Issue |
A&A
Volume 507, Number 3, December I 2009
|
|
---|---|---|
Page(s) | 1793 - 1813 | |
Section | Numerical methods and codes | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200912497 | |
Published online | 24 September 2009 |
A&A 507, 1793-1813 (2009)
Analysis of galaxy spectral energy distributions from far-UV to far-IR with CIGALE: studying a SINGS test sample
S. Noll1,2 - D. Burgarella2 - E. Giovannoli2 - V. Buat2 - D. Marcillac3 - J. C. Muñoz-Mateos4
1 - Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Universität
Innsbruck, Technikerstr. 25/8, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2 - Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille-Provence, 38 rue
Frédéric Joliot-Curie, 13388 Marseille Cedex 13, France
3 - Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale, Bât. 121, Université
Paris XI, 91405 Orsay, France
4 - Departamento de Astrofísica y Ciencias de la Atmósfera,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Received 14 May 2009 / Accepted 22 August 2009
Abstract
Aims. Photometric data of galaxies covering the rest-frame
wavelength range from far-UV to far-IR make it possible to derive
galaxy properties with a high reliability by fitting the attenuated
stellar emission and the related dust emission at the same time.
Methods. For this purpose we wrote the code CIGALE (Code
Investigating GALaxy Emission) that uses model spectra composed of the
Maraston (or PEGASE) stellar population models, synthetic attenuation
functions based on a modified Calzetti law, spectral line templates,
the Dale & Helou dust emission models, and optional spectral
templates of obscured AGN. Depending on the input redshifts, filter
fluxes were computed for the model set and compared to the galaxy
photometry by carrying out a Bayesian-like analysis. CIGALE was tested
by analysing 39 nearby galaxies selected from SINGS. The
reliability of the different model parameters was evaluated by studying
the resulting expectation values and their standard deviations in
relation to the input model grid. Moreover, the influence of the filter
set and the quality of photometric data on the code results was
estimated.
Results. For up to 17 filters with effective wavelengths between 0.15 and 160 m,
we find robust results for the mass, star formation rate, effective age
of the stellar population at 4000 Å, bolometric luminosity,
luminosity absorbed by dust, and attenuation in the far-UV. Details of
the star formation history (excepting the burst fraction) and the shape
of the attenuation curve are difficult to investigate with the
available broad-band UV and optical photometric data. A study of
the mutual relations between the reliable properties confirms the
dependence of star formation activity on morphology in the local
Universe and indicates a significant drop in this activity at about
towards higher total stellar masses. The dustiest galaxies in the SINGS
sample are present in the same mass range. On the other hand, the
far-UV attenuation of our sample galaxies does not appear to show a
significant dependence on star formation activity.
Conclusions. The results for our SINGS test sample demonstrate
that CIGALE can be a valuable tool for studying basic properties of
galaxies in the near and distant Universe if UV-to-IR data are
available.
Key words: methods: data analysis - galaxies: fundamental parameters - galaxies: stellar content - galaxies: ISM - ultraviolet: galaxies - infrared: galaxies
1 Introduction
Apart from dark matter, galaxies consist of stars, gas, and dust. Stars produce the radiation that allows us to observe galaxies in a wide wavelength range. Interstellar gas mainly modifies the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of galaxies by additional line emission or absorption. Finally, interstellar dust affects galaxy SEDs by extinction, i.e. absorption and scattering of stellar radiation, especially in the UV and optical and re-emission of the absorbed energy in the IR. The dust-induced energy conversion makes it difficult to study basic properties related to the stellar populations like the star formation rate (SFR), since a good knowledge of the galaxy SEDs over a wide wavelength range is necessary to evaluate the effect of dust.
![]() |
Figure 1: Flow chart of CIGALE. The different programme modules and the corresponding parameter and template inputs are shown from the left to the right. The alternative (and less preferred) use of the PEGASE models is marked by a dashed arrow. The other dashed arrows refer to the option to take either IR photometry directly (consideration of Dale & Helou and possibly Siebenmorgen et al. models) or externally estimated IR luminosities for considering the IR regime. The presented flow chart assumes that the object redshifts are taken from the photometric input catalogue. |
Open with DEXTER |
In the past, the availability of IR galaxy data (IRAS and ISO) was mainly restricted to the nearby Universe. Hence, most low-to-high-redshift galaxies could be observed in the rest-frame UV to near-IR only. Since the total amount of dust emission in the IR could not be used to determine the amount of attenuation of the stellar continuum in the observed wavelength ranges, in particular, studies of broad-band SEDs suffered from difficulties to disentangle age, metallicity, and dust effects. The lack of information made it necessary to assume a typical shape of the attenuation law (Calzetti et al. 1994, 2000) and to apply simple recipes in the UV or optical to estimate the amount of attenuation. Possible variations in the galaxy dust properties could not be considered in this way, which caused high uncertainties in parameters such as the SFR. However, in view of many high-quality IR data collected by Spitzer, it is now possible to study SEDs of large galaxy samples up to high redshifts in a wide wavelength range, which allows us to better understand dust effects.
In face of the complex SEDs of galaxies consisting of emission from different stellar populations which is modified by interstellar gas and dust in a complicated way, it is clear that the derivation of galaxy properties needs a realistic modelling of galaxy SEDs. For the stellar populations those models were produced by, e.g., Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange (1997), Bruzual & Charlot (2003), and Maraston (2005). Dust attenuation curves were either derived by studying the SEDs of nearby star-forming galaxies (Calzetti et al. 1994, 2000) or by more theoretical radiative transfer models (e.g., Witt & Gordon 2000). The emission of dust grains in the IR and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs; see Peeters et al. 2004, and references therein) in the mid-IR was described by templates of Chary & Elbaz (2001), Dale & Helou (2002), Lagache et al. (2003, 2004), and Siebenmorgen & Krügel (2007). Models that also include stellar emission and dust attenuation at shorter wavelengths were published by, e.g., Silva et al. (1998), Dopita et al. (2005), and da Cunha et al. (2008). The former also consider the evolution of dust properties dependent on the age of the stellar population. Sophisticated fitting codes of galaxy SEDs mainly focus on the derivation of redshifts and relatively robust galaxy properties like masses (e.g., Bolzonella et al. 2000; Feldmann et al. 2006; Walcher et al. 2008). Models for the IR are usually not included.
The above collection of publications on the modelling of galaxy SEDs shows that the comparison of data and models is an important tool for studying the physical properties of galaxies. However, details of the listed models like galaxy types, wavelength regimes, and characteristic parameters can differ a lot. On the other hand, the different astronomical questions and the available data sets require suitable models. Finally, optimised routines are necessary in order to derive the characteristic galaxy properties under investigation from the comparison of data and models.
Hence, we feel that an observer-friendly fitting code for star-forming galaxies at different (given) redshifts is still missing which especially provides star formation histories, dust attenuation properties, and masses and uses photometric data covering the rest-frame UV to IR to constrain these properties. In other words, we are interested in a code that calculates the effect of dust on galaxy SEDs in a consistent way in order to obtain properties (such as the SFR or the effective age of the stellar populations) which are important for understanding the evolution of galaxies. Based on a procedure described in Burgarella et al. (2005), we have developed a code that derives galaxy properties by means of a Bayesian-like analysis. In Sect. 2 we describe the models used and the fitting procedure. In Sect. 3 we test the code for nearby galaxies selected from the SINGS sample (Kennicutt et al. 2003) for which good photometric data from the UV to the IR are available. Finally, the resulting findings concerning the applicability and effectivity of the code are discussed in Sect. 4.
2 The code
Our programme package CIGALE (Code Investigating GALaxy Emission)
is characterised by a series of modules which are fed by spectra and
parameter files. A flow chart of the code is shown in Fig. 1.
The general idea is to build stellar population models first. Secondly,
the dust is considered by reddening the stellar SEDs and re-emitting
the absorbed energy in the IR. Dust emission in the IR due to
non-thermal sources can also be added. Interstellar lines are taken
into account as corrections of the dust-affected SEDs.
Redshift-dependent filter fluxes of the entire model set are, then,
calculated for a direct comparison to the input object data. Finally,
depending on the
for the best-fit models of a set of bins in the parameter space,
probability distributions as a function of the parameter value are
calculated and used to derive weighted galaxy properties. Before we
discuss this Bayesian-like analysis and the interpretation of its
results in more detail in Sects. 2.2 and 2.3, we start with a description of the models used in Sect. 2.1.
2.1 Models
For CIGALE we take models indicating the net emission from a galaxy in the wavelength range from far-UV to far-IR. This means stellar emission, absorption and emission by dust, and at least the strongest interstellar absorption and emission lines have to be considered.
2.1.1 Stars
Concerning the stellar SEDs we have decided to focus on the models of Maraston (2005), since they consider the thermally pulsating asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) stars
in a realistic way. These stars are bright intermediate-age stars
of 0.2 to 1-2 Gyr which mostly contribute from red optical to
near-IR wavelengths. Therefore, they are particular important for a
reliable stellar mass determination, but star-formation-related
parameters are also affected. The insufficient consideration of TP-AGB
stars in older but widespread models of Bruzual & Charlot (2003) and Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange (1997;
PEGASE) typically increases the mass by 0.2 dex for star-forming
galaxies with an important population of intermediate-age stars
(Maraston et al. 2006; Salimbeni et al. 2009). Therefore, CIGALE also allows PEGASE models to be used for backwards compatibility.
For the calculation of complex stellar populations (CSPs) we consider single stellar populations (SSPs) of Maraston (2005) and PEGASE of different metallicity Z and Salpeter (1955) or Kroupa (2001)
initial mass function (IMF). Masses based on the Salpeter IMF are
about 0.2 dex higher than for the Kroupa IMF. The galaxy mass
is normalised to 1
and comprises the total mass of the stars (active and dead) plus gas
that originates from stellar mass loss. This means that all
SSP models start with a stellar mass fraction of 100%. For a
Salpeter IMF the fraction reaches about 70% at the age of the
Universe. The total stellar mass is provided by the code. For obtaining
CSPs the SSPs of different ages are weighted and added according to the
star formation scenario chosen. We provide ``box models'' with constant
star formation over a limited period and ``
models''
with exponentially decreasing SFR, respectively. While for the former
scenario and ongoing star formation the instantaneous SFR at look-back
time t' = 0 is simply calculated by the galaxy mass divided by the age, i.e.
