adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: ÆSOPUS 2.1: Low-temperature Opacities Extended to High Pressure
Authors: Paola Marigo, Francesco Addari, Diego Bossini, Alessandro Bressan, Guglielmo Costa, Léo Girardi, Giada Pastorelli, Michele Trabucchi, Guglielmo Volpato
Figure caption: Comparison of two broadening profiles used for monochromatic absorption cross sections: the Lorentzian profile produced by pressure and perturbing species (blue line) and the Gaussian thermal Doppler plus microturbulent velocity profile (magenta line; see Equation (5)). Left panel: water vapor; right panel: methane. See Table 11 for details. Values for pressure and temperature are labeled.
Paper: ÆSOPUS 2.1: Low-temperature Opacities Extended to High Pressure
Authors: Paola Marigo, Francesco Addari, Diego Bossini, Alessandro Bressan, Guglielmo Costa, Léo Girardi, Giada Pastorelli, Michele Trabucchi, Guglielmo Volpato
Figure caption: Map of the differences in Rosseland mean opacities when the IPD effect is included or ignored at high density. Contour levels are distributed every 0.025 dex in ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}\mathrm{log}({\kappa }_{{\rm{R}}})﹩.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: Estimate of the stellar specific angular momentum j vs. absolute magnitude (B band) for various galaxy types. For those studies where the magnitude was not stated, we consulted Hyperleda (D. Makarov et al. 2014). For ETG samples, we estimated j from the stated velocity curves (see the text), and when velocity data were noisy, we clipped outliers. For the LTG samples, we used the j directly from the source tables. Blue diagonal: fit to all LTG points (﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}j=-0.2465\cdot {M}_{B}+\mathrm{const}.﹩). Gray diagonal: fit to “ordinary” ETGs with M  B  ∈ [18.5, 21] mag (﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}j=-0.2673\cdot {M}_{B}+\mathrm{const}.﹩). Massive ETG and LTGs (M * ≳ 1010 M ☉) are known to roughly follow the same relation (﹩j\propto {M}_{* }^{2/3}﹩), but LTGs are offset toward higher j (see S. M. Fall 1983; R. Bender & J. L. Nieto 1990; A. J. Romanowsky & S. M. Fall 2012). Large, colored points: our Virgo dE sample (inclination-corrected: filled, not-corrected: open). Small green crosses: the dE satellites of M31 (NGC 147, NGC 185, NGC 205) inferred from individual stars (M. Geha et al. 2006, 2010) with velocity curves out to ∼8r e. Studies of integrated light (smaller FOV) suggest significantly smaller velocities (R. Bender et al. 1991; F. Simien & P. Prugniel 2002). Gray squares: long-slit dE observations from E. Toloba et al. (2015). Gray dots: dEs from M. Geha et al. (2003), some of which have exceptionally low j (presumably because of a very small FOV or a slit not aligned with the kinematic major-axis). Gray and light-gray pentagons: ETG sequence (dwarfs and “ordinary” ETGs) of R. Bender & J. L. Nieto (1990). Faint, red stars: dSphs of the Milky Way from A. M. Martínez-García et al. (2021). For these, j is from intrinsic velocities as they derived their values from the Gaia proper motions and radial velocities of individual stars. Light-gray diamonds: the ETGs of E. Emsellem et al. (2011). Light-gray dots: power-law ETGs of K. Mehrgan et al. (2023). Light-red dots: giant cored ETGs of K. Mehrgan et al. (2023). Light-blue diamonds: dwarf irregulars of S. Kurapati et al. (2018; j is of stars only). Light-blue squares: dwarf and massive spirals of L. Posti et al. (2018).
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The projected angular momentum parameter λ vs. ellipticity ϵ  e/2 within half the effective radius. The dashed curve indicates the dividing line between the slow- and fast-rotator classification (E. Emsellem et al. 2007). Colored circles: our data. Gray squares: the Virgo dEs of E. Toloba et al. (2015). Gray X-marks: the Fornax dEs of N. Scott et al. (2020). Gray triangles: the infalling Virgo dEs of B. Bidaran et al. (2020). Light-gray crosses: the massive Virgo cluster ETGs (M * ∼ 1010–1012 M ☉) of E. Emsellem et al. (2011), which are part of the ATLAS3D survey (M. Cappellari et al. 2011). Light-gray diamonds: the massive ETGs of E. Emsellem et al. (2011) that are not part of Virgo. Light-gray dots: the massive ETGs of K. Mehrgan et al. (2023).
