Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Adding far-infrared Herschel data to galaxy SED fits leaves the star-forming main sequence unchanged but reveals that mid-infrared-to-total-infrared conversions depend on stellar mass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:42 UTC pith:FSVCD5A6

load-bearing objection Useful new public catalog, but the SFMS validation is partly circular; the mass-dependent F_TIR/F7.7 result is the real news and needs a no-prior test. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22384 v2 pith:FSVCD5A6 submitted 2026-02-25 astro-ph.GA

3D-Herschel: Constraining Dust Emission with Panchromatic Modeling of 3D-HST Galaxies

Seamus McNulty , Mimi Song , Katherine E. Whitaker , Joel Leja , Aubrey Medrano , Elijah P. Mathews , Mark Dickinson , Hanae Inami
show 4 more authors
Ivo Labbe Danilo Marchesini Alexandra Pope Irene Shivaei
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies: photometrygalaxies: fundamental parametersinfrared: galaxiesdust, extinctiongalaxies: star formationstar-forming main sequencefar-infraredspectral energy distribution fitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper builds a new public 0.3-350 micron photometric catalog for 41,387 galaxies and shows that adding Herschel far-infrared constraints to a flexible 17-parameter Bayesian spectral-energy-distribution fit does not shift the star-forming main sequence relative to fits using only ultraviolet-to-mid-infrared data. The average deviation between the two inferred sequences is 0.1±0.07 dex, supporting earlier claims that the low normalization of the sequence is not a side effect of missing far-infrared measurements. However, for the 3.2% of galaxies with strong Herschel detections in at least two bands, the fixed infrared templates used in UV-MIR-only fits prove inadequate: they imply dust temperatures about 7 K colder and, at stellar masses near 10^9.6 solar masses, total-infrared-to-7.7-micron ratios about 0.2 dex lower than fits that include the far-infrared data. The paper concludes that conversions from mid-infrared to total infrared luminosity depend on stellar mass and cautions against mass-independent templates.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, at least for the bulk of the mass-complete population, SED fits that stop at 24 microns are not biased in their stellar masses, star-formation rates, or the shape of the star-forming main sequence: adding Herschel photometry moves the inferred SFR ridge by only 0.1±0.07 dex. The far-infrared data do matter, though, for the dust side of the model. When the three dust-emission parameters are allowed to vary, Herschel-constrained fits recover warmer characteristic dust temperatures (about 25 K versus 18.4 K for the fixed-template UV-MIR fits) and a higher total-infrared-to-7.7-micron ratio at low stellar mass (about 0.2 dex at log M* ~ 9.6). This mass dependen

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is a new 0.3-350 micron photometric catalog, 3D-Herschel, built by deblending low-resolution Herschel imaging with forced photometry that uses high-resolution HST positions and UV-MIR-model flux predictions as priors. On top of this catalog, the analysis compares two configurations of a 17-parameter Bayesian SED fitting framework with nonparametric star-formation history, two-component dust attenuation, and energy-balance dust re-emission: one using only UV-24 micron data with the dust-emission parameters fixed to log-average template colors, and one adding Herschel data with the three dust-emission parameters (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mass fraction, minimum rad

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the deblended Herschel fluxes are not shaped by the UV-MIR model predictions used as priors during extraction, because the same UV-MIR fits are then validated against those Herschel fluxes.

