starlight in galaxies and its transfer through the ISM (absorption and emission by gas, attenuation by dust) and the IGM (absorption by gas). Second, BEAGLE uses a flexible parameterization of several prescriptions to describe the star formation and chemical enrichment histories of galaxies, ranging from simple analytic functions to the predictions of sophisticated galaxy formation models, to interpret the combinations of photometric and spectroscopic observation of galaxies. As a result, BEAGLE fits can provide a physically consistent description of the contributions by stars, gas, and dust to the integrated emission from a galaxy. Note that this updated SED fitting approach is particularly important for the subset of CLASSY galaxies with very strong nebular continuum and line emission as BEAGLE self-consistently accounts for these contributions in the synthetic model spectrum. Using BEAGLE, two sets of stellar mass and SFR parameters were computed: (1) an aperture set that provides insights for the star-forming regions specifically targeted within the COS 2"5 aperture and (2) a host galaxy set that better characterizes the properties of the entire galaxies.

### C.1. Choice of Photometry

The SDSS provides optical imaging in *ugriz* for 42 galaxies in the CLASSY sample. For the other three, J0036-3333 and J0405-3648 have *grizY* images from the DES (Abbott et al. 2021), and J0337-0502 is observed by the Pan-STARRS1 (Chambers et al. 2016). For the UV, 43 galaxies (all but J0337-0502 and J1157+3220) have imaging in the NUV and FUV available from GALEX (Martin et al. 2005). Additionally, Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) W1 and W2 near-infrared (NIR) data are also available for the entire CLASSY sample. However, WISE photometry introduces large model uncertainties due to the contribution of post-main-sequence stars to NIR light (e.g., Salim et al. 2016) and does not significantly affect the CLASSY stellar mass ($\Delta_{\log M_*} < 0.31$ dex) and SFR ($\Delta_{\log \text{SFR}} < 0.21$ dex) measurements, and so it was not included in the CLASSY SED fitting.

### C.2. New Flux Measurements

Due to the irregular morphologies and range of redshifts of the CLASSY sample, the SDSS catalog photometry can have large uncertainties when a simple, symmetric model is assumed or only a portion (e.g., a single H II region) of a host galaxy is measured. We, therefore, remeasured the GALEX and SDSS fluxes.

For the aperture stellar mass and SFR determinations, *ugriz* or *grizY* photometry was measured for targeted star-forming regions in a 3" aperture, well matched to the size of COS aperture convolved with typical SDSS seeing (see, e.g., Senchyna et al. 2019). The sky background was estimated in a 1" wide circular annulus located at 1' using the median flux values after $\sigma$-clipping (low $10\sigma$, high $3\sigma$). Corrections for Galactic foreground extinction were then applied, assuming an $R_V = 3.1$ and Milky Way extinction curve Cardelli et al. (1989). The GALEX UV imaging was not used for these aperture calculations due to its relatively poor resolution (4"5–6"0 FWHM).

For the total stellar mass and SFR determinations of each galaxy, the total fluxes in the UV and optical were measured, but with a more sophisticated method to account for the irregular morphologies and potential contamination from

nearby objects. First, segmentation maps were produced for each galaxy using the Photutils package (Bradley et al. 2021). For the optical imaging, g-band segmentation was computed, which includes strong optical emission lines such as [O III] and (or) H$\beta$ for the majority of the CLASSY sample. This maximizes the ability to probe the often faint and extended nebular emission, which are incorporated into the BEAGLE models. To produce the g-band segmentation maps, a minimum of eight connected pixels at $2\sigma$ above the background after the image is smoothed by a 2D Gaussian kernel (FWHM = 10 pix) is required. Similarly, NUV segmentation was computed for the UV photometry, but using a Gaussian kernel with FWHM = 3 pix. Each map was visually inspected to ensure an adequate segmentation that captures the total galaxy light in both the optical and UV. If a map failed the visual inspection, the segmentation parameters were adjusted, and source deblending was implemented in Photutils to exclude contamination. Second, the g-band and NUV segmentations were used to measure the optical photometry in *ugriz* (or *grizY*) and NUV and FUV photometry, respectively. In a similar manner as the aperture determinations, background subtraction and Galactic extinction corrections were applied. In general, we found that the 3" aperture flux accounts for ~25% of the total g-band flux at $z \sim 0.01$, and ~80% at $z \sim 0.17$.

