pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.02637 · v2 · submitted 2025-02-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Ultra High-Redshift or Closer-by, Dust-Obscured Galaxies? Deciphering the Nature of Faint, Previously Missed F200W-Dropouts in CEERS

G. Gandolfi , G. Rodighiero , L. Bisigello , A. Grazian , S. L. Finkelstein , M. Dickinson , M. Castellano , E. Merlin
show 37 more authors
A. Calabr\`o C. Papovich A. Bianchetti E. Ba\~nados P. Benotto M. Catone F. Buitrago E. Daddi G. Girardi M. Giulietti M. Hirschmann B. W. Holwerda P. Arrabal Haro A. Lapi R. A. Lucas Y. Lyu M. Massardi F. Pacucci P. G. P\'erez-Gonz\'alez T. Ronconi M. Tarrasse S. Wilkins B. Vulcani L. Y. A. Yung J. A. Zavala B. Backhaus M. Bagley V. Buat D. Burgarella J. Kartaltepe Y. Khusanova A. Kirkpatrick D. Kocevski A. M. Koekemoer E. Lambrides N. Pirzkal G. Yang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 03:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords high-redshift galaxiesdust-obscured galaxiesJWSTCEERSSED fittingF200W dropoutsredshift ambiguitygalaxy masses
0
0 comments X

The pith

Five faint F200W-dropout sources in CEERS show significant probability of redshifts above 15 with masses fitting standard cosmology, though their probability distributions are bimodal and also allow low-redshift extremely dusty dwarf galaxy

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper identifies F200W-dropout objects absent from existing CEERS catalogs by applying a selection method to the latest NIRCam photometry. It finds three dusty dwarf galaxies at redshifts between 2 and 3 that exceed the masses of typical dusty dwarfs previously reported in the survey. It also finds five faint sources whose redshift probability distributions peak above 15 with best-fit masses compatible with Lambda CDM and standard baryon-to-star conversion efficiency. These five sources display bimodal distributions that additionally permit solutions at redshifts below 1.5 as dwarf galaxies with extreme dust extinction. One strong line emitter at redshift around 5 is identified that mimics the near-infrared signature of a redshift around 13 galaxy.

Core claim

The analysis reveals five faint sources with significant probability of lying above redshift 15, whose best-fit masses are compatible with Lambda CDM and a standard baryons-to-star conversion efficiency, although their bimodal redshift probability distributions also allow interpretation as redshift less than 1.5 dwarf galaxies with extreme dust extinction. It additionally identifies three 2 less than z less than 3 dusty dwarf galaxies with larger masses than typical examples in CEERS and one strong line emitter at z around 5 that mimics the near-infrared emission of a z around 13 galaxy.

What carries the argument

A pipeline combining multiple SED-fitting codes, varied star formation histories, and dust attenuation laws applied to NIRCam photometry, supplemented by mid-infrared data when available and CosMix stacking, to derive redshift probability distributions for the dropouts.