,
the SFR of the latter scenario results in
![]() |
(1) |
where


CIGALE allows two CSP models to be combined. Both model
components are, then, linked by their mass fraction. This scenario
makes it possible to consider bursts on top of an older passive or more
quiescent star-forming stellar population. Although this approach
allows galaxy SEDs to be fit quite well, it is clear that this scenario
can only be a rough representation of the real star formation history
(SFH) of a galaxy. On the other hand, the more complex
SFH scenarios are, the more SED fitting suffers from degeneracies.
In view of the uncertainties in the basic stellar population model
parameters, CIGALE also computes two effective parameters: the mass-weighted age
![]() |
(2) |
and the age

![[*]](/icons/foot_motif.png)
![]() |
Figure 2:
Relation between the age
|
Open with DEXTER |
2.1.2 Dust attenuation
The absorption and scattering of star light by dust is described by extinction curves. In the case of galaxies these laws are preferentially called attenuation curves because of the dust-induced re-scattering of radiation in direction towards the observer, which is negligible if only a single star without a circumstellar dust shell is taken into account (see Krügel 2009). For typical sightlines towards Milky Way stars the extinction curve is characterised by increasing extinction at shorter wavelengths, which causes a reddening of the spectra, and the so-called UV bump at about 2175 Å, which produces a broad absorption feature (e.g., Stecher 1969; Cardelli et al. 1989; Fitzpatrick & Massa 2007). For typical sightlines towards the Large and Small Magellanic Cloud (LMC and SMC) the extinction curves are steeper and the UV bumps are weaker than in the Milky Way (Gordon et al. 2003). The most extreme curve is found for the SMC, where the 2175 Å feature is almost vanished completely. A non-existing UV bump and a moderate far-UV rise characterises the effective, average attenuation curve of nearby starburst galaxies found by Calzetti et al. (1994, 2000). However, about 30% of the UV-luminous star-forming galaxies at 1 < z < 2.5 seem to exhibit a significant 2175 Å feature which can be as strong as those found in the LMC (Noll & Pierini 2005; Noll et al. 2007, 2009). Moreover, the typical width of the UV bump of these galaxies is only about 60% of those measured for characteristic Milky Way and LMC sightlines.
These observations show that a single attenuation curve as given by Calzetti et al. (2000) and often used in the literature is probably insufficient to describe star-forming galaxies, in particular, at higher redshifts. Hence, we apply a more complex ansatz to describe the attenuation in our model galaxies. Since the Calzetti law seems to provide reasonable amounts of attenuation in starburst galaxies at least as an average for large samples, we take this frequently used curve as basis. For wavelengths below 1200 Å, for which the Calzetti law is not defined, we linearly extrapolate by using the value and slope at 1200 Å. This approach, which resembles the method of Bolzonella et al. (2000), avoids extreme slopes at low wavelengths that are not supported by observations (Leitherer et al. 2002).
![]() |
Figure 3:
Illustration of synthetic attenuation laws differing in |
Open with DEXTER |
At first, the Calzetti law
(
)
is modified by adding a UV bump which is modelled by a Lorentzian-like ``Drude'' profile
![]() |
(3) |
where













![]() |
(4) |
The attenuation correction is applied to both possible stellar population components (see Sect. 2.1.1) individually by allowing for different AV. In practice, the visual attenuation of the young




In view of the complexity of the attenuation curves and the dependence
of the total attenuation on the SFH due to the introduction of
,
we characterise the effective obscuration of the stellar radiation by
two additional parameters that are derived from the final
model SEDs.
and AV are defined as the effective attenuation factors in magnitudes at 1500
100 Å and 5500
100 Å, respectively. Both parameters are complementary. While
probes the dust obscuration of the young stellar population only, AV also traces the attenuation of older and cooler stars. The latter parameter equals
if only one
model is used to describe the SFH of a galaxy.
2.1.3 Dust emission
Dust re-radiates energy predominantly absorbed in the UV and optical at
relatively long, mid-IR to sub-mm wavelengths. In the far-IR dust
emission is characterised by continuum radiation that originates from
dust grains in thermal equilibrium. The wavelength distribution of the
emission depends on grain temperature, i.e. longer wavelengths
indicate lower temperatures. In the mid-IR the continuum radiation of
star-forming galaxies is mainly caused by stochastically-heated very small grains (see, e.g., da Cunha et al. 2008,
and references therein). This emission is superimposed by prominent
broad emission features of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
molecules
(see Puget & Léger 1989; Sturm et al. 2000; Draine 2003; Peeters et al. 2004).
In contrast, mid-IR spectra dominated by hot dust continuum
emission and lacking significant PAH emission are usually related
to active galactic nuclei (AGN).
The IR properties of star-forming galaxies can be described by
physically motivated multi-parameter models (e.g., Dopita et al. 2005; Siebenmorgen & Krügel 2007; da Cunha et al. 2008). However, since the IR data of galaxies at higher redshifts are usually quite
sparse, we have decided to rely on semi-empirical, one-parameter models
(Chary & Elbaz 2001; Dale & Helou 2002; Lagache et al. 2003, 2004). For CIGALE we take the 64 templates of Dale & Helou (2002), which are parametrised by the power law slope of the dust mass distribution over heating intensity .
For higher
the contribution of relatively quiescent galactic regions characterised
by weak radiation fields becomes more important and the dust emission
peaks at longer wavelengths (see Dale et al. 2001). The PAH emission pattern of the Dale & Helou (2002)
models shows only little variation. This agrees with the observations
as long as the IR emission is not significantly affected by an AGN
(e.g., Peeters et al. 2004). As for the Chary & Elbaz (2001) and Lagache et al. (2003) models, a characteristic IR luminosity
can be assigned to each Dale & Helou (2002)
template. Those calibrations for luminosity-dependent IR SEDs of
the Dale & Helou models are available from Chapman et al. (2003) and Marcillac et al. (2006). Since individual galaxies can significantly differ from these relations for sample averages, we do not directly use them for CIGALE. However, they can be taken to adapt the
parameter space for the kind of objects investigated.
The semi-empirical Dale & Helou templates include stellar emission in the near-IR range and below (see Dale et al. 2001).
In order to combine them with stellar population models the stellar
contribution needs to be subtracted. Therefore, we scaled
a 5 Gyr-old passively-evolving Maraston model to the flux at
2.5-3 m in the different Dale & Helou models to remove the stellar emission. For wavelengths below 2.5
m we set the flux in the IR models to zero, in any case. The flux reduction drops below 50% at about 5
m.
The choice of the stellar population model is not critical, since the
slope of the stellar continuum at these long wavelengths shows only
little variation for different SFHs.
The IR templates are linked to the attenuated stellar population models by the dust luminosity
,
i.e. the luminosity ``absorbed'' by the dust and re-emitted in
the IR. Hence, the scaling of the Dale & Helou templates is
not a free parameter. The change of the luminosity transfer with
increasing AV for a fixed attenuation law is illustrated in Fig. 4. On the other hand, Fig. 5 demonstrates for fixed
the change in the shape of the IR SED if the only IR-specific parameter
is modified.
The equality between the dust-absorbed and dust-emitted luminosity can be violated by dust emission caused by a non-thermal source. In particular, highly dust-enshrouded AGN represent a problem, since they are difficult to identify in the UV and optical. Consequently, galaxies with such an AGN contribution look like normal star-forming galaxies in the far-UV-to-far-IR wavelength range excepting a warm/hot dust emission in the IR. Therefore, we allow for an additional IR dust emission component which is not balanced by dust absorption of stellar emission at shorter wavelengths.
Siebenmorgen et al. (2004a,b)
provide almost 1500 AGN models differing in the luminosity of the
non-thermal source, the outer radius of a spherical dust cloud covering
the AGN, and the amount of attenuation in the visual caused by the
cloud. In principle, all models can be fed into CIGALE.
Focusing on SEDs providing PAH-free mid-IR emission, the number of
suitable models significantly decreases, however. As reference
model we take
,
R = 125 pc, and AV = 32 mag.
Using this or similar models allows us to disentangle IR dust
emission components caused by stellar and AGN radiation,
respectively, since the AGN-related component peaks at significantly
shorter wavelengths than the stellar one. Admittedly, the real SEDs of
obscured AGN could significantly deviate from our preferred model.
However, this is almost impossible to test with broad-band photometric
data only.
![]() |
Figure 4:
Illustration of a set of complete models differing in AV (see
legend). The higher AV is, the lower the flux in the UV and the higher the flux in the IR is. All models are characterised by solar metallicity, |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 5:
Illustration of a set of complete models differing in |
Open with DEXTER |
2.1.4 Gas
Strong spectral lines or blends can easily change filter-averaged
fluxes by 10% or more. Therefore, spectral features need to be
considered to avoid systematic deviations in the spectra. The crucial
features are nebular emission lines of, e.g., H I, [O II],
and [O III] in the optical and interstellar absorption lines of
different ions in the UV. The UV is also affected by stellar wind lines
like C IV and nebular emission, i.e. essentially the
strongly-varying Ly line. The narrow nebular emission lines in the IR are not explicitly considered, since we assume that they
already contribute to the low-resolution semi-empirical templates of Dale & Helou (2002).
The spectral line correction is performed by using empirical line templates. We have taken the Kinney et al. (1996)
starburst spectra to derive two optical emission line templates mainly
differing in the strength of the oxygen lines. For the UV we have
derived two line templates from composites of high-redshift galaxies of
Noll et al. (2004), since their UV spectra have a better quality than those of Kinney et al. (1996).
The UV line templates include all lines between Lyman limit and
3000 Å excepting those which are already present in the stellar
population models. The selection of the optical and UV templates
depends on the flux ratio of the wavelength ranges
1420-1490 Å and
3400-3600 Å in the attenuated stellar
population models in order to reproduce the change of line strengths
with UV continuum reddening in star-forming galaxies. The best
agreement with the observed spectra is achieved if for ratios
the templates with strong emission and weak absorption features are taken. For ratios <1.0 and star-related
the spectral line templates are not considered at all in order to
reproduce mainly passively-evolving galaxies. Before the selected line
templates are added to the models, the optical line templates are
scaled to the average flux in the wavelength range 3400-3600 Å. On the other hand, the
UV line templates are, first, multiplied to the dust-attenuated
models cleaned from stellar lines by interpolation. The effect of the
two sets of UV and optical line templates on model spectra is visible
in Fig. 4.
