<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Left: average and scatter of the SFHs (in terms of the age of the universe and corresponding redshift) for all the galaxies in our sample (black), quiescent galaxies (red), and star-forming galaxies (blue). The latter types have been divided into two subsamples based on their redshifts, roughly with an equal number of sources in each subgroup. We also depict the SFH for the XELGs-z6 type (green). Right: gray lines show the evolution of the specific SFRs of our galaxies according to the 2D-based SFHs. The black-border symbols show the positions of our galaxies at the epoch of observation, hexagons for HST-dark and circles for HST-faint galaxies. Quiescent galaxies in our sample are marked with red squares, dusty star-forming galaxies detected by MIPS and (sub)millimeter surveys with cyan circles and blue stars, respectively, and XELG-z6 sources with a green triangle. The black thick line corresponds to inverse specific SFRs (i.e., doubling times) equal to the age of the universe. The average tracks for types of galaxies shown in the left panel are also shown. Comparison samples are depicted in color, using literature estimations of the redshift, stellar mass, and SFR. Yellow points correspond to the CANDELS catalog. Purple pointing-down triangles depict ALMA-detected galaxies (Scoville et al. 2016; Bowler et al. 2018; Tadaki et al. 2020; Burgarella et al. 2022; Schouws et al. 2022). Orange crosses show near-IR-faint, mid-IR-bright sources (i.e., red galaxies) discovered in the Spitzer/HST era (Huang et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2016; Alcalde Pampliega et al. 2019). Magenta diamonds depict the high-z red (and tentatively massive) galaxies discovered by JWST in comparison with HST data (Barrufet et al. 2022; Carnall et al. 2023; Labbe et al. 2022; Nelson et al. 2022). Pink stars correspond to $z > 9$ JWST-selected galaxies (Atek et al. 2022; Finkelstein et al. 2022; Naidu et al. 2022; Rodighiero et al. 2023; Santini et al. 2023).</figcaption></figure>

samples into two regimes, one at lower redshifts, $z < 4$ and $z < 3.5$, respectively, and one at higher, with roughly the same number of galaxies in each bin.

The average SFH of our sample (black line) is roughly constant, at a $4 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$ level, from $z \sim 30$ down to $z \sim 3$, when star formation bursts occur peaking 3–10 times above the steadier previous state. This translates to forming around $10^{10} M_{\odot}$ of stars above $z > 3$, in 2 Gyr, and an extra 30% of that mass in more recent starbursts. Our sample is thus dominated by (dusty) a population of SFGs that smoothly (when averaging their properties) assemble their mass until there is an intense star-forming event with high dust content.

If we restrict the analysis to SFGs, a similar SFH is observed for the $z < 4$ sample (which dominates the sample), with a slightly larger average level. For $z > 4$ SFGs, we see a steady state at a similar level, $5 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$, followed by a starburst at $z = 4–6$, with peak SFRs six times larger than the previous plateau. We note that these starbursts are averaged out when considering the full sample, which implies that they must be short and stochastic from galaxy to galaxy.

The combined interpretation for the SFHs we derive for SFGs point to a relatively constant SFR for around 1 Gyr broken by a first major starburst event beyond $z = 4–6$ (maybe only in some galaxies) and another one below $z < 3$. The SMGs in our sample are caught in the first burst, implying that the first stage with less extreme SFRs and lasting for 1 Gyr was capable of producing enough amounts of metals to feed the dusty starburst revealed by the submillimeter/millimeter observations.

The left panel of Figure 9 also shows the SFH for the QGs in our sample, again divided by redshift ($z < 3.5$ and $z > 3.5$ to have similar numbers of galaxies in each subsample). For the $z < 3.5$ QGs, after some constant activity at a $10–15 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$ level, larger than the value observed for other galaxy types, we see a very prominent star formation peak, reaching five times larger SFRs values, around $30 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$, occurring at $z = 5–7$, at a similar epoch when high-z SFGs present their first peak. Then, the SFH decays very rapidly (a factor of 4 in 500 Myr) and is established at the $5–10 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$ level for 1 more Gyr.

For high-z, QGs the SFH peak occurs even before, $z \sim 7–10$, it is not as marked, decays slightly more rapidly (300–400 Myr), and reaches almost null activity afterwards. We note that the high-z and low-z subsamples of QGs have different median masses (see Table 2), which explain the average levels of the SFH in Figure 9 (also true for other subsamples).

