J/ApJ/801/97 GOODS-S & UDS stellar mass catalogs from CANDELS (Santini+, 2015) ================================================================================ Stellar masses from the CANDELS survey: the GOODS-South and UDS fields. Santini P., Ferguson H.C., Fontana A., Mobasher B., Barro G., Castellano M., Finkelstein S.L., Grazian A., Hsu L.T., Lee B., Lee S.-K., Pforr J., Salvato M., Wiklind T., Wuyts S., Almaini O., Cooper M.C., Galametz A., Weiner B., Amorin R., Boutsia K., Conselice C.J., Dahlen T., Dickinson M.E., Giavalisco M., Grogin N.A., Guo Y., Hathi N.P., Kocevski D., Koekemoer A.M., Kurczynski P., Merlin E., Mortlock A., Newman J.A., Paris D., Pentericci L., Simons R., Willner S.P. =2015ApJ...801...97S ================================================================================ ADC_Keywords: Galaxy catalogs ; Redshifts ; Stars, masses ; Stars, ages ; Surveys ; Spectroscopy Keywords: catalogs; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: high-redshift; galaxies: stellar content; surveys Abstract: We present the public release of the stellar mass catalogs for the GOODS-S and UDS fields obtained using some of the deepest near-IR images available, achieved as part of the Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey project. We combine the effort from 10 different teams, who computed the stellar masses using the same photometry and the same redshifts. Each team adopted their preferred fitting code, assumptions, priors, and parameter grid. The combination of results using the same underlying stellar isochrones reduces the systematics associated with the fitting code and other choices. Thanks to the availability of different estimates, we can test the effect of some specific parameters and assumptions on the stellar mass estimate. The choice of the stellar isochrone library turns out to have the largest effect on the galaxy stellar mass estimates, resulting in the largest distributions around the median value (with a semi interquartile range larger than 0.1dex). On the other hand, for most galaxies, the stellar mass estimates are relatively insensitive to the different parameterizations of the star formation history. The inclusion of nebular emission in the model spectra does not have a significant impact for the majority of galaxies (less than a factor of 2 for ~80% of the sample). Nevertheless, the stellar mass for the subsample of young galaxies (age <100Myr), especially in particular redshift ranges (e.g., 2.2 in Simbad). Note (2): Quality code as follows: -1 = star; 3 or 4 = secure redshift; 1 or 2 = unknown. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Byte-by-byte Description of file: table4[ab].dat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bytes Format Units Label Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 5 I5 --- Seq [1/35932] Designation (G1) 7- 16 F10.7 deg RAdeg Right ascension in decimal degrees (J2000) 18- 28 F11.7 deg DEdeg Declination in decimal degrees (J2000) 30- 34 F5.2 mag Hmag [12.7/32.1]?=99 Observed magnitude in WFC3 F160W filter 36- 42 F7.2 --- SNR [0/9999] H-band Signal-to-noise ratio (1) 44- 45 I2 --- qph [0/18] Photometry flag; 0=ok, >0=bad photometry 47- 47 I1 --- Star [0/1] Spectroscopic star (1=spec. star) 49- 52 F4.2 --- S/G [0/1] SExtractor stellarity index on F160W band (1=star) 54- 54 I1 --- AGN [0/1] Xray AGN from Xue et al. 2011; J/ApJS/195/10 56- 62 F7.4 --- zbest [0/9.92] Redshift (2) 64- 71 F8.4 --- zsp [0/6.7]?=-99 Spectroscopic redshift 73- 75 I3 --- q_zsp [1/4]?=-99 Quality of spectroscopic redshift; 1=good, 2=intermediate, 3=uncertain 77- 79 A3 --- r_zsp Reference spectroscopic survey (see refs.dat file) 81- 85 F5.3 --- zph [0.009/9.92] Photometric redshift (3) 87- 92 F6.2 --- b_zph ?=-99 Lower zph 68% confidence limit 94- 99 F6.2 --- B_zph ?=-99 Upper zph 68% confidence limit 101-106 F6.2 --- b_zph2 ?=-99 Lower zph 95% confidence limit 108-113 F6.2 --- B_zph2 ?=-99 Upper zph 95% confidence limit 115-121 F7.3 --- zAGN ? Photometric redshift for AGNs from Hsu et al 2014ApJ...796...60H; where ?=-99 for non AGN sources (only for table4a.dat) 123-131 E9.3 Msun M ?=-99 CANDELS reference median stellar mass M_med_ (4) 133-141 E9.3 Msun e_M ?=-99 Standard deviation on M_med_ (5) 143-151 E9.3 Msun Mneb ?