The described procedure for the consideration of interstellar lines in the model SEDs is, of course, relatively simple. However, it avoids systematic errors, although with significant uncertainties for individual objects with SEDs deviating from the composites analysed. A clear advantage of this phenomenological approach is certainly the avoiding of new free parameters in the code.
2.2 Fitting and parameter probability distributions
The observational input data of CIGALE are photometric
filter fluxes. Hence, the filter fluxes for the entire set of models
are derived for the known redshifts of the objects given. The final
models taken also include a correction of the redshift-dependent
absorption of the intergalactic medium (IGM) shortwards of Ly.
Here we take the more recent algorithm of Meiksin (2006) instead of the more frequently used corrections of Madau (1995).
For sparse IR data it is possible to provide an externally computed
IR luminosity to the code instead of using the IR filters
directly. For example, the Dale & Helou (2002) models can be used in combination with the calibrations of Chapman et al. (2003) and Marcillac et al.
(2006) to derive typical
from MIPS 24
m flux densities. In this case,
is converted into flux units for an artificial filter centred at 100
m. This is, then, compared to the dust luminosity
derived for each model converted to a filter
flux as well. In order to save computing time no IR models need to be considered in this case.
The comparison of model and noise-affected object photometry, i.e. of
(per
)
and
for k filters, is carried out for each model by the minimisation of
with the galaxy mass






Probabilities for individual models are often computed using the exponential term
(e.g., Kauffmann et al. 2003a; Salim et al. 2007; Walcher et al. 2008).
Then, PDFs for each parameter can be derived by calculating the
probability sums of the models in given bins of the parameter space.
However, the results of this ``sum'' method depend on the model density
in the parameter space. In the case of a bad choice of the input model
parameter values, this can cause an unintentional bias. Although the
introduction of a lower threshold probability for the consideration of
models can alleviate this effect, we adopt a different approach based
on the best-fit models for given bins in the parameter space and
integrated probabilities, which we describe in the following. We refer
to this approach as ``max'' method. We compare the results of both
methods in Sect. 3.2.2.
The likelihood of a model can be inferred from
by integrating the corresponding probability density function from
to infinity:
![]() |
(6) |



For calculating the object-related expectation values and uncertainties for the different model parameters, PDFs P(x) depending on the parameter value x are necessary. This requires to link the
for all m models studied to the P(x). We do so by introducing a fixed number b of equally-sized bins for each parameter. The range of bins is delimited by the
lowest and highest value of a parameter in the model set. We now derive the characteristic probability Pi of each bin i by searching the maximum
of the models j located inside the bin i. The prior
aji = 1 if a model j belongs to the bin i, otherwise
aji = 0. In summary, this procedure can be written in a Bayesian-like style:
![]() |
(7) |
The resulting PDF Pi(x) envelops the distribution of models in the x-p plane (see Fig. 6 for a continuum of x and Fig. 7 for discrete x). The already mentioned advantage of this approach is that Pi(x) does not depend on the model density as a function of x. Consequently, the arbitrary choice of values for a parameter can hardly change Pi(x) as long as the covered range of x is comparable.
![]() |
Figure 6:
PDF derivation for the SFR of a test galaxy. About 7 |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 7:
PDF derivation for
|
Open with DEXTER |
Taking the Pi(x) as weights for each bin, the expectation value of each parameter is given as
![]() |
(8) |
For xi we directly use the parameter value of the best-fit model of each bin. It corresponds to the mean value of all models in a given bin if the number of bins is significantly higher than the number of realised parameter values, which should be the case for most model parameters. Finally, the standard deviation is derived by
![]() |
(9) |
Table 1: Description of the output parameters of CIGALE.
![]() |
Figure 8: Illustration of the change of the mean values and standard deviations of a Gaussian PDF by the limitation of the parameter range. The cut probability distribution (filled area) indicates a mean closer to the centre of the parameter range and an error smaller than the true value. |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 9:
Deviation of the measured from the real mean values and errors for
a Gaussian PDF. The axes show the apparent expectation values and
standard deviations scaled to the half parameter range. The grid of
solid curves indicates the true (and also scaled) mean values and
errors for steps of 0.05 from 0 to 1. Curves for
constant real mean values -0.3, -1, and -3 outside the
covered parameter range and variable real |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 10:
Curves enveloping the area allowed for data in standardised diagrams
showing mean values and errors scaled to the half parameter range. The
lowest solid curve corresponds to the enveloping curve of the grid
shown in Fig. 9,
i.e., this curve is for a Gaussian PDF with the true mean inside
the parameter range and an infinite number of parameter values. The
dash-dotted curve shows the same for a box-shaped distribution instead
of a Gaussian. The results for double Gaussians with |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 11:
Normalised diagnostic plot for the interpretation of mean values
and standard deviations calculated by CIGALE
for 10 equally-spaced parameter values between 0 and 2,
i.e. a step size of 0.22. The outer solid/dashed curves
represent the enveloping curves for a Gaussian PDF having the mean
inside/outside the parameter range. The dash-dotted curve marks the
enveloping curve for a box-shaped distribution. The triangular area
marked by ``certain'' indicates for a Gaussian PDF the region of
negligible difference between apparent and real mean values ( |
Open with DEXTER |
CIGALE provides results for 16 basic input parameters, the scaling parameter
,
and 10 additional output parameters that depend on different basic
model properties. A complete list is given in Table 1.
Apart from mean value and error, the code outputs the parameter values
of the best-fit model and the full PDFs for each parameter if desired.
2.3 Interpretation of the code results
The mean values
and errors
derived by CIGALE
have to be taken with care. The high complexity of the models and the
limited number of photometric filters can cause that part of the
parameters are not well constrained. Moreover, restrictions of
computing time and hard-disc space limit and/or inherent limitations of
the models used restrict the range and number of possible values for
each parameter which can be investigated by the code. Since good
a-priori estimates of the PDF of a parameter are rare, the selected
model grid may fail to cover the entire set of parameter values
consistent with the data. In this case the calculated average is
probably misplaced and the errors are too small (see Fig. 8). Therefore, we study the uncertainty and reliability of the results of CIGALE by means of simulations for different PDFs for different sets of parameter values.
At first, we consider a Gaussian PDF for an infinite number of values.
By changing the position and width of the Gaussian in a fixed parameter
range of normalised width 2, we obtain the relation between
apparent and true mean values and errors as presented in Fig. 9.
For the area below the intersecting solid curve the regular grid in
steps of 0.05 does not change significantly, i.e.
and
.
For the centre of the Gaussian closer to the margin of the covered
range and higher widths of the Gaussian the differences between true
and apparent expectation values and standard deviations increase more
and more until a curve that delimits the permitted area is reached.
Close to this enveloping curve the corrections are enormous and highly
uncertain because of the high density of curves. We can therefore
divide the area of a standardised diagnostic diagram in three sub-areas
which characterise reliable, uncertain/unreliable, and impossible
results.
For data points that are not too close to the enveloping curve, the diagram could, in principle, be used to recover the true mean values and errors. However, the real situation is more complicated, since PDFs do not need to be Gaussian (see, e.g., Figs. 6 and 7). Figure 10 shows enveloping curves (for the true mean located inside the parameter range) for different shapes of the probability distribution. For a box-shaped distribution the possible errors are generally lower. On the other hand, double-peak profiles can cause relatively high apparent errors close to the centre of the parameter range. In this case, the true mean can be located in the other half of the parameter range, which is not possible for the single-peak PDFs discussed before.
Finally, Fig. 10 illustrates that a finite number of parameter input values causes an increase of the errors. In the most extreme case of two values, only the margins of the parameter range are covered by data points, which produces significantly higher standard deviations than for a smooth PDF. In contrast to uncertainties in the shape of the probability distribution that impede a detailed diagnostics and correction, changes in the mean values and errors by the reduction of parameter values can be recovered and considered for the interpretation of the code results. Additional uncorrectable deviations are only caused if the true error is smaller than the difference between adjacent parameter values.
In summary, diagnostic plots with similar curves as presented in this section can be used to evaluate whether mean values and errors resulting from CIGALE are reliable, uncertain, or unreliable (implying an unconstrained parameter). Figure 11 illustrates these different areas in a diagnostic plot similar to those used for the interpretation of the code results in Sect. 3.3.1. Only for data points in or close to the ``certain'' area the real PDF of a parameter can be well described by expectation value and standard deviation provided by CIGALE, otherwise the shape of the PDF has to be studied in more detail or it has to be accepted that the parameter cannot be constrained for the photometric data and model set given.
3 A test sample: SINGS
In order to establish CIGALE as a tool for studying properties of nearby and distant star-forming galaxies, it has to be tested by using a well-known reference data set. In the context of the Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxy Survey (SINGS; Kennicutt et al. 2003) high-quality photometric data were obtained in the IR regime for a sample of representative nearby galaxies. Together with the available photometric data for the other wavelength ranges (Dale et al. 2007; Muñoz-Mateos et al. 2009) this data set allows us to investigate the properties of the code in detail. We describe the sample in Sect. 3.1 and discuss the analysis of the data set by means of CIGALE in Sect. 3.2. The results and a comparison to the literature are presented in Sect. 3.3.
3.1 The sample
The full SINGS sample consists of 75 representative nearby galaxies (Kennicutt et al. 2003),
i.e., the different morphological classes from ellipticals to
irregulars have similar weights. Moreover, the galaxies are distributed
over roughly equal logarithmic bins in IR luminosity. Dale
et al. (2007, 2008) published UV-to-radio broad-bands SEDs for the SINGS galaxies. The listed data comprises the FUV (
Å) and NUV (
Å) filters of GALEX (Gil de Paz et al. 2007), 2MASS data for J, H, and
(Jarrett et al. 2003), and IRAC and MIPS data for the filters centred on 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0, 24, 70, and 160
m (Dale et al. 2005). Moreover, Dale et al. provide previously unpublished optical photometry for B, V, R, and I. However, since the optical data are
erroneous
, we take the improved photometry of Muñoz-Mateos et al. (2009),
which is based on asymptotic magnitudes that were derived from surface
photometry by extrapolating the curve of growth to encompass the whole
galaxy light. Apart from all non-optical Dale et al. filters up to
MIPS 160
m, their catalogue provides photometry of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS;
Stoughton et al. 2002) in u', g', r', i', and z' for 32 SINGS objects. Moreover, the Dale et al. (2007, 2008)
optical magnitudes of 23 galaxies without SDSS photometry
were recalibrated by means of the catalogue of Prugniel & Heraudeau
(1998), i.e., their aperture
photometry was replicated on the SINGS optical images to derive
zero-point corrections for each filter and each galaxy. For our sample
selection we have required either the presence of SDSS photometry
or at least three corrected Dale et al. filters. The latter
criterion fulfil 16 of 23 objects with recovered photometry
only. Three of them do not have R-band photometry. Finally, we only take galaxies for which all UV and IR filters are available
.