Finally, we also show in this panel the SFH for XELG-z6, which starts at a very low level and increased very rapidly by a factor of 8 at $z \sim 6–7$, similar to the behavior observed for $z < 3.5$ QGs and at a very similar epoch.

The right panel of Figure 9 shows the evolution of galaxies in an sSFR versus age of the universe plot. We remark that the tracks followed by galaxies roughly align with the line representing a mass-doubling time equal to the age of the universe (shown in black). This means that, on average, the SFH of galaxies transit through a steady star formation phase (the constant SFR region in the left panel) for several hundreds of Myr (even up to 1 Gyr). Indeed, the CANDELS sample
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 9.** Left: average and scatter of the SFHs (in terms of the age of the universe and corresponding redshift) for all the galaxies in our sample (black), quiescent galaxies (red), and star-forming galaxies (blue). The latter types have been divided into two subsamples based on their redshifts, roughly with an equal number of sources in each subgroup. We also depict the SFH for the XELGs-z6 type (green). Right: gray lines show the evolution of the specific SFRs of our galaxies according to the 2D-based SFHs. The black-border symbols show the positions of our galaxies at the epoch of observation, hexagons for HST-dark and circles for HST-faint galaxies. Quiescent galaxies in our sample are marked with red squares, dusty star-forming galaxies detected by MIPS and (sub)millimeter surveys with cyan circles and blue stars, respectively, and XELG-z6 sources with a green triangle. The black thick line corresponds to inverse specific SFRs (i.e., doubling times) equal to the age of the universe. The average tracks for types of galaxies shown in the left panel are also shown. Comparison samples are depicted in color, using literature estimations of the redshift, stellar mass, and SFR. Yellow points correspond to the CANDELS catalog. Purple pointing-down triangles depict ALMA-detected galaxies (Scoville et al. 2016; Bowler et al. 2018; Tadaki et al. 2020; Burgarella et al. 2022; Schouws et al. 2022). Orange crosses show near-IR-faint, mid-IR-bright sources (i.e., red galaxies) discovered in the Spitzer/HST era (Huang et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2016; Alcalde Pampliega et al. 2019). Magenta diamonds depict the high-z red (and tentatively massive) galaxies discovered by JWST in comparison with HST data (Barrufet et al. 2022; Carnall et al. 2023; Labbe et al. 2022; Nelson et al. 2022). Pink stars correspond to $z > 9$ JWST-selected galaxies (Atek et al. 2022; Finkelstein et al. 2022; Naidu et al. 2022; Rodighiero et al. 2023; Santini et al. 2023).</figcaption></figure>

samples into two regimes, one at lower redshifts, $z < 4$ and $z < 3.5$, respectively, and one at higher, with roughly the same number of galaxies in each bin.

The average SFH of our sample (black line) is roughly constant, at a $4 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$ level, from $z \sim 30$ down to $z \sim 3$, when star formation bursts occur peaking 3–10 times above the steadier previous state. This translates to forming around $10^{10} M_{\odot}$ of stars above $z > 3$, in 2 Gyr, and an extra 30% of that mass in more recent starbursts. Our sample is thus dominated by (dusty) a population of SFGs that smoothly (when averaging their properties) assemble their mass until there is an intense star-forming event with high dust content.

If we restrict the analysis to SFGs, a similar SFH is observed for the $z < 4$ sample (which dominates the sample), with a slightly larger average level. For $z > 4$ SFGs, we see a steady state at a similar level, $5 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$, followed by a starburst at $z = 4–6$, with peak SFRs six times larger than the previous plateau. We note that these starbursts are averaged out when considering the full sample, which implies that they must be short and stochastic from galaxy to galaxy.

The combined interpretation for the SFHs we derive for SFGs point to a relatively constant SFR for around 1 Gyr broken by a first major starburst event beyond $z = 4–6$ (maybe only in some galaxies) and another one below $z < 3$. The SMGs in our sample are caught in the first burst, implying that the first stage with less extreme SFRs and lasting for 1 Gyr was capable of producing enough amounts of metals to feed the dusty starburst revealed by the submillimeter/millimeter observations.