Finally, the galaxy distances and absolute magnitudes were determined. Since nearly half of the sample (20/45) are very nearby galaxies with optical spectroscopic redshifts of $z < 0.02$, they may have peculiar motions that will bias the luminosity distances derived from redshifts. To uniformly estimate their distances, the heliocentric redshifts were first converted to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) frame using the CMB dipole measured by Lineweaver et al. (1996). The local velocity field modeled by Masters (2005) was then adopted to compute the flow-corrected luminosity distances, with the amount of correction ranging from < 1% to 20% (median 6%).

### C.3. SED Model Assumptions

With the redshifts, corrected luminosity distances, and photometry for both the targeted regions and entire galaxies in hand, the $M_*$ and SFRs can be self-consistently constrained with the BEAGLE code. Briefly, the Gutkin et al. (2016) model was adopted, which self-consistently incorporates the stellar emission from the latest version of the Bruzual & Charlot (2003) SPS results and the nebular emission output by the photoionization code Cloudy (Ferland et al. 2013). We assumed a Chabrier (2003) Galactic disk IMF (mass range 0.1–100 $M_\odot$), the two-component attenuation model from Charlot & Fall (2000), and a constant SFH. Free parameters are thus the stellar mass, age, metallicity, gas ionization parameter, log U, and effective attenuation $\tilde{\nu}_V$. The interstellar (dust+gas-phase) metallicity was matched to the stellar metallicity of the constant star formation. Of the three choices of dust-to-metal mass ratio provided by BEAGLE ($\xi_d = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5$), we assume $\xi_d = 0.3$ as the value closest to the solar value ($\xi_d = 0.36$ Gutkin et al. 2016).

The BEAGLE SED fits for two CLASSY galaxies, local dwarf galaxy J0944-0383 and $z \sim 0.1$ emission-line galaxy J1416+1223, are shown in Figure 11. For comparison, the fit to the host galaxy UV+optical photometry is shown in the top panels relative to the aperture optical photometry fit in the bottom panels. Contamination to the broadband flux from strong emission lines is clearly seen in the gr bands for local
systems (e.g., J0944-0038) or *r* band for those at slightly high redshift (e.g., J1416+1223). These models demonstrate the importance of properly accounting for strong nebular emission in our SED fitting with a self-consistent program like BEAGLE.

From the output posterior distribution, the $M_*$ and SFRs were computed for both the targeted aperture regions and the entire galaxies. The resulting stellar masses and SFRs are reported in Table 6 in Appendix B for both the aperture and total host galaxy sets.

### C.4. Choice of Star Formation History

It is very difficult to recover accurate values of the SFRs through SED fitting for realistic galaxies, in large part due to their unconstrained SFHs. Fortunately, the previous SED fits using a constant SFH were shown to perform well for a subset of the CLASSY sample (Senchyna et al. 2017, 2019), and allowed for a consistent comparison with the SED fitting conducted for high-redshift galaxies. Following this method, we have assumed a constant SFH, which benefits from having the least free parameters, yet it provides satisfying fits to the broadband photometry even when strong emission lines are present. However, an important caveat is the potentially hidden old stellar populations in the CLASSY galaxies, especially outside the burst of star formation targeted by the COS aperture. Our assumption of a simple constant SFH thus inevitably introduces additional systematic uncertainties to our estimates, often leading to a lower stellar mass compared to other more complicated SFHs.

### C.5. Exploration of SED Systematics

To better understand the accuracy and precision of our SED-derived galaxy properties and to provide consistency checks, we performed the following tests:

1. *Impact of assumed SFH.* We investigated the impact of assuming just a simple constant SFH by comparing to more complicated models. First, we allowed composite SFHs consisting of a constant SFH plus a single burst in the fit in order to allow the maximum flexibility for BEAGLE to properly account for any possible old stellar populations. In most cases, BEAGLE favored either a dominant constant SFH component or a dominant SSP component. The resulting fitted masses are larger relative to the values assuming a constant SFH by $0.01^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ dex. Second, since a red component from an older stellar population would primarily arise from stars outside the aperture, we also tested fitting the flux inside and outside the aperture separately using two populations of constant star formation, one inside and one outside the aperture. Using the four sources in our sample showing the most extreme extended components outside, we found the differences in both stellar masses and SFRs to be $\lesssim 1\sigma$ and within the uncertainties. However, Lower et al. (2020) recently investigated the impact of SFH on SED fitting and found that assuming a constant SFH can underestimate the stellar mass by $0.48 \pm 0.61$ dex. Unfortunately, other simple parametric models such as a delayed-$\tau$ SFH$^{49}$ also performed poorly in this work; only complicated, nonparametric SFHs produce realistic values.