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The spherical anisotropy parameter β (Equation (4)) vs. radius scaled by the effective radius. The typical size of the FOV for our dE sample is about 1.0r e, and outside of the FOV, the anisotropy is not well constrained. The same is the case for radii smaller than the spatial resolution limit. Using our error estimation criterion (Section 2.4), we find a typical 1σ error of the anisotropy parameter of Δβ = 0.065 (within 1 kpc), with VCC 856 being the most uncertain at Δβ = 0.11. Red curves: the anisotropy profiles of giant cored ETGs (J. Thomas et al. 2014, 2016). Due to black hole scouring, these have formed tangentially anisotropic cores (≲0.05r e) within a radially anisotropic envelope. Black dashed lines: ETGs from the sample of J. Thomas et al. (2007), which mostly consists of “ordinary” ETGs with magnitudes within M  B  ∈ [ −18.8, 22.6] mag. Gray band: the 90th percentile of the anisotropies of the 23 “ordinary” ETGs of M. Cappellari et al. (2007). Note that these values are radial averages. If the orbital structure changes from tangential to radial (as is often the case), then this averaging can make the galaxy appear closer to β = 0 than it actually is. Green, dotted line: the Fornax dSph from K. Kowalczyk & E. L. Łokas (2022).
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The angular momentum parameter λ within half the effective radius vs. the environmental proxy (the projected cluster-centric distance to M87). To convert the projected distance to megaparsecs, we assumed a constant distance to Virgo of 16.5 Mpc, i.e., the position of the galaxy along the line of sight is not considered. The angular momentum parameter of dEs appears to decrease for the galaxies that have experienced stronger and longer-lasting interactions with the cluster environment, which confirms previous trends of angular momentum-environment relations in the Virgo cluster (E. Toloba et al. 2015) and Fornax cluster (N. Scott et al. 2020). Shown here are only the dEs of E. Toloba et al. (2015) and B. Bidaran et al. (2020), since these also inhabit the Virgo cluster. Dashed line: the virial radius of the Virgo cluster (L. Ferrarese et al. 2012).
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: SSP age (top), metallicity (middle), and [Mg/Fe] abundance ratio (bottom) extracted from the spectra at r = 2.″5 (left) and r = 7.″5 (right) vs. the projected distance to M87 Δr sky,M87.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The ΔAIC p  envelopes for the intrinsic inner and outer mass-to-light ratios envelopes and the viewing angle of all of the orbit models we probed for each dE. The stellar mass-to-light ratios are stated in their respective bands (Figure 2). To obtain a realistic estimate of the errors, we compared the differences in the best 25 models. This is roughly equivalent to ΔAIC ≲ 10 criterion.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The observed average velocity dispersion gradients ﹩\tfrac{\partial {\sigma }_{\mathrm{LOS}}(r)}{\partial r}﹩, obtained from a linear fit to the observed radial dispersion profile, plotted against the 3D, log-linear, stellar mass-to-light ratio gradients of the dynamical models. The gradients were calibrated in the z band for a consistent quantitative comparison.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The log-linear population gradients vs. environment for our sample together with the Virgo dEs of A. Sybilska et al. (2017) and B. Bidaran et al. (2023). Both studies are based on IFU data, and gradients are defined as the fitted slope of ﹩\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{age}\right)﹩, Z/H, and [Mg/Fe] within one stellar effective radius ﹩\mathrm{log}({r}_{{\rm{e}}})﹩. The gradients for our dE sample are measured as the change between two apertures we have spectra for, i.e., ﹩\mathrm{log}(r=7.^{\prime\prime} 5)﹩ and ﹩\mathrm{log}(r=2.^{\prime\prime} 5)﹩. VCC 1910 is excluded because of its poor inner spectrum.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: Top panel: the (spherically averaged) matter densities for the dE sample that we obtained from the best AIC p  model found for each dE. Solid curves: the stellar density (including the ϒ* gradients). Dashed curves: the corresponding dark matter halo density as modeled by the Zhao parameterization (Equation (2)). Bottom panel: the cumulative dark matter fraction f DM within radius r. The dots highlight the value of f DM at one stellar effective radius; the typical radial extent of the kinematic data is 1.0r e.