The left panel of Figure 9 also shows the SFH for the QGs in our sample, again divided by redshift ($z < 3.5$ and $z > 3.5$ to have similar numbers of galaxies in each subsample). For the $z < 3.5$ QGs, after some constant activity at a $10–15 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$ level, larger than the value observed for other galaxy types, we see a very prominent star formation peak, reaching five times larger SFRs values, around $30 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$, occurring at $z = 5–7$, at a similar epoch when high-z SFGs present their first peak. Then, the SFH decays very rapidly (a factor of 4 in 500 Myr) and is established at the $5–10 M_{\odot} \text{yr}^{-1}$ level for 1 more Gyr.

For high-z, QGs the SFH peak occurs even before, $z \sim 7–10$, it is not as marked, decays slightly more rapidly (300–400 Myr), and reaches almost null activity afterwards. We note that the high-z and low-z subsamples of QGs have different median masses (see Table 2), which explain the average levels of the SFH in Figure 9 (also true for other subsamples).

Finally, we also show in this panel the SFH for XELG-z6, which starts at a very low level and increased very rapidly by a factor of 8 at $z \sim 6–7$, similar to the behavior observed for $z < 3.5$ QGs and at a very similar epoch.

The right panel of Figure 9 shows the evolution of galaxies in an sSFR versus age of the universe plot. We remark that the tracks followed by galaxies roughly align with the line representing a mass-doubling time equal to the age of the universe (shown in black). This means that, on average, the SFH of galaxies transit through a steady star formation phase (the constant SFR region in the left panel) for several hundreds of Myr (even up to 1 Gyr). Indeed, the CANDELS sample
<table><caption>**Table 2**