If this is right

  • Confirmation of the high-redshift solutions would constrain early galaxy formation and evolution with central black holes.
  • It would also constrain the nature of dark matter if the masses remain consistent with standard models.
  • Alternatively, confirmation of the low-redshift solutions would inform cosmic dust production mechanisms in low-mass galaxies.
  • The work helps quantify degeneracies and contamination rates in photometric searches for high-redshift objects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar dropout selections applied to other JWST fields could produce additional sources with comparable bimodal redshift distributions.
  • If the low-redshift solutions prove common, models of dust attenuation in dwarf galaxies may need revision to allow higher extinction values.
  • Multi-wavelength follow-up beyond NIRCam could test whether the extreme dust required in the low-redshift solutions is physically realistic.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen star formation histories and dust attenuation laws in the multi-code SED fitting can reliably separate high-redshift from low-redshift solutions when only NIRCam photometry is available for most sources.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic redshift measurement for any of the five ambiguous sources that detects or rules out emission lines at wavelengths expected for redshift above 15 versus low redshift with heavy dust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02637 by A. Bianchetti, A. Calabr\`o, A. Grazian, A. Kirkpatrick, A. Lapi, A. M. Koekemoer, B. Backhaus, B. Vulcani, B. W. Holwerda, C. Papovich, D. Burgarella, D. Kocevski, E. Ba\~nados, E. Daddi, E. Lambrides, E. Merlin, F. Buitrago, F. Pacucci, G. Gandolfi, G. Girardi, G. Rodighiero, G. Yang, J. A. Zavala, J. Kartaltepe, L. Bisigello, L. Y. A. Yung, M. Bagley, M. Castellano, M. Catone, M. Dickinson, M. Giulietti, M. Hirschmann, M. Massardi, M. Tarrasse, N. Pirzkal, P. Arrabal Haro, P. Benotto, P. G. P\'erez-Gonz\'alez, R. A. Lucas, S. L. Finkelstein, S. Wilkins, T. Ronconi, V. Buat, Y. Khusanova, Y. Lyu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: RGB mosaic of CEERS DR v.1.0 NIRCam data showing the position of our sample of dropouts, which is described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Updated CEERS catalog photometry errors vs CEERS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: [F277W - F444W] color-magnitude diagram for our F200W-dropouts. The F200W-dropout sample’s objects are shown as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [F150W - F444W] color-magnitude diagram for our F200W-dropouts. The F200W-dropout representation scheme is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [F277W - F356W] versus [F200W - F277W] color-color diagram for our sources. The F200W-dropout representation scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Best-fit SEDs and redshift probability distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Continued. Article number, page 10 of 33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Continued [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit SEDs, P(z)s and NIRCam cutouts for CURION. The plot’s color scheme is the same followed in Figure 6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: UV luminosity function estimate from our work (blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between galaxies in our sample and the main sequence of star-forming galaxies. The upper panel displays four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Best-fit SEDs, P(z)s and NIRCam cutouts for the median stacked UHR candidates sample, obtained exploiting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Best-fit stellar masses of our UHR candidates (and their median stack) in their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between the 4141 sources in the CEERS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Best-fit SEDs and P(z)s for U-53105 (top), A-26130 (middle) and A-76468 (bottom). The top section of each plot shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Continued. observations. Finding other candidates with bimodal P(z)s would have the benefit of enlarging our stacked UHR candidates sample to further constrain the properties of these objects, while poten￾tially outlining promising UHR candidates. Acknowledgements. G. G, G. R. and B. V. are supported by the European Union — NextGenerationEU RFF M4C2 1.1 PRIN 2022 project 2022ZSL4BL IN￾SIGHT. M. G. acknowl… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between U-53105, A-26130 and A-76468 to the main sequence of star-forming galaxies, represented as purple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is revolutionizing our understanding of the Universe by unveiling faint, near-infrared dropouts previously beyond our reach, ranging from exceptionally dusty sources to galaxies up to redshift $z \sim 14$. In this paper, we identify F200W-dropout objects in the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science (CEERS) survey which are absent from existing catalogs. Our selection method can effectively identify obscured low-mass ($\log \text{M}_* \leq 9$) objects at $z \leq 6$, massive dust-rich sources up to $z \sim 12$, and ultra-high-redshift ($z > 15$) candidates. Primarily relying on NIRCam photometry from the latest CEERS data release and supplementing with Mid-Infrared/(sub-)mm data when available, our analysis pipeline combines multiple SED-fitting codes, star formation histories, and CosMix - a novel tool for astronomical stacking. Our work highlights three $2<z<3$ dusty dwarf galaxies which have larger masses compared to the typical dusty dwarfs previously identified in CEERS. Additionally, we reveal five faint sources with significant probability of lying above $z>15$, with best-fit masses compatible with $\Lambda$CDM and a standard baryons-to-star conversion efficiency. Their bi-modal redshift probability distributions suggest they could also be $z<1.5$ dwarf galaxies with extreme dust extinction. We also identify a strong line emitter galaxy at $z \sim 5$ mimicking the near-infrared emission of a $z \sim 13$ galaxy. Our sample holds promising candidates for future follow-ups. Confirming ultra high-redshift galaxies or lower-z dusty dwarfs will offer valuable insights into early galaxy formation, evolution with their central black holes and the nature of dark matter, and/or cosmic dust production mechanisms in low-mass galaxies, and will help us to understand degeneracies and contamination in high-z object searches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper identifies previously uncatalogued F200W-dropout sources in the CEERS NIRCam data using standard photometry and multi-code SED fitting. It reports three 2<z<3 dusty dwarf galaxies with higher masses than prior CEERS examples, five faint sources whose bimodal redshift PDFs give significant integrated probability above z>15 (with best-fit stellar masses consistent with standard baryon conversion efficiency), and one z~5 strong-line emitter that mimics a z~13 dropout. The analysis supplements NIRCam with mid-IR/sub-mm data where available and employs CosMix for stacking.