What would settle it

Extract the same Herschel imaging with uninformative (flat) flux priors for the IR-bright sample and rerun the fits; if the total-infrared-to-7.7-micron excess at log(M*/M_sun)~9.6 disappears, the mass-dependent offset is an artifact of prior-driven deblending. Independently, JWST/MIRI measurements of 7.7 micron fluxes for the same galaxies would confirm or refute the suppressed PAH strength at low mass.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The Herschel-constrained star-forming main sequence deviates from UV-MIR-only fits by 0.1±0.07 dex at fixed stellar mass, so the low normalization of the sequence is not caused by missing far-infrared data.
  • Mid-infrared-only SFR and total infrared luminosity estimates using fixed templates will systematically underestimate total infrared luminosity for low-mass obscured galaxies, by about 0.2 dex near log(M*/M_sun)=9.6.
  • UV-MIR fits with fixed dust parameters imply dust temperatures about 7 K too cold, biasing dust-based interpretations of these galaxies.
  • The public 3D-Herschel catalog extends forced deblended photometry to 350 microns, allowing future work to include far-infrared constraints in SED fitting.
  • For galaxies below 10^11 solar masses at z > 1.5, Herschel can only provide upper limits after deblending; next-generation far-infrared telescopes are needed to measure their dust emission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the Herschel extraction used UV-MIR model predictions as flux priors, the agreement between UV-MIR and UV-FIR fits may be partly inherited from those priors; a rerun with uninformative priors on the IR-bright subsample would test how much of the 0.2 dex total-infrared-to-7.7-micron offset is independent of the priors.
  • If the mass-dependent trend is driven by PAH destruction in strong radiation fields, the ratio should correlate with metallicity and radiation-field intensity at fixed stellar mass; that correlation is implicit but not directly tested here and is checkable with JWST/MIRI spectra of the same galaxies.
  • A direct prediction for future PRIMA-class observations is that the mass dependence of the mid-infrared-to-total-infrared conversion should become more pronounced at higher resolution, since Herschel's confusion limit hides the lowest-mass, dustiest systems.
  • The comparison with a JWST/MIRI study suggests part of the 7.7-micron offset may be a calibration issue; stacking deeper far-infrared data or using MIRI photometry for the same sample would decide whether the mass dependence persists.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents 3D-Herschel, a new 0.3–350 micron photometric catalog built by deblending Herschel imaging in the CANDELS/3D-HST fields with T-PHOT, using Prospector UV-MIR fits as flux priors. The authors fit 41,387 galaxies at 0.5<z<2.5 with a 17-parameter Prospector emulator, comparing fits with and without Herschel FIR data. They report that UV-MIR-only fits recover stellar masses, SFRs, and the star-forming main sequence for the majority of objects (SFMS agreement of 0.1±0.07 dex), but that fixed IR templates in UV-MIR fits give colder dust temperatures (18.4 K vs. 25.4 K) and underestimate F_TIR/F7.7 by ~0.2 dex at low stellar masses. They conclude that MIR-to-IR conversions depend on stellar mass and that Herschel provides mostly upper limits for distant low-mass galaxies.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides a valuable public UV-FIR catalog and one of the largest panchromatic SED-fitting samples at cosmic noon. The mass-dependent F_TIR/F7.7 trend would strengthen JWST/MIRI-based results and caution against fixed MIR-to-IR templates in SED modeling. The paper's strengths include the public data release, multi-field deblending with explicit PSF treatment, Monte Carlo error calibration, external flux validation, and the use of a validated emulator. These assets make the study a useful reference for future FIR and JWST analyses, provided the independence of the FIR photometry from the models being validated is demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2.1, §5, §6.2] The central validation claim — that UV-MIR Prospector fits recover the SFMS unchanged when FIR data are added — is weakened by a circularity in the photometric pipeline. T-PHOT fluxes are extracted with Gaussian priors derived directly from Prospector UV-MIR fits (§2.2.1), and the same extracted fluxes are used in §5 and §6.2 to validate those fits and to measure the 0.1±0.07 dex SFMS agreement. For the >90% of the mass-limited sample that are Herschel upper limits (SNR<3), the data cannot dominate the priors, so agreement between with- and without-Herschel fits is partly by construction. The statement in §2.2.3 that S/N<1 sources are driven to noise-consistent fluxes is not supported by a quantitative test. Please add an extraction test with uninformative or no flux priors on a representative subset, and report how the SFMS and IR-bright classifications change.
  2. [§6, Table 6, Figure 9] The headline F_TIR/F7.7 mass trend is measured on an IR-bright sample of 1118 objects defined after removing ~33% of candidates with chi^2<3 in PACS100/160, often attributed to 'bright interlopers contaminating the photometry of low-mass galaxies.' Because this cut is applied after fitting, it can imprint or exaggerate the low-mass trend. The paper does not report the number or mass distribution of rejected objects, nor whether the trend survives a less aggressive cut or an analysis that includes the rejected objects with inflated uncertainties. Please quantify the selection function and show the robustness of the F_TIR/F7.7 versus stellar mass result to the chi^2 threshold.
  3. [§7.5, Figure 9] The comparison with Shivaei et al. (2024) shows a ~0.28 dex offset in F_TIR/F7.7 at high stellar masses, which the paper attributes to differences in the U_min prior and possible calibration issues. However, the same section reports that model MIPS 24 micron fluxes are ~0.1 dex below observed fluxes, and the paper states this does not fully explain the discrepancy. Since F_TIR/F7.7 is a main physical conclusion, this unresolved systematic should be tested explicitly — for example, by recomputing F7.7 with the observed 24 micron flux as a constraint, or by adopting the Shivaei et al. U_min prior and showing how the mass trend changes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The running header says 'McNulty et al. 2024' while the paper is dated 2026; update for consistency.
  2. [Eq. (3) and §6.3] Equation (3) defines R_SB but the text refers to R_MS > 2; use one notation consistently.
  3. [§6] State explicitly which model (with or without Herschel) is used to compute the chi^2<3 cut, and report how many objects are removed per field and per mass bin.
  4. [Figure 9] The caption says the dashed line marks the Shivaei et al. relation, but §7.5 describes a 0.28 dex offset relative to that relation; clarify what is plotted.
  5. [Figure 8] The bottom-row axis label 'Delta log(SFR IR Bright)' is difficult to parse; use 'Delta log SFR (IR-bright)' or similar.
  6. [Data availability] The abstract and conclusions state that 3D-Herschel is publicly released, but no URL, DOI, or data-access footnote is provided; add one.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