Thus, for simplicity and for consistent comparison with high-redshift galaxies, a simple constant SFH was adopted for the CLASSY SED fitting, resulting in relatively large uncertainties.

2. *Comparisons to other catalogs.* We compared the stellar masses and SFRs to the values from the MPA-JHU catalog.<fnref n="50" /> On average, the CLASSY stellar masses are smaller by -0.28 dex, while the 16th and 84th percentile differences from the MPA-JHU values are -0.60 and 0.40 dex, respectively. For the SFRs, the CLASSY values are larger on average by 0.18 dex, while the 16th and 84th percentile differences from the MPA-JHU values are -0.09 and 0.63 dex, respectively. While we find generally good agreement with the MPA-JHU values, there are some significant outliers due to many differing assumptions in the photometry and SED modeling. However, dust extinction is unlikely to be the cause given the strong agreement between the CLASSY aperture (host) values of effective optical depth ($\tau_{V,eff}$) and those derived from optical spectra ($\Delta\tau_{V,eff} = -0.06^{+0.14}_{-0.10}$ (0.09$^{+0.53}_{-0.22}$)).

We also compared to the GALEX-SDSS-WISE Legacy Catalog (GSWLC) of Salim et al. (2016). The GSWLC contains SDSS galaxies more distant on average than the CLASSY sample at $0.01 < z < 0.30$ and $r_{petro} < 18$. These distances ensure that the SDSS photometry is safe to use for SED fitting. A cross-match between the CLASSY sample and GSWLC yields 22 matches, of which 12 have GSWLC SED fits with $\chi_{reduced} > 30$. For the remaining 10 galaxies, 4 have GSWLC SED fits with $\chi_{reduced} > 10$. The large fraction of poor fits in GSWLC are likely due to its inability to account for large broadband excess caused by strong nebular emission lines. For the 6 galaxies with GSWLC $\chi_{reduced} < 10$, we find differences ($\Delta=\text{CLASSY values} - \text{GSWLC values}$) of $\Delta M_{*,host} = -0.27^{+0.33}_{-0.39}$ dex and $\Delta SFR_{host} = 0.12^{+0.13}_{-0.11}$ dex. On average, the CLASSY SFRs are larger by ~0.1 dex compared to GSWLC1 SED SFRs, but smaller by ~0.2 dex compared to GSWLC1 WISE SFRs. Extreme outliers and the sources of such discrepancies will be explored in a future paper.

3. *Comparison to H$\alpha$ SFRs.* We calculated SFRs in another way, using the reddening-corrected H$\alpha$ flux measured from the optical spectra, the luminosity distances listed in Table 6, and the SFR calibration from Kennicutt & Evans (2012). For galaxies with optical spectra from the SDSS, we use the H$\alpha$ flux values from the MPA-JHU catalog, where each spectrum has been tied back to the SDSS *r*-band *fibermag*. Note that this H$\alpha$ SFR calibration assumes a Kroupa & Weidner (2003) IMF, which is consistent with the Chabrier (2003) IMF used for the SED fitting (e.g., Chomiuk & Povich 2011). In comparison to the SED-derived SFRs, we find the H$\alpha$ SFRs to be larger on average, with a typical percent difference of 8%, and a few strong outliers extending from -202% to +48%.

