Binary interactions on the calibrations of star formation rate

TL;DR

This study examines how binary interactions influence star formation rate calibrations across various diagnostics and models, revealing that BIs generally lower SFR estimates from certain emission lines and UV, with effects varying by IMF and model assumptions.

Contribution

It provides new calibrations of SFR diagnostics incorporating binary interactions and compares effects of different IMFs and EPS models on these calibrations.

Findings

BIs reduce SFR calibration factors from Hα and [OII] lines by ~0.2 dex.

BIs have minimal impact on UV and FIR-based SFR calibrations.

Different IMFs and EPS models cause significant variations in SFR calibration factors.

Abstract

Using the evolutionary population synthesis (EPS) models with and without binary interactions (BIs), we present L_Ha, L_[OII], L_{i,UV} and L_FIR for Burst, S0, Sa-Sd and Irr galaxies, and present the calibrations of star formation rate (SFR) in terms of these diagnostics. By comparison, we find that BIs lower the SFR.vs.L_Ha and SFR.vs.L_[OII] conversion factors by ~0.2 dex. Moreover, BIs do not significantly vary the calibrations of SFR in terms of L_{i,UV}. In addition, BIs have little effect on the flux at 2800A. At last, the calibration of SFR from L_FIR is almost unaffected by BIs. This is caused by the fact that BIs almost do not affect the bolometric magnitudes of SPs. We also discuss the effects of initial mass function (IMF), gas-recycle assumption (GRA) and EPS models on these SFR calibrations. Comparing the results by using Salpeter (S55) IMF with those by using Miller & Scalo (MS79) IMF, we find that the SFR.vs.L_Ha and SFR.vs.L_[OII] conversion factors by using S55 IMF are greater by 0.4 and 0.2 dex than those by using MS79 IMF for the models with and without BIs, respectively. The SFR.vs.L_{i,UV} and SFR.vs.L_FIR conversion factors by using S55 IMF are larger by an amount of 0.2 dex than the corresponding ones by using MS79 IMF. The inclusion of GRA only lowers these SFR calibrations at faint SFR. Moreover, comparing the results when using different EPS models, we find that the differences in the SFR.vs.L_Ha and SFR.vs.L_[OII] conversion factors reach ~ 0.7 and 0.9 dex, the difference in the SFR.vs.L_FIR conversion factor reaches 0.4 and 0.8 dex, and the differences in the SFR.vs.L_{i,UV} conversion factors reach 0.3 and 0.2 dex when using S55 and NON-S55 IMF (including Cha03, K01, K93' and MS79 IMFs, partly caused by the difference in the IMF), respectively. At last, we give the conversion coefficients between SFR and these diagnostics for all models.