SFMS validation is partially circular: Herschel photometry used to confirm UV-MIR fits is extracted with Gaussian priors from those same UV-MIR fits.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§2.2.1 (forced photometry), §5 (SFMS), §7.1 (Discussion)]
    "In the Herschel photometric extraction, we use T-PHOT (Merlin et al. 2015, 2016), incorporating FIR Prospector predictions and their uncertainties as Gaussian priors. ... Overall, Herschel data demonstrate that UV-MIR priors can reasonably predict FIR fluxes"

    The 'Herschel' photometry used to validate the UV-MIR Prospector fits is not independent: T-PHOT regularizes the extracted fluxes with Gaussian priors whose means come from those same UV-MIR fits (§2.2.1). For the ≳90% of the mass-limited sample that are Herschel upper limits, the data are uninformative and the prior dominates, so the extracted fluxes are pulled toward the UV-MIR predicted FIR fluxes. Refitting these fluxes with the same Prospector model then trivially reproduces the UV-MIR SFRs, making the quoted 0.1±0.07 dex SFMS agreement between UV-MIR and UV-FIR fits an artifact of the prior construction rather than an independent confirmation. The paper's claim in §2.2.3 that S/N<1 sources are 'driven toward fluxes consistent with the image noise rather than the prior model values' i

full rationale

The paper's central SFMS validation is partially circular: the Herschel photometry that is added to the UV-MIR fits is extracted using T-PHOT with Gaussian flux priors taken from the very Prospector UV-MIR models being tested. Since most of the mass-limited sample consists of Herschel upper limits, those fluxes are prior-dominated, so the subsequent UV-FIR fits cannot provide an independent check of the UV-MIR SFMS. However, the photometry is also validated against external catalogs in §3, and the IR-bright subsample (SNR≥3 in ≥2 Herschel bands) provides some independent leverage, especially for the mass-dependent F_TIR/F7.7 result. The circularity is therefore partial—it weakens the SFMS confirmation but does not eliminate the paper's independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the Prospector SPS framework, the Draine & Li dust templates, and the assumption that the T-PHOT priors do not bias the extracted FIR fluxes. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the dust emission parameters (U_min, q_PAH, gamma) and empirical photometric error corrections.