=-99 Median stellar mass including nebular component M^neb^ (6) 153-161 E9.3 Msun e_Mneb ?=-99 Standard deviation on M^neb^ (5) 163-169 F7.3 --- dMz ?=-99 Relative uncertainty due to model degeneracy and zphot scatter (7) 171-176 F6.2 [Msun] M2at ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 2a_{tau}_ (8) 178-183 F6.2 [Msun] M2dt ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 2d_{tau}_ (8) 185-190 F6.2 [Msun] M6at ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 6a_{tau}_ (8) 192-197 F6.2 [Msun] M10c ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 10c (8) 199-204 F6.2 [Msun] M11at ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 11a_{tau}_ (8) 206-211 F6.2 [Msun] M12a ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 12a (8) 213-218 F6.2 [Msun] M13at ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 13a_{tau}_ (8) 220-225 F6.2 [Msun] M14a ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 14a (8) 227-232 F6.2 [Msun] M15a ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 15a (8) 234-239 F6.2 [Msun] M6atNEB ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (8) 241-246 F6.2 [Msun] M6adt ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (8) 248-253 F6.2 [Msun] M6ainvt ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 6a_inv{tau}_(8) 255-260 F6.2 [Msun] M10cdust ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 10c^dust^ (8) 262-267 F6.2 [Msun] M12at ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 12a_{tau}_ (8) 269-274 F6.2 [Msun] M14acst ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 14a_const_ (9) 276-281 F6.2 [Msun] M14alin ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 14a_lin_ (9) 283-288 F6.2 [Msun] M14adt ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 14a_del{tau}_(9) 290-295 F6.2 [Msun] M14at ?=-99 Stellar mass from Method 14a_{tau}_ (9) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note (1): The signal-to-noise ratio is calculated as flux/flux_error in the F160W band. Note (2): Best redshift estimate available: zbest = zsp if good quality spectroscopic redshift is available; zbest = zAGN if good quality spectroscopic redshift is unavailable and source is identified as X-ray AGN; zbest = zph if good quality spectroscopic redshift is unavailable and source is not identified as X-ray AGN. Note (3): Official CANDELS GOODS-S/UDS photometric redshift catalog (Dahlen et al., in prep.): photometric redshifts are based on a hierarchical Bayesian approach that combines the full P(z) distributions derived by six CANDELS photo-z investigators (Dahlen, Fontana, Gruetzbauch, Salvato, Wiklind, and Wuyts); 68% and 95% confidence intervals are calculated from the final P(z) distribution. The distributions are "normalized" so that the 68% interval correctly recovers 68% of the spectroscopic control sample within the interval. Note (4): The median is calculated by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator in the linear space considering only estimates with the same assumptions for IMF (Chabrier) and stellar templates (Bruzual & Charlot 2003MNRAS.344.1000B) (total of 7 estimates): Methods 2a_{tau}_, 6a_{tau}_, 11a_{tau}_, 12a, 13a_{tau}_, 14a, 15a (see below for more details - see also Santini et al. 2014A&A...562A..30S). Note (5): The standard deviation is calculated in the linear space. Note (6): The median is calculated by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator in the linear space considering only estimates with the same assumptions for IMF (Chabrier) and stellar templates (Bruzual & Charlot 2003MNRAS.344.1000B) and including the nebular component (total of 3 estimates): Methods 6a_{tau}_^NEB^, 11a_{tau}_, 14a (see below for more details - see also Santini et al. 2014A&A...562A..30S). Note (7): Relative uncertainty (=stdev/Mass) that accounts for model degeneracy and uncertainties in photometric redshifts (or only for model degeneracy for spectroscopic sources). Mass and standard deviation are calculated with Method 6a_{tau} by means of a Monte Carlo simulation: masses were extracted 10000 times according to the probability distribution function P(z,M) (see Santini et al. 2014A&A...562A..30S). Note (8): See Santini et al. 2014A&A...562A..30S for details on the fitting methods. Note (9): See Santini et al. 2014A&A...562A..30S for details on Method 14a: 14a_const: constant SFH; 14a_lin: linearly increasing SFH; 14a_del{tau}: delayed {tau} model SFH; 14a_{tau}: {tau} model (i.e. exponentially decreasing) SFH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Byte-by-byte Description of file: table5[ab].dat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bytes Format Units Label Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 5 I5 --- Seq [1/35932] Designation (G1) 7- 11 F5.1 [yr] age2at ?