Statistical Properties of the Stellar Populations in the Different Types of Galaxies Presented in the Paper</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample</th><th>z</th><th>log M<sub>*</sub><br>(M<sub>☉</sub>)</th><th>log SFR(5 Myr)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>log SFR(25 Myr)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>log SFR(100 Myr)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>log SFR(E - budget)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>A(V)<br>(mag)</th><th>Age<sub>m-w</sub><br>(Gyr)</th><th>z<sub>5%</sub></th><th>log Σ<sub>M<sub>*</sub></sub><br>(M<sub>☉</sub> kpc<sup>-2</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ALL</td><td>3.7<sup>4.6</sup><sub>3.1</sub></td><td>10.2<sup>10.6</sup><sub>9.7</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.4</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>0.5<sup>1.2</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>1.5<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.8</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.5</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.77<sup>1.04</sup><sub>0.39</sub></td><td>12.0<sup>15.2</sup><sub>9.0</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.8</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>HST-faint</td><td>3.3<sup>3.7</sup><sub>2.5</sub></td><td>10.4<sup>10.7</sup><sub>10.2</sub></td><td>1.3<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.6</sub></td><td>0.8<sup>1.4</sup><sub>0.4</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.3</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>1.6<sup>2.2</sup><sub>1.1</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.4</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.77<sup>1.11</sup><sub>0.46</sub></td><td>10.5<sup>13.5</sup><sub>7.8</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.8</sup><sub>7.9</sub></td></tr><tr><td>HST-dark</td><td>4.4<sup>5.7</sup><sub>3.7</sub></td><td>9.8<sup>10.2</sup><sub>9.4</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.3<sup>1.2</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>0.2<sup>0.9</sup><sub>-0.7</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>1.9</sup><sub>0.5</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.7</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.65<sup>0.88</sup><sub>0.25</sub></td><td>13.5<sup>16.0</sup><sub>10.1</sub></td><td>8.5<sup>8.9</sup><sub>8.2</sub></td></tr><tr><td>SFG</td><td>3.6<sup>4.3</sup><sub>2.9</sub></td><td>10.2<sup>10.6</sup><sub>9.8</sub></td><td>1.5<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.9</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.5</sup><sub>0.4</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.3</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>1.7<sup>2.2</sup><sub>1.2</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.6</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.71<sup>1.04</sup><sub>0.33</sub></td><td>12.1<sup>15.1</sup><sub>9.0</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.8</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>SFG@z < 4</td><td>3.3<sup>3.7</sup><sub>2.6</sub></td><td>10.4<sup>10.7</sup><sub>9.9</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>1.9</sup><sub>0.7</sub></td><td>1.0<sup>1.5</sup><sub>0.6</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.4</sup><sub>0.5</sub></td><td>1.7<sup>2.1</sup><sub>1.1</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.6</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.74<sup>1.11</sup><sub>0.35</sub></td><td>11.7<sup>14.8</sup><sub>8.8</sub></td><td>8.3<sup>8.8</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>SFG@z > 4</td><td>5.0<sup>5.3</sup><sub>4.4</sub></td><td>9.9<sup>10.3</sup><sub>9.5</sub></td><td>1.8<sup>2.5</sup><sub>1.1</sub></td><td>0.6<sup>1.2</sup><sub>-0.0</sub></td><td>0.4<sup>0.8</sup><sub>-0.0</sub></td><td>1.8<sup>2.3</sup><sub>1.3</sub></td><td>1.0<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.48<sup>0.77</sup><sub>0.01</sub></td><td>13.5<sup>15.1</sup><sub>9.5</sub></td><td>8.8<sup>9.1</sup><sub>8.4</sub></td></tr><tr><td>QG</td><td>3.6<sup>4.0</sup><sub>3.3</sub></td><td>10.3<sup>10.5</sup><sub>9.5</sub></td><td>-0.6<sup>0.2</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.6<sup>0.1</sup><sub>1.0</sub></td><td>-0.5<sup>0.1</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>0.4<sup>0.8</sup><sub>-0.4</sub></td><td>0.2<sup>0.5</sup><sub>0.0</sub></td><td>0.82<sup>1.04</sup><sub>0.77</sub></td><td>11.7<sup>13.6</sup><sub>9.2</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.9</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>QG@z < 3.5</td><td>3.2<sup>3.3</sup><sub>2.6</sub></td><td>10.4<sup>10.6</sup><sub>9.9</sub></td><td>0.0<sup>0.2</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td>-0.1<sup>0.1</sup><sub>-1.3</sub></td><td>-0.0<sup>0.1</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>0.9</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>0.2<sup>0.6</sup><sub>0.1</sub></td><td>0.82<sup>1.23</sup><sub>0.71</sub></td><td>9.7<sup>13.9</sup><sub>8.6</sub></td><td>8.2<sup>8.7</sup><sub>7.9</sub></td></tr><tr><td>QG@z > 3.5</td><td>3.9<sup>4.4</sup><sub>3.7</sub></td><td>9.8<sup>10.4</sup><sub>9.4</sub></td><td>-0.8<sup>-0.0</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.8<sup>-0.5</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.7<sup>-0.4</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>0.3<sup>0.7</sup><sub>-0.4</sub></td><td>0.1<sup>0.5</sup><sub>0.0</sub></td><td>0.82<sup>0.82</sup><sub>0.77</sub></td><td>12.0<sup>13.5</sup><sub>11.0</sub></td><td>8.6<sup>9.0</sup><sub>8.4</sub></td></tr><tr><td>XELG-z6</td><td>6.5<sup>6.6</sup><sub>6.3</sub></td><td>9.6<sup>9.8</sup><sub>9.0</sub></td><td>2.2<sup>2.8</sup><sub>1.9</sub></td><td>0.5<sup>1.3</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.4<sup>0.8</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>1.8<sup>2.4</sup><sub>1.5</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>2.4</sup><sub>0.8</sub></td><td>0.003<sup>0.400</sup><sub>0.002</sub></td><td>14.4<sup>17.8</sup><sub>8.6</sub></td><td>9.0<sup>9.4</sup><sub>8.5</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Note.** Median and quartiles for relevant properties of the different galaxy subsamples presented in the paper, namely, all galaxies, HST-faint, HST-dark, SFGs (all, and divided into two redshift regimes), quiescent galaxies QGs (all, and divided into two redshift regimes), and extreme emission-line galaxies at $z \sim 6$ XELG-z6. These properties are stellar mass; SED-based SFRs averaged in the last 5, 25, and 100 Myr; SFR obtained from the energy-budget calculations presented in Section 6.2.1; V-band attenuation; mass-weighted age; redshift at which the galaxies formed 5% of their current mass; and stellar-mass surface density (on a pixel-by-pixel basis).
<table><caption>**Table 2**