free parameters (5)
  • U_min = U_min ≈ 7.1 ± 3.1 (posterior mean); fixed to 1 in UV-MIR fits
    Central to the reported ~7 K warmer dust temperatures in Herschel fits; free in FIR fits, fixed in UV-MIR fits.
  • q_PAH = fitted; fixed to 2 in UV-MIR fits
    PAH mass fraction controls MIR PAH strength and drives F_TIR/F7.7 comparisons.
  • gamma = fitted; fixed to 0.01 (Sec 4.1) or log gamma=2 (Sec 7.2, inconsistent)
    Fraction of dust exposed to high radiation fields; affects FIR dust bump shape.
  • SPIRE error correction a,b = 250: a=-0.56, b=2.11; 350: a=-0.64, b=2.62
    Empirical correction to SPIRE flux uncertainties derived from Monte Carlo simulations (Table 2).
  • PACS error scaling factor = not tabulated (scaled from residual widths)
    PACS uncertainties inflated by factor of ~2 to match residual maps; affects all FIR fits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Draine & Li (2007) dust emission template framework
    The IR SED is parameterized by q_PAH, U_min, gamma (Section 4.2); all fits rely on this template family.
  • domain assumption Energy balance between attenuated starlight and dust emission
    Prospector assumes the UV-NIR light attenuated by dust is re-emitted as IR radiation (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Emulator reproduces Prospector posteriors
    The neural-network emulator is relied on for all fits; validated in Mathews et al. (2023) and Figure 3, but not formally proven.
  • domain assumption 3D-HST redshifts and photometry are correct
    The analysis inherits z_best from Momcheva et al. (2016) and the 3D-HST photometric catalogs (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Tal et al. (2014) mass completeness limits
    The mass-limited sample uses 90% completeness limits from Tal et al. (2014) (Table 5).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38168 in / 11899 out tokens · 100379 ms · 2026-08-02T20:42:24.649877+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present 3D-Herschel, a new publicly released 0.3-350$\mu$m photometric catalog that combines deblended Herschel far-infrared (FIR) imaging with the CANDELS/3D-HST legacy fields to probe the dust-obscured universe. Using the 17-parameter Bayesian fitting code Prospector-$\beta$, we model 41,387 galaxies spanning 0.5 $< z <$ 2.5 to measure stellar and dust properties. Comparing fits with and without FIR constraints, we find that for the 3.2$\%$ of galaxies with $>3 \sigma$ detections in $\geq2$ Herschel bands, UV-MIR-only models (0.3-24$\mu$m) recover robust stellar ages, SFRs, and stellar masses (50-70$\%$ within the median 1$\sigma$ error). Consequently, the Prospector-$\beta$ star-forming sequence is unchanged by the inclusion of FIR data (average deviation 0.1$\pm$0.07 dex between UV-MIR and UV-FIR fits at fixed stellar mass), confirming that the offset relative to UV+IR-based estimates reported by Leja et al. 2022 is robust to the lack of direct FIR constraints. However, the use of rigid log-average IR templates with fixed dust emission parameters ($\gamma$, $U_{\mathrm{min}}$, $q_{\mathrm{PAH}}$) in UV-MIR modeling yields cold dust temperatures ($\sim$7K colder than Herschel-informed fits at all redshifts) and an unevolving MIR-to-IR luminosity ratio, with $\sim$0.2 dex lower IR-to-7.7$\mu$m luminosity ratios at the low-mass end of Herschel-detected galaxies (log($M_{\star}$) $\sim$ 9.6 $M_{\odot}$). These results demonstrate that MIR-to-IR conversions depend on stellar mass, cautioning against $L_{\mathrm{IR}}$-independent templates without FIR data. For galaxies with $<10^{11} \ M_{\odot}$ at $z>1.5$, Herschel can at best provide upper limits due to source confusion; next-generation FIR telescopes will be essential for distant galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22384 by Alexandra Pope, Aubrey Medrano, Danilo Marchesini, Elijah P. Mathews, Hanae Inami, Irene Shivaei, Ivo Labbe, Joel Leja, Katherine E. Whitaker, Mark Dickinson, Mimi Song, Seamus McNulty.