STELLAR MASSES FROM THE CANDELS SURVEY: THE GOODS-SOUTH AND UDS FIELDS

By P. Santini, H. Ferguson, A. Fontana, B. Mobasher, G. Barro, M. Castellano, S. Finkelstein, A. Grazian, L. Hsu, Bomee Lee and 28 more. 2014

166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present the public release of the stellar mass catalogs for the GOODS-S and UDS fields obtained using some of the deepest near-IR images available, achieved as part of the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey project. We combine the effort from 10 different teams, who computed the stellar masses using the same photometry and the same redshifts. Each team adopted their preferred fitting code, assumptions, priors, and parameter grid. The combination of results using the same underlying stellar isochrones reduces the systematics associated with the fitting code and other choices. Thanks to the availability of different estimates, we can test the effect of some specific parameters and assumptions on the stellar mass estimate. The choice of the stellar isochrone library turns out to have the largest effect on the galaxy stellar mass estimates, resulting in the largest distributions around the median value (with a semi interquartile range larger than 0.1 dex). On the other hand, for most galaxies, the stellar mass estimates are relatively insensitive to the different parameterizations of the star formation history. The inclusion of nebular emission in the model spectra does not have a significant impact for the majority of galaxies (less than a factor of 2 for ∼80% of the sample). Nevertheless, the stellar mass for the subsample of young galaxies (age <100 Myr), especially in particular redshift ranges (e.g., 2.2 < z < 2.4, 3.2 < z < 3.6, and 5.5 < z < 6.5), can be seriously overestimated (by up to a factor of 10 for <20 Myr sources) if nebular contribution is ignored.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/764e8c364cde8aa3ab09974667ea9b42c8a54c1b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Deriving Physical Properties from Broadband Photometry with Prospector: Description of the Model and a Demonstration of its Accuracy Using 129 Galaxies in the Local Universe (2016, background): “Yet due to the complexity in choosing fit parameters, priors, and stellar population synthesis techniques, SED fitting codes with multiple, degenerate parameters often produce different solutions for key physical parameters like stellar mass and SFRs (Santini et al. 2015).”
GOODS-ALMA: 1.1 mm galaxy survey (2018, background): “The consensus CANDELS zphot from Santini et al. (2015) is z = 3.06 (95% confidence: 2.92< z< 3.40), consistent with the value in Dunlop et al. (2017).”
The Star Formation Main Sequence in the Hubble Space Telescope Frontier Fields (2017, background): “This choice is motivated by the results of Salmon et al. (2015), who measured on their high-z galaxy sample a SFH increasing with time as a power-law with index 1.4 or maybe higher due to possible incompleteness at low stellar mass.”
Structural and Star-forming Relations since z ∼ 3: Connecting Compact Star-forming and Quiescent Galaxies (2015, methodology): “…using FAST (Kriek et al. 2009b) and based on a grid of Bruzual & Charlot (2003) models that assume a Chabrier (2003) IMF, solar metallicity, exponentially declining star formation histories, and the Calzetti et al. (2000) dust extinction law (see Santini et al. 2015 for a detailed description).”