---
abstract: 'We recently presented a new statistical method to constrain the physics of star formation and feedback on the cloud scale. Fundamentally, this new method is only able to recover the relative durations of different evolutionary phases. It therefore requires a “reference time-scale” to convert the relative time-scales into absolute values. The phase over which the star formation rate (SFR) tracer is visible is the logical choice to assign this reference time-scale to, since it can be characterised using stellar population synthesis models. In this paper, we use hydrodynamical disc galaxy simulations to produce synthetic emission maps of several SFR tracers and apply our statistical method to measure the associated characteristic time-scale of each tracer. These cover 12 ultraviolet (UV) filters (from GALEX, Swift, and HST) covering a wavelength range $150-350~\mathrm{nm}$, as well as $\mathrm{H\alpha}$. For solar-metallicity environments, we find the characteristic time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ with (without) continuum subtraction to be ${\sim}4.3 \, \left(6 - 16\right)$ Myr and for the UV filters to be in the range $17-33$ Myr, monotonically increasing with wavelength. We find that the characteristic time-scale decreases towards higher metallicities, as well as to lower star formation rate surface densities, if the stellar initial mass function is not well-sampled. We provide fitting functions to the resulting reference time-scales to facilitate observational applications of our statistical method across a wide range of galactic environments. More generally, our results predict the time-scales over which photoionisation and UV heating take place around star-forming regions.'
author:
- |
    Daniel T. Haydon,^1^[^1] J. M. Diederik Kruijssen,^1,2^ Alexander P. S. Hygate,^2,1^ Andreas Schruba,^3^ Mark R. Krumholz,^4,5^ Mélanie Chevance,^1^ Steven N. Longmore^6^\
    ^1^Zentrum f[ü]{}r Astronomie der Universit[ä]{}t Heidelberg, Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, M[ö]{}nchhofstra[ß]{}e 12-14, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\
    ^2^Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}r Astronomie, K[ö]{}nigstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany\
    ^3^Max-Planck Institut f[ü]{}r Extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstra[ß]{}e 1, 85748 Garching, Germany\
    ^4^Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra 2611, A.C.T., Australia\
    ^5^Centre of Excellence for Astronomy in Three Dimensions (ASTRO-3D), Australia\
    ^6^Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, IC2, Liverpool Science Park, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L3 5RF, United Kingdom\
bibliography:
- './bibliography.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: 'An uncertainty principle for star formation – III. The characteristic emission time-scales of star formation rate tracers'
---

\[firstpage\]

galaxies: evolution – galaxies: ISM – galaxies: star formation – galaxies: stellar content – regions

Introduction
============

Characterising the time-scales of astrophysical processes is a common problem within astronomy as most of these processes take much longer than a human lifetime. Specifically within the field of star formation, characterising the physical processes involved in the evolution of clouds and star forming regions, as well as obtaining absolute star formation rates (SFRs) from the luminosity at a given wavelength, requires knowledge of the underlying time-scales. The emission in different wavebands is dominated by different types of stars [@HAOX11] and so it is possible to determine relationships between the luminosity at a given wavelength and the SFR [@CALZ07; @HAOX11; @MURP11; @KENN12 among others]. We can also associate characteristic time-scales for which the emission is visible from the expected lifetimes of these dominant stars. For example, in order to produce $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission, high energy photons are required to ionise the surrounding interstellar medium. These high energy photons must originate from very massive stars which have lifetimes less than 10 Myr [@LEIT99; @MURP11]. Since the stars that are producing the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission live no longer than 10 Myr, the emission itself should have a characteristic time-scale that is of a similar order of magnitude. This characteristic time-scale is an important property to determine, because it characterises how long photoionising feedback can act on the surrounding interstellar medium.

In @KRUI14 we put forward a new statistical method, titled “an uncertainty principle for star formation” (hereafter [ principle]{}), which can be applied to observational data using the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code [@KRUI18]. This new method is able to constrain the relative durations of the different star formation phases. However, to turn these into an absolute timeline, it is critical to have access to a known “reference time-scale”. For observational applications of the method, the most direct way of providing such a reference time-scale is by characterising the time-scales of SFR tracers. The statistical method is designed for applications over a wide range of galactic environments and across cosmic time; for a single time-scale to be applicable to all these different environments is unlikely. For example, we show in \[fig:HAAbsEmi\], using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> [@LEIT99; @VAZQ05] simulations, that metallicity has a strong impact on the maximum lifetime of $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission in star forming regions. Therefore, it is important to understand how these characteristic time-scales change with the galactic environment. Dependences of interest may be on the particular SFR tracer (ideally these cover a range of wavelengths), the metallicity, or the (sampling of the) stellar initial mass function (IMF).

Previous work has attempted to define characteristic time-scales for different SFR tracers, which has shown that there is no single method for doing so. Instead, there exists a range of possible methods – such as a luminosity-weighted mean, a percentage intensity change, or a percentage of the cumulative emission – that can result in differences up to an order of magnitude in time-scale [@LERO12; @KENN12]. We use a self-consistent approach to determine the SFR tracer time-scale; that is, we apply the [ principle]{} itself to synthetic emission maps to accurately measure the emission time-scales of the SFR tracers. We can then use these time-scales in future applications of the [ principle]{} as reference time-scales.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In \[sec:KL14\], we discuss the [ principle]{} and the practical application of the associated [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code. We present the method used for constraining the characteristic time-scales of different SFR tracers with well-sampled IMFs in \[sec:methodNonStoc\] and discuss the results for solar metallicity in \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\]. In \[sec:Metallicity\], we demonstrate how the time-scales depend on metallicity. In \[sec:IMFsampling\], we demonstrate the effects of incomplete IMF sampling in low SFR surface density environments. Finally, we summarise these results and present our conclusions in \[sec:conclusions\].

Uncertainty principle for star formation {#sec:KL14}
========================================

The analysis presented in this paper is based on the [ principle]{} and its specific realisation in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code [@KRUI18]. Therefore, we first summarise the method here.

The goal of the [ principle]{} is to constrain the cloud-scale physics of star formation and feedback using images of galaxies mapped in tracers that track different stages of the star formation process. By determining the duration of successive phases of an evolutionary process, one can gain a better understanding of the physics involved. In @KRUI14 and @KRUI18, the method is illustrated with the formation of stars from gas. If we provide [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} with a galaxy mapped in an appropriate gas tracer (e.g. CO) and SFR tracer (e.g. $\mathrm{H\alpha}$), [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} determines, among other quantities, the lifetime of molecular clouds within the observed galaxy. Depending on the combination of tracers one uses, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can constrain the durations of different stages of the star formation timeline.

In basic terms, the [ principle]{} represents the galaxy as a collection of independent star-forming regions, where each region is evolving along its timeline independently of the neighbouring regions. The number of regions that are emitting in each of the two tracers (with the possibility that the region is in a transition phase, and so emitting in both) is related to the duration of that phase: the shorter the duration of a phase, the less likely we are to observe a region in that phase. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} quantifies this statistically to determine the duration of one phase relative to the other. If the duration of one of these two phases is known a priori, it can be used as a “reference time-scale” to calibrate the timeline. In this paper, the “reference map” and “reference time-scale” refer to the emission map associated to the phase of known duration and its duration, respectively. The role of “reference map” is generally taken up by an SFR tracer emission map because its emission time-scale can be estimated using stellar population synthesis modelling. Calibrating these time-scales is the goal of this paper.

We outline here the procedure used by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} and refer the reader to @KRUI18 for the specific details. The method fundamentally relies on the findings of @KRUI14, where it is shown that the relative change of the flux ratio is a direct function of the underlying evolutionary timeline. The procedure is as follows.

![ Example tuning fork diagram produced by the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code. The figure shows the relation between the phase-1-to-phase-2 flux ratio ($F_{12}$) calculated at the locations of emission peaks relative to the galactic-scale phase-1-to-phase-2 flux ratio ($F_{\mathrm{12, \; gal}}$) as a function of aperture size, $l_{\mathrm{ap}}$. The model is indicated by the two green curves. The two distinct branches result from calculating the flux ratio at the locations of emission peaks in the phase 1 and phase 2 maps. []{data-label="fig:exampleTuningfork"}](\img{modc020-TuningFork_example}){width="\columnwidth"}

1.  The user provides [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} with an input file and two emission maps of the same galaxy tracing two successive phases (hereafter phase 1 and phase 2). The phase 2 map is used as the reference map with reference time-scale, $t_{\mathrm{R}}$, specified by the user in the input file. As mentioned above, this is usually the SFR tracer map and its associated characteristic time-scale.

2.  [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} identifies the location of emission peaks in each input map.

3.  Each map is convolved using a top hat kernel for a range of aperture sizes (as specified in the input file).

4.  For each pair of convolved maps, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} calculates the flux ratio of the two maps ($F_{\mathrm{12}}$) relative to the galactic average ($F_{\mathrm{12, \, gal}}$), within an aperture corresponding to the convolution scale, centred at each identified peak. As the aperture size increases, the calculated flux ratio tends to the galactic average (i.e. $F_{\mathrm{12}}/F_{\mathrm{12, \, gal}}$ tends to unity).

5.  Each aperture size has two associated flux ratios: the average flux ratio calculated at the locations of the emission peaks in the phase 1 map and another for those in the phase 2 map.

6.  Showing the change in flux ratios as a function of aperture size produces a “tuning fork diagram” (see \[fig:exampleTuningfork\]), where each branch corresponds to the flux ratio when focusing on the locations of emission peaks in the phase 1 and phase 2 maps.

7.  The models which describe the shapes of the two branches [see @KRUI18 Equations 81 and 82] have three free parameters: the typical separation length between identified peaks ($\lambda$), the relative temporal overlap between the two phases ($t_{\mathrm{over}}/t_{\mathrm{R}}$), and the relative duration of phase 1 ($t_{\mathrm{1}}/t_{\mathrm{R}}$).