Significance. If the z>15 probabilities remain robust after exhaustive testing of dust and SFH assumptions, the five candidates would be valuable for testing early galaxy formation models and ΛCDM expectations at the faint end. The explicit reporting of bimodality and the use of multiple SED codes are positive features that allow readers to assess the degeneracy with low-z dusty dwarfs.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (SED fitting results for the five bimodal sources): the claim of 'significant probability' at z>15 rests on the integrated P(z) from the adopted SFH and dust-attenuation combinations; no quantitative test is presented of how switching attenuation curves (Calzetti vs. SMC vs. Charlot-Fall) or SFH priors (delayed-tau vs. rising vs. bursty) shifts probability mass between the z>15 and z<1.5 peaks when only NIRCam photometry is available.
  2. [Table 2 / Figure 5] Table 2 / Figure 5 (photometric redshift PDFs for the five sources): the reported P(z>15) values are given without error bars or ranges arising from the free parameters listed in the methods (A_V, slope, age, tau, metallicity); this makes it impossible to judge whether the 'significant probability' threshold survives modest changes in those parameters.
minor comments (2)
  1. The text refers to 'CosMix - a novel tool' but does not provide a reference or GitHub link; a citation or repository pointer should be added.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (color-color selection diagram): the boundaries of the F200W-dropout selection box are not stated numerically, making it difficult to reproduce the sample selection from the public CEERS catalog.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the robustness of our photometric redshift results. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to provide additional quantitative tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (SED fitting results for the five bimodal sources): the claim of 'significant probability' at z>15 rests on the integrated P(z) from the adopted SFH and dust-attenuation combinations; no quantitative test is presented of how switching attenuation curves (Calzetti vs. SMC vs. Charlot-Fall) or SFH priors (delayed-tau vs. rising vs. bursty) shifts probability mass between the z>15 and z<1.5 peaks when only NIRCam photometry is available.

    Authors: We acknowledge that while the manuscript employs multiple SED-fitting codes and a range of SFH and dust parameters (as described in the methods section), a dedicated quantitative sensitivity analysis specifically testing the listed attenuation curves and SFH priors on the NIRCam-only photometry for these five sources was not included. We will add this analysis in a revised §4 (or new appendix), reporting how P(z>15) shifts under Calzetti, SMC, and Charlot-Fall curves as well as delayed-tau, rising, and bursty SFH priors. This will directly address the referee's concern and allow readers to evaluate the stability of the high-redshift probability peaks. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Table 2 / Figure 5] Table 2 / Figure 5 (photometric redshift PDFs for the five sources): the reported P(z>15) values are given without error bars or ranges arising from the free parameters listed in the methods (A_V, slope, age, tau, metallicity); this makes it impossible to judge whether the 'significant probability' threshold survives modest changes in those parameters.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the tabulated P(z>15) values lack explicit ranges or uncertainties propagated from variations in the free parameters (A_V, slope, age, tau, metallicity). Although the multi-code approach provides some cross-check, we agree this limits assessment of robustness. We will revise Table 2 and Figure 5 to include sensitivity ranges for P(z>15) under modest parameter variations, or add a supplementary table summarizing the impact of these parameters. This revision will be incorporated in the next version of the manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard SED fitting on public photometry yields bimodal P(z) outputs directly

full rationale

The paper applies multiple independent SED codes (with varied SFHs and attenuation laws) to public CEERS NIRCam photometry to produce redshift probability distributions for the F200W-dropouts. The reported bimodal PDFs and integrated P(z>15) values are direct numerical outputs of those fits rather than quantities defined in terms of themselves or renamed from prior self-citations. Self-citations to earlier CEERS papers supply survey context but do not supply the load-bearing selection or probability thresholds. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the same authors, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external data and standard tools.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions in SED fitting (Chabrier IMF, Calzetti or similar dust law, exponentially declining or delayed SFHs) plus the cosmological model used to convert observed fluxes into masses and redshifts. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • dust attenuation parameters (A_V, slope)
    Fitted per source in the SED codes; directly controls whether a low-z solution can reproduce the dropout.
  • star-formation history parameters (age, tau)
    Chosen from a discrete grid or priors in the fitting codes; affects the mass and redshift probability peaks.
  • metallicity and ionization parameter
    Standard free parameters in the SED libraries used for the line-emitter and high-z fits.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard flat ΛCDM cosmology with fixed H0 and Ωm
    Used to translate photometric redshifts into physical masses and look-back times.
  • domain assumption The chosen dust attenuation laws and SFH templates span the relevant physical range for both z>15 and z<1.5 solutions
    Invoked when interpreting the bimodal PDFs as physically plausible alternatives.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 6159 in / 1946 out tokens · 26966 ms · 2026-05-23T03:28:31.185477+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Possible evidence for a pair-instability supernova nature of ultra-early JWST sources

    astro-ph.GA 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A pair-instability supernova from a 250-260 solar mass Population III star at z≈15 matches the brightness, variability, photometry, and spectrum of the JWST source Capotauro.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 148 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    L., et al

