On the uncertainties of stellar mass estimates via colour measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass-to-light versus colour relations (MLCRs), derived from stellar population synthesis models, are widely used to estimate galaxy stellar masses (M*), yet a detailed investigation of their inherent biases and limitations is still lacking. We quantify several potential sources of uncertainty, using optical and near-infrared (NIR) photometry for a representative sample of nearby galaxies from the Virgo cluster. Our method for combining multiband photometry with MLCRs yields robust stellar masses, while errors in M* decrease as more bands are simultaneously considered. The prior assumptions in one's stellar population modelling dominate the error budget, creating a colour-dependent bias of up to 0.6 dex if NIR fluxes are used (0.3 dex otherwise). This matches the systematic errors associated with the method of spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting, indicating that MLCRs do not suffer from much additional bias. Moreover, MLCRs and SED fitting yield similar degrees of random error (∼0.1–0.14 dex) when applied to mock galaxies and, on average, equivalent masses for real galaxies with M* ∼ 108–11 M⊙. The use of integrated photometry introduces additional uncertainty in M* measurements, at the level of 0.05–0.07 dex. We argue that using MLCRs, instead of time-consuming SED fits, is justified in cases with complex model parameter spaces (involving, for instance, multiparameter star formation histories) and/or for large data sets. Spatially resolved methods for measuring M* should be applied for small sample sizes and/or when accuracies less than 0.1 dex are required. An appendix provides our MLCR transformations for 10 colour permutations of the grizH filter set.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".