8.  [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} carries out a reduced-$\chi^{2}$ fit to find the model parameters that best describe the data.

9.  The reference time-scale specified in the input file $\left(t_{\mathrm{R}}\right)$ is used to recover $t_{\mathrm{over}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{1}}$ as absolute time-scales.

The procedure described above assumes that the reference time-scale is known; however, this is not necessarily true. Without this reference time-scale, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can only determine relative lifetimes. In this paper, we constrain reference time-scales for a series of SFR tracers using the method above; however, the role of the SFR tracer map changes. In normal observational applications, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} utilises the SFR tracer map as the reference, along with the associated characteristic time-scale of the SFR tracer, to calibrate the evolutionary timeline. In \[sec:methodNonStoc\], we describe how we use a simulated galaxy to create reference maps from stars within a known age bin (the duration of which is used as $t_{\mathrm{R}}$) to calibrate the characteristic time-scale of synthetic SFR tracer emission maps (i.e. the time-scale referred to as $t_{\mathrm{1}}$ above). As long as the two maps trace successive phases of the evolution, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can be used to constrain their relative lifetimes; the physical quantity used in each map (e.g. luminosity or mass surface density) is not relevant.

Method for calculating the characteristic emission time-scales of SFR tracers for a fully-sampled IMF {#sec:methodNonStoc}
=====================================================================================================

\

We present here the steps we take to find the characteristic time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ and ultraviolet (UV) SFR tracers (see \[tab:filterList\] for details) using synthetic emission maps and the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code. As we described in \[sec:KL14\], [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can determine the duration of the first input map from the second by using the latter as a reference map (i.e. the map showing the evolutionary phase of known duration). This means that if we provide [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} with a galaxy map of one of the SFR tracers (e.g. $\mathrm{H\alpha}$) along with a reference map, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can provide us with the time-scale associated with that tracer. We follow this approach to measure the SFR tracer time-scales because it is self-consistent within our method. After all, the SFR tracer will be applied as the reference time-scale in future observational applications of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{}.

We generate both the SFR tracer maps and the reference maps using simulated galaxies. This has the advantage that we have complete control over the duration of the reference map, by using stellar particles of a specified age range. The SFR tracer maps are generated using a stellar population synthesis model. This approach allows us to test the effects of the galactic environment on the SFR tracer time-scale (such as the metallicity, see \[sec:Metallicity\], and IMF sampling, see \[sec:IMFsampling\]). In turn, this will facilitate observational applications of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} to a variety of galactic environments.

We discuss the adopted galaxy simulation in \[sec:simulation\], the method for generating the reference maps in \[sec:refMap\], and the method for generating the synthetic SFR tracer maps in \[sec:emissionMap\].

Galaxy simulation {#sec:simulation}
-----------------

The results in this paper are based on the “high-resolution” simulated galaxy from @KRUI18. We set up the initial conditions for this galaxy using the methods described in @SPRI05a. The simulation has a total of $4.95\times10^{6}$ particles: $1\times10^{6}$ in the dark matter halo, $2.31\times10^{6}$ in the stellar disc, $1.54\times10^{6}$ in the gas disc, and $1\times10^{5}$ in the bulge. The dark matter halo particles have a mass of $9\times10^{5}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ and the star and gas particle types both have a mass of $2.7\times10^{3}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. This gives us a $9\times10^{11}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ halo, $1.05\times10^{10}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ disc (60 per cent in stars and 40 per cent in gas), and $2.7\times10^{8}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ bulge.

We then evolve the initial conditions for 2.2 Gyr using the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P-Gadget-3</span> [last described by @SPRI05], which makes use of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SPHGal</span> hydrodynamics solver. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SPHGal</span> was implemented by @HUXX14 in order to overcome many of the numerical issues associated with traditional SPH. To be considered for star formation, gas particles require temperatures less than $1.2\times 10^{4}$ K and hydrogen particle density more than $0.5~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. Stars are formed from eligible gas particles stochastically according to the method described in @KATZ92. Supernova explosions return mass, momentum, and thermal energy back to the ISM; these are distributed using a kernel weighting to the 10 nearest gas particles. The result of the simulation is a near-$L^{\star}$ isolated flocculent disc galaxy. \[fig:inputMaps\] shows a stellar reference map (\[sec:refMap\]) and a synthetic $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ map (\[sec:emissionMap\]) of this galaxy.

Generation of the reference maps {#sec:refMap}
--------------------------------

The role the reference map plays in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code is to calibrate the absolute evolutionary timeline of the star formation process. In the context of this paper, it is used to calibrate the characteristic time-scale of the synthetic SFR tracer emission maps.

In our experiments aimed at measuring the SFR tracer emission time-scales, we need to know the reference time-scale exactly. For this reason, we use simulated rather than real galaxies. We produce reference maps from the simulation by generating mass surface density maps of the star particles in a specific age bin. The width of this age bin acts as the reference time-scale, $t_{\mathrm{R}}$. We smooth the selected star particles using a Wendland $C^{4}$ kernel [@DEHN12] (the same kernel <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SPHGal</span> introduces into <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P-Gadget-3</span>) over the 200 nearest neighbouring particles; this produces a realistic reference map (i.e. not a map of point particles).

In principle, we have a free choice over the age bin we use. However, for the best results and the most realistic set-up there are a few restrictions. In \[sec:KL14\], we note that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} is designed such that the reference map corresponds to the second phase of the evolutionary timeline. To avoid any overlap between the evolutionary phases, the minimum age of the star particles used in the reference map ($t_{\mathrm{M}}$) must therefore be at least the duration of the first (SFR tracer emission) phase ($t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, we include the subscript “0” to indicate that this is for a well sampled IMF: this distinction is necessary in \[sec:IMFsampling\]) of the evolutionary timeline. This defines the lower limit of the stellar age bin used to generate the reference map: $$\label{eq:Acrit}
        t_{\mathrm{M}} \gtrsim t_{\mathrm{E,0}}~\mathrm{.}$$ At the same time, it is undesirable to select a value of $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ much larger than the galactic dynamical time because groups of star particles formed in the same clouds may have dispersed. We therefore prefer using $t_{\mathrm{M}}\approx t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$.

![ Schematic diagram showing how the different time-scales we define within the paper are related. Time starts at the birth of the star particle. The emission map shows the particles formed within a time-scale $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ prior to the simulation snapshot, where $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ represents the characteristic time-scale of the SFR tracer. The time over which the reference map runs is defined by $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$, where $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ sets the minimum age of the star particles used to create the reference map and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$ defines the width of the age bin and therefore reference time-scale. The structure of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code is such that, the duration of second evolutionary phase is used to calibrate the duration of the first. This means that to calibrate the SFR tracer time-scale ($t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$), the SFR tracer map must be the first evolutionary phase (i.e. $t_{\mathrm{E,0}} \le t_{\mathrm{M}}$); this is unlike observational applications, where it is usually the second. []{data-label="fig:timeLine"}](\img{time_line}){width="\columnwidth"}

@KRUI18 show that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} provides the most accurate measurement of the underlying time-scales if the duration associated to both of the input maps is similar (within a factor of 10). This finding sets the preferred width of the age bin: $$\label{eq:Wcrit}
    t_{\mathrm{R}} \approx t_{\mathrm{E,0}}~\mathrm{.}$$ In \[fig:timeLine\], we show a schematic timeline of how $t_{\mathrm{M}}$, $t_{\mathrm{R}}$, and $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ are related.

  Emission Type                                               
  -------------------- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
  $\mathrm{H\alpha}$     1    3    5    7   10   15   20   25    30
  UV                     5   10   15   20   25   30   50   70   100

  :  We create input reference maps from the star particles that fall within a particular age bin. The age bin, for a given reference map, is defined through $t_{\mathrm{M}} \leq \mathrm{Age} \leq t_{\mathrm{M}} + t_{\mathrm{R}}$. We show here all the values used in this paper for $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$ when defining these age bins. This results in a $9 \times 9$ array of reference maps (see \[fig:ageBinTimeScales\]). See \[sec:refMap\] for more details. []{data-label="tab:refBin"}

To quantify (and avoid) any systematic biases of the measured SFR tracer time-scale, we investigate the dependence on the choice of stellar age bin used to generate the reference map. In practice, this means we vary the values of $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$. We present the range of values we use for $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$ in \[tab:refBin\]. These are guided by the range of possible characteristic time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ and far-ultraviolet (FUV) emission found in @LERO12. @LERO12 use the results of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> calculations to determine a characteristic time-scale using several methods: a luminosity-weighted average time, as well as the times at which the tracer emission reaches a particular limit in terms of the total cumulative emission or its instantaneous intensity.

Generation of the emission maps {#sec:emissionMap}
-------------------------------

In order to preform our analysis, we need to produce synthetic emission maps. The simulation that we base this work on (see \[sec:simulation\]) contains no information about the expected emission spectrum. We therefore use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> [@SILV12; @SILV14; @KRUM15], a stochastic stellar population synthesis code, to take the age and mass of the star particles and predict the associated emission for the filters specified in \[tab:filterList\].

With the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> model, we predict the expected rest-frame emission spectrum for every star particle within the simulation.[^2] The code first samples an IMF to construct a simple stellar population of total mass matching that of the star particle and then uses stellar evolution tracks along with the age of the star particle to determine the combined emission of this simple stellar population. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> then converts the full combined emission spectrum into a single luminosity value for each of the SFR tracers in \[tab:filterList\] using filter response curves. These single luminosity values are what we assign to our star particles when we produce our synthetic rest-frame emission maps. We use the same smoothing procedure as we described in \[sec:refMap\]. This means that, even though our star particles are treated as simple stellar populations, the star-forming regions themselves, which are a collection of multiple particles, will have an age spread. An example of a synthetic $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ map is shown in \[fig:inputMaps\].

