MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295242329 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac887d

A New Census of the 0.2 < z < 3.0 Universe. II. The Star-forming Sequence

2022· article· en· W4295242329 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Leja, Joshua S. Speagle, Yuan-Sen Ting, Benjamin D. Johnson, Charlie Conroy, Katherine E. Whitaker, Erica J. Nelson, Pieter van Dokkum, Marijn Franx

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyStar formationMetallicityRedshiftStellar populationSpectral energy distributionFlatteningGalaxy formation and evolutionPopulationAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We use the panchromatic spectral energy distribution (SED)-fitting code Prospector to measure the galaxy log M *–logSFR relationship (the star-forming sequence ) across 0.2 &lt; z &lt; 3.0 using the COSMOS-2015 and 3D-HST UV-IR photometric catalogs. We demonstrate that the chosen method of identifying star-forming galaxies introduces a systematic uncertainty in the inferred normalization and width of the star-forming sequence, peaking for massive galaxies at ∼0.5 and ∼0.2 dex, respectively. To avoid this systematic, we instead parameterize the density of the full galaxy population in the log M *–logSFR–redshift plane using a flexible neural network known as a normalizing flow. The resulting star-forming sequence has a low-mass slope near unity and a much flatter slope at higher masses, with a normalization 0.2–0.5 dex lower than typical inferences in the literature. We show this difference is due to the sophistication of the Prospector stellar populations modeling: the nonparametric star formation histories naturally produce higher masses while the combination of individualized metallicity, dust, and star formation history constraints produce lower star formation rates (SFRs) than typical UV+IR formulae. We introduce a simple formalism to understand the difference between SFRs inferred from SED fitting and standard template-based approaches such as UV+IR SFRs. Finally, we demonstrate the inferred star-forming sequence is consistent with predictions from theoretical models of galaxy formation, resolving a long-standing ∼ 0.2–0.5 dex offset with observations at 0.5 &lt; z &lt; 3. The fully trained normalizing flow including a nonparametric description of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mi>log</mml:mi> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>M</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>*</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>logSFR</mml:mi> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:mi>z</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:math> is available online 20 20 https://github.com/jrleja/sfs_leja_trained_flow to facilitate straightforward comparisons with future work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations134
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207