\begin{table}%t3
\caption{\label{table:tab3}Best fitting parameters for the MIPS-u sample.}
\small%\centerline
 {
\begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
\hline\hline
%&&&&&&&&&&& \\[-8pt]
ID & $z_{\rm phot}$ & $\chi^2_{\nu}$ & $P_{\chi^2_{\nu}}$ & $A_{V}$ & $z_{{\rm inf}-90\%}$ & $z_{{\rm sup}-90\%}$ & $z_{\rm 2-phot}$ &  $P_{\chi^2_{\nu},2}$ & log $M$\\
%&&&&&&&&&&& \\[-8pt]
\hline
\#522  &  3.928  &  0.410  &  94.28	& 0.80  & 3.060  &  5.230  & 10.060  &  43.52  &  9.960 \\
\#1098  &  4.369  &  1.465  &  14.55   & 0.20  &  4.250 &   4.460  &  4.922  &  0.04  & 10.143 \\
\#2574  &  3.620  &  0.307  &  97.98   & 0.40  &  2.570 &   4.110  &  6.098  &  0.47  & 10.581 \\
\#3081  &  3.543  &  0.466  &  91.26   & 0.70  &  3.340 &   3.760  &  0.456  &  0.00  &  9.816 \\
\#3302  &  4.292  &  0.306  &  98.01   & 0.30  &  3.620 &   4.600  & 10.060  &  0.00  & 10.565 \\
\#4008  &  9.024  &  0.201  &  99.63   & 0.40  &  2.150 &  10.060  &  3.753  &  99.57  &10.069$^{{a}} $\\
\#5073  &  4.481  &  0.738  &  68.90   & 0.20  &  4.250 &   4.670  &  3.417  &  20.62  & 11.073 \\
\#5460  &  4.236  &  0.854  &  57.65   & 0.00  &  3.480 &   4.390  &  3.683  &  50.87  & 10.402 \\
\#6876  &  3.620  &  0.683  &  74.09   & 0.20  &  2.220 &   4.040  &  3.172  &  72.67  & 10.485 \\
\#7042  &  3.774  &  0.646  &  77.54   & 0.50  &  3.340 &   3.900  &  3.529  &  75.10  &  9.723 \\
\#7286  &  3.564  &  5.582  &   0.00   & 0.10  &  2.850 &   3.620  &  3.193  &  0.00  & 10.610 \\
\#7309  &  3.613  &  1.267  &  24.30   & 0.00  &  3.130 &   3.830  &  3.417  &  22.90  &  9.723 \\
\#7785  &  3.970  &  1.964  &   3.28   & 0.30  &  3.900 &   4.040  &  0.540  &  0.00  & 10.391 \\
\#8403  &  4.264  &  2.018  &   2.76   & 0.00  &  4.110 &   4.390  &  3.347  &  0.57  & 10.710 \\
\#9537  &  4.103  &  0.150  &  99.89   & 0.40  &  3.200 &   4.390  &  6.651  &  0.00  & 10.801 \\
\#9561  &  4.026  &  0.838  &  59.14   & 0.00  &  2.080 &   4.320  &  3.396  &  51.28  & 10.412 \\
\#11682  &  4.320  &  0.367  &  96.11   & 0.00  & 4.040  &  4.530  &  2.941  &  64.89  & 10.186 \\
\#12327  &  4.971  &  0.202  &  99.41   & 0.70  & 2.920  &  7.750  &  3.256  &  96.17  & 11.185 \\
\#14130  &  4.432  &  0.315  &  97.06   & 0.10  & 1.590  &  5.090  &  3.067  &  96.30  & 10.235 \\
\#14260  &  4.152  &  1.243  &  25.71   & 0.50  & 4.040  &  4.250  &  0.652  &   0.01  &  9.935 \\
\#15268  &  4.775  &  2.534  &   0.47   & 0.80  & 4.390  &  5.090  &  7.260  &   0.07  & 10.373 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\medskip
Column description: ID: identification number; $z_{\rm phot}$: photometric redshift best-fit solution; $\chi^2_{\nu}$: reduced $\chi^2$; $P_{\chi^2_{\nu}}$: probability relative to~$z_{\rm phot}$; $A_{V}$: dust extinction parameter; $z_{{\rm inf}-90\%}$ and $z_{{\rm sup}-90\%}$: upper and lower bound for the $90\%$~confidence interval; $z_{\rm 2-phot}$: secondary solution for photometric redshift; $P_{\chi^2_{\nu};2}$: probability relative to~$z_{\rm 2-phot}$; log~$M$: stellar mass in logarithmic scale, computed by using MA05~stellar population models. \\ 
We note that for galaxies with $z_{\rm phot}\sim 8{-}10$, the best fit redshifts are uncertain, and the range of equally probable solutions~($z_{\rm inf}-z_{\rm sup}$) within the 90\% of confidence
is large. Also for some of these objects~-- marked by the footnote$^{a}$~-- the \textit{Hyperzmass} procedure did not find any physical solution for the best-fit SEDs by fixing the redshifts to these extremely high values. \\
$^{{a}}$ This value for the galaxy mass was found for the secondary solution of photometric redshift, $z=3.753$, because the \textit{Hyperzmass} software did not find a plausible solution at $z= 9.024$.
\end{table}