The Art of Measuring Physical Parameters in Galaxies: A Critical Assessment of Spectral Energy Distribution Fitting Techniques
AI-generated Key Points
- Spectral energy distribution (SED) models are used to infer physical parameters from spectrophotometric data in galaxy evolution studies
- Algorithms performing SED fitting have improved with better modeling prescriptions, newer templates, and more extensive sampling in wavelength space
- This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of different SED fitting codes and their output to measure uncertainties caused by modeling assumptions
- Fourteen commonly used SED fitting codes were applied to samples from the CANDELS photometric catalogs at z~1 and z~3
- While there was agreement on the stellar mass, some discrepancies were observed in the star formation rate (SFR) and dust attenuation results among the codes
- The impact of various modeling assumptions such as star formation histories, nebular, dust, and AGN models were assessed on derived stellar masses, SFRs, and A_V values
- The difference among the codes on the SFR-stellar mass relation was also evaluated while measuring contributions to uncertainties by modeling choices for stellar mass (~0.1dex), SFR (~0.3dex), and dust attenuation (~0.3mag)
- Best practices in SED fitting are summarized using a cosmology with ΩM = 0.3, Λ = 0.7, and h = H0/100 km s−1 Mpc−1 = 0.7 throughout all magnitudes presented in AB system.
- Section 2 provides important working definitions in SED fitting while Section 3 presents three photometric datasets used for analysis.
Authors: Camilla Pacifici, Kartheik G. Iyer, Bahram Mobasher, Elisabete da Cunha, Viviana Acquaviva, Denis Burgarella, Gabriela Calistro Rivera, Adam C. Carnall, Yu-Yen Chang, Nima Chartab, Kevin C. Cooke, Ciaran Fairhurst, Jeyhan Kartaltepe, Joel Leja, Katarzyna Malek, Brett Salmon, Marianna Torelli, Alba Vidal-Garcia, Mederic Boquien, Gabriel G. Brammer, Michael J. I. Brown, Peter L. Capak, Jacopo Chevallard, Chiara Circosta, Darren Croton, Iary Davidzon, Mark Dickinson, Kenneth J. Duncan, Sandra M. Faber, Harry C. Ferguson, Adriano Fontana, Yicheng Guo, Boris Haeussler, Shoubaneh Hemmati, Marziye Jafariyazani, Susan A. Kassin, Rebecca L. Larson, Bomee Lee, Kameswara Bharadwaj Mantha, Francesca Marchi, Hooshang Nayyeri, Jeffrey A. Newman, Viraj Pandya, Janine Pforr, Naveen Reddy, Ryan Sanders, Ekta Shah, Abtin Shahidi, Matthew L. Stevans, Dian Puspita Triani, Krystal D. Tyler, Brittany N. Vanderhoof, Alexander de la Vega, Weichen Wang, Madalyn E. Weston
Abstract: The study of galaxy evolution hinges on our ability to interpret multi-wavelength galaxy observations in terms of their physical properties. To do this, we rely on spectral energy distribution (SED) models which allow us to infer physical parameters from spectrophotometric data. In recent years, thanks to the wide and deep multi-waveband galaxy surveys, the volume of high quality data have significantly increased. Alongside the increased data, algorithms performing SED fitting have improved, including better modeling prescriptions, newer templates, and more extensive sampling in wavelength space. We present a comprehensive analysis of different SED fitting codes including their methods and output with the aim of measuring the uncertainties caused by the modeling assumptions. We apply fourteen of the most commonly used SED fitting codes on samples from the CANDELS photometric catalogs at z~1 and z~3. We find agreement on the stellar mass, while we observe some discrepancies in the star formation rate (SFR) and dust attenuation results. To explore the differences and biases among the codes, we explore the impact of the various modeling assumptions as they are set in the codes (e.g., star formation histories, nebular, dust, and AGN models) on the derived stellar masses, SFRs, and A_V values. We then assess the difference among the codes on the SFR-stellar mass relation and we measure the contribution to the uncertainties by the modeling choices (i.e., the modeling uncertainties) in stellar mass (~0.1dex), SFR (~0.3dex), and dust attenuation (~0.3mag). Finally, we present some resources summarizing best practices in SED fitting.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.