Paper detail

Star formation rates and masses of z ~ 2 galaxies from multicolour photometry

Fitting synthetic spectral energy distributions (SED) to the multi-band photometry of galaxies to derive their star formation rates (SFR), stellar masses, ages, etc. requires making a priori assumptions about their star formation histories (SFH). A widely adopted parameterization of the SFH, the so-called tau-models where SFR goes as e^{-t/tau) is shown to lead to unrealistically low ages when applied to star forming galaxies at z ~ 2, a problem shared by other SFHs when the age is left as a free parameter in the fitting. This happens because the SED of such galaxies, at all wavelengths, is dominated by their youngest stellar populations, which outshine the older ones. Thus, the SED of such galaxies conveys little information on the beginning of star formation. To cope with this problem, we explore a variety of SFHs, such as constant SFR and inverted-tau models - with SFR as e^{+t/tau) - along with various priors on age, including assuming that star formation started at high redshift in all the galaxies. We find that inverted-tau models with such latter assumption give SFRs and extinctions in excellent agreement with the values derived using only the UV part of the SED. These models are also shown to accurately recover the SFRs and masses of mock galaxies at z ~ 2 constructed from semi-analytic models. All other explored SFH templates do not fulfil these two test. In particular, direct-tau models with unconstrained age in the fitting procedure overstimate SFRs and underestimate stellar mass, and would exacerbate an apparent mismatch between the cosmic evolution of the volume densities of SFR and stellar mass. We conclude that for high-redshift star forming galaxies an exponentially increasing SFR with a high formation redshift is preferable to other forms of the SFH so far adopted in the literature.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors1 topic

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.

Institutions

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 map preview

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.