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: Literature comparison of single stellar population properties. We ordered the galaxies from left to right by the average age we derived in the two apertures. (Top: age in gigayears; middle: metallicity [Z/H]; bottom: iron abundance [Fe/H] for the studies that trace metallicity in terms of [Fe/H].) We use [Z/H] = [Fe/H] + 0.94 · [α/Fe] (D. Thomas et al. 2003) to convert our metallicity [Z/H] to [Fe/H]. The blue error bars show our results for the central spectrum at r = 2.″5 (dark blue) and the outer one at r = 7.″5 (light blue). Studies with a spectral resolution of R ≳ 2000 are highlighted in orange, error bars from the literature are not shown, in order to avoid overcrowding (they are generally larger than our errors). Our results for the central spectrum of VCC 1910 are not trustworthy (see Section 2.3). For the values of I. V. Chilingarian (2009), we plotted the values for the circumnuclear region and the outer region; we indicate the region by the direction of the arrow. We excluded the results of A. Ryś et al. (2013, 2015) from this plot, as they are models composed of two different stellar population models; although we note that they employed the same data as A. Sybilska et al. (2017). We are not aware of any existing analysis for VCC 200.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: Literature comparison for the mean (line-of-sight) velocity and dispersion. In this paper, we differentiate between sample galaxies using the color-coding indicated by the background color of the label here. There is no published data available for VCC 200, so we excluded it from this plot. The color-coding that is used for VCC 200 in all other Figures is dark blue. To avoid overcrowding, we do not show error bars for the literature. For the studies where we did not find any raw data in a table format, we reverse-engineered the approximate values from their figures. A few literature data points are not displayed here because they lie outside the plot boundaries. Blue with error bars: our kinematic data (see also Figure 4). Gray triangles: data from F. Simien & P. Prugniel (2002). Green dots: data from M. Geha et al. (2003). Gray diamonds: data from L. van Zee et al. (2004). Red stars: data from I. V. Chilingarian (2009). Gray dots: dispersion from the IFU study of A. Ryś et al. (2013). Since they have ∼100 Voronoi bins, we only plot the dispersion averaged within ellipticals bins, as shown in Figure 5 of A. Ryś et al. (2013). This reduces their high bin-to-bin scatter in the dispersion significantly, yet the higher dispersion remains. Their mean velocities were not displayed in the same manner, which is why they are not shown here. Gray squares: data from E. Toloba et al. (2014).
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: The same as Figure 7 but vs. the total stellar mass M *. Gray diagonal: standard j–M * scaling relation from C. Pulsoni et al. (2023) for fast rotators, i.e., this is not a fit to any of the galaxies shown here. Blue diagonal: standard scaling relation for massive LTGs (E. M. Di Teodoro et al. 2023).
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: Alternative version of Figure 6 analyzed within 1.0 instead of 0.5 stellar effective radii. For some galaxies in the VIRUS-W sample and in the literature, this requires an extrapolation because the kinematic maps do not extend far enough. The typical distribution of dEs does not change much with the increase in aperture, apart from two of the infalling dEs of B. Bidaran et al. (2020) becoming outliers.
Paper: The VIRUS-dE Survey. I. Stars in Dwarf Elliptical Galaxies—3D Dynamics and Radially Resolved Stellar Initial Mass Functions
Authors: Mathias Lipka, Jens Thomas, Roberto Saglia, Ralf Bender, Maximilian Fabricius, Gary J. Hill, Matthias Kluge, Martin Landriau, Ximena Mazzalay, Eva Noyola, Taniya Parikh, Jan Snigula
Figure caption: Analogous to Figure 18 but for the metallicity instead of the age. VCC 1910 is not in the plot range due to its (likely wrong) supersolar metallicity. Due to the anticorrelation of age and metallicity (Figure 5) of our dEs, the positive correlation of the IMF parameter and the metallicity is a corollary of the IMF and age relation.
