Paper detail

On the importance of using appropriate spectral models to derive physical properties of galaxies at 0.7<z<2.8

Interpreting observations of distant galaxies in terms of constraints on physical parameters - such as stellar mass, star-formation rate (SFR) and dust optical depth - requires spectral synthesis modelling. We analyse the reliability of these physical parameters as determined under commonly adopted `classical&#39; assumptions: star-formation histories assumed to be exponentially declining functions of time, a simple dust law and no emission-line contribution. Improved modelling techniques and data quality now allow us to use a more sophisticated approach, including realistic star-formation histories, combined with modern prescriptions for dust attenuation and nebular emission (Pacifici et al. 2012). We present a Bayesian analysis of the spectra and multi-wavelength photometry of 1048 galaxies from the 3D-HST survey in the redshift range 0.7<z<2.8 and in the stellar mass range 9<log(M/Mo)<12. We find that, using the classical spectral library, stellar masses are systematically overestimated (~0.1 dex) and SFRs are systematically underestimated (~0.6 dex) relative to our more sophisticated approach. We also find that the simultaneous fit of photometric fluxes and emission-line equivalent widths helps break a degeneracy between SFR and optical depth of the dust, reducing the uncertainties on these parameters. Finally, we show how the biases of classical approaches can affect the correlation between stellar mass and SFR for star-forming galaxies (the `Star-Formation Main Sequence&#39;). We conclude that the normalization, slope and scatter of this relation strongly depend on the adopted approach and demonstrate that the classical, oversimplified approach cannot recover the true distribution of stellar mass and SFR.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.