Pacifici, Camilla; Iyer, Kartheik G.; Mobasher, Bahram; da Cunha, Elisabete; Acquaviva, Viviana; Burgarella, Denis; Calistro Rivera, Gabriela; Carnall, Adam C.; Chang, Yu-Yen; Chartab, Nima; Cooke, Kevin C.; Fairhurst, Ciaran; Kartaltepe, Jeyhan; Leja, Joel; Małek, Katarzyna; Salmon, Brett; Torelli, Marianna; Vidal-García, Alba; Boquien, Médéric; Brammer, Gabriel G.; Brown, Michael J. I.; Capak, Peter L.; Chevallard, Jacopo; Circosta, Chiara; Croton, Darren; Davidzon, Iary; Dickinson, Mark; Duncan, Kenneth J.; Faber, Sandra M.; Ferguson, Harry C.; Fontana, Adriano; Guo, Yicheng; Haeussler, Boris; Hemmati, Shoubaneh; Jafariyazani, Marziye; Kassin, Susan A.; Larson, Rebecca L.; Lee, Bomee; Mantha, Kameswara Bharadwaj; Marchi, Francesca; Nayyeri, Hooshang; Newman, Jeffrey A.; Pandya, Viraj; Pforr, Janine; Reddy, Naveen; Sanders, Ryan; Shah, Ekta; Shahidi, Abtin; Stevans, Matthew L.; Triani, Dian Puspita
The Astrophysics Jurnal, 2023, 944:141 , 2023
We present a comprehensive analysis of different SED-fitting codes, including their methods and output, with the aim of measuring the uncertainties caused by the modelling assumptions. We apply 14 of the most commonly used SED-fitting codes on samples from the CANDELS photometric catalogues at z ~ 1 and z ~ 3. We find agreement on the stellar mass, while we observe some discrepancies in the star formation rate (SFR) and dust-attenuation results. To explore the differences and biases among the codes, we explore the impact of the various modelling assumptions set in the codes on the derived stellar masses, SFRs, and A V values. We then assess the difference among the codes on the SFR-stellar mass relation, and we measure the contribution to the uncertainties by the modelling choices in stellar mass (~0.1 dex), SFR (~0.3 dex), and dust attenuation (~0.3 mag). Finally, we present some resources summarizing best practices in SED fitting.