Free Access

Fig. 10.


A comparison of the slope (a) as a function of redshift (z) with studies from the literature that extend down to M* <  1010M near our redshift range. Our best-fit (bias-corrected) slope from Eq. (11) is shown by the large star. As most studies have probed the slope in bins of redshift, we also include our results obtained using non-evolving redshift bins (Eqs. (14), (15) and (16); smaller blue stars). The literature results are from Renzini & Peng (2015), RP15),Kurczynski et al. (2016), K16), Bisigello et al. (2018), B18) and the low-mass (M* ≲ 1010M) power-law slopes from Whitaker et al. (2014), W14) and Lee et al. (2015), L15). We also add [SP14],Speagle2014 for reference, though it is inferred at higher masses. We indicate the field and SFR-tracer in brackets, though note that distinct calibrations for the same tracer may be used in different studies. In addition, we add the slopes predicted by (semi-)analytical models; Bouché et al. (2010), B10), Mitchell et al. (2014), M14), Mitra et al. (2015), Mi15), Cattaneo et al. (2017), C17), and hydrodynamical simulations; Sparre et al. (2015), Sp15), Furlong et al. (2015), F15), Sparre et al. (2017), Sp17).

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.