UVCANDELS: Catalogs of Photometric Redshifts and Galaxy Physical Properties
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract The UltraViolet imaging of the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey Fields (UVCANDELS) program provides deep Hubble Space Telescope (HST) F275W and F435W imaging over four CANDELS fields (GOODS-N, GOODS-S, COSMOS, and Extended Groth Strip). We combine this newly acquired UV imaging with existing HST imaging from CANDELS as well as existing ancillary data to obtain robust photometric redshifts and reliable estimates for galaxy physical properties for over 150,000 galaxies in the ∼430 arcmin2 UVCANDELS area. Here, we leverage the power of the new UV photometry to not only improve the photometric redshift measurements in these fields, but also constrain the full redshift probability distribution combining multiple redshift-fitting tools. Furthermore, using the full UV-to-IR photometric data set, we measure the galaxy physical properties by fitting templates from population synthesis models with two different parameterizations (flexible and fixed form) of the star formation histories (SFHs). Compared to the flexible SFH parameterization, we find that the fixed-form SFHs systematically underestimate the galaxy stellar masses, both at the low-mass (≲109 M ⊙) and high-mass (≳1010 M ⊙) end, by as much as ∼0.5 dex. This underestimation is primarily due the limited ability of fixed-form SFH parameterization to simultaneously capture the chaotic nature of star formation in these galaxies.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- UVCANDELS: Catalogs of Photometric Redshifts and Galaxy Physical Properties
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2024
- Éditeur
- American Astronomical Society
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.