Our selection criteria aim at ensuring a comprehensive photometric
sample of similar high quality and wavelength coverage. Considering all
criteria, our final sample comprises 39 SINGS galaxies (see
Table 2). Figure 12 shows the basic properties distance and absolute magnitude (mainly R) as given by Kennicutt et al. (2003)
for our subsample compared to the full sample. The diagram indicates
that dwarf galaxies are underrepresented in our sample. There are
no optical magnitudes for these galaxies in the catalogue of
Muñoz-Mateos et al. (2009) because of recalibration problems.
Table 2: Properties of the SINGS test sample.
3.2 Analysis
In the following we discuss the model grid that was selected to analyse our test sample of SINGS galaxies (Sect. 3.2.1). Moreover, the quality of the fitting (Sect. 3.2.2) and the influence of the filter set on the results (Sect. 3.2.3) is studied.
![]() |
Figure 12: Optical (i.e. mainly R) absolute magnitudes and distances in Mpc for the SINGS galaxies (see Kennicutt et al. 2003). The analysed objects are indicated by filled symbols. |
Open with DEXTER |
3.2.1 The model grid
Studying the properties of our sample of 39 SINGS galaxies by SED
fitting requires a careful selection of model parameters, since the
parameter space has to be restricted for computing time reasons.
Table 3
shows the model grid that we have eventually used. The individual
values were selected to provide (roughly) equally-sized steps in the
given units or in dex for dynamical ranges larger than one order
of magnitude. Only eight parameters have multiple input values, which
is distinctly lower than the 15 to 17 filters available for
the SINGS galaxies in our sample. The total number of models is about
7
105, which can be managed quite easily
on a typical PC because of a runtime of CIGALE of a few hours only.
For all stellar population models we use Maraston (2005) SEDs with Salpeter IMF and solar metallicity. The latter is justified by a mean oxygen abundance
and a scatter of 0.16 for 23 sample galaxies listed in Calzetti et al.
(2007). Moreover, our sample lacks the low-metallicity dwarf galaxies present in the complete SINGS sample (see Fig. 12).
However, metallicity measurements are relatively uncertain due to
high-quality requirements of the observations, insufficient coverage of
a galaxy in combination with abundance gradients, and, in particular,
calibration problems and general limitations of the metallicity tracer
(see Moustakas & Kennicutt 2006,
and references therein). Hence, we have checked the influence of the
use of half and double solar metallicities on the results of the
analysis of our SINGS sample. In general, the resulting properties
indicate deviations within the errors and the corresponding
uncertainties increase by 0 to 20% only if metallicity
uncertainties are considered. The only exception is the effective age
measured at 4000 Å
,
which indicates a decrease of about 0.4 dex for a
metallicity increase of a factor of 4. Consequently, the absolute values of
have to be taken with care due to the well-known age-metallicity degeneracy (e.g., Kodama & Arimoto 1997).
In CIGALE SFHs are modelled by the combination of two models with exponentially decreasing SFR (see Sect. 2.1.1).
For the ``old'' stellar population model we take a fixed age of
10 Gyr, which should be a good compromise between the age of the
Universe and the most important phase of star formation for the
galaxies investigated. The values
cover a relatively large range of values in order to account for the
different kinds of SFHs possible. Due to the low effect of old stellar
populations on galaxy SEDs, it is sufficient to select a few values
only. For the ``young'' stellar population model we also take a few
ages and
only, since the variety of SEDs dominated by young stars is not very large. On the other hand, the mass fractions of both
models are critical. Therefore, we analyse nine burst fractions
covering the full range of theoretically possible values.
The obscuration of the stellar populations by dust is considered by the
application of attenuation laws with different reasonable slopes
(i.e. slopes not too far from the Calzetti et al. 2000, law) but without a UV bump. Since the UV wavelength range of the SINGS galaxies is covered by the two GALEX filters only, details of the attenuation law are difficult to
study and insignificant for most galaxy properties as test runs of CIGALE
indicate for a wide range of attenuation-related parameters. Therefore,
we can restrict the number of models by only taking the default value
zero of the RV-related parameter
and by only considering slope corrections
between -0.3 and 0.3, which result in real RV between 3.0 and 5.9 (see Sect. 2.1.2 and Fig. 3).
Moreover, we fix the UV bump strength and select a value of zero.
Apart from the negligible effect of the UV bump on the fit results
for a wide range of strengths (cf. Noll et al. 2009), this choice is justified by the non-detection of a UV bump in local starburst galaxies (Calzetti et al. 1994), the lack of a significant 2175 Å feature in the Kinney et al. (1996)
characteristic UV spectra of nearby galaxies covering a large
range of star formation activity, the only low-to-moderate UV bump
strengths in different galaxy populations (also comprising ``normal''
star-forming galaxies) studied at intermediate/high redshift (Noll
et al. 2009), and the predicted weakening of the UV bump in local spiral galaxies by radiative transfer effects (Silva et al. 1998; Pierini et al. 2004).
Table 3: Selected model parameter values for the analysis of our SINGS sample.
![]() |
Figure 13:
The IR-to-far-UV luminosity ratio
|
Open with DEXTER |
Since the V-band attenuation of the young model
has an important effect on the (UV) SED slope and the UV-to-IR flux
ratio, we choose a fine grid of values and a sufficiently high upper
limit. The attenuation factor
indicates the fraction of
valid for the old
model.
The possibility to vary this parameter is crucial for fitting
non-starburst galaxies as typically found in our SINGS sample. In
Fig. 13 we show the luminosity ratio
and the UV continuum slope
of our sample galaxies.
was derived from the MIPS 24, 70, and 160
m filters as described in Dale & Helou (2002). And based on GALEX FUV and GALEX
,
respectively,
and
were calculated
following the recipes of Kong et al. (2004). The objects are located close to or below the so-called ``Meurer'' relation (Meurer et al. 1999; Kong et al. 2004). This curve is valid for starburst galaxies where the stellar content is completely obscured by a dust screen or
shell. As the results of CIGALE
in subfigure (c) imply, the galaxy distribution found cannot be
explained by a deviation of the effective attenuation curve from the
Calzetti law. Instead, subfigure (b) illustrates that an
age-dependent amount of attenuation (cf. Silva et al. 1998; Pierini et al. 2004; Panuzzo et al. 2007; Noll et al.
2007) as simulated by
is able to reproduce the distribution of SINGS galaxies. Then, the
data points that deviate most from the starburst curve are
characterised by high obscuration of a young stellar component of very
low mass (low
)
and nearly unattenuated old stellar populations. Consequently, our code
is suitable to study ``normal'' star-forming galaxies which are usually
located below the Meurer curve and are typical of the nearby Universe
(see Buat et al. 2005; Cortese et al. 2006; Dale et al. 2007; Salim et al. 2007).
Dale & Helou (2002) offer IR dust emission templates in the
range from 0.0625 to 4.0. Our selection covers
values between 1.0 and 3.0. The narrower range is reasonable, since
correspond to mean IR luminosities
according to the calibrations of Chapman et al. (2003) and Marcillac et al. (2006).
This is a safe limit even if the scatter in the calibrations is
considered, since the SINGS sample is characterised by relatively
low IR luminosities (see Kennicutt et al. 2003). For very high
values
the IR SEDs become very similar for the wavelength range studied.
The calibrations of Chapman et al. and Marcillac et al.,
which are based on the ratio of the rest-frame fluxes at 60 and
100
m, are degenerated in this case. Therefore, it does not make sense to analyse
values beyond 3.0.
Finally, we do not use the option of an AGN contamination or hot-dust
contribution for the main run. Although there are several Seyfert
galaxies in the sample (Kennicutt et al. 2003), we do not expect that the total
magnitudes of the selected galaxies are significantly affected by such
a contribution. Nevertheless, we have checked with a different set of
models allowing for a large range of hot-dust IR contributions
whether CIGALE
reproduces the expected result. Indeed, the vast majority of
IR SEDs is consistent with no contribution at all. Only for the
early-type galaxy NGC 1404 we find a significant (>10%)
hot-dust fraction. However, this result could also be explained by
possible difficulties to fit the mixture of stellar radiation and very
weak dust emission in the mid-IR of this special galaxy. Moreover, the
fluxes at 70 and 160 m have to be taken with care due to a possible contamination by a background source (see
note in Table 2).
3.2.2 The fit quality
Table 4: Mean photometric errors for our SINGS test sample.
![]() |
Figure 14: Ratio of the best-fit model fluxes and the measured object fluxes in mag for run A and different filters and objects. The filters are indicated by their mean wavelength. Sample-related mean and median deviations for each filter are marked by big circles and lozenges, respectively. The open symbols indicate the recalibrated optical filters of Dale et al. (2007). |
Open with DEXTER |
For the analysis of the properties of our SINGS test sample we use the total magnitudes of 21 filters and its errors reported in Muñoz-Mateos et al. (2009). The typical uncertainties for the different filters are listed in Table 4. They are dominated by the instrument-related zero-point errors or uncertainties of photometric corrections and vary between 1% for the 2MASS near-IR filters and 16% for the Dale et al. (2007) optical magnitudes corrected by Muñoz-Mateos et al. (2009). The latter are only relevant for 15 of 39 sample galaxies for which SDSS photometry of much higher precision is not available. Since the relative photometric errors represent the weights for the different filters in the fitting process, the weights of the optical magnitudes for the two subsamples with and without SDSS photometry are quite different. Therefore, we will discuss the results of both subsamples separately in Sect. 3.3.
The large differences in the reported uncertainties for the filter
fluxes obtained by different projects and instruments raises the
question whether these values are really comparable. The homogeneity of
the error evaluation is crucial for reliable fitting results. In
particular, very low errors such as reported for the 2MASS filters are
critical, since this causes hard constraints for the model set.
Moreover, especially small errors are questionable, since possible
systematic offsets between different filters can cause erroneous fits.