    Arrabal Haro , P., Dickinson , M., Finkelstein , S. L., et al. 2023, , 622, 707

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Austin , D., Adams , N., Conselice , C. J., et al. 2023, , 952, L7

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    B., Finkelstein , S

    Bagley , M. B., Finkelstein , S. L., Koekemoer , A. M., et al. 2023, , 946, L12

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    & Loeb , A

    Barkana , R. & Loeb , A. 2001, , 349, 125

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    A., Weibel , A., et al

    Barrufet , L., Oesch , P. A., Weibel , A., et al. 2023, , 522, 449

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 5702

    Behroozi, P., Conroy, C., Wechsler, R., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 5702

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    & Arnouts , S

    Bertin , E. & Arnouts , S. 1996, , 117, 393

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10954

    Bisigello , L., Gandolfi , G., Feltre , A., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10954

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    2023, , 676, A76

    Bisigello , L., Gandolfi , G., Grazian , A., et al. 2023, , 676, A76

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    2024 b , , 689, A125

    Bisigello , L., Gruppioni , C., Bolatto , A., et al. 2024 b , , 689, A125

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Blanton , M. R. & Roweis , S. 2007, , 133, 734

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    2019, , 622, A103

    Boquien , M., Burgarella , D., Roehlly , Y., et al. 2019, , 622, A103

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.022

    Boucaud , A., Bocchio , M., Abergel , A., et al. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1609.022

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Bouchet , P., Lequeux , J., Maurice , E., Prevot , L., & Prevot-Burnichon , M. L. 1985, , 149, 330

    work page 1985

  17. [17]

    J., Illingworth , G

    Bouwens , R. J., Illingworth , G. D., Blakeslee , J. P., & Franx , M. 2006, , 653, 53

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    2023, Nature Astron., 7, 731

    Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2023, Nature Astron., 7, 731

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0

    Bradley, L., Sip o cz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    D., Coe , D., Brammer , G., et al

    Bradley , L. D., Coe , D., Brammer , G., et al. 2023, , 955, 13

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    B., van Dokkum , P

    Brammer , G. B., van Dokkum , P. G., & Coppi , P. 2008, , 686, 1503

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

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

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    & Charlot , S

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

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    2014, , 564, A125

    Buchner , J., Georgakakis , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2014, , 564, A125

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    2006, , 640, 1063

    Burrows , A., Sudarsky , D., & Hubeny , I. 2006, , 640, 1063

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline (1.16.0)

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline (1.16.0)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    2021, , 646, A39

    Calabr \`o , A., Castellano , M., Pentericci , L., et al. 2021, , 646, A39

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    C., et al

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

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    C., Begley , R., McLeod , D

    Carnall , A. C., Begley , R., McLeod , D. J., et al. 2023, , 518, L45

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    C., Leja , J., Johnson , B

    Carnall , A. C., Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., et al. 2019, , 873, 44

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    C., McLure , R

    Carnall , A. C., McLure , R. J., Dunlop , J. S., & Dav \'e , R. 2018, , 480, 4379

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18485

    Carniani , S., Hainline , K., D'Eugenio , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18485

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    2023, , 948, L14

    Castellano , M., Fontana , A., Treu , T., et al. 2023, , 948, L14

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    2022, , 938, L15

    Castellano , M., Fontana , A., Treu , T., et al. 2022, , 938, L15

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    2024, , 972, 143

    Castellano , M., Napolitano , L., Fontana , A., et al. 2024, , 972, 143

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    & Fall , S

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

    work page 2000

  37. [37]

    2019, , 483, 2621

    Chevallard , J., Curtis-Lake , E., Charlot , S., et al. 2019, , 483, 2621

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    L., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al

    Chworowsky , K., Finkelstein , S. L., Boylan-Kolchin , M., et al. 2024, , 168, 113

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    2017, , 608, A41

    Ciesla , L., Elbaz , D., & Fensch , J. 2017, , 608, A41

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    2024, , 686, A128

    Ciesla , L., Elbaz , D., Ilbert , O., et al. 2024, , 686, A128

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Cohn , J. D. 2018, , 478, 2291

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    J., Adams , N., Harvey , T., et al

    Conselice , C. J., Adams , N., Harvey , T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14973

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2352

    Cowley, W., Baugh, C., Cole, S., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2352