4. *Comparison to nebular properties.* Finally, we compared the $12+\log(O/H)$ and $\log U$ values from the BEAGLE SED fits to those derived from the optical spectra (see Sections 4.5 and 4.6). Of our three comparisons (other catalogs, SFRs, and nebular properties), the latter shows the largest discrepancies, where the SED metallicities (ionization parameters) are systematically lower (higher) than the measured values, with

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ The common $\tau$-model, parameterized by $\dot{M}_* \propto e^{-t/\tau}$, has an exponentially declining SFH with some characteristic e-folding time, $\tau$. The delayed-$\tau$ model, parameterized by $\dot{M}_* \propto t \cdot e^{-t/\tau}$, is an expansion of the $\tau$-model such that it allows for linear growth at early times in addition to exponential decline at later times.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Data catalogs are available at http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/SDSS/. The Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics/The Johns Hopkins University (MPA/JHU) SDSS database was produced by a collaboration of researchers (currently or formerly) from the MPA and the JHU. The team is made up of Stephane Charlot (IAP), Guinevere Kauffmann and Simon White (MPA), Tim Heckman (JHU), Christy Tremonti (U. Wisconsin-Madison, formerly JHU), and Jarle Brinchmann (Universidade do Porto, formerly MPA).</footnote>
median differences of 0.37 dex (−0.36 dex). However, the BEAGLE values have large uncertainties (>0.5 dex) by design that give it the flexibility necessary to test large parameter space and thus are still generally consistent with the measured CLASSY values. Note that the choice to not fix metallicity, ionization parameter, or dust extinction to spectroscopic values was deliberate in order to not introduce other systematic biases (i.e., the burst of star formation within the spectroscopic aperture may have different ISM conditions than the outer regions of a galaxy).

## Appendix D
### Notes on Individual Galaxies

For transparency and to improve the usability of the CLASSY HLSPs, we mention here any unique notes for individual galaxies.

J0036-3333. J0036-3333 is also commonly known as the galaxy Haro 11, which contains multiple stellar populations. The CLASSY coadded spectrum only focuses on knot C (Vader et al. 1993). Knot C is the most UV luminous source and main contributor to the Lyα emission from Haro 11 (Hayes et al. 2007).

J0127-0619. The common name of J0127-0619 is Mrk 996. This galaxy is known to have complex emission line kinematics, a large Wolf-Rayet population, and a high electron density within its inner core region (James et al. 2009; Telles et al. 2014).

J0144+0453. J0144+0453 is more commonly known as UM133 and has an extended tail to the N.

J0337-0502. J0337-0502 is part of the well-known, metal-poor galaxy SBS 0335-052 that has two main star-forming clusters, E and W. The CLASSY coadded spectrum only contains light from the E region. It also combines data from the COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4. SBS 0335-052E consists of six young (10 < Myr) star clusters (Adamo et al. 2010), four of which fall within the COS aperture (Wofford et al. 2021).

J0405-3648. J0405-3648 is fairly extended, with many small ionized clumps seen in the optical imaging. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 50°.

J0808+3948. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 84°.

J0823+2806. J0823+2806 is part of the Lyman Alpha Reference Sample (LARS; Hayes et al. 2014; Östlin et al. 2014) and is identified as LARS9. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 34°. The COS aperture is dominated by emission from a single massive star cluster.

J0926+4427. J0926+4427 is part of the LARS and is identified as LARS14. LARS14 is classified as a Lyman break analog (Heckman et al. 2011), and also a Green Pea galaxy (Henry et al. 2015). The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 82°.

J0934+5514. This is the famous low-metallicity dwarf galaxy, IZw 18. IZw 18 has two main components that have been heavily studied: the NW and SE components. The CLASSY coadded spectrum only contains light from the NW region. It also combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 1 and 4 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 67°.

J0938+5428. J0938+5428, also known as SBS 0934+546, is part of the LARS (Hayes et al. 2014; Östlin et al. 2014) and is identified as LARS12. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 88°.

J0940+2935. J0940+2935 has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 18°.

J0942+3547. This galaxy is also known as CG-274 and SB 110 in Senchyna et al. (2017). The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 29°.

J0944-0038. J0944-0038, more commonly known as CGCG 007-025, is part of LMLVL (Berg et al. 2012). It is also known as SB2 in Senchyna et al. (2017). The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 68°.

J0944+3424. J0944+3424 has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 76°.

J1016+3754. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 84°.

J1024+0524. This galaxy is also known as SB 36 in (Senchyna et al. 2017). The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4.

J1025+3622. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 21°.