=-99 Age from Method 2a_{tau}_ (2) 13- 19 F7.3 Gyr tau2at ?=-99 {tau} from Method 2a_{tau}_ (2) 21- 25 F5.1 mag Av2at ?=-99 Av from Method 2a_{tau}_ (2) 27- 36 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR2at ?=-99 SFR from Method 2a_{tau}_ (2) 38- 46 E9.3 --- X2.2at ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 2a_{tau}_ (2) 48- 54 F7.3 [yr] age2dt ?=-99 Age from Method 2d_{tau}_ (2) 56- 62 F7.3 Gyr tau2dt ?=-99 {tau} from Method 2d_{tau}_ (2) 64- 68 F5.1 mag Av2dt ?=-99 A_v_ from Method 2d_{tau}_ (2) 70- 76 F7.3 Sun met2dt ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 2d_{tau}_ (2) 78- 83 F6.2 [yr] age4b ? Age from Method 4b (table5b only) (2) 85- 90 F6.2 mag EBV4b ? E(B-V) from Method 4b (table5b only) (2) 92- 97 F6.2 [Msun] Ml6at ?=-99 Lower stellar mass 68% confidence limit from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 99- 104 F6.2 [Msun] Mu6at ?=-99 Upper stellar mass 68% confidence limit from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 106- 111 F6.2 [yr] age6at ?=-99 Age from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 113- 117 F5.1 Gyr tau6at ?=-99 {tau} from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 119- 124 F6.2 mag EBV6at ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 126- 135 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR6at ?=-99 SFR from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 137- 142 F6.2 Sun met6at ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 144- 146 I3 --- el6at [1/2]?=-99 Extinction law from Method 6a_{tau}_; 1: Calzetti et al. 2000ApJ...533..682C; 2: SMC (2) 148- 156 E9.3 --- X2.6at ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 158- 166 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L1.6at ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 140nm L_{nu}_(140nm) from Method 6a_{tau}_; erg/s/Hz (2) 168- 176 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L2.6at ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 270nm L_{nu}_(270nm) from Method 6a_{tau}_; erg/s/Hz (2) 178- 183 F6.2 mag UM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in U band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 185- 190 F6.2 mag BM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in B band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 192- 197 F6.2 mag VM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in V band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 199- 204 F6.2 mag RM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in R band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 206- 211 F6.2 mag IM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in I band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 213- 218 F6.2 mag JM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in J band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 220- 225 F6.2 mag KM6at ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in K band from Method 6a_{tau}_ (2) 227- 233 F7.3 [yr] age10c ?=-99 Age from Method 10c (2) 235- 237 I3 --- SFH10c ?=-99 Star formation history from Method 10c (2)(3) 239- 243 F5.1 Gyr tau10c ?=-99 {tau} from Method 10c (2) 245- 249 F5.1 Sun met10c ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 10c (2) 251- 256 F6.2 [Msun] Ml11at ?=-99 Lower stellar mass 99% confidence limit from Method 11a_{tau}_ (2) 258- 263 F6.2 [Msun] Mu11at ?=-99 Upper stellar mass 99% confidence limit from Method 11a_{tau}_ (2) 265- 271 F7.3 [yr] age11at ?=-99 Age from Method 11a_{tau}_ (2) 273- 282 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR11at ?=-99 SFR from Method 11a_{tau}_ (2) 284- 289 F6.2 [Msun] Ml12a ?=-99 Lower stellar mass 68% confidence limit from Method 12a (2) 291- 296 F6.2 [Msun] Mu12a ?