The adopted UV response filters are all included by default in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> (see @KRUM15 for more details). The $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ SFR tracers, however, require different steps. For $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ we use the hydrogen-ionizing photon emission, $Q\left(\mathrm{H^{0}}\right)$, directly[^3] and for $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}} \, W$ we define the narrow band filter, $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}} \, W}$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HAFilter}
        \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}} \, W} = \left\lbrace
        \begin{aligned}
        &1 &&6562 -\frac{W}{2}~\text{\AA} \leq \lambda \leq 6562 +\frac{W}{2}~\text{\AA}
        \\
        &0 &&\mathrm{Otherwise}
        \end{aligned}
        \right.~\mathrm{.}
    \end{aligned}$$ The emission spectrum produced by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span>, includes the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission line but does not calculate the underlying absorption feature from the stellar continuum. In \[app:HAAbsEmi\] we use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> simulations to investigate when the absorption can no longer be neglected. We find that for the time-scales we are considering the absorption is negligible.

For the analysis in \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\], we use a @CHAB05 IMF with Geneva solar-metallicity evolutionary tracks [@SCHA92] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> spectral synthesis. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> model samples the IMF non-stochastically[^4] (i.e. we use a well sampled IMF) and no foreground extinction is applied. The surrounding material has a hydrogen number density of $10^{2}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. We assume that only 73 per cent of the ionising photons are reprocessed into nebular emission, which is consistent with the estimate from @MCKE97; this could be because those photons are absorbed by circumstellar dust, or because they escape outside the observational aperture (the observational effects of these two possibilities are indistinguishable).

We choose to produce our synthetic emission maps without extinction for a number of reasons. In observational applications of the [ principle]{}, there is often some overlap between the first and second phases of the evolutionary timeline. For instance, when applying the method to a molecular gas map (e.g. CO) and an ionised emission map (e.g. $\mathrm{H\alpha}$), there will be some non-zero time for which both tracers coexist. When a region resides in this “overlap” phase, the star-forming region may be partially embedded in dust and gas; during this phase the region suffers the most from extinction. We can therefore define the duration of this second phase, $t_{2}$, as $$t_{2} = t_{\mathrm{o}} + t_{\mathrm{i}}~\mathrm{,}$$ where $t_{\mathrm{o}}$ is the duration of the second phase that overlaps with the first, and $t_{\mathrm{i}}$ the duration that is independent. The characteristic time-scales we define in this paper are for this independent part, $t_{\mathrm{i}}$, of the second phase. This is where the region is no longer embedded in dust and gas and therefore not suffering from significant extinction. We motivate this by the notion that molecular gas correlates with star formation: as long as CO emission is present, star formation is likely to be ongoing. The “clock” defined by the SFR tracer lifetime only starts when the last massive stars have formed. This does mean that the application of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} to tracers other than CO may require a different definition of the reference time-scale. To facilitate this, the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code enables the user to specify if the reference time-scale includes or excludes this overlap phase (see @KRUI18 [§ 3.2.1]).

In addition, it is desirable to exclude extinction for two further reasons. Firstly, the effects of extinction can, in most cases, be significantly reduced if not completely corrected for (e.g. @JAME05), meaning in practice the input maps provided to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can be corrected for extinction. Secondly, if we perform our analysis with extincted maps, the results would no longer be generally applicable and would only apply to galaxies that suffer from the same amount of extinction. Our current approach therefore enables constructing a “universal” baseline of extinction-corrected SFR tracer lifetimes. In future work, we aim to consider extinction using galaxy simulations covering a range of gas surface densities (Haydon et al. in prep.).

Characteristic time-scales for a fully sampled IMF at solar metallicity {#sec:resultsSingleTimeScale}
=======================================================================

We constrain the characteristic time-scales for several SFR tracers using the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code. As input to the code, we use synthetic SFR tracer maps and reference maps as described in \[sec:methodNonStoc\]. The reference maps are characterised by the ages of the star particles included within them. We investigate how the chosen age bin affects the characteristic time-scale measured by changing the values of $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$ which define the age bin: $t_{\mathrm{M}} \leq \mathrm{Age} \leq t_{\mathrm{M}}+t_{\mathrm{R}}$. This approach does not (initially) result in a single characteristic time-scale for each SFR tracer, but an array spanned by $t_{\mathrm{M}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}}$. In what follows, we describe how we reduce these “time-scale arrays” (see \[fig:ageBinTimeScales\] for examples) into a single characteristic time-scale for each SFR tracer. However, we first note that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} not only outputs the measured time-scale but also its probability density function (PDF). This means that each element of the time-scale array has an associated PDF, which we make use of in the process of defining a single characteristic time-scale.

To define a characteristic time-scale for each SFR tracer from the array of time-scales, we produce $10^{6}$ realisations of the time-scale array, where the value of each element of each realisation of the time-scale array has be randomly sampled from its associated PDF. For each of the $10^{6}$ realisations of the time-scale array we calculate the weighted mean of the array. The weighting for an element in the array with time-scale $t_{ij}$ is given by $\mathcal{W}_{ij}$: $$\label{eq:weight}
        \mathcal{W}_{ij} = \frac{\mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{d}}_{ij} \mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{u}}_{ij}}{\sum_{ij}\left(\mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{d}}_{ij} \mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{u}}_{ij}\right)}~\mathrm{.}$$ The $\mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{d}}$ weighting favours more strongly elements that satisfy the criteria we describe in \[eq:Acrit,eq:Wcrit\] (i.e. the closer $t_{ij}$ is to $t_{\mathrm{M}, \, i}$ and $t_{\mathrm{R}, \, j}$ the better): $$\label{eq:distance}
        \mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{d}}_{ij} = \left\{\left[\log_{10}\left(\frac{t_{ij}}{t_{\mathrm{M}, \, i}}\right)\right]^{2} + \left[\log_{10}\left(\frac{t_{ij}}{t_{\mathrm{R}, \, j}}\right)\right]^{2}\right\}^{-\frac{1}{2}}~\mathrm{.}$$ The $\mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{u}}$ weighting takes the lower and upper uncertainty ($\sigma^{-}_{ij}$ and $\sigma^{+}_{ij}$ respectively) on the time-scale $t_{ij}$ (as calculated by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{}) into consideration:[^5] $$\label{eq:uncertainty}
        \mathcal{W}^{\mathrm{u}}_{ij} = \left(\frac{\sigma^{-}_{ij} + \sigma^{+}_{ij}}{2}\right)^{-2}~\mathrm{.}$$ This process results in $10^{6}$ characteristic time-scales, from which we can produce a PDF. We define the characteristic time-scale from the median of the PDF and the uncertainties from the 16th and 84th percentiles.

When applying [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} to the pairs of reference and SFR tracer maps, we use the default input parameters specified in Tables 1 and 2 of @KRUI18. The only exceptions are as follows. We set `tstar_incl` = 1, to indicate that the reference time-scale (i.e. the width of the age bin) also includes the overlapping phase.[^6] As we are not making any cuts in galactocentric radius, we also set `cut_radius` = 0. Finally, we define the range of aperture sizes using a minimum aperture size of $l_{\mathrm{ap, min}} = 25$ pc and a number of $N_{\mathrm{ap}} = 17$ apertures, to produce 17 logarithmically-spaced aperture diameters from $25-6400$ pc.

\

In \[fig:ageBinTimeScales\], we present, as examples, two time-scale arrays obtained for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ and WFC3 UVIS F225W SFR tracers. These time-scale arrays only serve as examples, since the elements show the output of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} and are not from the $10^{6}$ realisations. We also show the PDFs associated to the defined characteristic time-scale for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ and WFC3 UVIS F225W in \[fig:TSPDF\].

We can use the defined characteristic time-scales, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, to specify the age bin we use for creating our reference maps in later sections of this paper: $$\label{eq:agebin}
        t_{\mathrm{E,0}} \le \mathrm{Age} \le 2t_{\mathrm{E,0}}~\mathrm{,}$$ which complies with the conditions specified in \[eq:Acrit,eq:Wcrit\].

                                                 $t_{\mathrm{E,0}} \, \left[\mathrm{Myr}\right]$   Age bin $\left[\mathrm{Myr}\right]$
  -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$                                                      $4.3^{+0.1}_{-0.3}$                           $4.3 - 8.6$
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 10 \, \text{\AA}}$                                  $5.6^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$                          $5.6 - 11.1$
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 20 \, \text{\AA}}$                                  $7.3^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$                          $7.3 - 14.6$
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 40 \, \text{\AA}}$                                  $9.3^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$                          $9.3 - 18.6$
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 80 \, \text{\AA}}$                                 $10.7^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $10.7 - 21.4$
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 160 \, \text{\AA}}$                                $16.4^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$                         $16.4 - 32.7$
  $\mathrm{WFC3 \, UVIS1 \, F336W}$                                         $33.3^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$                         $33.3 - 66.6$
  $\mathrm{WFPC2 \, F336W}$                                                 $33.1^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$                         $33.1 - 66.3$
  $\mathrm{WFPC2 \, F300W}$                                                 $27.7^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$                         $27.7 - 55.4$
  $\mathrm{WFC3 \, UVIS1 \, F275W}$                                         $23.5^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $23.5 - 47.0$
  $\mathrm{UVOT \, W1}$                                                     $21.8^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $21.8 - 43.5$
  $\mathrm{WFPC2 \, F255W}$                                                 $22.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $22.4 - 44.7$
  $\mathrm{WFC3 \, UVIS1 \, F225W}$                                         $19.6^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $19.6 - 39.3$
  $\mathrm{GALEX \, NUV}$                                                   $19.6^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $19.6 - 39.1$
  $\mathrm{UVOT \, M2}$                                                     $19.5^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $19.5 - 39.0$
  $\mathrm{WFC3 \, UVIS1 \, F218W}$                                         $19.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$                         $19.4 - 38.9$
  $\mathrm{UVOT \, W2}$                                                     $19.0^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$                         $19.0 - 38.0$
  $\mathrm{GALEX \, FUV}$                                                   $17.1^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$                         $17.1 - 34.2$

  :  The characteristic time-scales, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, obtained for the different SFR tracers (see \[tab:filterList\] for details) and the corresponding age bins ($t_{\mathrm{E,0}} \le \mathrm{Age} \le 2t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$) for producing reference maps in later sections of this paper. These results are for a well sampled IMF at solar metallicity. The filter order is in increasing filter width ($W$) for $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ and decreasing response-weighted mean wavelength ($\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$) for UV. This table is an extract of \[tab:resultsAllZ\], which includes the characteristic time-scales and age bins for different stellar metallicities ($Z/\mathrm{Z_{\odot}} = 0.05-2$). []{data-label="tab:resultsSolar"}

In \[tab:resultsSolar\], we present the characteristic time-scales and associated uncertainties for each of the different SFR tracer filters. We also include the age bins that we will use for the reference maps in later sections; we calculated these using the expression given in \[eq:agebin\].

