, H., \& {Fukui},

780:   Y. 2001, \pasj, 53, 971

781: 

782: \bibitem[{{Mooney} \& {Solomon}(1988)}]{ms88}

783: {Mooney}, T.~J. \& {Solomon}, P.~M. 1988, \apjl, 334, L51

784: 

785: \bibitem[{{Reilly} {et~al.}(1993){Reilly}, {Reilly}, \&

786:   {Keeler}}]{errinvar-alg}

787: {Reilly}, P., {Reilly}, H., \& {Keeler}, S. 1993, Applied Statistics, 42, 693

788: 

789: \bibitem[{{Rosolowsky} {et~al.}(2003){Rosolowsky}, {Plambeck}, {Engargiola}, \&

790:   {Blitz}}]{rpeb03}

791: {Rosolowsky}, E.~W., {Plambeck}, R., {Engargiola}, G., \& {Blitz}, L. 2003,

792:   \apj, 599, 258

793: 

794: \bibitem[{{Scoville} {et~al.}(1987){Scoville}, {Yun}, {Sanders}, {Clemens}, \&

795:   {Waller}}]{syscw}

796: {Scoville}, N.~Z., {Yun}, M.~S., {Sanders}, D.~B., {Clemens}, D.~P., \&

797:   {Waller}, W.~H. 1987, \apjs, 63, 821

798: 

799: \bibitem[{{Solomon} {et~al.}(1987){Solomon}, {Rivolo}, {Barrett}, \&

800:   {Yahil}}]{srby87}

801: {Solomon}, P.~M., {Rivolo}, A.~R., {Barrett}, J., \& {Yahil}, A. 1987, \apj,

802:   319, 730

803: 

804: \bibitem[{{Stutzki} {et~al.}(1998){Stutzki}, {Bensch}, {Heithausen},

805:   {Ossenkopf}, \& {Zielinsky}}]{stutzki98}

806: {Stutzki}, J., {Bensch}, F., {Heithausen}, A., {Ossenkopf}, V., \& {Zielinsky},

807:   M. 1998, \aap, 336, 697

808: 

809: \bibitem[{{Stutzki} \& {G\"usten}(1990)}]{gaussclumps}

810: {Stutzki}, J. \& {G\"usten}, R. 1990, \apj, 356, 513

811: 

812: \bibitem[{{Tan}(2000)}]{tan00}

813: {Tan}, J.~C. 2000, \apj, 536, 173

814: 

815: \bibitem[{{Vazquez-Semadeni} {et~al.}(1997){Vazquez-Semadeni},

816:   {Ballesteros-Paredes}, \& {Rodriguez}}]{vs97}

817: {Vazquez-Semadeni}, E., {Ballesteros-Paredes}, J., \& {Rodriguez}, L.~F. 1997,

818:   \apj, 474, 292

819: 

820: \bibitem[{{Wada} {et~al.}(2000){Wada}, {Spaans}, \& {Kim}}]{wada00}

821: {Wada}, K., {Spaans}, M., \& {Kim}, S. 2000, \apj, 540, 797

822: 

823: \bibitem[{{Williams} {et~al.}(1994){Williams}, {de Geus}, \&

824:   {Blitz}}]{clumpfind}

825: {Williams}, J.~P., {de Geus}, E.~J., \& {Blitz}, L. 1994, \apj, 428, 693

826: 

827: \bibitem[{{Williams} \& {McKee}(1997)}]{wm97}

828: {Williams}, J.~P. \& {McKee}, C.~F. 1997, \apj, 476, 166

829: 

830: \bibitem[{{Wilson} \& {Scoville}(1990)}]{ws90}

831: {Wilson}, C.~D. \& {Scoville}, N. 1990, \apj, 363, 435

832: 

833: \bibitem[{{Wolfire} {et~al.}(1993){Wolfire}, {Hollenbach}, \&

834:   {Tielens}}]{xfac-wolfire}

835: {Wolfire}, M.~G., {Hollenbach}, D., \& {Tielens}, A.~G.~G.~M. 1993, \apj, 402,

836:   195

837: 

838: \bibitem[{{Yamaguchi} {et~al.}(2001){Yamaguchi}, {Mizuno}, {Mizuno}, {Rubio},

839:   {Abe}, {Saito}, {Moriguchi}, {Matsunaga}, {Onishi}, {Yonekura}, \&

840:   {Fukui}}]{nanten-lifetime}

841: {Yamaguchi}, R., {Mizuno}, N., {Mizuno}, A., {Rubio}, M., {Abe}, R., {Saito},

842:   H., {Moriguchi}, Y., {Matsunaga}, K., {Onishi}, T., {Yonekura}, Y., \&

843:   {Fukui}, Y. 2001, \pasj, 53, 985

844: 

845: \end{thebibliography}

846: 

847: 

848: \end{document}