J1044+0353. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 23°. This galaxy is denoted as an extreme emission-line galaxy in Berg et al. (2021).

J1105+4444. J1105+445, more commonly known as Mrk 162, has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 46°.

J1112+5503. The COS G185M and G225M observations for J1112+5503 were executed with an error, but were not reacquired, so no MR extensions are available in the CLASSY coadds.

J1119+5130. J1119+5130, commonly known as Arp's Galaxy, has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 88°.

J1129+2034. This galaxy is identified in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database as IC 700, but is also known as SB 179 in (Senchyna et al. 2017), and is denoted as an extreme emission-line galaxy. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 47°.

J1132+5722. J1132+5722, also known as SBSG1129+576, has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4.

J1144+4012. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 28°.

J1148+2546. This galaxy is also known as SB 182 in Senchyna et al. (2017). The CLASSY coadded spectrum
combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 27°.

J1150+1501. J1150+1501 is more commonly known as Mrk 750.

J1157+3220. J1157+3220 has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4.

J1225+6109. J1225+6109, also known as SBS 1222+614, has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 76°.

J1253-0312. J1253-0312 is more commonly known as SHOC 391.

J1314+3452. This galaxy is also known as SB 153 in Senchyna et al. (2017) and is denoted as an extreme emission-line galaxy. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data taken at position angles that are offset by 54°.

J1323-0132. J1323-0132, also known as UM 570, has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4.

J1359+5726. J1359+5726, also commonly known as Mrk 1486 and part of the LARS sample with ID Ly52, has extended optical emission. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 1 and 3 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 82°.

J1418+2102. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 26°. This galaxy is denoted as an extreme emission line galaxy in Berg et al. (2021).

J1444+4237. J1444+4237 is also known as HS1442+4250. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 47°. Note that an additional data set, LDXT06010, was not used in the CLASSY coadd because there was a data quality note that the Take Data Flag was not on throughout the observation, so the COS light path was blocked during the exposure.

J1545+0858. The CLASSY coadded spectrum combines data from COS FUV detector lifetime positions 3 and 4 and data taken at position angles that are offset by 51°.

## Appendix E: CLASSY Coadded Spectra

In Figure 12, we display one of the moderate- or low-resolution coadded spectra for each of the 45 galaxies in the CLASSY sample. The rest-frame, Galactic-extinction-corrected, binned, moderate-resolution spectrum is plotted in gray when available. For galaxies with archival G140L spectra, the low-resolution coadd is shown. In order to visually detect emission and absorption features more easily, the spectrum has also been convolved with a 1D Gaussian two-element kernel and overplotted in black. The most prominent absorption and emission features are labeled in the top panel of each spectrum, with nebular (dashed pink lines) and fine structure (solid pink lines) emission features marked above the spectra, while ISM (solid blue lines), stellar wind (dotted–dashed green lines), and photospheric (solid green lines) are marked below the spectra. Contamination from geocoronal and OI emission and Milky Way ISM absorption are whited-out. The bottom panel plots the S/N ratio as a function of wavelength, where each vertical shaded bar shows the average S/N within its wavelength

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 12.** Moderate-resolution coadded spectrum of J0021+0052, highlighting the full FUV spectral range covered in the CLASSY atlas. The binned, Galactic-extinction-corrected, rest-frame spectrum is shown in gray, and the smoothed version that has been convolved with a 1D Gaussian two-element kernel is overplotted in black to make spectral features more apparent. Prominent absorption and emission features are labeled in the top panel. The bottom panel shows the S/N as a function of wavelength, where the colored vertical bands note the S/N value at their respective locations. Coadded spectra for all 45 galaxies in the CLASSY sample are provided in the figure set.</figcaption></figure>

(The complete figure set (45 images) is available.)
coverage. Since the plotted spectrum is binned by the 6 pixels
of a resolution element, these S/N values are per resel.