Since the models are not a perfect reproduction of the nature,
systematic errors are also expected for them if the fluxes of different
wavelength ranges are compared. For most wavelengths we assume
uncertainties in the order of 5 to 10%. Higher values are
especially expected for the rest-frame wavelength range
between 2.5 and 5 m
for which the continuum is relatively uncertain due to the mixing of
stellar and dust emission and fundamental uncertainties in the shape of
both components. An example is the insufficient knowledge of the
contribution of TP-AGB stars at these wavelengths (see Maraston 2005).
Therefore, we study two different photometric catalogues. In the first
case (``run A'') we take the published errors (see Table 4)
and in the second case (``run B'') we increase them by adding an
additional moderate 5% error in quadrature to all filter errors.
This procedure allows us to investigate how the results change if
additional systematic uncertainties are considered.
As a first result of CIGALE, Fig. 14
shows the deviations of the best-fit models from the object photometry
in magnitudes for each filter. Since the best-fit models of both runs
indicate similar photometric fluxes, we only plot the data of
run A. In general, the sample-averaged deviations for the
different filters are relatively small. On average, the difference is
0.07 mag only. The worst filters are MIPS 160 m, IRAC 3.6
m, and IRAC 4.5
m
with deviations amounting to 0.28, 0.19, and 0.17 mag. The
modest fit quality for these three filters is caused by relatively high
uncertainties in the object photometry and the shape of the models in
the corresponding wavelength ranges (see above). For MIPS 160
m
the significant deviations can partly be explained by the lacking
flexibility of the one-parameter models of Dale & Helou (2002) in reproducing the complex IR SEDs of real galaxies. On the
other hand, the differences between the Dale & Helou templates of adjacent
values (see Table 3) are distinctly larger for MIPS 160
m than for any other IR filter studied. The corresponding uncertainties are similar to those indicated in Fig. 14.
This error source becomes negligible if expectation values derived from
the parameter PDFs are analysed instead of best-fit models.
The good fit quality that we can reach with the parameter set chosen over a wide wavelength range is demonstrated in Fig. 15, which shows the best-fit SEDs of three SINGS galaxies in comparison to the measured photometry. Although the dust reddening and star formation activity of NGC 4594, NGC 5033, and NGC 4625 differ considerably, the photometric SEDs of all galaxies shown are reproduced quite well.
![]() |
Figure 15: Illustration of three characteristic best-fit SEDs (run A) which differ in their UV-to-optical flux ratios. From top to bottom, the SEDs of NGC 4594 (Sa), NGC 5033 (Sc), and NGC 4625 (Sm) are shown. The measured photometric fluxes are marked by circles. |
Open with DEXTER |
Finally, we have checked whether our approach to derive PDFs has any
influence on the results. In general, we find that the differences
between the ``max'' and ``sum'' methods (see Sect. 2.2)
are negligible, i.e., the differences in the expectation values are
distinctly smaller than the errors. For example, the ``sum'' method
(for a lower model confidence limit of 10-3) changes the sample-averaged total stellar mass and SFR by only -0.01 dex (
)
and +0.04 dex (
)
for run A, respectively. In comparison, the corresponding errors
are 0.05 dex and 0.16 dex. They increase by 12%
and 2%, respectively, by the use of the ``sum'' method
instead of our preferred ``max'' method. Although the
sample-averaged differences are small, significant effects cannot be
excluded for individual galaxies, however. The most extreme deviation
for the SFR is an increase of 0.34 dex for NGC 5866. It is
caused by diminishing, additional peaks in the probability distribution
at low SFRs due to a low number of models populating these peaks.
Although such cases are rare as the comparison of the galaxy properties
derived by both approaches shows
,
it is the reason why we prefer the ``max'' method, which reduces
the influence of the model density on the weighing of parameter values.
3.2.3 Influence of filter set on results
![]() |
Figure 16:
Effect of the reduction of IR filters on the basic galaxy properties
total stellar mass and SFR. The diagram provides the sample means and
mean errors of these quantities for run A (solid lines) and
run B (dashed lines) and different filter combinations. The labels
near the symbols indicate the mean wavelength of the last filter in the
filter set in |
Open with DEXTER |
Since CIGALE allows us to fit photometric data of galaxies ranging from far-UV to far-IR, star-formation-related parameters can be derived in a reliable way due to a full coverage of the dust-affected wavelength range. However, for distant galaxies especially far-IR data are often not available or not sensitive enough. Therefore, we have investigated how results would change if the IR filter set of our sample galaxies was incomplete.
Figure 16
shows the sample-averaged total stellar mass and SFR for a reduction of
the IR filter set. While the full filter set contains 160 m as the reddest filter, the most reduced filter set ends at 2.2
m, i.e. the
band. There is no significant change
of the results as long as the filter set still includes at least one filter (i.e. 24
m) which traces the dust emission beyond the PAH regime. Amplitude and slope of the Dale & Helou (2002)
models appear to be well determined in this case. In contrast, the
sample means change considerably if the IR is only covered up to 8
m,
i.e. the region of the PAH emission features, where the Dale
& Helou models show little variety only. For run A,
decreases by 0.19 dex and the SFR increases by 0.83 dex if
is the reddest filter. These numbers show that the disregard of mid-IR
and far-IR data results in unsatisfying fits for our SINGS test
sample. Table 5
shows that many parameters are concerned. Apart from the SFR, important
changes are also present for the dust luminosity (+0.75 dex), the
burst fraction (+1.05 dex), and
(-0.78 dex). The effective attenuation factors in the far-UV
and visual AV considerably increase by 2.16 mag and 0.65 mag, respectively (cf. Burgarella et al. 2005),
if IR data are not considered. Compared to other properties the
effect on the mass is relatively small, since this quantity is only
indirectly affected by a higher but still minor importance of young
stellar populations and the corresponding change of the mass-to-light
ratio.
Table 5: Change of the SINGS sample mean for different properties by running CIGALE without IR data.
Figure 16 and Table 5
also illustrate the results for higher uncertainties in the filter
fluxes (run B), which indicate lower deviations for most
properties. In particular, the changes for
(+0.15 dex),
(+0.72 dex), and
(+1.59 mag)
are significantly reduced. This suggests that the low photometric
errors in some filters of run A could force the code into
unfavourable fits if no IR data is available. Consistently, the
galaxies with SDSS data and consequently lower photometric errors
in the optical indicate higher differences in the mean SFR of code runs
with and without IR data than objects with corrected optical Dale
et al. photometry only.
We have also studied the code results for a filter set without the GALEX
and
filters.
The differences for most parameters are insignificant and the SFR
increases by 0.17 dex (run A) or 0.11 dex (run B)
only. Even
that directly depends on the UV flux changes by +0.02 mag for
run A only. An exception is the increase of this quantity by
0.46 mag for run B. However, this amount is still much lower
than the deviations found for the neglection of IR data.
Consequently, the UV data of the SINGS galaxies have only
little influence on the fit results. This is probably caused by the
relatively low weight of these filters in the fitting process (see
Table 4).
The relatively high uncertainties in the photometry of these two
filters do not appear to significantly constrain the
star-formation-sensitive UV SEDs of the sample galaxies. Consequently,
a lack of IR data can cause striking systematic deviations in the
galaxy properties. However, the amount of these deviations probably
depends on the SFHs of the galaxies investigated and the filter set
available. For example, missing IR data could be better
compensated at higher redshifts because of a better filter coverage in
the rest-frame UV due to the shift of the observed frame of optical
telescopes.
3.3 Results
In the following we present the physical properties of our SINGS sample obtained by means of CIGALE and discuss their reliability (Sect. 3.3.1). We also show relations between the different parameters and compare our results to those from other studies (Sect. 3.3.2).
3.3.1 Expectation values and standard deviations
![]() |
Figure 17: Run A code results
for our SINGS test samples with and without SDSS photometry
(circles and crosses, respectively). Expectation values and standard
deviations are shown for mass-dependent properties (
|
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 18: Alternative run B code results for our SINGS test samples. In comparison to Fig. 17, the given errors of the input photometry were increased by 5% added in quadrature in order to account for additional systematic photometric errors and model-inherent uncertainties. |
Open with DEXTER |
In Figs. 17 (run A) and 18 (run B) we illustrate the expectation values and standard deviations for the different model parameters of CIGALE for our test sample of 39 SINGS galaxies. We only show results for parameters with PDFs consisting of at least two values. Data points based on photometry with and without SDSS photometry are marked by different symbols (circles and crosses). For evaluating the reliability of the results, the diagrams with mass-independent properties also indicate the diagnostic curves introduced in Sect. 2.3. In fact, the enveloping curves for Gaussian and box-shaped PDFs as well as the ``safe'' areas for Gaussian distributions are shown.
At first, we discuss the mass-dependent properties
,
SFR,
,
and
(see Table 2). Typical total stellar masses of about
and SFRs between 0.1 and 10
yr-1 reflect that the sample mainly consists of
nearby spiral galaxies (see Sect. 3.1). Moreover, the dust luminosities are lower than
,
which indicates that luminous IR galaxies (LIRGs) are not present
in our sample. The mass-dependent properties are quite well constrained
(see Fig. 6 for an example PDF). The typical run A errors range from 0.011 dex for
to 0.16 dex for the SFR, which is distinctly smaller than the
range of parameter values covered by the sample. This statement is also
true for the somewhat higher average errors between 0.013 and
0.22 dex for the less constrained run B. The differences
between the parameter values for run A and run B are usually
within the errors. For the most uncertain mass-dependent property, the
SFR, the sample-averaged value increases by 0.05 dex only if the
SFRs of run B instead of run A are considered (see Fig. 16). The mean difference between the SFRs of both runs for individual galaxies is 0.10 dex.
In contrast to basic model parameters which describe the SFH or the attenuation of the stellar radiation (see Table 1),
the mass-dependent global galaxy properties are relatively independent
of the details of the models used. Hence, the results for our
SINGS test sample can be compared quite comfortably to other
studies in this case. The dust luminosity
is relatively easy to measure, since it is directly related to the
filter fluxes in the IR (provided that the filters cover the entire
relevant wavelength range). Nevertheless, the comparison of
obtained by different studies is a good consistency check. For 13 sample galaxies
determinations are also available by Draine et al. (2007) who derived them from the SINGS IR SEDs using the Draine & Li (2007)
dust models. The mean difference between our estimates and those of
Draine et al. is negligible, since it results in 0.00
0.03 dex for run A and B. The scatter amounts to
0.1 dex. A comparison of instantaneous SFRs is more crucial,
in particular, if the approaches are completely different. For
29 sample galaxies SFRs of Kennicutt et al. (2003) are available. They are based on H
emission, which is a thoroughly studied and relatively reliable SFR indicator (see, e.g., Kennicutt 1998; Brinchmann et al. 2004; Kewley et al. 2004; Calzetti et al. 2007).
