4.6 Article

Templates for Fitting Photometry of Ultra-high-redshift Galaxies

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
Volume 951, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdef6

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent data from the James Webb Space Telescope provide the first glimpse of galaxies at z > 11. Photometric template fitting is used to identify and infer properties of ultra-high-redshift candidates. Two sets of synthetic templates are developed, optimized for the expected astrophysics of galaxies at different redshift ranges, and used to fit three galaxies at z > 12 in the SMACS0723 field. These improved templates help quantify the bias in inferred properties from JWST observations at z > 8.
Recent data from the James Webb Space Telescope allow a first glimpse of galaxies at z & GSIM; 11. The most successful tool for identifying ultra-high-redshift candidates and inferring their properties is photometric template fitting. However, current methods rely on templates derived from much lower-redshift conditions, including stellar populations older than the age of the Universe at z > 12, a stellar initial mass function that is physically disallowed at z > 6, and weaker emission lines than currently observed at z > 7.5. Here, two sets of synthetic templates, optimized for the expected astrophysics of galaxies at 8 < z < 12 and z > 12, are developed and used to fit three galaxies at z > 12 from the SMACS0723 field. Using these improved templates, quantitative estimates are produced of the bias in inferred properties from JWST observations at z > 8 due to these effects. The best-fit redshifts are similar to those found with previous template sets, but the inferred stellar masses drop by as much as 1-1.6 dex, such that stellar masses are no longer seemingly inconsistent with ?CDM. The two new template sets are released in formats compatible with EAZY and LePhare.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available