ORCID iDs

Danielle A. Berg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4153-053X

Bethan L. James https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4372-2006

Teagan King https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0834-4150

Meaghan McDonald https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-3433

Zuyi Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2178-5471

John Chisholm https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0302-2577

Timothy Heckman https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6670-6370

Crystal L. Martin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-7818

Dan P. Stark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6106-5172

Alessandra Aloisi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4137-882X

Ricardo O. Amorín https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5758-1000

Karla Z. Arellano-Córdova https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2589-762X

Matthew Bayliss https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1074-4807

Rongmon Bordoloi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3120-7173

Jarle Brinchmann https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4359-8797

Stéphane Charlot https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3458-2275

Jacopo Chevallard https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7636-0534

Ilyse Clark https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3334-4267

Dawn K. Erb https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9714-2758

Anna Feltre https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6865-2871

Max Gronke https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2491-060X

Matthew Hayes https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8587-218X

Alaina Henry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-6586-4446

Svea Hernandez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4857-8699

Anne Jaskot https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6790-5125

Tucker Jones https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5860-3419

Lisa J. Kewley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-3943

Nimisha Kumari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5320-2568

Claus Leitherer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2685-4488

Mario Llerena https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1354-4296

Michael Maseda https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0695-4414

Themiya Nanayakkara https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2804-0648

Masami Ouchi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1049-6658

Adele Plat https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0390-0656

Richard W. Pogge https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1435-3053

Swara Ravindranath https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-6527

Jane R. Rigby https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7627-6551

Ryan Sanders https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4792-9119

Claudia Scarlata https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9136-8876

Peter Senchyna https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9132-6561

Evan D. Skillman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0605-8732

Charles C. Steidel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4834-7260

Allison L. Strom https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6369-1636

Yuma Sugahara https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6958-7856

Stephen M. Wilkins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3903-6935

Aida Wofford https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8289-3428

Xinfeng Xu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-7051

References

Abbott, T. M. C., Adamów, M., & Aguena, M. 2021, ApJS, 255, 20

Adamo, A., Zackrisson, E., Östlin, G., & Hayes, M. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1620

Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 12

Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, in press,
(arXiv:2206.04280)

Atropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ,
156, 123

Atropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A,
558, A33

Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 878, L3

Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., Erb, D. K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 170

Berg, D. A., Erb, D. K., Henry, R. B. C., Skillman, E. D., & McQuinn, K. B. W. 2019b, ApJ, 874, 93

Berg, D. A., Pogge, R. W., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 96

Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Croxall, K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 16

Berg, D. A., Skillman, E. D., Marble, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 98

Bianchi, L., Conti, A., & Shiao, B. 2014, AdSpR, 53, 900

Bordoloi, R., Rigby, J. R., Tumlinson, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1891

Bouché, N., Dekel, A., Genzel, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001

Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, astropy/photutils: 1.1.0,
v1.1.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4624996

Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., White, S. D. M., et al. 2004, MNRAS,
351, 1151

Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

Byler, N., Dalcanton, J. J., Conroy, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 14

Byler, N., Kewley, L. J., Rigby, J. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 1

Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 533, 682

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv:1705.05165

Carr, C., Scarlata, C., Henry, A., & Panagia, N. 2021, ApJ, 906, 104

Carr, C., Scarlata, C., Panagia, N., & Henry, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 143

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv:1612.05560

Chandar, R., Leitherer, C., & Tremonti, C. 2004, ApJ, 604, 153c

Chang, Y.-Y., van der Wel, A., da Cunha, E., & Rix, H.-W. 2015, ApJS, 219, 8

Charlot, S., & Fall, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 718

Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415

Chisholm, J., Gazagnes, S., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A30

Chisholm, J., Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 182

Chisholm, J., Tremonti, C. A., Leitherer, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 149
Chisholm, J., Tremonti, C. A., Leitherer, C., & Chen, Y. 2017, MNRAS,
469, 4831

Chomiuk, L., & Povich, M. S. 2011, AJ, 142, 197

Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944

Davé, R., Finlator, K., & Oppenheimer, B. D. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 98

de Mello, D. F., Leitherer, C., & Heckman, T. M. 2000, ApJ, 530, 251

Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, ApJ, 303, 39

Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., Heisler, C. A., & Sutherland, R. S. 2000, ApJ,
542, 224

Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72

Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., McClelland, L. A. S., et al. 2017,
PASA, 34, e058

Erb, D. K., Quider, A. M., Henry, A. L., & Martin, C. L. 2012, ApJ, 759, 26

Fan, X., Carilli, C. L., & Keating, B. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 415

Feltre, A., Charlot, S., & Gutkin, J. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 3354

Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, RMxAA, 49, 137

Fernandes, I. F., Gruenwald, R., & Viegas, S. M. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 674

Finkelstein, S. L., D'Aloisio, A., Paardekooper, J.-P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 879, 36

Finley, H., Bouché, N., Contini, T., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A7

Fletcher, T. J., Tang, M., Robertson, B. E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 87

Garnett, D. R. 1992, AJ, 103, 1330

Götberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78

Green, G. 2018, JOSS, 3, 695

Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019,
ApJ, 887, 93

Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 25

Grimes, J. P., Heckman, T., Aloisi, A., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 272

Gronke, M. 2017, A&A, 608, A139

Gronke, M., Bull, P., & Dijkstra, M. 2015, ApJ, 812, 123

Gronke, M., & Dijkstra, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1095

Gutkin, J., Charlot, S., & Bruzual, G. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1757

Harshan, A., Gupta, A., Tran, K.-V., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 77

Hayes, M., Östlin, G., Atek, H., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1465

Hayes, M., Östlin, G., Duval, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 6

Heckman, T. M., Alexandroff, R. M., Borthakur, S., Overzier, R., & Leitherer, C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 147

Heckman, T. M., & Borthakur, S. 2016, ApJ, 822, 9

Heckman, T. M., Borthakur, S., Overzier, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 5

Henry, A., Scarlata, C., Martin, C. L., & Erb, D. 2015, ApJ, 809, 19

Hill, J. M., Green, R. F., Ashby, D. S., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7733,
77330C

Izotov, Y. I., Worseck, G., Schaerer, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4851
James, B. L., Berg, D. A., King, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, in press, (arXiv:2206.01224)

James, B. L., Pettini, M., Christensen, L., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1794

James, B. L., Tsamis, Y. G., Barlow, M. J., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 2

Jaskot, A. E., Dowd, T., Oey, M. S., Scarlata, C., & McKinney, J. 2019, ApJ, 885, 96

Jaskot, A. E., & Ravindranath, S. 2016, ApJ, 833, 136

Jones, T., Stark, D. P., & Ellis, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 751, 51

Kaasinen, M., Bian, F., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., & Gupta, A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3220

Kelly, B. C. 2007, ApJ, 665, 1489

Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531

Kennicutt, R. C. J., Lee, J. C., Funes, S. J., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 247

Kinney, A. L., Bohlin, R. C., Calzetti, D., Panagia, N., & Wyse, R. F. G. 1993, ApJS, 86, 5

Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., Pérez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 87

Kroupa, P., & Weidner, C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1076

Kulas, K. R., Shapley, A. E., Kollmeier, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 33

Le Fèvre, O., Tasca, L. A. M., Cassata, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A79

Lee, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Tremonti, C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 599

Leitherer, C., Li, I. H., Calzetti, D., & Heckman, T. M. 2002, ApJS, 140, 303

Leitherer, C., Ortiz Otálvaro, P. A., & Bresolin, F. O. 2010, ApJS, 189, 309

Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

Leitherer, C., Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., & Calzetti, D. 2011, AJ, 141, 37

Levesque, E. M., Leitherer, C., Ekstrom, S., Meynet, G., & Schaerer, D. 2012, ApJ, 751, 67

Lineweaver, C. H., Tenorio, L., Smoot, G. F., et al. 1996, ApJ, 470, 38

Lower, S., Narayanan, D., Leja, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 33

Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2012, in IAU Symp. 283, Planetary Nebulae: An Eye to the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 422

Luridiana, V., Morisset, C., & Shaw, R. A. 2015, A&A, 573, A42

Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415

Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., & Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115

Markwardt, C. B. 2009, in ASP Conf. Ser. 411, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII, ed. D. A. Bohlender, D. Durand, & P. Dowler (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 251

Martin, C. L. 1999, ApJ, 513, 156

Martin, C. L., Dijkstra, M., Henry, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 6

Martin, C. L., Shapley, A. E., Coil, A. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 127

Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1

Mason, C. A., Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., & Leja, J. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2669

Mason, C. A., Treu, T., Dijkstra, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 2

Masters, K. L. 2005, PhD thesis, Cornell Univ.

