2007
DOI: 10.1086/512974
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic Uncertainties in Stellar Mass Estimation for Distinct Galaxy Populations

Abstract: We show that different stellar mass estimation methods yield overall mass scales that disagree by factors up to ∼2 for the galaxy population and, more importantly, relative mass scales that sometimes disagree by z p 0 factors տ3 between distinct classes of galaxies (spiral/irregular types, classical E/S0s, and E/S0s whose colors reflect recent star formation). This comparison considers stellar mass estimates based on (1) two different calibrations of the correlation between K-band mass-to-light ratio and color… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

9
104
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(114 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
(31 reference statements)
9
104
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The major cause of this discrepancy is the different treatments of the Thermally Pulsing Asymptotic Giant Branch (TP-AGB) phase of stellar evolution in the population models, as debated by several authors (e.g., Maraston et al 2006;Kannappan & Gawiser 2007;Bruzual A 2007).…”
Section: Comparison Between the Bc03 Ma05 Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The major cause of this discrepancy is the different treatments of the Thermally Pulsing Asymptotic Giant Branch (TP-AGB) phase of stellar evolution in the population models, as debated by several authors (e.g., Maraston et al 2006;Kannappan & Gawiser 2007;Bruzual A 2007).…”
Section: Comparison Between the Bc03 Ma05 Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only recently has it become feasible to attempt an interpretation of the observed magnitudes of the relatively faint galaxy populations at z 3-6 in terms of stellar masses, ages, dust, and SFHs based on detailed fitting of SEDs using model libraries (see references given in Section 1 and therein). While there is ongoing debate about the correctness of the treatment of different stellar evolutionary phases in the model libraries (e.g., Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange 1997;Bruzual & Charlot 2003;Maraston et al 2006;Rettura et al 2006;Kannappan & Gawiser 2007;Eminian et al 2008), they at least allow for an assessment of the comparative properties among samples across redshift or across the CMD, provided that these samples are sufficiently "simple" to model and that the adopting of a faulty model does not lead to catastrophic systematic effects across the various samples. At the least, this requires highly accurate photometry in all of the rest-UV, optical, and infrared, and such studies have therefore been limited to a small set of well-studied fields.…”
Section: Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%
“…At its simplest, this can be done assuming thata galaxy has a single stellar population (SSP) and using a single photometric bandpass. More sophisticated approaches use multiple photometric bands and/or spectra in order to attempt to fit more realistic star formation histories (SFHs) and to estimate dust obscuration, and thereby to decompose the integrated light into the constituent components emitted by each stellar population separately (see, e.g., Bell et al 2003;Kannappan & Gawiser 2007;da Cunha et al 2008;Zibetti et al 2009;Magris et al 2015;McDermid et al 2015 for various implementations and Mitchell et al 2013 for a detailed examination of the systematic uncertainties present in this approach). In effect, this results in the fitting of multiple M/Ls to each galaxy's stellar make-up.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%