=-99 Upper stellar mass 68% confidence limit from Method 12a (2) 298- 303 F6.2 [Msun] M2l12a ?=-99 Lower stellar mass 95% confidence limit from Method 12a (2) 305- 310 F6.2 [Msun] M2u12a ?=-99 Upper stellar mass 95% confidence limit from Method 12a (2) 312- 318 F7.3 [yr] age12a ?=-99 Age from Method 12a (2) 320- 324 F5.1 Gyr tau12a ?=-99 {tau} from Method 12a (2) 326- 332 F7.3 mag EBV12a ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 12a (2) 334- 338 F5.1 Sun met12a ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 12a (2) 340- 345 F6.2 [Lsun] Lb12a ?=-99 Stellar bolometric luminosity corrected for dust extinction from Method 12a (2)(4) 347- 355 E9.3 --- X2.12a ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 12a (2) 357- 361 F5.1 [yr] age13at ?=-99 Age from Method 13a_{tau}_ (2) 363- 369 F7.3 Gyr tau13at ?=-99 {tau} from Method 13a_{tau}_ (2) 371- 375 F5.1 mag Av13at ?=-99 Av from Method 13a_{tau}_ (2) 377- 386 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR13at ?=-99 SFR from Method 13a_{tau}_ (2) 388- 396 E9.3 --- X2.13at ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 13a_{tau}_(2) 398- 404 F7.3 [yr] age14a ?=-99 Age from Method 14a (2) 406- 408 I3 --- SFH14a ?=-99 Star formation history from Method 14a (2)(5) 410- 416 F7.3 Gyr tau14a ?=-99 {tau} from Method 14a (2) 418- 424 F7.3 mag EBV14a ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 14a (2) 426- 435 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR14a ?=-99 SFR from Method 14a (2)(5) 437- 439 I3 --- q14a [1/3]?=-99 Quality of the fit from Method 14a; 1:best; 2:good; others:bad (2) 441- 447 F7.3 [yr] age15a ? Age from Method 15a (table5a only) (2) 449- 453 F5.1 Gyr tau15a ? {tau} from Method 15a (table5a only) (2) 455- 461 F7.3 mag EBV15a ? E(B-V) from Method 15a (table5a only) (2) 463- 467 F5.1 Sun met15a ? Gas metallicity from Method 15a (table5a only) (2) 469- 474 F6.2 [yr] age6atNEB ?=-99 Age from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 476- 480 F5.1 Gyr tau6atNEB ?=-99 {tau} from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 482- 487 F6.2 mag EBV6atNEB ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 489- 498 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR6atNEB ?=-99 SFR from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 500- 505 F6.2 Sun met6atNEB ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 507- 509 I3 --- el6atNEB [1/2]?=-99 Extinction law from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^; 1: Calzetti et al. 2000ApJ...533..682C; 2: SMC (2) 511- 519 E9.3 --- X2.6atNEB ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 521- 529 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L1.6atNEB ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 140nm L_{nu}_(140nm) from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^; erg/s/Hz (2) 531- 539 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L2.6atNEB ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 270nm L_{nu}_(270nm) from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^; erg/s/Hz (2) 541- 546 F6.2 mag UM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in U band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 548- 553 F6.2 mag BM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in B band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 555- 560 F6.2 mag VM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in V band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 562- 567 F6.2 mag RM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in R band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 569- 574 F6.2 mag IM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in I band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 576- 581 F6.2 mag JM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in J band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 583- 588 F6.2 mag KM6atNEB ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in K band from Method 6a_{tau}_^NEB^ (2) 590- 595 F6.2 [yr] age-6adt ?=-99 Age from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 597- 601 F5.1 Gyr tau-6adt ?=-99 {tau} from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 603- 608 F6.2 mag EBV-6adt ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 610- 619 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR-6adt ?