Comparison of models used in our analysis.
|Béthermin et al. (2012)||Béthermin et al. (2017)||Schreiber et al. (2016)|
|sSFR2||Evolves up to z = 2.5||Evolves up to z = 4||Evolves continuously|
|Dispersion (σMS)3||0.15 dex||0.3 dex||0.3 dex|
|Evolution of Td||up to z = 2||up to z = 4||Continuous|
Notes. (1) All the models are based on two SF mode formalism. Stellar mass function (SMF) is described by a double Schechter function: , where M* is the characteristic mass of the Schechter break. The M* is the redshift invariant in the Béthermin et al. (2012) model, and evolves with redshift in the other two presented models. For redshifts z > 4, the model of Béthermin et al. (2017) assumes a single Schechter function fixing at zero, while the model of Schreiber et al. (2016) adopts double Schechter fitting to results of Grazian et al. (2015) for 4.5 < z < 7. (2) The specific star-formation rate, definedas sSFR = SFR/M*. In Béthermin et al. (2012) the sSFR increases with redshift up to z = 2.5 and than flattens. This trend is independent of the chosen range of stellar masses. In the latter two models the evolution is different, see Eq. (6) in Béthermin et al. (2017). (3)Modelled width of themain sequence (as log-normal scatter).
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.