& 10.88$_{-0.18}^{+0.27}$ & 0.55$_{-0.10}^{+0.15}$\
3.00$<$z$<$3.50 & 10.77 & 12.25$_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$ & 178.5$_{-18.4}^{+22.4}$ & 8.48$_{-0.12}^{+0.10}$ & 48.99$_{-11.32}^{+23.99}$ & 10.99$_{-0.19}^{+0.18}$ & 0.62$_{-0.11}^{+0.09}$\
3.50$<$z$<$4.00 & 10.80 & 12.34$_{-0.12}^{+0.07}$ & 219.0$_{-54.4}^{+40.2}$ & 8.39$_{-0.50}^{+0.33}$ & 72.98$_{-36.98}^{+167.95}$ & 11.06$_{-0.52}^{+0.36}$ & 0.65$_{-0.29}^{+0.16}$\
\
0.50$<$z$<$1.00 & 10.57 & 12.25$_{-0.08}^{+0.08}$ & 179.1$_{-150.5}^{+215.0}$ & 8.65$_{-0.04}^{+0.19}$ & 29.80$_{-11.77}^{+9.60}$ & 10.04$_{-0.24}^{+0.30}$ & 0.29$_{-0.10}^{+0.16}$\
1.00$<$z$<$1.50 & 10.60 & 12.55$_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ & 350.8$_{-314.5}^{+376.4}$ & 8.99$_{-0.01}^{+0.09}$ & 26.92$_{-6.92}^{+2.88}$ & 10.23$_{-0.23}^{+0.25}$ & 0.45$_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$\
1.50$<$z$<$2.00 & 10.64 & 12.93$_{-0.18}^{+0.07}$ & 860.1$_{-567.4}^{+1006.8}$ & 9.24$_{-0.09}^{+0.62}$ & 37.68$_{-28.40}^{+11.32}$ & 10.48$_{-0.25}^{+0.66}$ & 0.58$_{-0.14}^{+0.28}$\
2.00$<$z$<$3.00 & 10.69 & 13.10$_{-0.24}^{+0.07}$ & 1260.0$_{-728.1}^{+1487.1}$ & 9.64$_{-0.47}^{+0.37}$ & 22.22$_{-12.94}^{+50.77}$ & 10.34$_{-0.52}^{+0.44}$ & 0.75$_{-0.28}^{+0.14}$\

![image](SED_obs.eps)

![image](SED_zslice_fit_SBcomp.eps)

![image](SED_zslice_fit_SB10.eps)

Stacking analysis {#sect:stacking}
-----------------

We use a similar stacking approach as in @Magdis2012b to measure the mean SEDs of our sub-samples of star-forming galaxies from the mid-infrared to the millimeter domain. Different methods are used at the various wavelength to optimally extract the information depending if the data are confusion or noise limited. At 24$\mu$m, 100$\mu$m, and 160$\mu$m, we produced stacked images using the IAS stacking library [@Bavouzet2008; @Bethermin2010a]. The flux is then measured using aperture photometry with the same parameters and aperture corrections as @Bethermin2010a at 24$\mu$m. At 100$\mu$m and 160$\mu$m, we used a PSF fitting technique. A correction of 10% 