![image](\img{modc020-filter-Time_profile}){height="0.9\textheight"}

We show the response curves for the UV filters in the upper panel of \[fig:uvTimeScales\] and also mark the response-weighted mean wavelength, $\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$. Visualising the response curves helps to explain the range of measured characteristic time-scales. In the lower panel of \[fig:uvTimeScales\], we show $\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$ against the characteristic time-scale of the young stellar emission in each filter. The figure shows that similar response-weighted mean wavelengths give similar characteristic time-scales. In addition, we see that there is a tight relation between the SFR tracer time-scale and wavelength. We describe this relationship between $\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$ and the UV characteristic time-scale, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{UV}}$, by $$\label{eq:UVtimeSolarFit}   
        \begin{split}
            t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{UV}} \; \left[\mathrm{Myr}\right] = & \left(3.20^{+0.30}_{-0.33}\right) \; {\left(\frac{\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}}{225~\mathrm{nm}}\right)}^{\left(4.21^{+0.23}_{-0.20}\right)}\\
            + & \left(16.32^{+0.37}_{-0.32}\right)~\mathrm{.}
        \end{split}$$ This relation is obtained by performing a weighted least-squares minimization. The uncertainties on the parameter values are calculated using a Monte Carlo approach. With this relationship it is possible to find the characteristic emission time-scales for UV filters that we have not explicitly considered here.

![ Characteristic emission time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ filters as a function of the filter width. The grey curve shows the fit described in \[eq:HA+timeSolarFit\] and the shaded region indicates the associated uncertainty. []{data-label="fig:HATimeScales"}](\img{HALPHA-modc020-TimeWidth}){width="\columnwidth"}

Similarly, we derive a relation between the $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ characteristic time-scale and filter width, $W$, to make it possible to find characteristic time-scale for intermediate $W$: $$\label{eq:HA+timeSolarFit}
        \begin{split}
            t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha}\;+} \; \left[\mathrm{Myr}\right] = & \left(4.8^{+1.3}_{-1.3}\right) \; {\left(\frac{W}{40~\text{\AA}}\right)}^{\left(0.65^{+0.20}_{-0.13}\right)}\\
            + & \left(3.8^{+1.1}_{-1.1}\right)~\mathrm{.}
        \end{split}$$ We present this relation in \[fig:HATimeScales\]. We note that the increase in characteristic time-scale with filter width is not due to a change in the $\mathrm{H \alpha}$ emission but the result of including more of the long-lived continuum emission.

The UV characteristic time-scales that we recover ($17.1-33.3$ Myr) are within the ranges often quoted in the literature ($10-100$ Myr, @KENN12 [@LERO12]). The large variation in literature values is due to the fact that there is no single method or distinct set of criteria which one should use in order to constrain the characteristic time-scale of an SFR tracer. With the approach taken in this paper, we have remedied this problem for future observational applications of the [ principle]{}.

                               $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ $\left[\%\right]$   FUV^a^ $\left[\%\right]$
  -------------------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------
  % of intensity at 1 Myr                         $19.4^{+2.8}_{-0.7}$        $8.6^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$
  % of cumulative emission                        $92.4^{+0.6}_{-1.5}$       $76.5^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$

  :  Percentages of the emission intensity relative to its instantaneous value at 1 Myr and of it cumulative value over 100 Myr, evaluated at the characteristic time-scales of the SFR tracers presented in \[tab:resultsSolar\], based on Figure 1 of @LERO12. []{data-label="tab:comparison"}

@LERO12 present a table of characteristic time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ and FUV (at 150 nm). Multiple time-scales are listed for each SFR tracer; these time-scales are defined by the duration required to reach a given percentage limit of the cumulative emission or of the emission intensity relative to the intensity at 1 Myr. We take @LERO12 [Figure 1] and reverse the process to find the percentage that correspond to the characteristic emission time-scales we determine for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ and GALEX FUV. We list these percentage limits in \[tab:comparison\].

The percentage limits used in @LERO12 are arbitrarily chosen and so we make this conversion into percentage limits to determine if a single percentage of the 1 Myr intensity or cumulative emission can be defined that would correspond to SFR tracer time-scales that we measure. From the results in \[tab:comparison\], we can see that no single percentage limit can be defined.[^7] As there is no consistent limit, the characteristic time-scale for each SFR tracer must be determined individually.

In summary, we see that the characteristic time-scales fall in the range of commonly reported literature values. By comparing these measurements to the time-evolution of the SFR tracer intensities, we find that no fixed percentage of the initial or cumulative emission is capable of matching the obtained characteristic time-scales. For this reason, each SFR tracer time-scale must be determined individually using the presented method. However, we do find empirical functions (see \[eq:UVtimeSolarFit,eq:HA+timeSolarFit\]) relating the characteristic emission time-scales for UV and $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ filters to their filter properties. These relations predict the characteristic time-scale for UV and $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ filters we have not considered here.

The effects of metallicity {#sec:Metallicity}
==========================

So far, we have only considered stellar populations of solar metallicity; however, it is well-known that the metallicity affects stellar lifetimes [e.g. @LEIT99] and thus the characteristic emission time-scales of SFR tracers. In order to facilitate observational applications of the [ principle]{} to the broadest possible range of galaxies, we therefore quantify how the SFR tracer time-scales depend on metallicity. In this section, we repeat the experiments performed in \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\] but this time we produce synthetic SFR tracer emission maps using evolutionary tracks of metallicities $Z/\mathrm{Z}_{\odot} = 0.05, \, 0.20, \, 0.40, \, 2.00$ [@SCHA92; @CHAR93; @SCHA93a; @SCHA93b].

![ The relation between metallicity and characteristic time-scale for a well-sampled IMF for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ filters. The grey curve gives the fits described by \[eq:HAtimeMetalFit\]. The shaded region indicates the associated uncertainty. []{data-label="fig:metalTimescale"}](\img{HAlpha_Z}){width="\columnwidth"}

In \[app:completeTable\], we list the characteristic time-scales for a well sampled IMF for all metallicities (also including the solar metallicity results from \[tab:resultsSolar\]) and the age bins we select for producing reference maps. We see that as the metallicity increases, the characteristic time-scale decreases; we show this $Z - t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ relation in \[fig:metalTimescale\] for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$, \[fig:ZHWidthfits\] for $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ filters, and in \[fig:ZWfits\] for the UV filters. We also include empirical fits described respectively by $$\label{eq:HAtimeMetalFit}
        t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}}  \; \left[\mathrm{Myr}\right]= \left(4.32^{+0.09}_{-0.23}\right)\; {\left(\frac{Z}{1~\mathrm{Z_{\odot}}}\right)}^{\left(-0.086^{+0.010}_{-0.023}\right)}~\mathrm{,}$$ $$\label{eq:HAWidtimeMetalFit}
        \begin{split}
        t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}}  \; \left[\mathrm{Myr}\right] = & 
        \left(8.98^{+0.40}_{-0.50}\right) \;  {Z_{0}}^{\left(0.265^{+0.028}_{-0.051}\right)}\\
        + & \left(0.23^{+0.15}_{-0.11}\right) \; Z_{0} W_{0} \\
        - & \left(0.66^{+0.12}_{-0.19}\right) \; Z_{0} + \left(0.55^{+0.46}_{-0.29}\right) \; W_{0}~\mathrm{,}          
        \end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq:UVtimeMetalFit}
        \begin{split}
            t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{UV}}  \; \left[\mathrm{Myr}\right] = - &
            \left(0.40^{+0.11}_{-0.16}\right) \; Z_{1} \lambda_{1} \\
            + & \left(4.5^{+1.3}_{-0.9}\right) \; Z_{1} + \left(0.70^{+0.26}_{-0.18}\right) \; \lambda_{1}\\
            - & \left(3.11^{+0.14}_{-0.13}\right) \; Z_{0} + \left(10.98^{+0.46}_{-0.48}\right) \; \lambda_{0}\\
            + & \left(7.6^{+1.2}_{-1.6}\right)~\mathrm{,} 
        \end{split}$$ where

$$\begin{aligned}
            Z_{0} & \equiv \frac{Z}{1~\mathrm{Z_{\odot}}}~\mathrm{;} &
            \lambda_{0} &\equiv \frac{\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}}{225~\mathrm{nm}}\mathrm{;} &
            W_{0} & \equiv \frac{W}{40~\mathrm{\text{\AA}}}\mathrm{;} &\\
            Z_{1} & \equiv Z_{0}^{\left(-0.313^{+0.051}_{-0.048}\right)}~\mathrm{;} &
            \lambda_{1} & \equiv \lambda_{0}^{\left(6.52^{+0.73}_{-0.71}\right)}~\mathrm{.} &
        \end{aligned}$$

As before, we determine the free parameters using a weighted least-squares minimization and the uncertainties through Monte Carlo methods. With these relations, it is straight forward to recover the characteristic time-scale for a given the metallicity and filter properties without having to repeat the analysis performed here.

\[fig:metalTimescale\] shows that the characteristic time-scales of $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ changes by less than 2 Myr over the metallicity range $\left[0.05 \, Z_{\mathrm{\odot}}, \, 2 \, Z_{\mathrm{\odot}}\right]$. The ranges of characteristic time-scales ($3.9-5.5$ Myr for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$) fall within the range of literature values ($1.7-10$ Myr, @KENN12 [@LERO12]).