Despite of the completely different methods, our SFRs of run B
exhibit a moderate relative scatter of 0.3 dex and deviate on
average by 0.06
0.05 dex only from those of Kennicutt et al. (see Fig. 19). For run A the SFRs agree even better, since the mean difference amounts to 0.00
0.06 dex. In any case, this comparison shows that our results for
our SINGS test sample are reliable at least for galaxy properties
which are relatively independent of the details of the modelling.
The basic stellar-population-related parameters are the ages and
of two Maraston (2005) models, which are linked by the burst fraction
(see Sect. 2.1.1 and Table 3). We show them in Figs. 17 and 18 excepting the constant
.
For
and run A the resulting values cover almost the entire
investigated range between 0.25 and 10 Gyr. However, the
errors are relatively high. Most of the data points are close to or on
the enveloping curves. In particular, the distribution appears to
follow the enveloping curve for box-shaped PDFs. If those
distributions were typical (which is difficult to prove because of the
small number of parameter values), the
of most galaxies could be classified as ``rather low'' or ``rather
high'' only. However, the situation appears to be even worse if the
results of run B are considered. The lower accuracy of the input
photometry causes that for the majority of the objects
is
not constrained at all, as the clustering of data points in the peak of
the enveloping curves indicates. Consequently, it is safer to
assume that the given photometry is not accurate enough to derive
values for the old stellar population model. This also appears to be the case for the age and
of the young stellar population model. There is only a trend towards relatively high mean
for run A. However, this trend vanishes completely if the results
of run B are considered. In contrast, the burst fractions of most
sample galaxies are reliable at least in the context of the SFHs
allowed by the model grid. Even for run B the data points cluster
inside the area of trustworthy results. If run A provided the
correct results, the errors in
of
part of the galaxies would be even below the grid spacing, which is
suggested by a position below the ``triangle'' in the diagnostic
diagram. In any case, small burst fractions below 1% dominate the
distribution. No galaxy shows
.
This result implies that the current star formation activity tends to
be lower than the past average, since the age ratio of the old and
young stellar population model is about 80.
The relatively high degree of degeneracy in the SEDs for
different SFHs and the enormous amount of possible evolutionary
scenarios prevents the reliable derivation of most basic model
parameters related to the stellar population. Hence, we also discuss
the effective ages
and
(see Sect. 2.1.1). The mean mass-weighted age
of
8 Gyr is close to the age of the old stellar population model of
10 Gyr. Consequently, the galaxies under study appear to be
dominated by old stars that were formed in the first half of the
lifetime of the Universe. However, the exact
of
the individual galaxies is relatively uncertain. While one third of the
objects indicates a trustworthy age in the case of run A,
there are only a few galaxies with reliable ages in the case of
run B. The decrease in errors around 6 Gyr is related to the
maximum burst fraction of 10% found in the sample. The age
derived from the strength of the 4000 Å break indicates a wider variety than
and is quite well constrained even for run B (see also Table 2) and even under
consideration of the metallicity dependency of the results (see Sect. 3.2.1). If the mean
of
about 1 Gyr is taken, the sample can be divided into a
spectroscopically young subsample of 22 galaxies and a mean age of
400 Myr and a complementary old one of 17 galaxies with
3.6 Gyr on average. The relatively wide range in
reflects the variety of galaxy types in SINGS ranging from ellipticals to irregulars (see Kennicutt et al. 2003).
While 90% of the young subsample indicates morphological types
of Sb and later, only 20% of the old subsample exhibits these
types.
![]() |
Figure 19:
Comparison of the SFRs derived from run B of CIGALE for the
SINGS sample and those of Kennicutt et al. (2003) based on H |
Open with DEXTER |
Since we do not scale the attenuation law by a RV-like constant factor and do not consider the possible presence of 2175 Å absorption features in the SEDs (see Sect. 3.2.1), the shape of the attenuation curve is only determined by the deviation
of the slope from a Calzetti law. Figures 17 and 18 show that
of
many galaxies is not constrained at all and the rest is highly uncertain. Interestingly, significant deviations of
from zero are almost exclusively found for run A and galaxies with
SDSS photometry. The latter has not played a role for the
parameters discussed so far. This result implies that differences
in the shape of the attenuation curve can only be detected if the
accuracy of the photometry is in the order of a few percent. For the
SINGS sample the accuracy is not good enough for any reliable
statements. The situation would probably be better if more and better
UV data were available for the SINGS galaxies. However, this
is not the case. In comparison to
the scaling parameter
for the young stellar population, which ranges from 0.15
to 1.66 for run A, can be constrained quite well. Most
galaxies are in the reliable region of the diagnostic diagram. However,
the individual values significantly depend on the run, in particular,
if SDSS photometry is available. In this case, the mean
changes
from 0.67 for run A to 0.87 for run B. For the
other galaxies the average increase is only half as strong
(from 0.89 to 1.00). This behaviour can be explained by the
stronger run A SED constraints in the optical for galaxies with
SDSS photometry and the coupling of
and
that is suggested by the stability of the dust luminosity. The steeper slopes of the attenuation law for run A (
versus -0.01 for run B) have to be compensated by lower
in order to reach a similar obscuration of the stellar populations by dust. Another attenuation-related parameter is
which gives the fraction of
for the old stellar population. For individual galaxies the
interpretation of the results is uncertain especially for run B.
On the other hand, the mean
for run A and run B are 0.45
0.03 and 0.41
0.02, respectively. This suggests a trend towards
in
SINGS. The result is consistent with the fact that many galaxies in our
SINGS sample are highly diversified galaxies for which the amount
of dust attenuation depends on the age of the stellar population
(cf. Fig. 13).
The results for the attenuation at 1500 Å are reliable for most
galaxies. The parameter space allowed by the model grid is only partly
covered by sample objects. Relatively low
dominate. The mean values are 1.5 (run A) and 1.6 (run B). They correspond to 78% and 69%,
respectively, of the values expected for the sample
and the Calzetti law (
), which is characterised by
.
Hence, the old
model (
)
significantly contributes even in the far-UV, which is obviously due to the very low burst fractions and low
of most sample galaxies. The effective attenuation factors in the visual AV are less reliable than
and
.
In particular, the run B results are relatively uncertain. This outcome can be explained by the strong dependence of AV on the relatively uncertain attenuation factor
.
The mean AV of both runs is about 0.3 mag, which corresponds to mean
of 0.38 (run A) and 0.29
(run B). These values are comparable to the
of the sample and suggest that the optical continuum of most sample galaxies is almost completely given by the old
model.
Finally, we discuss the shape of the dust emission in
the IR. Since we do not consider a hot dust continuum (see
Sect. 3.2.1), it is only determined by the parameter of the Dale & Helou (2002) templates (see Sect. 2.1.3). Figures 17 and 18 indicate that low
are very well constrained, while high
are relatively uncertain. This is obviously caused by the degeneracy of
the dust emission models for wavelengths shortwards of the emission
peak for high
.
For
the flux ratio
becomes almost constant. Relatively high
dominate the distribution, i.e., the dust temperature tends to be cool.
The average sample value of 2.4 can be compared to the mean
of 6
by using the calibrations of Chapman et al. (2003) and Marcillac et al. (2006) for which we obtain
and 2.3. The moderate differences in
could
be explained by different properties of the samples used for the
calibrations and the SINGS sample. Differences could also be
caused by the degeneracy in
for high
values and the fact that this flux ratio was taken for the Chapman
et al. and Marcillac et al. calibrations instead of
.
3.3.2 Correlations
![]() |
Figure 20:
Relations between the total stellar mass
|
Open with DEXTER |
The different galaxy properties derived by CIGALE are not completely independent of each other. For example, the burst fraction
and the two effective ages
and
are well correlated, since the stellar population properties of the
models used mainly depend on the burst fraction (see Sect. 3.3.1). Another example is the relation between the slope modification of the Calzetti law
and the attenuation in the visual of the young
model
based on a relatively stable dust luminosity
discussed in Sect. 3.3.1. Finally,
,
SFR,
,
and
tend to be correlated because of their dependence on the galaxy mass (see Table 1).
Therefore, we restrict our discussion of possible correlations between
different galaxy properties on parameters for which the models do not
show a direct relation. Moreover, we only consider parameters which
were well determined in run B of CIGALE for our SINGS sample (see Table 2) and, therefore, do not suffer from crucial
degeneracies. In fact, we discuss the CIGALE output parameters
,
,
and
.
Moreover, we show the specific SFR
,
i.e. the instantaneous SFR divided by the total mass produced by star formation in the past
.
Figure 20 presents the mutual relations of
,
,
,
and
for our sample of 39 SINGS galaxies. The tightest correlation is found for the quantities
and
,
which depend on stellar population parameters only. It shows that
effectively younger stellar populations are linked to higher star
formation activity. The correlation obtained is in good qualitative and
quantitative agreement with the results of Brinchmann et al. (2004) for the relation between H
-based
and D4000 of star-forming SDSS galaxies. However, our
distribution is narrower, since a tight correlation is already inherent
in the code and the model grid used as the distribution of models in
the
plane indicates. For the
-related diagrams in Fig. 20
correlations based on the selected model grid or the internal structure
of the models are not possible, since the mass is the free scaling
parameter in the fitting process. Therefore, all mass-related
correlations found must have an astrophysical interpretation only.
Although the correlation is weaker than those discussed before, the
specific SFR clearly tends to decrease with increasing mass, which is
in qualitative agreement with previous studies (see, e.g., Brinchmann
et al. 2004; Salim et al. 2007; Buat et al. 2007, 2008). Quantitatively, there are some differences due to different sample properties. For example, Salim et al. (2007) find an average
for their sample of star-forming SDSS galaxies at
that is about 0.4 dex higher at
than the value of -1.3 dex typical of our sample. The transition
from active star formation to a relatively passive evolution is at
about
for our SINGS galaxies. This break in the galaxy properties is even more pronounced for the effective age
.
The bimodality found is consistent with the results of Kauffmann et al. (2003a,b) for the SDSS and is reminiscent of the two basic galaxy populations ``red sequence'' (
objects) and ``blue cloud'' (
objects) discussed in, e.g., Strateva et al. (2001), Baldry et al. (2004), and Driver et al. (2006).
The galaxies in-between have the highest age uncertainties and could
represent at least in part the so-called ``green valley''.