Paper: The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Spatially Resolved Star Formation Activity and Dust Content in 4 < z < 6 Star-forming Galaxies
Authors: Juno Li, Elisabete Da Cunha, Jorge González-López, Manuel Aravena, Ilse De Looze, N. M. Förster Schreiber, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus, Justin Spilker, Ken-ichi Tadaki, Loreto Barcos-Munoz, Andrew J. Battisti, Jack E. Birkin, Rebecca A. A. Bowler, Rebecca Davies, Tanio Díaz-Santos, Andrea Ferrara, Deanne B. Fisher, Jacqueline Hodge, Ryota Ikeda, Meghana Killi, Lilian Lee, Daizhong Liu, Dieter Lutz, Ikki Mitsuhashi, Thorsten Naab, Ana Posses, Monica Relaño, Manuel Solimano, Hannah Übler, Stefan Anthony van der Giessen, Vicente Villanueva
Figure caption: Resolved SFR–L [C II] relations. We compare the surface density of SFR with the surface density of [C II] luminosity in each of our spatial bins that have 3σ [C II] detection and reliable SED fits. Each point corresponds to a spatial bin and is colored according to the distance to the center (i.e., the peak of JWST/NIRCam F444W emission). The gray area shows the 3σ detection limits of ﹩{{\rm{\Sigma }}}_{{{\rm{L}}}_{[{\rm{C}}\,\mathrm{II}]}}﹩. The black triangles are spatial bins that fall below the detection limit of [C II], but for which can still measure SFR. The solid black lines show the best-fit power law to only data points at R < 4 kpc, with the slope α indicated in the legend of each panel. The colored dashed lines are the SFR–L [C II] relations obtained from integrated measurements of intermediate- and high-redshift galaxies (DL2014 and S2020, I. De Looze et al. 2014; D. Schaerer et al. 2020) and a local resolved study (HC2015, R. Herrera-Camus et al. 2015). We exclude CRISTAL-01b from this analysis because the beam size of the [C II] observations is larger than the beam size of the dust continuum map used in the spatially resolved SED fitting.
Paper: The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Spatially Resolved Star Formation Activity and Dust Content in 4 < z < 6 Star-forming Galaxies
Authors: Juno Li, Elisabete Da Cunha, Jorge González-López, Manuel Aravena, Ilse De Looze, N. M. Förster Schreiber, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus, Justin Spilker, Ken-ichi Tadaki, Loreto Barcos-Munoz, Andrew J. Battisti, Jack E. Birkin, Rebecca A. A. Bowler, Rebecca Davies, Tanio Díaz-Santos, Andrea Ferrara, Deanne B. Fisher, Jacqueline Hodge, Ryota Ikeda, Meghana Killi, Lilian Lee, Daizhong Liu, Dieter Lutz, Ikki Mitsuhashi, Thorsten Naab, Ana Posses, Monica Relaño, Manuel Solimano, Hannah Übler, Stefan Anthony van der Giessen, Vicente Villanueva
Figure caption: Comparison of the results of our spatially resolved SED fitting for CRISTAL-02 when ALMA observations are included (first column) and excluded (second column). The third column shows the deviation by subtracting the first column from the second column, with red contours showing the dust emission at 2σ, 3σ, 5σ, 7σ, and 9σ. The last column shows the radial distribution of the median deviation per radial bin measured from the center of the galaxy (marked as a black cross). The three rows show, from top to bottom, sSFR, V-band dust attenuation (A  V ), and surface stellar mass density (﹩{{\rm{\Sigma }}}_{{M}_{* }}﹩).