=-99 SFR from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 621- 626 F6.2 Sun met-6adt ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 628- 630 I3 --- el6ad ?=-99 Extinction law from Method 6a_del{tau}_; 1: Calzetti et al. 2000ApJ...533..682C; 2: SMC (2) 632- 640 E9.3 --- X2.6adt ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 642- 650 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L1.6adt ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 140nm L_{nu}_(140nm) from Method 6a_del{tau}_; erg/s/Hz (2) 652- 660 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L2.6adt ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 270nm L_{nu}_(270nm) from Method 6a_del{tau}_; erg/s/Hz (2) 662- 667 F6.2 mag UM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in U band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 669- 674 F6.2 mag BM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in B band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 676- 681 F6.2 mag VM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in V band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 683- 688 F6.2 mag RM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in R band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 690- 695 F6.2 mag IM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in I band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 697- 702 F6.2 mag JM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in J band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 704- 709 F6.2 mag KM6adt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in K band from Method 6a_del{tau}_ (2) 711- 716 F6.2 [yr] age6ainvt ?=-99 Age from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 718- 722 F5.1 Gyr tau6ainvt ?=-99 {tau} from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 724- 731 F8.2 mag EBV6ainvt ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 733- 742 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR6ainvt ?=-99 SFR from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 744- 749 F6.2 Sun met6ainvt ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 751- 753 I3 --- el6ainvt [1/2]?=-99 Extinction law from Method 6a_inv{tau}_; 1: Calzetti et al. 2000ApJ...533..682C; 2: SMC (2) 755- 763 E9.3 --- X2.6ainvt ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 765- 773 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L1.6ainvt ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 140nm L_{nu}_(140nm) from Method 6a_inv{tau}_; erg/s/Hz (2) 775- 783 E9.3 10-7W/Hz L2.6ainvt ?=-99 Rest-frame luminosity at 270nm L_{nu}_(270nm) from Method 6a_inv{tau}_; erg/s/Hz (2) 785- 790 F6.2 mag UM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in U band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 792- 797 F6.2 mag BM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in B band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 799- 804 F6.2 mag VM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in V band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 806- 811 F6.2 mag RM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in R band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 813- 818 F6.2 mag IM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in I band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 820- 825 F6.2 mag JM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in J band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 827- 832 F6.2 mag KM6ainvt ?=-99 AB rest-frame magnitude in K band from Method 6a_inv{tau}_ (2) 834- 840 F7.3 [yr] age10cdust ?=-99 Age from Method 10c^dust^ (2) 842- 844 I3 --- SFH10cdust ?=-99 Star formation history from Method 10c^dust^ (2)(3) 846- 850 F5.1 Gyr tau10cdust ?=-99 {tau} from Method 10c^dust^ (2) 852- 856 F5.1 Sun met10cdust ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 10c^dust^ (2) 858- 864 F7.3 [yr] age12at ?=-99 Age from Method 12a_{tau}_ (2) 866- 870 F5.1 Gyr tau12at ?=-99 {tau} from Method 12a_{tau}_ (2) 872- 878 F7.3 mag EBV12at ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 12a_{tau}_ (2) 880- 884 F5.1 Sun met12at ?=-99 Gas metallicity from Method 12a_{tau}_ (2) 886- 891 F6.2 [Lsun] Lb12at ?