Statistical Properties of the Stellar Populations in the Different Types of Galaxies Presented in the Paper</caption><thead><tr><th>Sample</th><th>z</th><th>log M<sub>*</sub><br>(M<sub>☉</sub>)</th><th>log SFR(5 Myr)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>log SFR(25 Myr)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>log SFR(100 Myr)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>log SFR(E - budget)<br>(M<sub>☉</sub> yr<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>A(V)<br>(mag)</th><th>Age<sub>m-w</sub><br>(Gyr)</th><th>z<sub>5%</sub></th><th>log Σ<sub>M<sub>*</sub></sub><br>(M<sub>☉</sub> kpc<sup>-2</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ALL</td><td>3.7<sup>4.6</sup><sub>3.1</sub></td><td>10.2<sup>10.6</sup><sub>9.7</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.4</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>0.5<sup>1.2</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>1.5<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.8</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.5</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.77<sup>1.04</sup><sub>0.39</sub></td><td>12.0<sup>15.2</sup><sub>9.0</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.8</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>HST-faint</td><td>3.3<sup>3.7</sup><sub>2.5</sub></td><td>10.4<sup>10.7</sup><sub>10.2</sub></td><td>1.3<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.6</sub></td><td>0.8<sup>1.4</sup><sub>0.4</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.3</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>1.6<sup>2.2</sup><sub>1.1</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.4</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.77<sup>1.11</sup><sub>0.46</sub></td><td>10.5<sup>13.5</sup><sub>7.8</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.8</sup><sub>7.9</sub></td></tr><tr><td>HST-dark</td><td>4.4<sup>5.7</sup><sub>3.7</sub></td><td>9.8<sup>10.2</sup><sub>9.4</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.3<sup>1.2</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>0.2<sup>0.9</sup><sub>-0.7</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>1.9</sup><sub>0.5</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.7</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.65<sup>0.88</sup><sub>0.25</sub></td><td>13.5<sup>16.0</sup><sub>10.1</sub></td><td>8.5<sup>8.9</sup><sub>8.2</sub></td></tr><tr><td>SFG</td><td>3.6<sup>4.3</sup><sub>2.9</sub></td><td>10.2<sup>10.6</sup><sub>9.8</sub></td><td>1.5<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.9</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.5</sup><sub>0.4</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>1.3</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>1.7<sup>2.2</sup><sub>1.2</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.6</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.71<sup>1.04</sup><sub>0.33</sub></td><td>12.1<sup>15.1</sup><sub>9.0</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.8</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>SFG@z < 4</td><td>3.3<sup>3.7</sup><sub>2.6</sub></td><td>10.4<sup>10.7</sup><sub>9.9</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>1.9</sup><sub>0.7</sub></td><td>1.0<sup>1.5</sup><sub>0.6</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.4</sup><sub>0.5</sub></td><td>1.7<sup>2.1</sup><sub>1.1</sub></td><td>0.9<sup>1.6</sup><sub>0.3</sub></td><td>0.74<sup>1.11</sup><sub>0.35</sub></td><td>11.7<sup>14.8</sup><sub>8.8</sub></td><td>8.3<sup>8.8</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>SFG@z > 4</td><td>5.0<sup>5.3</sup><sub>4.4</sub></td><td>9.9<sup>10.3</sup><sub>9.5</sub></td><td>1.8<sup>2.5</sup><sub>1.1</sub></td><td>0.6<sup>1.2</sup><sub>-0.0</sub></td><td>0.4<sup>0.8</sup><sub>-0.0</sub></td><td>1.8<sup>2.3</sup><sub>1.3</sub></td><td>1.0<sup>2.1</sup><sub>0.2</sub></td><td>0.48<sup>0.77</sup><sub>0.01</sub></td><td>13.5<sup>15.1</sup><sub>9.5</sub></td><td>8.8<sup>9.1</sup><sub>8.4</sub></td></tr><tr><td>QG</td><td>3.6<sup>4.0</sup><sub>3.3</sub></td><td>10.3<sup>10.5</sup><sub>9.5</sub></td><td>-0.6<sup>0.2</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.6<sup>0.1</sup><sub>1.0</sub></td><td>-0.5<sup>0.1</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>0.4<sup>0.8</sup><sub>-0.4</sub></td><td>0.2<sup>0.5</sup><sub>0.0</sub></td><td>0.82<sup>1.04</sup><sub>0.77</sub></td><td>11.7<sup>13.6</sup><sub>9.2</sub></td><td>8.4<sup>8.9</sup><sub>8.0</sub></td></tr><tr><td>QG@z < 3.5</td><td>3.2<sup>3.3</sup><sub>2.6</sub></td><td>10.4<sup>10.6</sup><sub>9.9</sub></td><td>0.0<sup>0.2</sup><sub>-1.4</sub></td><td>-0.1<sup>0.1</sup><sub>-1.3</sub></td><td>-0.0<sup>0.1</sup><sub>-1.2</sub></td><td>0.7<sup>0.9</sup><sub>-0.1</sub></td><td>0.2<sup>0.6</sup><sub>0.1</sub></td><td>0.82<sup>1.23</sup><sub>0.71</sub></td><td>9.7<sup>13.9</sup><sub>8.6</sub></td><td>8.2<sup>8.7</sup><sub>7.9</sub></td></tr><tr><td>QG@z > 3.5</td><td>3.9<sup>4.4</sup><sub>3.7</sub></td><td>9.8<sup>10.4</sup><sub>9.4</sub></td><td>-0.8<sup>-0.0</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.8<sup>-0.5</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.7<sup>-0.4</sup><sub>-0.8</sub></td><td>0.3<sup>0.7</sup><sub>-0.4</sub></td><td>0.1<sup>0.5</sup><sub>0.0</sub></td><td>0.82<sup>0.82</sup><sub>0.77</sub></td><td>12.0<sup>13.5</sup><sub>11.0</sub></td><td>8.6<sup>9.0</sup><sub>8.4</sub></td></tr><tr><td>XELG-z6</td><td>6.5<sup>6.6</sup><sub>6.3</sub></td><td>9.6<sup>9.8</sup><sub>9.0</sub></td><td>2.2<sup>2.8</sup><sub>1.9</sub></td><td>0.5<sup>1.3</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>-0.4<sup>0.8</sup><sub>-1.0</sub></td><td>1.8<sup>2.4</sup><sub>1.5</sub></td><td>1.4<sup>2.4</sup><sub>0.8</sub></td><td>0.003<sup>0.400</sup><sub>0.002</sub></td><td>14.4<sup>17.8</sup><sub>8.6</sub></td><td>9.0<sup>9.4</sup><sub>8.5</sub></td></tr></tbody></table>