In Fig. 20 we also identify the morphological types of our sample galaxies as given in Table 2 (see Kennicutt et al. 2003).
For the relations discussed so far, the locus of a galaxy is clearly
related to the morphological properties. The earlier the type of a
galaxy is, the lower
and the higher
and
are. These correlations show that our code results are consistent with
the well-known dependence of the star formation activity and mass of
nearby galaxies on the morphological type (see Roberts & Haynes 1994; and Kennicutt 1998,
for reviews). In this context, the extreme properties of the early-type
SBa spiral galaxy NGC 2798 can be understood by the presence
of a nuclear starburst that produces a high amount of deeply
dust-enshrouded young stars.
No convincing correlation is found for the attenuation at 1500 Å
and
or
,
i.e. the obscuration of the young stellar population is relatively
independent of the star formation activity and history. Concerning the
morphology, the latest types (and possibly the ellipticals) in the
sample tend to have lower
than most spiral galaxies. For instance,
equals 2.00
0.29 for S0-Sab, 1.64
0.17 for Sb-Scd, and 0.92
0.22 for Sd-I. Nevertheless, this trend is much weaker than those
found by Buat & Xu (1996) and Dale et al. (2007) based on the attenuation tracer
(cf. Fig. 13) instead of
.
The latter authors have also found an anticorrelation of
and
the specific SFR for intermediate- to late-type galaxies, which cannot
be confirmed by us. A possible explanation of these discrepancies
could be a systematic weakness of
.
In contrast to
,
is related to the obscuration of young and
old stars. Therefore, significant deviations should appear where
dust-absorbed light from cool stars significantly contributes to
(see, e.g., Buat et al. 2005; Cortese et al.
2008, and references therein). The distribution of the sample galaxies in the
plane shown in Fig. 21
in comparison to the locus of a typical starburst SED for different
opacities indicates that early-type spirals probably exhibit the
largest deviations, while the latest types are close to the starburst
curve. In detail, the mean deviations of
from the reference curve amount to
0.31
0.07 for S0-Sab, 0.17
0.02 for Sb-Scd, and 0.03
0.05 for Sd-I. As indicated by Fig. 21 early-type spirals also exhibit the largest deviations from the relation between
and
for nearby star-forming galaxies derived by Burgarella et al. (2005) (cf. Buat et al. 2005; Cortese et al. 2008). Consequently, the apparent trend of
with morphology and
could be strengthened/produced by the SFH dependence of the luminosity ratio used.
A reliable trend probably exists for the relation between
and
.
The highest obscurations appear to be present for masses around
,
i.e. for galaxies in the transition region. On the other hand, there is also a relatively large scatter in
of
high mass galaxies. For low mass galaxies the dust obscuration tends to
decrease with decreasing mass. Late-type galaxies of low mass are
obviously characterised by lower dust column densities or a higher
porosity of the dust screen in front of young stars compared to
galaxies of earlier type (cf. Dale et al. 2007).
Apart from irregular and screen-diluting dust distributions,
a ``lack'' of UV-absorbing dust grains could also be due to a
deficit of dust production compared to dust destruction or a low
metallicity.
![]() |
Figure 21:
Comparison of the attenuation in the far-UV
|
Open with DEXTER |
4 Discussion and conclusions
We have developed the SED-fitting code CIGALE as a tool for studying basic properties of galaxies in the near and the distant Universe. The models constructed by CIGALE consist of Maraston (2005) or PEGASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange 1997) stellar population models which are reddened by synthetic attenuation curves based on the Calzetti et al. (2000) law and which are corrected for spectral lines, and the dust emission templates of Dale & Helou (2002). The construction of the SFH by two different complex stellar population models with exponentially declining SFRs and different amounts of attenuation enables the code to deal with age-dependent extinction effects (Silva et al. 1998; Kong et al. 2004; Panuzzo et al. 2007; Noll et al. 2007), which is crucial to fit ``normal'' star-forming galaxies that are not characterised by a uniform dust screen in front of the stars (see Fig. 13). The models cover the wavelength range from far-UV to far-IR, which allows the effect of dust on galaxy SEDs to be treated in a consistent way. In the case of dust emission related to a non-thermal source, the balance between the stellar luminosity absorbed by dust and the corresponding emitted luminosity in the IR can be preserved by considering an additional hot dust component.
As our study of the multi-wavelength photometric data of a test sample
of 39 nearby galaxies selected from SINGS (Kennicutt et al. 2003; Dale et al. 2007; Muñoz-Mateos et al. 2009)
shows, especially the star-formation-related properties can be derived
with high reliability if the photometry reaches from the rest-frame UV
to wavelengths greater than
10 m (Sect. 3.2.3).
Otherwise, the multi-parameter models are not well constrained in the
IR and the results can be affected by systematic errors. In the latter
case, the models have to be simplified by reasonable a-priori estimates
of part of the parameters. Apart from the wavelength coverage of the
filter set, the individual uncertainties in filter fluxes also play an
important role for the quality of the fit results. Large uncertainties
can prevent the derivation of parameters that are nearly degenerated
regarding the shape of the galaxy SED such as details of the SFH or the
attenuation curve. However, it is more critical if too low photometric
errors overconstrain the model parameters, yielding relatively precise
but possibly wrong results. Due to unknown systematic errors in the
object photometry and the models (see Sect. 3.2.2)
it is advisable to assume relative errors between 5% and 10% in
minimum. In contrast, the selected approach for the derivation of the
expectation values and standard deviations of the different parameters
does not significantly affect the code results at least on average
(Sect. 3.2.2). The ``max'' method introduced by us (Sect. 2.2) and the ``sum'' method (e.g., Kauffmann et al. 2003a; Salim et al. 2007; Walcher et al.
2008) give similar results as long
as there are no secondary peaks in the parameter probability
distribution which are only poorly populated by models.
The diagnostics of the SED-fitting results of our SINGS test
sample has revealed that the most reliable values are obtained for
non-basic (by the code derived) model properties such as the total
stellar mass
,
the SFR, the effective age
,
the bolometric luminosity
,
the dust luminosity
,
and the far-UV attenuation factor
(Sect. 3.3.1). Trustworthy results are also found for basic input
parameters of the models such as the burst fraction
,
the V-band dust attenuation of the young stellar population
,
and in part the slope of the IR models
.
However, the latter properties significantly depend on the model grid
chosen and are not universal, therefore. The non-basic properties
usually show weak model-related constraints only. An example is the
upper
limit of 10 Gyr in the sample due to our restrictions regarding the SFHs investigated by the code (Sect. 3.2.1). For the masses given, it has to be taken into account that we provide results for Maraston (2005) models and Salpeter IMF (see Sect. 2.1.1). In any case, the SFR and
derived indicate good agreement with
data from other studies (Sect. 3.3.1).
An investigation of relations between the different reliable
galaxy properties has confirmed that the star formation activity of
nearby galaxies as traced by the specific SFR
and the effective age
depend on morphology (Sect. 3.3.2). Weaker trends are also found for
and
.
The typical star formation activity significantly changes at
.
This mass range also indicates the most dust-obscured galaxies in our
sample. In contrast, far-UV attenuation does not appear to depend on
star formation activity. These results show what kind of studies are
possible with CIGALE
for the data available for the sample of SINGS galaxies
investigated. Since the photometric data of the SINGS galaxies is
characterised by good coverage of the IR and comparatively modest
coverage and quality in the UV, we expect that for other samples
especially at higher redshifts the reliability of the different model
parameters could be different. For good quality data in the rest-frame
UV and optical, we can imagine that stellar population properties and
details of the dust attenuation could be better studied than it has
been possible for the SINGS sample. On the other hand, the frequently
missing information in the far-IR for high-redshift galaxies could
significantly affect the quality of
and other star-formation-related parameters. However, instruments such as Herschel or ALMA will improve the situation in future. Hence, we are convinced that CIGALE is a valuable tool for the characterisation of galaxy populations in the near
and distant Universe. In a series of forthcoming papers we
will demonstrate this by discussing samples of distant galaxies with
different selection criteria.
S.N. and D.M. are funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) of France in the framework of the D-SIGALE project. J.C.M.M. acknowledges the receipt of a Formación del Profesorado Universitario fellowship from the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, and is also partially financed by the Spanish Programa Nacional de Astronomía y Astrofísica under grant AYA2006-02358. This publication makes use of data from the Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey (SINGS), the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), and the GALEX (Galaxy Evolution Explorer) mission. Finally, the authors thank the referee, Adolf Witt, for his helpful suggestions.