![ The surface described by \[eq:HAWidtimeMetalFit\], which relates the metallicity and filter width, $W$, of a $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ filter to the associated characteristic time-scale for a well sampled IMF. The data points show the measurements coloured using the same colour bar. The surface fits best when it matches the colour of the data points. []{data-label="fig:ZWid_surface"}](\img{ZWid-contour}){width="\columnwidth"}

In \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\], we describe a curve which relates the filter width, $W$, to the characteristic time-scale of $\mathrm{H \alpha{+}}$ filters, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}}$, at solar metallicity. \[eq:HAWidtimeMetalFit\], now extends this relation to include different metallicities to produce a surface in $\left(t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}},~W,~Z\right)$ space. As mentioned in \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\], the $\mathrm{H \alpha{+}}$ characteristic time-scales are at the higher end of the literature range (if not exceeding), which is due to including more of the long-lived continuum emission. In \[fig:ZHWidthfits\], we show the data for each metallicity and each width along with the fit described by the $\left(t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}},~W,~Z\right)$ surface given in \[eq:HAWidtimeMetalFit\] and shown in \[fig:ZWid\_surface\]. These figures enable a direct assessment of how well the surface describes the characteristic time-scales as a function of the metallicity and wavelength.

![ The surface described by \[eq:UVtimeMetalFit\], which relates the metallicity and response-weighted mean wavelength, $\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$, of a UV SFR tracer to the associated characteristic time-scale for a well sampled IMF. The data points show the measurements coloured using the same colour bar. The surface fits best when it matches the colour of the data points. []{data-label="fig:ZW_surface"}](\img{ZWav-contour}){width="\columnwidth"}

As we did for $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}}$, we can extend the relation given by \[eq:UVtimeSolarFit\], which describes $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{UV}}$ as a function of response-weighted mean wavelength, $\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$, to also include metallicity. In \[fig:ZWfits\], we show the data for each metallicity and each wavelength along with the fit described by the $\left(t_{\mathrm{E,0}}^{\mathrm{UV}},~\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}},~Z\right)$ surface given in \[eq:UVtimeMetalFit\] and shown in \[fig:ZW\_surface\]. The strongest deviations from the fit arise at long ($\lambda_{\mathrm{w}}>290$ nm) wavelengths. For UV filters at these wavelengths, we recommend interpolating the data points (provided in \[app:completeTable\]) rather than adopting \[eq:UVtimeMetalFit\]. The range of characteristic time-scales found for the UV filters ($14.5-33.3$ Myr ) again fall within the range quoted in literature ($10-100$ Myr, @KENN12 [@LERO12]); however, they are towards the low end of this range. This is a direct result of the fact that the UV emission from star-forming regions fades with time, and the measured time-scales are naturally biased to the ages of regions from which most UV photons emerge.

In summary, we see that the characteristic time-scales decrease with increasing metallicity. Observational applications of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} should therefore use an SFR tracer time-scale appropriate for the metallicity of the observed region. We define empirical relations between the SFR tracer time-scale and the metallicity (for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$, \[eq:HAtimeMetalFit\]) and (for $\mathrm{H \alpha{+}}$ and UV filters, \[eq:HAWidtimeMetalFit,eq:UVtimeMetalFit\]) the filter properties. For $\mathrm{H \alpha{+}}$ and UV SFR tracers, these relations enable the definition of time-scales even for filters that are not explicitly considered here.

The effects of IMF sampling {#sec:IMFsampling}
===========================

In the previous sections, we determine the characteristic time-scales of SFR tracers using synthetic emission maps where <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> fully samples the IMF. In observational applications of the [ principle]{}, there is no guarantee (or requirement from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{}) that the regions under consideration have a well sampled IMF. It is therefore important to investigate the impacts of incomplete sampling of the IMF (i.e. a stochastically sampled IMF) on the characteristic time-scales of the SFR tracers, in particular for low-mass star forming regions.

We describe in \[sec:KL14\] how the abundance of identified regions in each input map reflects the duration associated to that map. Since star formation is traced using emission from massive stars, an SFR tracer emission map consisting of star-forming regions where the IMF is not well sampled will contain fewer identified regions than one with a well sampled IMF. This apparent decrease in the number of star-forming regions is due to the fact that not every region will be able to form stars of sufficient mass to produce the SFR tracer emission. This effect will be particularly important for the $\mathrm{H\alpha} \; \pm$ filters, as $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission requires high mass stars $\left(> 8~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}\right)$ and is dominated by stars of even higher masses. We therefore expect that as the sampling of the IMF becomes more incomplete, the effective characteristic time-scales of the various tracers will decrease, most strongly affecting $\mathrm{H\alpha}$.

In \[sec:IMFsamplingTheory\], we explain how we expect the characteristic time-scales to change as a result of incomplete IMF sampling based on purely analytical considerations. In \[sec:IMFsamplingMethod\], we show how these expectations can be tested experimentally and in \[sec:resultsStochSampling\], we present the results of these tests.

Theoretical expectation {#sec:IMFsamplingTheory}
-----------------------

In this section, we quantify the relationship between how well the IMF is sampled and the characteristic time-scale of the SFR tracer. As mentioned, the characteristic time-scale of the SFR tracer is related to the number of star-forming regions that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} can identify in the emission map. We therefore estimate the relative change of the effective SFR tracer time-scale as the fraction of star-forming regions that do contain sufficiently massive stars to emit in the tracer of interest. This approach will be tested below. In practice, this means we need to estimate how many stars, $N_{\mathrm{min}}$, of at least some minimum mass, $M_{\mathrm{min}}$, are expected to form within a star-forming region of mass $M_{\mathrm{r}}$. We consider $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ to characterise the stellar mass at which the SFR emission becomes noticeable and not the mass contributing the most. The mass of the star-forming region, $M_{\mathrm{r}}$, can then act as a proxy for how well the IMF is sampled: smaller values of $M_{\mathrm{r}}$ will result in a region with an IMF that is less well sampled.

We can calculate the probability, $P$, of producing a minimum number of stars $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ of at least some minimum mass $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ in a given star-forming region through a Bernoulli (i.e. binomial) trial. If the region can produce a sufficient number of stars of sufficient mass, then the region is identifiable in the SFR tracer; therefore, in our binomial trial, we define a “success” as producing a star of mass $M$ which satisfies the condition of $M_{\mathrm{min}} \leq M \leq M_{\mathrm{r}}$. The probability of success is given by $p$, $N_{\star}$ is the total number of stars within the star-forming region, and $N$ counts the number of “successful” stars.

The binomial distribution gives the probability of $k$ successful stars: $$\label{eq:binomial}
        P \left( N = k \right) = \frac{N_{\star}!}{k! \left(N_{\star} - k \right) !} p^{k} {\left( 1 - p \right)}^{N_{\star} - k}~\mathrm{.}$$ The probability that we wish to calculate (at least $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ stars of a mass of $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ or higher) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:probability}
        P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right) 
        & = 1 - P \left( N < N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)\\
        & = 1 - \sum_{k = 0}^{N_{\mathrm{min}}-1}P \left( N = k \right)~\mathrm{.}
    \end{aligned}$$ The IMF, $\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}m$, describes the distribution of mass amongst the stars within a star-forming region; this means we can use the IMF to determine the values of $p$ and $N_{\star}$ and therefore to calculate $P \left( N = k \right)$. In a star-forming region with a well-sampled IMF, $p$ is the fraction of stars that satisfy the condition $M_{\mathrm{min}} \leq M \leq M_{\mathrm{r}}$ and $N_{\star}$ is the total number of stars within the region: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pn}
        &p = \nu \int_{M_{\mathrm{min}}}^{M_{\mathrm{r}}} \frac{\mathrm{d} n}{\mathrm{d} m} \mathrm{d} m~\mathrm{;}
        &N_{\star} = \mu \int_{0}^{M_{\mathrm{r}}} \frac{\mathrm{d} n}{\mathrm{d} m} \mathrm{d} m~\mathrm{.}
    \end{aligned}$$ The normalisation constants $\nu$ and $\mu$ are evaluated through $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:normalisation}
        &1 = \nu \int_0^{M_{\mathrm{r}}} \frac{\mathrm{d} n}{\mathrm{d} m} \mathrm{d} m~\mathrm{;}
        &M_{\mathrm{r}} = \mu \int_{0}^{M_{\mathrm{r}}} m \frac{\mathrm{d} n}{\mathrm{d} m} \mathrm{d} m~\mathrm{.}
    \end{aligned}$$ In order to convert the probability value, $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$, into an estimate for the characteristic time-scale, $t_{\mathrm{E}}$, we assume a @CHAB05 IMF and use the characteristic time-scales we find for a fully sampled IMF, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, (see \[app:completeTable\]) in the following equation $$\label{eq:emissionTime}
        t_{\mathrm{E}} = t_{\mathrm{E, 0}} \times P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)~\mathrm{.}$$

In \[fig:theoModel\], we show how the form of the probability curve $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$ changes for different values of $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$. Increasing the value of $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ increases the star-forming region mass required to reach a given probability of forming enough sufficiently massive stars (set by $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$); the same effect is observed for $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ but less pronounced. Higher $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ also affects the probability of forming enough sufficiently massive stars by increasing the rate of change of probability with changing star-forming region mass.