**Note.** Median and quartiles for relevant properties of the different galaxy subsamples presented in the paper, namely, all galaxies, HST-faint, HST-dark, SFGs (all, and divided into two redshift regimes), quiescent galaxies QGs (all, and divided into two redshift regimes), and extreme emission-line galaxies at $z \sim 6$ XELG-z6. These properties are stellar mass; SED-based SFRs averaged in the last 5, 25, and 100 Myr; SFR obtained from the energy-budget calculations presented in Section 6.2.1; V-band attenuation; mass-weighted age; redshift at which the galaxies formed 5% of their current mass; and stellar-mass surface density (on a pixel-by-pixel basis).
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Left: gray lines show the evolution of the stellar mass of our galaxies according to the 2D-based SFHs. The black-border symbols show the positions of our galaxies at the epoch of observation, hexagons for HST-dark and circles for HST-faint galaxies. Quiescent galaxies in our sample are marked with a red square, dusty star-forming galaxies detected by MIPS and (sub)millimeter surveys with cyan circles and blue stars, respectively, and XELG-z6 sources with a green triangle. The average tracks for quiescent galaxies, dusty starburst (both types divided by redshift, with lower/higher redshifts depicted with dashed/continuous lines), and XELG-z6 are also shown. Comparison samples are also depicted, using literature estimations of the redshift and the stellar mass, and with the same colors mentioned in Figure 9. On the top-right panel, we show the distribution of redshifts where our galaxies have formed 1, 5, and 25% of their observed stellar mass. In the bottom-right panel, we show the histograms of redshifts where our galaxies have already formed 10⁸, 10⁹, and 10¹⁰ M☉ in stellar mass.</figcaption></figure>

(shown in yellow) nicely concentrates around that line. At $z \gtrsim 10$, however, our SFHs imply very quick mass-doubling times, which points to a very active phase in the young universe, consistent with the relatively high number of very high-$z$ sources being detected in JWST surveys, several times above expectations (see Figure 5 in Finkelstein et al. 2022 and pink stars in our plot). We must warn the reader that the behavior of the SFHs at very high $z$ can be affected by the very nonlinear relationship between time and redshift. By $z \sim 7$, we start distinguishing the individual galaxies, which move to a starburst phase, a quiescent state, or remain in the mass-doubling line.