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overall agreement of 3D-Herschel fluxes compared to other published Herschel catalogs contained in the literature. The background color scale shows the logarithmic number density of sources in our sample. The dashed line indicates the median 3σ flux uncertainty from the original survey publications, whereas the dotted lines are the limits we infer herein for sources originally detected with Spitzer, as opp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Close relationship between the number counts of each 3D-Herschel field (binned by flux) demonstrates that the photometric estimations were consistent across all fields. Error bars are determined as the fraction error of each bin (1/ √ N × N dex−1 deg−2 ). alogs are based on high-resolution imaging. For UDS, however, we use a 3 arcsecond radius, as sources are detected only at FIR wavelengths where position… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of posterior medians inferred from full Prospector fits of the adjusted 3D-HST catalog (Leja et al. 2019b; x-axis) versus our Prospector emulation on the publicly released 3D-HST catalog (y-axis). Panels show (a) stellar mass, (b) diffuse-dust attenuation, (c) stellar metallicity, (d) dust index, (e) SFR, and (f) mass-weighted age. The one-to-one line is in black and red lines show me￾dian offse… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons of fits with and without Herschel photometry, showing offsets (with - without Herschel) in 7 out of 17 of the inferred stellar parameters plotted against each other. Histograms of the offsets are shown above each column and at the end of the last row. Parameters (left to right, bottom row): diffuse dust attenuation (τdiffuse), birth cloud dust attenuation (τbirthcloud), mass-weighted age, stell… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Composite SEDs of the IR-bright sample from Prospector fits adding Herschel FIR photometry to the UV to MIR 3D-HST photometry (blue line), compared to fits without Herschel (purple line) and the z∼1 star-forming template of Kirkpatrick et al. (2012) (dashed line). Crosses represent median photometry of the individual measurements (all SNR > 3 detections plotted as circles), whereas inverted triangles repre… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Offsets (with - without Herschel) in star formation rate (top row) and stellar mass (bottom row) as a function of mass-weighted age, diffuse dust, birthcloud dust, and stellar metallicity (left to right). Objects are color-coded as dustier and more star-forming (red) or less dusty and less star-forming (purple). IR-bright galaxies modeled without FIR constraints are more poorly inferred than the full sampl… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Composite SEDs with (blue) and without Herschel photometry (purple), normalized at 1µm. The composites in the left panel are constructed from sources with diffuse dust and SFR offsets within their original 1σ uncertainties, while the right panel is created from IR-bright objects that are significantly dustier and more star-forming under the new constraints. The percent of upper limits in each Herschel band… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: IR-bright population (circles) overplotted on the SFMS of the mass-limited sample, inferred from UV-MIR fits (blue line) and from Herschel-constrained fits (red dashed line). The top row shows SFRs and stellar masses from UV-MIR fits, whereas the middle row shows the same population from UV-FIR fits, and the bottom row shows SFR differences between the two sequences (Herschel – UV-MIR). Objects are color-c… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Composites from the IR-bright sample, binned by stellar mass, with the fractional contribution of each bin to the total sample for that mass range noted in the top left. Median FTIR/F7.7 values of each composite are listed on the right, showing a decreasing trend with stellar mass. Shaded regions indicate the areas of integration for FTIR and F7.7. Dust temperature can be estimated using the mean starligh… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Characteristic dust temperature (Td,char; Equation 4) as a function of redshift for the IR-bright sam￾ple. Points are color-coded by Umin, with its distribution shown as a histogram along the color bar. Median reference lines mark the fixed Umin fits (dashed navy; 18.4K), the full 3D-Herschel mass-limited sample (black; 25.4 ± 2.1K), and the IR-bright subsample (red; 25.7 ± 3.3K). cause the dust emission … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Calibrating Photometric Mid-Infrared Star Formation Rates for JWST