=-99 Stellar bolometric luminosity corrected for dust extinction from Method 12a (2)(4) 893- 901 E9.3 --- X2.12at ?=-99 Reduced chi2 from Method 12a_{tau}_(2) 903- 909 F7.3 [yr] age14acst ?=-99 Age from Method 14a_const_ (2) 911- 919 F9.3 mag EBV14acst ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 14a_const_ (2) 921- 930 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR14acst ?=-99 SFR from Method 14a_const_ (2) 932- 934 I3 --- q14acst [1/3]?=-99 Quality of the fit from Method 14a_const_; 1:best; 2:good; others:bad (2) 936- 942 F7.3 [yr] age14alin ?=-99 Age from Method 14a_lin_ (2) 944- 952 F9.3 mag EBV14alin ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 14a_lin_ (2) 954- 963 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR14alin ?=-99 SFR from Method 14a_lin_ (2) 965- 967 I3 --- q14alin [1/3]?=-99 Quality of the fit from Method 14a_lin_; 1:best; 2:good; others:bad (2) 969- 975 F7.3 [yr] age14adt ?=-99 Age from Method 14a_del{tau}_ (2) 977- 983 F7.3 Gyr tau14adt ?=-99 {tau} from Method 14a_del{tau}_ (2) 985- 993 F9.3 mag EBV14adt ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 14a_del{tau}_ (2) 995-1004 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR14adt ?=-99 SFR from Method 14a_del{tau}_ (2) 1006-1008 I3 --- q14adt [1/3]?=-99 Quality of the fit from Method 14a_del{tau}_; 1:best; 2:good; others:bad (2) 1010-1016 F7.3 [yr] age14at ?=-99 Age from Method 14a_{tau}_ (2) 1018-1024 F7.3 Gyr tau14at ?=-99 {tau} from Method 14a_{tau}_ (2) 1026-1033 F8.3 mag EBV14at ?=-99 E(B-V) from Method 14a_{tau}_ (2) 1035-1044 E10.4 Msun/yr SFR14at ?=-99 SFR from Method 14a_{tau}_ (2) 1046 I1 --- q14at [0/3] Quality of fit from Method 14a_{tau}; 1=best; 2=good; others=bad (2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note (2): See Santini et al. 2014A&A...562A..30S for details on the fitting methods. Note (3): 1 = Exponentially decreasing SFH; 2 = Constant SFH; 3 = Truncated SFH (constant for time {tau}, zero afterwards); 4 = no solution. Note (4): Stellar bolometric luminosity (91 Anstrom - 160 micron), corrected for dust extinction using the E(B-V) value derived in the SED fit. The contribution from wavelengths shorter than the Lyman break and longer than ~2-3 micron (rest frame) are essentially negligible. Note (5): 1 = Constant SFH; 2 = Linearly increasing SFH; 3 = Delayed {tau} SFH; 4 = Exponentially decreasing SFH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Byte-by-byte Description of file: fig12.dat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bytes Format Units Label Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 A1 --- F Filter (UBVRI or JK) 3- 14 F12.6 0.1nm lambda [2000/30000] Wavelength; Angstroms 16- 24 F9.6 --- Trans [0/1] Normalized transmission value -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Byte-by-byte Description of file: refs.dat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bytes Format Units Label Explanations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1- 3 A3 --- Ref Reference code 5 A1 --- f_Ref Flag on Ref (1) 7- 25 A19 --- BibCode Bibcode of the main reference 27- 55 A29 --- Aut Author's name(s) of the main reference 57-236 A180 --- Comm Comment (2) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note (1): Flag as follows: s = Following references from X-ray catalog (Silverman+ 2010, J/ApJS/191/124, Note (G2) of table 4) g = Following references from GOODS-MUSIC catalog (Grazian+ 2006, J/A+A/449/951, Note (2) of table 5) f = Following references from FIREWORKS catalog (Wuyts+ 2008, J/ApJ/682/985, Note (2) of redshift.dat) Note (2): This column contains also source types and multi references for table4b.dat. OPEG=Old Passively Evolving Galaxy; see Galametz et al. 2013, J/ApJS/206/10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global notes: Note (G1): Same designation as the official CANDELS GOODS-S photometric catalog (Guo et al. 2013, J/ApJS/207/24) for table5a or as the official CANDELS UDS photometric catalog (Galametz et al. 2013, J/ApJS/206/10) for table5b. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- History: From electronic version of the journal ================================================================================ (End) Greg Schwarz [AAS], Emmanuelle Perret [CDS] 16-Jul-2015