The curves in \[fig:theoModel\] have a complex analytical form, therefore we provide a four parameter function that approximates these curves. These approximations are also included in \[fig:theoModel\] as dotted grey lines. The following set of equations describe the form of the approximation, $$\label{eq:Mrmin}
        M_{0} = N_{\mathrm{min}} \times M_{\mathrm{min}}~\mathrm{,}$$ $$\label{eq:fm}
        \begin{split}
        f(M_{\mathrm{r}}) = 1 & + a_{1} \exp {\left(b_{1} \left[ \frac{M_{\mathrm{r}}}{M_{0}} \right] \right)} \\
        & + a_{2} \exp {\left( b_{2} {\left[ \frac{M_{\mathrm{r}}}{M_{0}} \right]}^{2} \right)}~\mathrm{,}
        \end{split}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ApproxP}
        P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right) \approx \left\{ 
        \begin{aligned}
        & 0 & f(M_{\mathrm{r}}) \leq 0
        \\
        & f(M_{\mathrm{r}}) & 0 < f(M_{\mathrm{r}}) < 1
        \\
        & 1 & f(M_{\mathrm{r}}) \geq 1
        \end{aligned}
        \right.~\mathrm{,} 
    \end{aligned}$$ where $a_{i},~b_{i}$ for $ i=\left\lbrace 1,~2\right\rbrace $ are four parameters that we determine through least-squares minimization.

  $N_{\mathrm{min}}$   $M_{\mathrm{min}}$       $a_{1}$   $b_{1}$   $a_{2}$   $b_{2}$
  -------------------- -------------------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
  1.000                1.000                     -1.001    -0.251    -0.384    -0.632
  1.000                3.162                     -1.016    -0.137    -0.146    -0.338
  1.000                10.000                    -1.021    -0.085    -0.071    -0.235
  1.000                31.623                    -1.000    -0.048    -0.056    -0.233
  1.000                100.000                   -1.000    -0.008    -2.393    -5.405
  1.000                7.000                     -1.020    -0.098    -0.088    -0.257
  3.162                7.000                     -1.930    -0.118    -0.966    -1.555
  10.000               7.000                     -4.816    -0.235    -0.987    -1.638
  31.623               7.000                    -38.108    -0.426    -1.016    -0.891
  100.000              7.000                  -1000.000    -0.743    -1.016    -0.889

  :  Values for the free parameters, $a_{i}$ and $b_{i}$, in the analytical models plotted in \[fig:theoModel\] and described by \[eq:Mrmin,eq:fm,eq:ApproxP\] []{data-label="tab:fitParamValues"}

We present the parameter values for all the approximate curves displayed in \[fig:theoModel\] in \[tab:fitParamValues\]. For intermediate values of $M_{\mathrm{min}}$, these best-fitting parameters can be interpolated as a function of $\mathrm{log}\left({M_{\mathrm{min}}}\right)$. The approximate expression gives an almost identical fit in the cases where $N_{\mathrm{min}} = 1$ (see \[fig:theoModel\]) but for higher values of $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ the approximation does not perform as well. Fortunately, as we will show below, we only need to consider the case of $N_{\mathrm{min}} = 1$.

We now have a description of how the characteristic time-scale of SFR tracers in a star-forming region with a stochastically sampled IMF, $t_{\mathrm{E}}$, is related to the characteristic time-scale determined when the IMF is well sampled, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, through a probability distribution function, $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$. The IMF and two free parameters, $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$, characterise the form of $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$. We note that the analytical expression for the time-scale correction factor $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$ does not carry an explicit metallicity dependence. We therefore apply the same theoretical framework for all metallicities, allowing us to combine the effects of both metallicity and IMF sampling on the characteristic SFR time-scale.

Method for finding the characteristic time-scales for a stochastically sampled IMF {#sec:IMFsamplingMethod}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We adapt the method we present in \[sec:methodNonStoc\] to investigate the effects of a stochastically sampled IMF and thus test experimentally if we recover the same behaviour as described in \[sec:IMFsamplingTheory\]. We create the reference maps in the same way as before: the reference maps are mass surface density maps of the star particles within the age bins specified in \[tab:resultsSolar\]. The emission maps, however, undergo one additional step. As mentioned previously, we can use the mass of the star-forming region, $M_{\mathrm{r}}$, as a proxy for how well the IMF is sampled; in this case $M_{\mathrm{r}}$ is the mass of the star particles. We therefore scale these star particle masses by some mass scaling factor, $F_{\mathrm{m}}$, before <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> predicts the expected emission, this time using its stochastic IMF sampling module. The values of $F_{\mathrm{m}}$ range from $0.01-100$, where a lower mass scaling factor means the IMF will be less well sampled. We then use [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} to determine the characteristic time-scale, as in \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\]. The characteristic time-scale we associate to each mass scaling factor is the average of three characteristic time-scales determined from three independently generated stochastic realisations of the synthetic emission maps.

To relate the relative change of the SFR tracer time-scale due to IMF sampling to observables, we define an average star-forming region mass, $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$, as $$\label{eq:aveRegionMass}
        \overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} = \Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} \times \tau \times \uppi \left(\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)^{2}~\mathrm{,}$$ which uses the SFR surface density, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, and quantities that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} measures: the total duration of the evolutionary timeline, $\tau$, and the typical separation length of independent star-forming regions, $\lambda$, [for details see @KRUI18].

At a fixed total duration of the evolutionary timeline and region separation length, the degree of IMF sampling is controlled by $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$. We calculate the value of $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ as $$\label{eq:SFR}
        \Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} = \frac{\sum m_{i}}{t_{\mathrm{E,0}}\uppi r^{2}} \times F_{\mathrm{m}}~\mathrm{,}$$ where $\sum m_{i}$ is the total mass of all the star particles that fall within the age bin appropriate for the filter, i.e. $0 \leq \mathrm{Age} \leq t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ (see \[app:completeTable\] for the values of $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$), which is then scaled by the mass scaling factor $F_{\mathrm{m}}$, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ is the width of that age bin, and $r$ is the radius of the galaxy being studied (for our simulated galaxy $r = 10~\mathrm{kpc}$, as determined from a visual inspection of the synthetic emission maps).

In \[eq:SFR\], we consider $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ as the galaxy average SFR surface density. If there are no strong large-scale morphological features, as is the case here, this galaxy average SFR surface density is appropriate to use in the calculation of $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$. Otherwise, the expression in \[eq:SFR\] should be updated to include a factor $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{star,glob}}$ indicating the ratio of the mass surface density[^8] on a size scale of $\lambda$ to the (reference) map average value and therefore accounting for a non-uniform spatial distribution of star-forming regions across the galaxy (see @KRUI18 [§ 3.2.9] for more details).

By introducing a “mass scaling factor”, $F_{\mathrm{m}}$, we are able to test experimentally how the characteristic time-scale of different SFR tracers change when the IMF becomes less well sampled. We will use the experimental results to see if we observe the behaviour predicted in \[sec:IMFsamplingTheory\].

Characteristic time-scales for a stochastically sampled IMF {#sec:resultsStochSampling}
-----------------------------------------------------------

We now present the results of a set of experiments aimed at testing how the characteristic time-scales of $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ and several UV SFR tracers change as a result of incomplete IMF sampling. We produce synthetic emission maps, for which we adjust the sampling of the IMF by scaling the masses of the star particles before <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> calculates the emission. We use the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code along with these stochastically sampled IMF synthetic emission maps to find the associated characteristic time-scales and see how they are impacted by incomplete IMF sampling.

\

In \[fig:results\], we present the solar-metallicity results for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ and WFC3 UVIS F225W as examples of how the characteristic time-scales change as a function of the average mass of an independent star-forming region, $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$. The quantity $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ characterises (chiefly through $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, see \[eq:aveRegionMass\]) how well the IMF is sampled: lower values of $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ result in a more stochastically sampled IMF. Each data point[^9] in the two left hand panels of \[fig:results\] corresponds to a different mass scaling factor, $F_{\mathrm{m}}$. The characteristic time-scale associated to a given $F_{\mathrm{m}}$ is the average of three time-scales determined from three independently generated synthetic emission maps. This accounts for the spread in time-scales that results due to the stochastic nature in which the synthetic emission maps are produced. The quantity shown on the vertical axis, $t_{\mathrm{E}}/t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, is the factor by which the measured characteristic time-scale is reduced, compared to the characteristic time-scale for a well sampled IMF (see \[tab:resultsAllZ\] for $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ values.), as a result of incomplete IMF sampling at small region masses or SFR surface densities. We describe the relation between this conversion factor, $t_{\mathrm{E}}/t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$, and $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ through $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$ as in \[eq:emissionTime\] (see \[sec:IMFsamplingTheory\]).

                                          $0.05 \, \mathrm{Z_{\odot}}$   $0.20 \, \mathrm{Z_{\odot}}$   $0.40 \, \mathrm{Z_{\odot}}$   $1.00 \, \mathrm{Z_{\odot}}$   $2.00 \, \mathrm{Z_{\odot}}$
  ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$                                          11.50                          11.95                          13.00                          11.55                          10.45
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 10 \, \AA}$                             10.75                          10.05                          12.25                          13.90                          12.00
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 20 \, \AA}$                             12.10                          12.05                          12.40                          10.35                           9.95
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 40 \, \AA}$                              9.65                           9.45                           7.95                           8.35                          10.45
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 80 \, \AA}$                              9.20                           8.70                           8.85                           6.25                           8.00
  $\mathrm{H\alpha{+} \, 160 \, \AA}$                            10.20                           5.20                           7.80                           8.60                           9.35

The purple curves in \[fig:results\] indicate the best-fitting form of $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$. The analytical form that describes $P \left( N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}} \right)$ has two free parameters $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$. We constrain the values for these two free parameters using a brute-force approach: we calculate the value of $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{red}}$ for a range of $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ and use the minimum $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{red}}$ to indicate the best-fitting parameter values. We use the method described in @OREA82 to determine $\chi^{2}$ when uncertainties are present on both the abscissa and the ordinate. We consider $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ values ranging from 1 to 4 in integer steps and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$, from 0 to 120 $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ in steps of $0.05~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. In the right-hand panels of \[fig:results\], we show the dependence of $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{red}}$ on $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ for the two example filters. \[tab:ZMmin\] lists the best-fitting values of $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ ($N_{\mathrm{min}} = 1$ in all cases) for the full range of metallicities ($Z/\mathrm{Z_{\odot}} = 0.05, \, 0.20,\, 0.40,\, 1.00,\, 2.00$) for the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ filters.