The right panel of Figure 9 also shows some interesting galaxy samples to help understand the nature of our sources. Apart from the general CANDELS sample shown in yellow, which follows the mass-doubling equal to the universe age line and the SFH tracks plotted in the figure, we also depict the galaxies detected with HST versus IRAC colors and presented in papers such as Wang et al. (2016) or Alcalde Pampliega et al. (2019), with the SFR and mass (quite uncertain due to data limitations prior to JWST) estimation they were able to assign. Most of these galaxies present high specific SFRs from redshifts $z=2-6$, similar to some of our dusty starbursts. Another less numerous subpopulation presents specific SFRs compatible with quiescent systems, extending even at higher redshifts than our quiescent galaxy candidates.

Another interesting sample of galaxies we include in the right panel of Figure 9 are ALMA sources (see caption for

references). Especially interesting are those at $4 < z < 6$, which present similar specific SFR values to some of our $z > 4$ SFGs (some confirmed SMGs) and XELG-z6. The SMGs in our sample and the ALMA sources concentrate around the epoch where our QGs experienced their last intense starburst event before quenching.

Finally, we also include on the right panel of Figure 9 the high-redshift massive galaxies reported by Labbe et al. (2022) and the $z>9$ galaxy candidates presented by several groups based on the first analyses of the first JWST data sets (Finkelstein et al. 2022; Naidu et al. 2022). In both cases, some of our SFHs would be able to reproduce their properties, but the bulk of our galaxies would be linked to progenitors presenting smaller specific SFRs than these high-$z$ sources, implying also that we are just starting to probe the tip of the iceberg of $z>9$ populations.

Figure 10 shows, on the left panel, the evolution of the stellar masses of our galaxies as a function of the universe's age, jointly with the same comparison samples depicted in the previous figure. Virtually all of our sources experience very quick mass assembly at $z \gtrsim 10$, followed by a less pronounced mass increment, very similar for all galaxies except for very few of them quickly increasing their mass by more than 1 dex below $z=7$, the XELG-z6.

The HST-faint and HST-dark galaxies selected in this paper correspond to a high mass end of the distribution of masses and redshifts of the CANDELS sample. Many of our galaxies have stellar masses similar to those of HST-dark systems selected
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 10.** Left: gray lines show the evolution of the stellar mass of our galaxies according to the 2D-based SFHs. The black-border symbols show the positions of our galaxies at the epoch of observation, hexagons for HST-dark and circles for HST-faint galaxies. Quiescent galaxies in our sample are marked with a red square, dusty star-forming galaxies detected by MIPS and (sub)millimeter surveys with cyan circles and blue stars, respectively, and XELG-z6 sources with a green triangle. The average tracks for quiescent galaxies, dusty starburst (both types divided by redshift, with lower/higher redshifts depicted with dashed/continuous lines), and XELG-z6 are also shown. Comparison samples are also depicted, using literature estimations of the redshift and the stellar mass, and with the same colors mentioned in Figure 9. On the top-right panel, we show the distribution of redshifts where our galaxies have formed 1, 5, and 25% of their observed stellar mass. In the bottom-right panel, we show the histograms of redshifts where our galaxies have already formed $10^8$, $10^9$, and $10^{10} M_\odot$ in stellar mass.</figcaption></figure>

(shown in yellow) nicely concentrates around that line. At $z \gtrsim 10$, however, our SFHs imply very quick mass-doubling times, which points to a very active phase in the young universe, consistent with the relatively high number of very high-$z$ sources being detected in JWST surveys, several times above expectations (see Figure 5 in Finkelstein et al. 2022 and pink stars in our plot). We must warn the reader that the behavior of the SFHs at very high $z$ can be affected by the very nonlinear relationship between time and redshift. By $z \sim 7$, we start distinguishing the individual galaxies, which move to a starburst phase, a quiescent state, or remain in the mass-doubling line.

The right panel of Figure 9 also shows some interesting galaxy samples to help understand the nature of our sources. Apart from the general CANDELS sample shown in yellow, which follows the mass-doubling equal to the universe age line and the SFH tracks plotted in the figure, we also depict the galaxies detected with HST versus IRAC colors and presented in papers such as Wang et al. (2016) or Alcalde Pampliega et al. (2019), with the SFR and mass (quite uncertain due to data limitations prior to JWST) estimation they were able to assign. Most of these galaxies present high specific SFRs from redshifts $z=2-6$, similar to some of our dusty starbursts. Another less numerous subpopulation presents specific SFRs compatible with quiescent systems, extending even at higher redshifts than our quiescent galaxy candidates.