References
- Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, 681 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, 54 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., & Pelló, R. 2000, A&A, 363, 476 [NASA ADS]
- Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1151 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Buat, V., & Xu, C. 1996, A&A, 306, 61 [NASA ADS]
- Buat, V., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Seibert, M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L51 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Buat, V., Takeuchi, T. T., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 404 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Buat, V., Boissier, S., Burgarella, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 483, 107 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Burgarella, D., Buat, V., & Iglesias-Páramo, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1413 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Calzetti, D., Kinney, A. L., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1994, ApJ, 429, 582 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Calzetti, D., Kennicutt, R. C., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 870 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, S. C., Helou, G., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2003, ApJ, 588, 186 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Chary, R., & Elbaz, D. 2001, ApJ, 556, 562 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Cortese, L., Boselli, A., Buat, V., et al. 2006, ApJ, 637, 242 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Cortese, L., Boselli, A., Franzetti, P., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1157 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- da Cunha, E., Charlot, S., & Elbaz, D. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1595 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Dale, D. A., & Helou, G. 2002, ApJ, 576, 159 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Dale, D. A., Helou, G., Contursi, A., Silbermann, N. A., & Kolhatkar, S. 2001, ApJ, 549, 215 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Dale, D. A., Bendo, G. J., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 857 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Dale, D. A., Gil de Paz, A., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 863 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Dale, D. A., Gil de Paz, A., Gordon, K. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 672, 735 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Dopita, M. A., Groves, B. A., Fischera, J., & Sutherland, R. S. 2005, ApJ, 619, 755 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Draine, B. T. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 241 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Draine, B. T., Dale, D. A., Bendo, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 866 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Driver, S. P., Allen, P. D., Graham, A. W., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 414 [NASA ADS]
- Feldmann, R., Carollo, C. M., Porciani, C., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 565 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Fioc, M., & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950 [NASA ADS]
- Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 1990, ApJS, 72, 163 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Gil de Paz, A., Boissier, S., Madore, B. F., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 185 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Misselt, K. A., Landolt, A. U., & Wolff, M. J. 2003, ApJ, 594, 279 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Jarrett, T. H., Chester, T., Cutri, R., Schneider, S. E., & Huchra, J. P. 2003, AJ, 125, 525 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003a, MNRAS, 341, 33 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., White, S. D. M., et al. 2003b, MNRAS, 341, 54 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kennicutt, R. C. Jr. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kennicutt, R. C. Jr., Armus, L., Bendo, G., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 928 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., & Jansen, R. A. 2004, AJ, 127, 2002 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 38 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kodama, T., & Arimoto, N. 1997, A&A, 320, 41 [NASA ADS]
- Kong, X., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., & Fall, S. M. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 769 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Krügel, E. 2009, A&A, 493, 385 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Lagache, G., Dole, H., Puget, J. L., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 555 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Lagache, G., Dole, H., Puget, J. L., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 112 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Leitherer, C., Li, I.-H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T. M. 2002, ApJS, 140, 303 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Madau, P. 1995, ApJ, 441, 18 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Maraston, C., Daddi, E., Renzini, A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 85 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Marcillac, D., Elbaz, D., Chary, R. R., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 57 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Meiksin, A. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 807 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 1999, ApJ, 521, 64 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Moustakas, J., & Kennicutt, R. C. Jr. 2006, ApJ, 651, 155 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz-Mateos, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Zamorano, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1569 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Noll, S., & Pierini, D. 2005, A&A, 444, 137 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Noll, S., Mehlert, D., Appenzeller, I., et al. 2004, A&A, 418, 885 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Noll, S., Pierini, D., Pannella, M., & Savaglio, S. 2007, A&A, 472, 455 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Noll, S., Pierini, D., Cimatti, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 69 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Panuzzo, P., Granato, G. L., Buat, V., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 640 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Peeters, E., Spoon, H. W. W., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, ApJ, 613, 986 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Pierini, D., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N., & Madsen, G. J. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1022 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Prugniel, P., & Heraudeau, P. 1998, A&AS, 128, 299 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Puget, J. L., & Léger, A. 1989, ARA&A, 27, 161 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, M. S., & Haynes, M. P. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 115 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Salimbeni, S., Fontana, A., Giallongo, E., et al. 2009, AIP Conf. Proc., 1111, 207 [NASA ADS]
- Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Siebenmorgen, R., & Krügel, E. 2007, A&A, 461, 445 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Siebenmorgen, R., Krügel, E., & Spoon, H. W. W. 2004a, A&A, 414, 123 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Siebenmorgen, R., Freundling, W., Krügel, E., & Haas, M. 2004b, A&A, 421, 129 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A., & Danese, L. 1998, ApJ, 509, 103 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Stecher, T. P. 1969, ApJ, 157, L125 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Stoughton, S., Lupton, R. H., Bernardi, M., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 485 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Strateva, I., Ivezic, Z., Knapp, G. R., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 1861 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Sturm, E., Lutz, D., Tran, D., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 481 [NASA ADS]
- Walcher, C. J., Lamareille, F., Vergani, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, 713 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences]
- Witt, A. N., & Gordon, K. D. 2000, ApJ, 528, 799 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef]
- Ysard, N., & Verstraete, L. 2009, A&A, submitted [arXiv:0906.3102]
Footnotes
- ... CIGALE
- Our code is provided at http://www.oamp.fr/cigale/
- ... stars
- The Maraston models include TP-AGB spectra up to 2.5
m only. Therefore, the flux level in a narrow wavelength range in the near-IR can still be systematically underestimated.
- ... stars
- For early-type galaxies in the nearby Universe the difference is expected to be lower, since most stars are distinctly older than the maximum age of a TP-AGB star.
- ... break
- Ratio of the average flux per frequency unit of the wavelength ranges 4000-4100 Å and 3850-3950 Å.
- ... stochastically-heated
- Thermal emission of very small grains in the mid-IR is restricted to extremely intense heating environments that are not typical of normal star-forming galaxies (e.g., Dale et al. 2001).
- ... molecules
- Very small grains and especially PAHs in their low energy states may significantly contribute to the emission at mm and cm wavelengths. In particular, spinning PAHs are proposed as the origin of the ``anomalous emission'' at these wavelengths (see Ysard & Verstraete 2009).
- ... photometry
- Since filter-averaged fluxes are compared, the calibration of possibly considered Spitzer MIPS flux densities has to be changed to
. Consequently, the observed flux densities at 24, 70, and 160
m have to be multiplied by 1.040, 1.070, and 1.043, respectively (cf. MIPS data handbook), before they can be used in the code.
- ... parameters
- The true number of simultaneously analysed, basic parameters is lower than 16 and should not exceed 10 in most cases, since parameters such as the metallicity or the central wavelength of the UV bump are usually defined by a single value.
- ...
erroneous
- The corrected photometry provided in Dale et al. (2008) is better than the original one given in Dale et al. (2007). However, the results are still unsatisfying.
- ... available
- Despite of the low quality of the far-IR data, two elliptical
galaxies were selected. NGC 0584 was only marginally detected at
160
m. Its flux at this wavelength could be contaminated by diffuse background/foreground emission. The fluxes at 70 and 160
m of NGC 1404 could be affected by a possible background source, which could not be masked and cleaned in a satisfying way due to the low image resolution at these wavelengths.
- ... shows
- The differences in the SFRs of the ``max'' and ``sum'' methods are relatively large in comparison to the results for other model parameters.
- ... case
- Unfortunately, the completely different parameter set and a significantly different selection of test galaxies from SINGS impedes a qualitative and quantitative comparison of our code results to those of da Cunha et al. (2008).
- ... past
- For Maraston (2005) models the time-integrated SFR corresponds to the galaxy mass, which comprises the total stellar mass and the mass of gas released from stars by winds/explosions (see Sect. 2.1.1).
All Tables
Table 1: Description of the output parameters of CIGALE.
Table 2: Properties of the SINGS test sample.
Table 3: Selected model parameter values for the analysis of our SINGS sample.
Table 4: Mean photometric errors for our SINGS test sample.
Table 5: Change of the SINGS sample mean for different properties by running CIGALE without IR data.
All Figures
![]() |
Figure 1: Flow chart of CIGALE. The different programme modules and the corresponding parameter and template inputs are shown from the left to the right. The alternative (and less preferred) use of the PEGASE models is marked by a dashed arrow. The other dashed arrows refer to the option to take either IR photometry directly (consideration of Dale & Helou and possibly Siebenmorgen et al. models) or externally estimated IR luminosities for considering the IR regime. The presented flow chart assumes that the object redshifts are taken from the photometric input catalogue. |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 2:
Relation between the age
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 3:
Illustration of synthetic attenuation laws differing in |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 4:
Illustration of a set of complete models differing in AV (see
legend). The higher AV is, the lower the flux in the UV and the higher the flux in the IR is. All models are characterised by solar metallicity, |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 5:
Illustration of a set of complete models differing in |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 6:
PDF derivation for the SFR of a test galaxy. About 7 |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 7:
PDF derivation for
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 8: Illustration of the change of the mean values and standard deviations of a Gaussian PDF by the limitation of the parameter range. The cut probability distribution (filled area) indicates a mean closer to the centre of the parameter range and an error smaller than the true value. |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 9:
Deviation of the measured from the real mean values and errors for
a Gaussian PDF. The axes show the apparent expectation values and
standard deviations scaled to the half parameter range. The grid of
solid curves indicates the true (and also scaled) mean values and
errors for steps of 0.05 from 0 to 1. Curves for
constant real mean values -0.3, -1, and -3 outside the
covered parameter range and variable real |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 10:
Curves enveloping the area allowed for data in standardised diagrams
showing mean values and errors scaled to the half parameter range. The
lowest solid curve corresponds to the enveloping curve of the grid
shown in Fig. 9,
i.e., this curve is for a Gaussian PDF with the true mean inside
the parameter range and an infinite number of parameter values. The
dash-dotted curve shows the same for a box-shaped distribution instead
of a Gaussian. The results for double Gaussians with |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 11:
Normalised diagnostic plot for the interpretation of mean values
and standard deviations calculated by CIGALE
for 10 equally-spaced parameter values between 0 and 2,
i.e. a step size of 0.22. The outer solid/dashed curves
represent the enveloping curves for a Gaussian PDF having the mean
inside/outside the parameter range. The dash-dotted curve marks the
enveloping curve for a box-shaped distribution. The triangular area
marked by ``certain'' indicates for a Gaussian PDF the region of
negligible difference between apparent and real mean values ( |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 12: Optical (i.e. mainly R) absolute magnitudes and distances in Mpc for the SINGS galaxies (see Kennicutt et al. 2003). The analysed objects are indicated by filled symbols. |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 13:
The IR-to-far-UV luminosity ratio
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 14: Ratio of the best-fit model fluxes and the measured object fluxes in mag for run A and different filters and objects. The filters are indicated by their mean wavelength. Sample-related mean and median deviations for each filter are marked by big circles and lozenges, respectively. The open symbols indicate the recalibrated optical filters of Dale et al. (2007). |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 15: Illustration of three characteristic best-fit SEDs (run A) which differ in their UV-to-optical flux ratios. From top to bottom, the SEDs of NGC 4594 (Sa), NGC 5033 (Sc), and NGC 4625 (Sm) are shown. The measured photometric fluxes are marked by circles. |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 16:
Effect of the reduction of IR filters on the basic galaxy properties
total stellar mass and SFR. The diagram provides the sample means and
mean errors of these quantities for run A (solid lines) and
run B (dashed lines) and different filter combinations. The labels
near the symbols indicate the mean wavelength of the last filter in the
filter set in |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 17: Run A code results
for our SINGS test samples with and without SDSS photometry
(circles and crosses, respectively). Expectation values and standard
deviations are shown for mass-dependent properties (
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 18: Alternative run B code results for our SINGS test samples. In comparison to Fig. 17, the given errors of the input photometry were increased by 5% added in quadrature in order to account for additional systematic photometric errors and model-inherent uncertainties. |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 19:
Comparison of the SFRs derived from run B of CIGALE for the
SINGS sample and those of Kennicutt et al. (2003) based on H |
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 20:
Relations between the total stellar mass
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
![]() |
Figure 21:
Comparison of the attenuation in the far-UV
|
Open with DEXTER | |
In the text |
Copyright ESO 2009
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.