The data points used in the fitting process (and included in \[fig:results\]) are those that survive a selection cut: we rejected data points for which the calculated characteristic time-scale exceeds the characteristic time-scale for a well sampled IMF by more than $1\sigma$ (i.e. $t_{\mathrm{E}}/t_{\mathrm{E,0}}>1$). We choose to remove the data that do not satisfy this criterion because they indicate contamination by the continuum emission from (low-mass) stars. For low mass scaling factors (typically $F_{\mathrm{m}} \approx 0.01$), the emission from the continuum dominates over the SFR tracer. This results in characteristic time-scales that describe the long-lived continuum emission and therefore can be orders of magnitude higher than $t_{E,0}$.

For the UV filters, we find that data points associated with low mass scaling factors ($F_{\mathrm{m}} \approx 0.01$) are excluded by our data selection criterion. This results in the turn off from $t_{\mathrm{E}}/t_{\mathrm{E,0}} = 1$ being very poorly sampled (see \[fig:results\] for an example). This means that we cannot reliably distinguish between different $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}$; therefore, we conclude that UV emission is not significantly affected by IMF sampling and exclude the UV $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ values from \[tab:ZMmin\].

\[tab:ZMmin\] shows that there is no clear relation between $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ and metallicity or filter width, but generally speaking, smaller filter widths have higher $M_{\mathrm{min}}$. Higher values of $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ imply higher star-forming region masses below which IMF sampling cannot be neglected (i.e. where $P\left(N \geq N_{\mathrm{min}}\right) \le 1$). For $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}\left(+\right)$, $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ ranges from $10.45-13.00 \, \left(5.20-13.90\right)~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. From these $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ ranges, we obtain region masses below which incomplete IMF sampling affects the SFR tracer time-scales, that is, these are the lowest region masses according to \[eq:aveRegionMass\] for which IMF sampling can be neglected. For $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}\left(+\right)$, this range is $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} \gtrsim 600-800 \, \left(200-900\right)~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. For a region separation length of $\lambda=200$ pc and a total timeline duration of $\tau=30$ Myr, these characteristic region mass limits correspond to $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} \gtrsim \left(6 - 9\right) \times10^{-4}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}~yr^{-1}~kpc^{-2}}$ for $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ and $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} \gtrsim \left(2 - 10\right) \times10^{-4}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}~yr^{-1}~kpc^{-2}}$ for $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$.

\[fig:results\] demonstrates that it is important to consider the effects of IMF sampling at low SFR surface densities, when constraining the characteristic time-scale for the $\mathrm{H\alpha} \; \pm$ filters. This is because at low SFR surface densities, the massive stars required to produce $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission are not always present. If we ignore this fact, the $\mathrm{H\alpha} \; \pm$ characteristic time-scales will be overestimated; as a result, the evolutionary time-line would be incorrectly calibrated and the time-scales obtained with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} would also be overestimated. The agreement between the results of these experiments and the theoretical model also demonstrate that the IMF sampling theory presented in \[sec:IMFsamplingTheory\] accurately describes how the characteristic time-scale of $\mathrm{H\alpha} \; \pm$ changes due to incomplete IMF sampling. This means that observational applications of the [ principle]{} can use the expressions provided in \[eq:emissionTime,eq:Mrmin,eq:fm,eq:ApproxP,eq:aveRegionMass\] to derive an SFR tracer time-scale corrected for IMF sampling. For the UV tracers, however, the characteristic time-scales are mostly insensitive to the effects of incomplete IMF sampling and so these effects can be largely ignored. The constancy of the UV characteristic time-scales over the range of $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ is a result of stars being able to produce UV emission at low masses. This means that the emission will almost always be present in star-forming regions.

In summary, we have shown that the effects of IMF sampling can have a considerable impact on the characteristic time-scales of the $\mathrm{H\alpha} \; \pm$ filters. The change of time-scales with the characteristic star-forming region mass $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ is well-described by the analytical description of IMF sampling from \[sec:IMFsamplingTheory\]. This provides the correct SFR tracer time-scale and enables applications of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} even in regions of low SFR surface densities. By contrast, the characteristic time-scale of UV tracers is found to be largely insensitive to IMF sampling, implying that no such correction factor is needed. We reiterate that all SFR tracers do still carry an important dependence on the metallicity that should always be accounted for.

Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========

We have applied a new statistical method (the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code, which uses the “uncertainty principle for star formation”, @KRUI14 [@KRUI18]) to constrain the characteristic emission time-scales of SFR tracers, i.e. the durations over which $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ and UV emission emerges from coeval stellar populations. We expect these time-scales to be critical in a variety of future studies. Firstly, observational applications of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} will enable the empirical characterisation of the cloud lifecycle across a wide range of galactic environments, by measuring e.g. the molecular cloud lifetime and the time-scale for cloud destruction by feedback. However, these require a “reference time-scale” for turning relative time-scales into absolute ones. This reference time-scale is provided by the SFR tracer time-scales obtained in this work. Secondly, the emission time-scales obtained here and their dependence on metallicity and filter properties provide important input for studies of photoionisation feedback and UV heating.

To obtain the SFR tracer emission time-scales, we generate synthetic SFR tracer emission maps of a simulated near-$L^{\star}$ isolated flocculent disc galaxy using the stochastic stellar population synthesis code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> [@SILV12; @SILV14; @KRUM15]. We then apply [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} to combinations of these synthetic maps and “reference maps”, which show the star particles from the simulation in specific, known age bins. With this approach, we self-consistently measure the characteristic time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission (with and without continuum subtraction), as well as 12 different UV filters.

For stellar populations at solar metallicity and with a fully sampled IMF we find the characteristic time-scales for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ with (without) continuum subtraction to be $4.3^{+0.1}_{-0.3} \left(5.6 - 16.4\right)~\mathrm{Myr}$ and for the UV filters to be in the range $17.1-33.3$ Myr. When considering stellar population with different metallicities ($Z/\mathrm{Z_{\odot}} = 0.05, \, 0.20,\, 0.40,\, 1.00,\, 2.00$) the range of characteristic time-scales becomes greater: $3.9-5.5 \, \left(5.1-16.4\right)~\mathrm{Myr}$ for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ with (without) continuum subtraction and for the UV filters, $14.5-33.3$ Myr. We define empirical power-law relations that provide the characteristic time-scale as a function of metallicity (\[eq:HAtimeMetalFit,eq:HAWidtimeMetalFit,eq:UVtimeMetalFit\]). We extend this empirical relation to include the response-weighted mean wavelength, $\overline{\lambda}_{\mathrm{w}}$, for UV filters and the filter width, $W$ for the $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ filters. This allows us to use a single relation to determine the characteristic time-scale for all UV and $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$ SFR filters from the filter properties, and the metallicity of the environment.

We also investigate the effects of a stochastically sampled IMF on the characteristic time-scales. Incomplete IMF sampling is found to affect the obtained characteristic emission time-scales in low-$\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ galaxies. We quantify this dependence by stochastically sampling from the IMF prior to generating the synthetic SFR tracer emission maps and then measuring the characteristic time-scales with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{}. We use a @CHAB05 IMF to calculate the probability, $P$, of forming at least $N_{\mathrm{min}}$ stars of mass $M_{\mathrm{min}}$ or higher given a star-forming region mass $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$. This probability provides the ratio between the characteristic time-scale for a stochastically sampled IMF, $t_{\mathrm{E}}$, and well sampled IMF, $t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$. Therefore, it defines a relation between $t_{\mathrm{E}}/t_{\mathrm{E,0}}$ and the characteristic mass of independent star-forming regions, $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$. Given an SFR surface density (from which the characteristic region mass can be derived), this relation quantifies the relative change of the SFR tracer time-scale due to IMF sampling.

For UV tracers, the impact of IMF sampling on the characteristic time-scale is minimal ($<30$ per cent) and can therefore be ignored (over all metallicities). However, incomplete IMF sampling has a significant effect on the characteristic time-scales of $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission. At lower SFR surface densities, the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission time-scale decreases due to IMF sampling effects. Depending on the metallicity and whether the continuum emission has been subtracted, the characteristic time-scale for a well sampled IMF can be used for $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} \gtrsim 200-900~\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, which for a region separation length of $\lambda=200$ pc and a total timeline duration of $\tau=30$ Myr corresponds to $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} \gtrsim \left(2 - 10\right) \times10^{-4}~\mathrm{M_{\odot}~yr^{-1}~kpc^{-2}}$. We derive fitting functions describing the change of the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ time-scales as a function of the average independent star-forming region mass, $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$, as parametrised by the minimum region mass required for $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission, $M_{\mathrm{min}}$, which we tabulate as a function of metallicity (\[eq:emissionTime,eq:Mrmin,eq:fm,eq:ApproxP,eq:aveRegionMass,eq:SFR\] and \[tab:ZMmin\]).