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Rest-frame 6-8um MIRI luminosity provides broken power-law SFR calibrations with 0.2-0.3 dex scatter and UV+IR composites at 0.15 dex, supporting robust use above log M* ~9 up to z~3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    Abdurro’uf, Lin, Y.-T., Wu, P.-F., & Akiyama, M. 2021, ApJS, 254, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abebe2 2021

  2. [2]

    E., Gladders, M

    Abramson, L. E., Gladders, M. D., Dressler, A., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 801, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L12 26McNulty et al. 2024

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/l12 2015

  3. [3]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/47

    Acquaviva, V., Gawiser, E., & Guaita, L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/47

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/47 2011

  4. [4]

    2024, SMILES Initial Data Release: Unveiling the Obscured Universe with MIRI Multi-band Imaging

    Alberts, S., Lyu, J., Shivaei, I., et al. 2024, SMILES Initial Data Release: Unveiling the Obscured Universe with MIRI Multi-band Imaging. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15972

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Ashby, M. L. N., Willner, S. P., Fazio, G. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/80 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/80 2013

  6. [6]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJ, 770, 57, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  7. [7]

    J., et al

    Bielby, R., Hudelot, P., McCracken, H. J., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118547

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118547 2012

  8. [8]

    A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´ e, N., et al

    Boogaard, L. A., Brinchmann, J., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833136

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833136 2018

  9. [9]

    2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    Boquien, M., Burgarella, D., Roehlly, Y., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834156

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834156 2019

  10. [10]

    P., Zeimann, G

    Bowman, W. P., Zeimann, G. R., Nagaraj, G., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f3c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f3c 2020

  11. [11]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503, doi: 10.1086/591786

    doi:10.1086/591786 2008

  12. [12]

    B., S´ anchez-Janssen, R., Labb´ e, I., et al

    Brammer, G. B., S´ anchez-Janssen, R., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2012, ApJL, 758, L17, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/L17

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/l17 2012

  13. [13]

    Brinchmann, J., & Ellis, R. S. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, L77, doi: 10.1086/312738

    work page doi:10.1086/312738 2000

  14. [14]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    Burgarella, D., Buat, V., & Iglesias-P´ aramo, J. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 360, 1413, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09131.x

    arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    C., Engelbracht, C

    Calzetti, D., Kennicutt, R. C., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 870, doi: 10.1086/520082

    doi:10.1086/520082 2007

  16. [16]

    L., Hu, E

    Capak, P., Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 180, doi: 10.1086/380611

    doi:10.1086/380611 2004

  17. [17]

    N., van Dokkum, P

    Cardamone, C. N., van Dokkum, P. G., Urry, C. M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 189, 270, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/189/2/270 2010

  18. [18]

    C., Leja, J., Johnson, B

    Carnall, A. C., Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab04a2 2019

  19. [19]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2169

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2169 2018

  20. [20]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11076, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.11076

    Carpenter, J., Iono, D., Kemper, F., & Wootten, A. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.11076, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2001.11076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.11076 2020

  21. [22]

    M., Hodge, J., Zavala, J

    Casey, C. M., Hodge, J., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacd11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacd11 2018

  22. [23]

    A., Droettboom, M., Lee, A., et al

    Caswell, T. A., Droettboom, M., Lee, A., et al. 2020, matplotlib/matplotlib: REL: v3.2.1, v3.2.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3714460