Paper: The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Spatially Resolved Star Formation Activity and Dust Content in 4 < z < 6 Star-forming Galaxies
Authors: Juno Li, Elisabete Da Cunha, Jorge González-López, Manuel Aravena, Ilse De Looze, N. M. Förster Schreiber, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus, Justin Spilker, Ken-ichi Tadaki, Loreto Barcos-Munoz, Andrew J. Battisti, Jack E. Birkin, Rebecca A. A. Bowler, Rebecca Davies, Tanio Díaz-Santos, Andrea Ferrara, Deanne B. Fisher, Jacqueline Hodge, Ryota Ikeda, Meghana Killi, Lilian Lee, Daizhong Liu, Dieter Lutz, Ikki Mitsuhashi, Thorsten Naab, Ana Posses, Monica Relaño, Manuel Solimano, Hannah Übler, Stefan Anthony van der Giessen, Vicente Villanueva
Figure caption: Left: CRISTAL-25 residual maps of all filters, shown as ﹩{\rm{\Delta }}{F}_{\nu }=({F}_{\nu }^{{\rm{obs}}}-{F}_{\nu }^{{\rm{mod}}})/{\sigma }_{{F}_{\nu }}﹩, where ﹩{F}_{\nu }^{\mathrm{obs}}﹩ is the observed flux in a given filter, ﹩{F}_{\nu }^{\mathrm{mod}}﹩ is the best-fit model flux in that filter, and ﹩{\sigma }_{{{F}}_{\nu }}﹩ is the observational flux uncertainty. Right: RGB image of CRISTAL-25 made following the method in R. Lupton et al. (2004). It is composed of F150W, F277W, and F444W as B, G, and R, respectively, before PSF matching.
Paper: The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Spatially Resolved Star Formation Activity and Dust Content in 4 < z < 6 Star-forming Galaxies
Authors: Juno Li, Elisabete Da Cunha, Jorge González-López, Manuel Aravena, Ilse De Looze, N. M. Förster Schreiber, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus, Justin Spilker, Ken-ichi Tadaki, Loreto Barcos-Munoz, Andrew J. Battisti, Jack E. Birkin, Rebecca A. A. Bowler, Rebecca Davies, Tanio Díaz-Santos, Andrea Ferrara, Deanne B. Fisher, Jacqueline Hodge, Ryota Ikeda, Meghana Killi, Lilian Lee, Daizhong Liu, Dieter Lutz, Ikki Mitsuhashi, Thorsten Naab, Ana Posses, Monica Relaño, Manuel Solimano, Hannah Übler, Stefan Anthony van der Giessen, Vicente Villanueva
Figure caption: Comparison of physical parameters obtained with and without including ALMA observations in the SED fitting. From left to right, the panels show the comparisons of stellar masses, SFRs, and dust luminosities. In each panel, the black points compare the results from the resolved sum approach (i.e., adding up the parameters in all the spatial bins) and the red points compare the results from the integrated approach (i.e., fitting the total integrated SED).
Paper: The ALMA-CRISTAL Survey: Spatially Resolved Star Formation Activity and Dust Content in 4 < z < 6 Star-forming Galaxies
Authors: Juno Li, Elisabete Da Cunha, Jorge González-López, Manuel Aravena, Ilse De Looze, N. M. Förster Schreiber, Rodrigo Herrera-Camus, Justin Spilker, Ken-ichi Tadaki, Loreto Barcos-Munoz, Andrew J. Battisti, Jack E. Birkin, Rebecca A. A. Bowler, Rebecca Davies, Tanio Díaz-Santos, Andrea Ferrara, Deanne B. Fisher, Jacqueline Hodge, Ryota Ikeda, Meghana Killi, Lilian Lee, Daizhong Liu, Dieter Lutz, Ikki Mitsuhashi, Thorsten Naab, Ana Posses, Monica Relaño, Manuel Solimano, Hannah Übler, Stefan Anthony van der Giessen, Vicente Villanueva
Figure caption: Comparison between the SFR surface densities obtained using MAGPHYS (SFRSED) and using UV+IR empirical indicators (SFRUV+IR) for each spatial bin in our analysis. The green circles show regions where both SFRSED and SFRUV+IR could be reliably constrained (i.e., good SED fits and detections both in the UV and IR), and the black-filled triangles are regions that do not fully meet the detection criteria. The gray area in each panel shows the 1σ detection limit of ﹩{{\rm{\Sigma }}}_{{\mathrm{SFR}}_{\mathrm{UV}+\mathrm{IR}}}﹩. The black dashed line in each panel shows the one-to-one relation, with dotted gray lines marking the ±50% range.