{"paper":{"title":"Stellar masses of optically dark galaxies: uncertainty introduced by the attenuation law and star-formation histories","arxiv_id":"2601.08693","primary_cat":"astro-ph.GA","submitted_at":"2026-01-13T16:17:04+00:00","version_compiled":"v3"},"notice":"Every quoted sentence is the authors' text from the arXiv listing abstract. Labels and probabilities are the outputs of classifier-1.13.0 on the question bank abstract-p1-20260923, exactly as returned. No sentence in this record was written by a language model.","schema":"pith.compiled-record/v0","status":"compiled","abstract":{"source":"arXiv listing abstract v3","sentences":[{"i":0,"p":1.0,"id":"s0","own":false,"role":"background","text":"Recent studies using JWST have suggested that some high-redshift galaxies may be ultra-massive, thereby challenging standard models of early galaxy formation.","hedge":{"p":0.98,"label":"hedged_possibility"},"own_p":0.03,"main_claim_p":0.03,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.12,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.0,"background":1.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":1,"p":0.54,"id":"s1","own":true,"role":"contribution","text":"We analyse the stellar masses using different modelling assumptions and in conjunction with new data of three galaxies (S1, S2 and S3), whose photometric and NIRCam/grism redshifts were consistent with $z>5$.","hedge":{"p":0.96,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.93,"main_claim_p":0.03,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.74,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.46,"result":0.0,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.54,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":2,"p":0.96,"id":"s2","own":false,"role":"background","text":"These three ``optically dark'' galaxies were reported to host exceptionally high stellar masses ($M_{\\star}\\gtrsim10^{11}~M_{\\odot}$) and star-formation rates ($\\mathrm{SFR}\\gtrsim600~M_{\\odot}~\\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$), implying extremely high star-formation efficiencies.","hedge":{"p":0.94,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.07,"main_claim_p":0.05,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.99,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.01,"background":0.96,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.01,"interpretation":0.02}},{"i":3,"p":0.9,"id":"s3","own":true,"role":"result","text":"Recent NIRSpec/IFU observations for S1 indicate a spectroscopic redshift of $z_{\\rm spec}=3.2439\\pm0.0002$, revising the previous redshift.","hedge":{"p":0.6,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.62,"main_claim_p":0.03,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.98,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.03,"result":0.9,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.07,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":4,"p":0.97,"id":"s4","own":true,"role":"method","text":"Using the Bayesian spectral energy distribution (SED) modelling tool \\texttt{Prospector}, we investigate the impact of key model assumptions on stellar mass estimates, such as the choice of star-formation history (SFH) priors (constant versus rising SFH base for the non-parametric SFH prior), the dust attenuation law, and the treatment of emission line fluxes.","hedge":{"p":0.94,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.91,"main_claim_p":0.05,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.27,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.97,"result":0.0,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.03,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":5,"p":1.0,"id":"s5","own":true,"role":"result","text":"Our analysis yields revised stellar masses of $\\log_{10}(M_{\\star}/M_{\\odot}) \\approx 10.36, 10.95$ and $10.31$ for S1, S2, and S3, respectively.","hedge":{"p":0.98,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.97,"main_claim_p":0.2,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.99,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":1.0,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":6,"p":1.0,"id":"s6","own":true,"role":"result","text":"We find that adopting a rising SFH base prior results in lower inferred stellar masses compared to a constant SFH base prior.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.95,"main_claim_p":0.12,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.94,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":1.0,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":7,"p":0.97,"id":"s7","own":true,"role":"result","text":"Additionally, we identify a significant degeneracy between the dust attenuation curve slope, the amount of dust attenuation, and stellar mass.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.96,"main_claim_p":0.17,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.1,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.97,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.01,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.02}},{"i":8,"p":0.81,"id":"s8","own":true,"role":"interpretation","text":"Our results highlight various systematics in SED modelling due to SFH priors and dust attenuation that can influence stellar mass estimates.","hedge":{"p":0.97,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.9,"main_claim_p":0.33,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.04,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.14,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.05,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.81}},{"i":9,"p":0.96,"id":"s9","own":true,"role":"interpretation","text":"Nevertheless, even with these revised stellar mass estimates, two of the three galaxies remain among the most massive and actively star-forming systems at their respective redshifts, implying high star-formation efficiencies.","hedge":{"p":0.96,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.85,"main_claim_p":0.51,"quantitative":true,"quantitative_p":0.93,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.04,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.96}}]},"compiled":{"main_claim":{"p":0.66,"text":"Nevertheless, even with these revised stellar mass estimates, two of the three galaxies remain among the most massive and actively star-forming systems at their respective redshifts, implying high star-formation efficiencies.","location":"abstract s9","hedge_strength":{"p":0.96,"label":"asserted"}},"provenance":{"route":{"via":"TypeSafe API","model":"classifier-1.13.0","endpoint":"https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone","provider":"TypeSafe"},"packing":"one request per paper","requests":1,"input_tokens":8062,"cost_usd_reported":0.0},"compiled_at":"2026-09-24","bank_version":"abstract-p1-20260923","model_version":"classifier-1.13.0","abstract_states":{"claims_first":0.03,"states_limitation":0.93,"human_participants":0.01,"controlled_comparison":0.24,"randomized_assignment":0.01,"states_quantitative_result":0.99,"compares_with_prior_results":0.92,"mentions_code_or_data_availability":0.03},"evidential_basis":{"p":0.92,"value":"analysis of existing data","probabilities":{"argument":0.0,"literature":0.0,"proof_or_derivation":0.0,"analysis_of_existing_data":0.92,"observation_or_experiment":0.07,"simulation_or_computation":0.01}},"contribution_type":{"p":0.97,"value":"empirical study","probabilities":{"review":0.0,"method_or_tool":0.01,"empirical_study":0.97,"simulation_study":0.01,"theoretical_result":0.0,"dataset_or_benchmark":0.0,"position_or_commentary":0.01}},"contribution_statement":{"p":0.66,"text":"Using the Bayesian spectral energy distribution (SED) modelling tool \\texttt{Prospector}, we investigate the impact of key model assumptions on stellar mass estimates, such as the choice of star-formation history (SFH) priors (constant versus rising SFH base for the non-parametric SFH prior), the dust attenuation law, and the treatment of emission line fluxes.","location":"abstract s4"}},"coverage":{"tier":"abstract","levels_run":["P abstract"],"not_examined":["full text","figures and tables","references and citing sentences","relations to other papers"],"sources_read":["arXiv listing abstract v3"],"levels_not_run":["S sections","T body sentences","C citations","R cross-paper relations"],"sentences_examined":10,"sentences_in_abstract":10},"measured_accuracy":{"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy","measured_on":"2026-10-02","method":"two independent model families labelled a fresh random sample blind; the figure is how often the published label matches their consensus","sentence_role_agreement":0.92,"main_claim_agreement":0.908,"typed_citation_agreement":0.933,"typed_citation_agreement_95_interval":[0.917,0.945],"review_comments_accurate":0.758,"review_comments_accurate_95_interval":[0.684,0.82],"review_caught_admitted_error_found_or_related":0.448}}