In summary, we have measured the characteristic emission time-scales of SFR tracers as a function of metallicity and (for UV and $\mathrm{H\alpha{+}}$) filter properties, as well as their sensitivity to IMF sampling, which effectively expresses their dependence on the SFR surface density. This spans the range of key environmental factors that affect the time-scales of $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ and UV emission, and provides important constraints on the duration of photoionisation feedback and UV heating. In addition, observational applications of the “uncertainty principle for star formation” will be able to use these time-scales as “reference time-scales” for turning the relative durations of evolutionary phases into an absolute timeline. This is an important step towards constraining the cloud-scale lifecycle of ISM evolution, star formation, and feedback.

Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================

The authors acknowledge support by the state of Baden-W[ü]{}rttemberg through bwHPC and the German Research Foundation (DFG) through grant INST 35/1134-1 FUGG and INST 37/935-1 FUGG. DTH and APSH are fellows of the International Max Planck Research School for Astronomy and Cosmic Physics at the University of Heidelberg (IMPRS-HD). JMDK gratefully acknowledges funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme via the ERC Starting Grant MUSTANG (grant agreement number 714907). JMDK and MC gratefully acknowledge funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the form of an Emmy Noether Research Group (grant number KR4801/1-1). MRK acknowledges support from the Australia Research Council’s Discovery Projects and Future Fellowship funding schemes, awards DP160100695 and FT180100375. DTH, JMDK, and MRK acknowledge support from the Australia-Germany Joint Research Cooperation Scheme (UA-DAAD, grant number 57387355).

$\mathrm{H\alpha}$ Absorption and Emission Features {#app:HAAbsEmi}
===================================================

We produce synthetic emission maps by passing the age and mass information of all the star particles from our simulation to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> [@SILV12; @SILV14; @KRUM15]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> then calculates the predicted emission spectrum for each particle, to which we apply UV and $\mathrm{H \alpha}+$ filters ($\mathrm{H \alpha}-$ comes directly from the hydrogen-ionizing photon emission). However, the emission spectrum that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> produces does not include the underlying $\mathrm{H \alpha}$ absorption from the stellar continuum. In this appendix, we use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> [@LEIT99; @VAZQ05] to investigate when the $\mathrm{H \alpha}$ absorption feature can no longer be neglected.

We ran <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> for an instantaneous burst of star formation for the five standard Geneva evolutionary tracks using a @KROU01 IMF and output the data in 0.1 Myr time steps for 20 Myr. We otherwise used the default settings.

The equivalent width of the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ emission is taken directly from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starburst99</span> output files. To determine the equivalent width of the absorption feature, we model the continuum (straight line) and the absorption feature (Voigt profile) of the high resolution spectral data in the wavelength range $6482~\text{\AA} \le \lambda \le 6642~\text{\AA}$.

In \[fig:HAAbsEmi\], we show the change in the equivalent width of the absorption and emission feature over time; the change in the difference between the two equivalent widths is also included. We see that the emission feature is dominant up to at least 10 Myr and longer for the lower metallicities; this is at least 5 Myr longer than the $\mathrm{H\alpha{-}}$ time-scales we measure (see \[tab:resultsAllZ\]) which are also marked in \[fig:HAAbsEmi\].

We can see from \[fig:HAAbsEmi\] that the $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ time-scales we are considering fall comfortably within the emission-dominant regime and conclude that the absorption feature can safely be neglected for our analysis.

![image](\img{EquivalentWidth_all}){width="\textwidth"}

Complete set of SFR tracer emission time-scales {#app:completeTable}
===============================================

In \[tab:resultsAllZ\], we list the complete set of SFR tracer emission time-scales constrained in this paper. This contains the characteristic time-scales of $\mathrm{H\alpha} \; \pm$ and all 12 UV filters, for the five different metallicities $Z/{\rm Z}_\odot = 0.05, \, 0.20, \, 0.40, \, 1.00, \, 2.00$. In addition, we include the age intervals that we adopt to define the stellar reference maps used when measuring the SFR tracer time-scales with the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code. For more details on the calculations, see \[sec:resultsSingleTimeScale\].

\

Error Propagation {#app:ErrorProp}
=================

In \[sec:IMFsamplingMethod\], we calculate the average independent star-forming region mass as $$\label{eq:aisfrm}
        \overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} = \Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} \times \left(t_{\mathrm{emi}} + t_{\mathrm{ref}} - t_{\mathrm{over}}\right) \times \uppi \left(\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)^{2}~\mathrm{.}$$ This equation uses the SFR surface density, $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$, and the duration of the reference map, $t_{\mathrm{ref}}$, along with quantities that the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Heisenberg</span>]{} code measures: the typical separation length of independent star-forming regions, $\lambda$; the duration of the emission map, $t_{\mathrm{emi}}$; and the duration of the overlap between the emission and reference phases, $t_{\mathrm{over}}$. We note that \[eq:aisfrm\] and \[eq:aveRegionMass\] are equivalent through the definition $$\tau \equiv t_{\mathrm{emi}} + t_{\mathrm{ref}} - t_{\mathrm{over}}~\mathrm{.}$$ Here we describe how we propagate the uncertainties on these quantities into an uncertainty on the characteristic region mass $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$.

To calculate the uncertainty on $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ we start with the general expression: the uncertainty on a quantity $f$, $\sigma_{f}$, which is a function of $N$ variables i.e. $f\left(x_{1}, ..., x_{N} \right)$ is given by [@HUGH10] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorGen}
        \sigma_{f}^{2} = 
        \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \sum_{j = 1}^{N}
        \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}} \rho_{ij} \sigma_{i} \sigma_{j}\right)~\mathrm{,}
    \end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{i}$ represents the uncertainty on variable $x_{i}$ and $\rho_{ij}$ represents correlation coefficients between variable $x_{i}$ and $x_{j}$ (where $\rho_{ii} = 1$ and $\rho_{ij} = \rho_{ji}$). In order to simplify our expressions and to use the same notation as in \[eq:errorGen\], we define the following

$$\begin{aligned}
            \kappa &\equiv \Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}} \, \frac{\uppi}{4}~\mathrm{,} \\
            x_{1} &\equiv \lambda~\mathrm{,} \\
            x_{2} &\equiv t_{\mathrm{emi}}~\mathrm{,} \\
            x_{3} &\equiv t_{\mathrm{over}} 
        \end{aligned}$$

and \[eq:aisfrm\] becomes

$$\begin{aligned}
            \overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} & = \kappa \tau {x_{1}}^{2} \\
            & = \kappa \left(x_{2} + t_{\mathrm{ref}} - x_{3}\right) {x_{1}}^{2}~\mathrm{.}
        \end{aligned}$$

We note that $\Sigma_{\mathrm{SFR}}$ and $t_{\mathrm{ref}}$ are considered to be without error and do not need to be included as variables. The derivatives we need in order to calculate $\sigma_{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}}$ are

\[eq:deriv\] $$\begin{aligned}
            \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1}} \, \overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} & = 2 \kappa \tau x_{1}~\mathrm{,} \\
            \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{2}} \, \overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} & = \kappa {x_{1}}^{2}~\mathrm{,} \\
            \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{3}} \, \overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}} & = - \kappa {x_{1}}^{2}~\mathrm{.}
        \end{aligned}$$

Combining \[eq:deriv\] with \[eq:errorGen\] we find the expression for the uncertainty on $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$, $\sigma_{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}}$:

$$\begin{aligned}
        \begin{split}
            \left[{\frac{\sigma_{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}}}{\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}}}\right]^{2} = 
            & \frac{4 {\sigma_{1}}^{2}}{{x_{1}}^{2}} \\
            + & \frac{\left(
                {\sigma_{2}}^{2} + {\sigma_{3}}^{2} - 2 \rho_{23} \sigma_{2} \sigma_{3}
                \right)}{\tau^{2}} \\
            + & \frac{4 \left(\rho_{12}\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2} - \rho_{13}\sigma_{1}\sigma_{3}\right)}{\tau x_{1}}~\mathrm{.}
        \end{split} 
    \end{aligned}$$

With this expression, we can take into account the associated uncertainty on the value of $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$ as part of our error analysis and $\chi^{2}$ calculations when investigating the effects of incomplete IMF sampling on the characteristic time-scales of SFR tracers. \[lastpage\]

[^1]: E-mail: DTHaydon@ari.uni-heidelberg.de

[^2]: We note that the age binning described in \[sec:refMap\] is not used for the emission maps.

[^3]: A true $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ luminosity can be calculated from $Q\left(\mathrm{H^{0}}\right)$ using @SILV14 [Equation 2]; however, using the required scaling factor will not change the results we recover here [see @KRUI18] and so the conversion is unnecessary.

[^4]: In \[sec:IMFsampling\], we will use the stochastic IMF sampling mode of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Slug2</span> to investigate its effect on the inferred SFR tracer time-scales.

[^5]: Using the average of the lower and upper uncertainty is not technically correct; however, the methods as suggested by @BARL03 would have little impact on the final result and so are neglected.

[^6]: This is not in contradiction with what we discuss in \[sec:emissionMap\]. In \[sec:emissionMap\], we explain that the characteristic time-scales of the SFR tracers we define do not include the overlap phase; and so, when using the characteristic time-scales we present here, one should use `tstar_incl` = 0. The analysis we perform to define the characteristic time-scales, uses a reference map produced from star particles in a specific age bin. The width of this age bin is used as the reference time-scale and is the total duration of that phase: this includes any overlap.

[^7]: This also holds when we perform the analysis for the other metallicities considered: $Z/\mathrm{Z_{\odot}} = 0.05, \, 0.20, \, 0.40, \, 2.00 $ (see \[sec:Metallicity\] for more details). There is also no consistent percentage for a single tracer across the metallicity range.

[^8]: The quantity $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{star,glob}}$ represents a mass surface density ratio because the reference maps show the mass surface density. In typical observational applications, $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{star,glob}}$ would be a flux density ratio.

[^9]: For details on the error calculation on $\overline{M}_{\mathrm{r}}$, see \[app:ErrorProp\].