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    P., et al

    Davis , M., Guhathakurta , P., Konidaris , N. P., et al. 2007, , 660, L1

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Dayal , P., Ferrara , A., & Dunlop , J. S. 2013, , 430, 2891

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    & Giri , S

    Dayal , P. & Giri , S. K. 2024, , 528, 2784

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    2018, , 239, 35

    Diemer , B. 2018, , 239, 35

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    E., & Torrey , P

    Diemer , B., Sparre , M., Abramson , L. E., & Torrey , P. 2017, , 839, 26

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    2020, , 888, 37

    Ding , X., Silverman , J., Treu , T., et al. 2020, , 888, 37

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    T., McLeod , D

    Donnan , C. T., McLeod , D. J., Dunlop , J. S., et al. 2023, , 518, 6011

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Draine , B. T. 2003, , 41, 241

    work page 2003

  52. [52]

    2022, , 927, 204

    Enia , A., Talia , M., Pozzi , F., et al. 2022, , 927, 204

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, , 53, 385

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A

    Feroz , F., Hobson , M. P., Cameron , E., & Pettitt , A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    L., Bagley , M., Song , M., et al

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M., Song , M., et al. 2022, , 928, 52

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Arrabal Haro , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04085

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    L., Bagley , M

    Finkelstein , S. L., Bagley , M. B., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2023, , 946, L13

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    L., Bagley, M

    Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Haro, P. A., et al. 2025, The Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science Survey (CEERS)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    L., Dickinson , M., Ferguson , H

    Finkelstein , S. L., Dickinson , M., Ferguson , H. C., et al. 2017, The Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science (CEERS) Survey , JWST Proposal ID 1345. Cycle 0 Early Release Science

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    L., Leung , G

    Finkelstein , S. L., Leung , G. C. K., Bagley , M. B., et al. 2024, , 969, L2

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    2006, , 366, 767

    Fritz , J., Franceschini , A., & Hatziminaoglou , E. 2006, , 366, 767

    work page 2006

  62. [62]

    A., Schouws , S., et al

    Fudamoto , Y., Oesch , P. A., Schouws , S., et al. 2021, , 597, 489

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    2013, , 206, 10

    Galametz , A., Grazian , A., Fontana , A., et al. 2013, , 206, 10

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    2022, Universe, 8, 589

    Gandolfi, G., Lapi, A., Ronconi, T., & Danese, L. 2022, Universe, 8, 589

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Abbott , R., et al. 2023, , 135, 068001

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Clampin , M., et al. 2006, , 123, 485

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    E., Dunlop , J

    Geach , J. E., Dunlop , J. S., Halpern , M., et al. 2017, , 465, 1789

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    M., Akins , H

    Gentile , F., Casey , C. M., Akins , H. B., et al. 2024, , 973, L2

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    2023, , 947, L25

    Glazebrook , K., Nanayakkara , T., Jacobs , C., et al. 2023, , 947, L25

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    2006, , 449, 951

    Grazian , A., Fontana , A., de Santis , C., et al. 2006, , 449, 951

    work page 2006

  71. [71]

    A., Kocevski , D

    Grogin , N. A., Kocevski , D. D., Faber , S. M., et al. 2011, , 197, 35

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    N., Helton , J

    Hainline , K. N., Helton , J. M., Johnson , B. D., et al. 2024, , 964, 66

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    K., Mawatari , K., et al

    Harikane , Y., Inoue , A. K., Mawatari , K., et al. 2022, , 929, 1

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    2023, , 265, 5

    Harikane , Y., Ouchi , M., Oguri , M., et al. 2023, , 265, 5

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    H., & Haghi , H

    Haslbauer , M., Kroupa , P., Zonoozi , A. H., & Haghi , H. 2022, , 939, L31

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    2014, , 437, 1268

    Heinis , S., Buat , V., B \'e thermin , M., et al. 2014, , 437, 1268

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    Hensley , B. S. & Draine , B. T. 2023, , 948, 55

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    W., Hsu , C.-C., Hathi , N., et al

    Holwerda , B. W., Hsu , C.-C., Hathi , N., et al. 2024, , 529, 1067

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    D., et al

    Kirkpatrick , A., Kartaltepe , J., Kocevski , D. D., et al. 2023, MEGA Mass Assembly at Cosmic Noon: MIRI EGS Galaxy and AGN Survey , JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. \#3794

    work page 2023

  80. [80]

    M., Aussel, H., Calzetti, D., et al

    Kocevski , D. D., Finkelstein , S. L., Barro , G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.03576

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.