Research Blog
Welcome to my Research Blog.
This is mostly meant to document what I am working on for myself, and to communicate with my colleagues. It is likely filled with errors!
This project is maintained by ndrakos
I have assigned SEDs to all the galaxies, as outlined in my previous post.
In this post I am doing some checks to see if these SEDs are reasonable.
First, I simply plot the distribution of the different parameters used to calculate the SEDs. These parameters are age \(a\), star-formation time \(\tau\), the SFR \(\psi\), metallicity \(Z\), dust attenuation \(\bar{\tau}_V\) and gas ionization parameter \(U_S\).
These values make sense with what was imposed.
The SFRs were imposed from relations in Shreiber et al. 2017.
These look like they were assigned correctly
This was imposed (Eq 18 in W18).
This looks pretty good. It is a bit above the relation for high Z, I’m guessing because of the truncation I placed in the distribution (if I didn’t place a truncation, I would occasionlly end up with galaxies with incredibly unrealistic \(Z\) and/or \(U_S\) values).
Unlike W18 I did NOT impose these relations. Therefore I compare the recovered \(M\)–\(M_{\rm UV}\) and \(M_{\rm UV}\)–\(\beta\) relations (as calculated here) to those used in W18 (dotted lines). Note that this only includes SF galaxies.
The \(M\)–\(M_{\rm UV}\) looks fairly similar to the relation from W18 and has the proper dependance on redshift, though our objects seem to be slightly brighter, and the slopes slightly steeper.
The \(M_{\rm UV}\)–\(\beta\) relation does not behave as expected. While the \(\beta\) values look reasonable, the trend with \(M_{\rm UV}\) is backwards. I am hoping that this is a problem with how I am calculating \(\beta\)—I plan to double check this later.
I also got FSPS to return the magnitudes in the Johnson U and V bands (calculated from the SEDs). This is so I can plot the galaxies in a UVJ diagram, and check that the SF and Q classifications are consistent with the colours.
Taking galaxies with redshifts \(z<1\), this is what the UVJ diagram looks like
This doesn’t look great, but I think it is mostly because I didn’t take the restframe U,V and J values. When I restrict it to galaxies with \(z<0.2\) it is a bit better:
However, there do seem to be more quiescent galaxies in the lower left corner than expected.
I should actually get the restframe filters instead to check this.
This mostly looks reasonable, the only worrisome thing is the \(M_{\rm UV}\)–\(\beta\) relation. I need to try and make sense of this, and figure out how to make the results look more reasonable.
I also want to plot observational data on top of these trends. Other things I can check against data are the star formation rate density (e.g. Fig 18 in W18), and the sSFR (Fig 19 in W18).