McGaugh, S. S., Rubin, V. C., & de Blok, W. J. G. 2001, AJ, 122, 2381

McLure, R. J., Pentericci, L., Cimatti, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 25

Michel-Dansac, L., Blaizot, J., Garel, T., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A154

Mingozzi, M., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, submitted

Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, R. C. J., Tremonti, C. A., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 233

Murray, N., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2005, ApJ, 618, 569

Naidu, R. P., Tacchella, S., Mason, C. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 109

Nakajima, K., Schaerer, D., Le Fèvre, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A94

Nanayakkara, T., Brinchmann, J., Boogaard, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A89

Noeske, K. G., Weiner, B. J., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L43

Oke, J. B. 1990, AJ, 99, 1621

Olivier, G. M., Berg, D. A., Chisholm, J., et al. 2021, arXiv:2109.06725

Orlitová, I., Verhamme, A., Henry, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A60

Östlin, G., Hayes, M., Duval, F., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 11

Ouchi, M., Mobasher, B., Shimasaku, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1136

Peeples, M., Tumlinson, J., Fox, A., et al. 2017, The Hubble Spectroscopic Legacy Archive, Instrument Science Report, COS 2017-4

Pogge, R. W., Atwood, B., Brewer, D. F., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 7735, 77350A

Prochaska, J. X., Kasen, D., & Rubin, K. 2011, ApJ, 734, 24

Ravindranath, S., Monroe, T., Jaskot, A., Ferguson, H. C., & Tumlinson, J. 2020, ApJ, 896, 170

Rickards Vaught, R. J., Sandstrom, K. M., & Hunt, L. K. 2021, ApJL, 911, L17

Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M. B., Gladders, M. D., et al. 2015, ApJL, 814, L6

Rigby, J. R., Bayliss, M. B., Sharon, K., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 104

Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Furlanetto, S. R., & Dunlop, J. S. 2015, ApJL, 802, L19

Robertson, B. E., Furlanetto, S. R., Schneider, E., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 71

Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Janowiecki, S., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 2

Salim, S., Rich, R. M., Charlot, S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 267

Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 23

Savage, B. D., Wakker, B., Jannuzi, B. T., et al. 2000, ApJS, 129, 563

Scarlata, C., & Panagia, N. 2015, ApJ, 801, 43

Schaerer, D., Izotov, Y. I., Nakajima, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L14

Schmidt, K. B., Kerutt, J., Wisotzki, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A80

Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Chevallard, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3492

Senchyna, P., Stark, D. P., Vidal-García, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2608

Seyfert, C. K. 1943, ApJ, 97, 28

Shapley, A. E., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 2003, ApJ, 588, 65

Shirazi, M., Vegetti, S., Nesvadba, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2201

Steidel, C. C., Bogosavljević, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 123

Steidel, C. C., Strom, A. L., Pettini, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 159

Strömgren, B. 1939, ApJ, 89, 526

STScI Development Team, Lim, P. L., Diaz, R. I., & Laidler, V. 2013, pysynphot: Synthetic Photometry Software Package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1303.023

Telles, E., Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y. I., & Carrasco, E. R. 2014, A&A, 561, A64

Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y. I., & Lipovetsky, V. A. 1996, ApJ, 463, 120

Tinsley, B. M. 1980, FCPh, 5, 287

Tremonti, C. C., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

Vader, J. P., Frogel, J. A., Terndrup, D. M., & Heisler, C. A. 1993, AJ, 106, 1743

Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A13

Verhamme, A., Orlitová, I., Schaerer, D., & Hayes, M. 2015, A&A, 578, A7

Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., Atek, H., & Tapken, C. 2008, A&A, 491, 89

Verhamme, A., Schaerer, D., & Maselli, A. 2006, A&A, 460, 397

Vidal-García, A., Charlot, S., Bruzual, G., & Hubeny, I. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3532

Wang, B., Heckman, T. M., Zhu, G., & Norman, C. A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 149

Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 104

Wild, V., Groves, B., Heckman, T., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1593

Wofford, A., Vidal-García, A., Feltre, A., Chevallard, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2908

Xu, X., Heckman, T., Henry, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 222

Yates, R. M., Schady, P., Chen, T. W., Schweyer, T., & Wiseman, P. 2020, A&A, 634, A107