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3714460 2020

  23. [24]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763, doi: 10.1086/376392

    doi:10.1086/376392 2003

  24. [25]

    Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718, doi: 10.1086/309250

    doi:10.1086/309250 2000

  25. [26]

    2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    Conroy, C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 393, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141017 2013

  26. [27]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486 Da Cunha, E., Charlot, S., & Elbaz, D. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 388, 1595, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13535.x

    arXiv 2009

  27. [28]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 670, 156, doi: 10.1086/521818

    doi:10.1086/521818 2007

  28. [29]

    A., & Helou, G

    Dale, D. A., & Helou, G. 2002, ApJ, 576, 159, doi: 10.1086/341632 Dav´ e, R., Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, D., Narayanan, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz937

    doi:10.1086/341632 2002

  29. [30]

    Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., & team, t. G. 2003, in The Mass of Galaxies at Low and High Redshift: Proceedings of the European Southern Observatory and Universit¨ ats-Sternwarte M¨ unchen Workshop Held in

    2003

  30. [31]

    Venice, Italy, 24-26 October 2001, Springer, 324–331

    2001

  31. [32]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    doi:10.1086/511055 2007

  32. [33]

    T., Li, A., Hensley, B

    Draine, B. T., Li, A., Hensley, B. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abff51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abff51 2021

  33. [34]

    T., Dale, D

    Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 866, doi: 10.1086/518306

    doi:10.1086/518306 2007

  34. [35]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/172

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/780/2/172 2014

  35. [36]

    2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    Elbaz, D., Daddi, E., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077525

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077525 2007

  36. [37]

    S., et al

    Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117239

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117239 2011

  37. [38]

    P., et al

    Erben, T., Schirmer, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 432, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510396

    doi:10.1002/asna.200510396 2005

  38. [39]

    2009, A&A, 493, 1197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810426

    Erben, T., Hildebrandt, H., Lerchster, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 1197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810426

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810426 2009

  39. [40]

    2014, python-fsps: Python bindings to FSPS (v0.1.1), v0.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12157

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Sick, J., & Johnson, B. 2014, python-fsps: Python bindings to FSPS (v0.1.1), v0.1.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12157

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12157 2014

  40. [41]

    Frenklach, M., & Feigelson, E. D. 1989, ApJ, 341, 372, doi: 10.1086/167501 Panchromatic SED Fitting of 3D-Herschel27

    doi:10.1086/167501 1989

  41. [42]

    G., et al

    Fumagalli, M., Labb´ e, I., Patel, S. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/35

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/1/35 2014

  42. [43]

    G., Theuns, T., et al

    Furlong, M., Bower, R. G., Theuns, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv852

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv852 2015

  43. [44]

    2008, ApJS, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/527321

    Furusawa, H., Kosugi, G., Akiyama, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 1, doi: 10.1086/527321

    doi:10.1086/527321 2008

  44. [45]

    2008, ApJ, 672, 214, doi: 10.1086/523621

    Galliano, F., Dwek, E., & Chanial, P. 2008, ApJ, 672, 214, doi: 10.1086/523621

    doi:10.1086/523621 2008

  45. [46]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5 2023

  46. [47]

    C., Koekemoer, A

    Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93, doi: 10.1086/379232

    doi:10.1086/379232 2004

  47. [48]

    A., Kocevski, D

    Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 35, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35 2011

  48. [49]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 215, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/2

    Han, Y., & Han, Z. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 215, 2, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/2

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/2 2014

  49. [50]

    C., & Smith, D

    Hayward, C. C., & Smith, D. J. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2195

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2195 2015

  50. [51]

    2009, A&A, 498, 725, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042

    Hildebrandt, H., Pielorz, J., Erben, T., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 725, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811042

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811042 2009

  51. [52]

    P., et al

    Hildebrandt, H., Erben, T., Dietrich, J. P., et al. 2006, A&A, 452, 1121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054278 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054278 2006

  52. [53]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 203, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/23

    Hsieh, B.-C., Wang, W.-H., Hsieh, C.-C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 203, 23, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/23

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/23 2012

  53. [54]

    K., Thuan, T

    Hunt, L. K., Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y. I., & Sauvage, M. 2010, ApJ, 712, 164, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/164

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/164 2010

  54. [55]

    G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S

    Iyer, K. G., Gawiser, E., Faber, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2052 2019

  55. [56]

    2018, ApJ, 864, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4af

    Jin, S., Daddi, E., Liu, D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad4af 2018

  56. [57]

    2017, Bd-J/Prospector: Initial Release, v0.1, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1116491

    Johnson, B., & Leja, J. 2017, Bd-J/Prospector: Initial Release, v0.1, Zenodo, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1116491

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.1116491 2017

  57. [58]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abef67 2021

  58. [59]

    T., & Stanway, E

    Jones, G. T., & Stanway, E. R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5720, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2683

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2683 2023

  59. [60]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 63, S379, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp2.S379

    Kajisawa, M., Ichikawa, T., Tanaka, I., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 63, S379, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.sp2.S379

    doi:10.1093/pasj/63.sp2.s379 2011

  60. [61]

    2009, ApJ, 703, 1672, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1672

    Kennicutt, Robert C., J., Hao, C.-N., Calzetti, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1672, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1672

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/2/1672 2009

  61. [62]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610 2012

  62. [63]

    C., Calzetti, D., Aniano, G., et al

    Kennicutt, R. C., Calzetti, D., Aniano, G., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 1347, doi: 10.1086/663818

    doi:10.1086/663818 2011

  63. [64]

    M., et al

    Kirkpatrick, A., Pope, A., Alexander, D. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/2/139

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/2/139 2012

  64. [65]

    M., Faber, S

    Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36 2011

  65. [66]

    2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, ApJL, 775, L16, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/L16

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/775/1/l16 2013

  66. [67]

    G., Labb´ e, I., et al

    Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 221, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/221

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/221 2009

  67. [68]

    2016, ApJL, 820, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L1 Labb´ e, I., Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G

    Kurczynski, P., Gawiser, E., Acquaviva, V., et al. 2016, ApJL, 820, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L1 Labb´ e, I., Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G. D., & Franx, M. 2006, ApJL, 649, L67, doi: 10.1086/508512

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/l1 2016

  68. [69]

    W., & Schlegel, D

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Schlegel, D. J. 2016, AJ, 151, 36, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/36

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/36 2016

  69. [70]

    B., Casey, C

    Lee, N., Sanders, D. B., Casey, C. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/80

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/2/80 2015

  70. [71]

    Speagle, J. S. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab133c

  71. [72]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    Byler, N. 2017, ApJ, 837, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe 2017

  72. [73]

    D., Conroy, C., et al

    Leja, J., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., et al. 2019b, ApJ, 877, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d5a

  73. [74]

    S., Ting, Y.-S., et al

    Leja, J., Speagle, J. S., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d 2022

  74. [75]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 339, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1051-1

    Li, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 339, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1051-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1051-1 2020

  75. [76]

    2018, ApJ, 853, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa600

    Liu, D., Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa600

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa600 2018

  76. [77]

    2011, A&A, 532, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117107

    Lutz, D., Poglitsch, A., Altieri, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 532, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117107

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117107 2011

  77. [78]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  78. [79]

    C., Galliano, F., Jones, A

    Madden, S. C., Galliano, F., Jones, A. P., & Sauvage, M. 2006, A&A, 446, 877, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053890

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053890 2006

  79. [80]

    E., Rigopoulou, D., Helou, G., et al

    Magdis, G. E., Rigopoulou, D., Helou, G., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322226

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322226 2013

  80. [81]

    2013, A&A, 553, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321371

    Magnelli, B., Popesso, P., Berta, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321371

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321371 2013

Showing first 80 references.