Another interesting sample of galaxies we include in the right panel of Figure 9 are ALMA sources (see caption for

references). Especially interesting are those at $4 < z < 6$, which present similar specific SFR values to some of our $z > 4$ SFGs (some confirmed SMGs) and XELG-z6. The SMGs in our sample and the ALMA sources concentrate around the epoch where our QGs experienced their last intense starburst event before quenching.

Finally, we also include on the right panel of Figure 9 the high-redshift massive galaxies reported by Labbe et al. (2022) and the $z>9$ galaxy candidates presented by several groups based on the first analyses of the first JWST data sets (Finkelstein et al. 2022; Naidu et al. 2022). In both cases, some of our SFHs would be able to reproduce their properties, but the bulk of our galaxies would be linked to progenitors presenting smaller specific SFRs than these high-$z$ sources, implying also that we are just starting to probe the tip of the iceberg of $z>9$ populations.

Figure 10 shows, on the left panel, the evolution of the stellar masses of our galaxies as a function of the universe's age, jointly with the same comparison samples depicted in the previous figure. Virtually all of our sources experience very quick mass assembly at $z \gtrsim 10$, followed by a less pronounced mass increment, very similar for all galaxies except for very few of them quickly increasing their mass by more than 1 dex below $z=7$, the XELG-z6.

The HST-faint and HST-dark galaxies selected in this paper correspond to a high mass end of the distribution of masses and redshifts of the CANDELS sample. Many of our galaxies have stellar masses similar to those of HST-dark systems selected
with IRAC versus HST data (pink crosses), but those samples seem to be biased toward massive systems, $log M_*/M_\odot > 10$. This might be linked to limitations in the area of our CEERS survey, not comparable (yet) to the data sets used by those previous works. It might also be linked to confusion problems in the IRAC observations since many of our galaxies are indeed surrounded by neighbors and only the JWST data have now been able to separate them in the mid-IR. And, obviously, IRAC samples are biased toward brighter objects, compared to the new JWST data.

Compared to ALMA sources, our sample presents similar stellar masses at $z > 4$. Probably the selections are converging in this epoch. We also remark that some of the ALMA sources at $7 < z < 10$ could well be progenitors of our lower-redshift galaxies because they lie within the locus occupied by our SFHs.

It is worth noting that the sample of XELG-z6 presents an average track, implying that they are quickly assembling a significant fraction of their stellar mass at $z \sim 7$.

The last two samples we compare with are the Labbe et al. (2022) massive high-z galaxies and $z > 9$ JWST galaxy candidates (Naidu et al. 2022; Finkelstein et al. 2022). The former significantly deviates from our SFHs; they would seem to correspond more, should their stellar mass and redshift be accurate, to progenitors of very massive HST-dark galaxies, which we have not yet detected with JWST, maybe due to survey area limitations. In fact, for the galaxies in that paper that we have in our sample, we obtain similar redshifts but up to $10 \times$ smaller stellar masses. The masses and redshifts for the $z > 9$ samples compare well with the tracks followed by many of our SFHs, although they typically lie around 1 dex below the average SFH for our samples, implying that we are not seeing comparable populations. Furthermore, $z > 9$ detections would be more compatible with the $log M_*/M_\odot < 10$, $3 < z < 5$ galaxies in the CANDELS or our sample (including quiescent objects).

The right panels of Figure 10 present the histograms of formation redshifts of our sample. On the bottom panel, we show when our red galaxies reached masses $10^{8-10} M_\odot$. Typically, $10^8 M_\odot$ of stars were assembled by $z \sim 15$, with a large scatter. Our galaxies formed their first $10^9 M_\odot$ by $z \sim 12$ (on average) and reached masses as high as $10^{10} M_\odot$ at $z = 7$. Complementary, we also show the histograms of formation redshifts for 5%, 10%, and 25% of the current stellar mass of the galaxies in our sample. Overall, our SFHs, especially those for quiescent galaxies, imply a very active universe beyond $z > 10$ and up to $z \sim 25$, with some quite massive galaxies ($log M_*/M_\odot > 10$) at even $z = 15-20$ (or, quite probably, several progenitors to merge later). We remark that all this star formation activity can occur in situ or ex situ in distinct progenitors at high redshifts.

## 6.5. Spatially Resolved Analysis of the Stellar Populations

In this section, we focus on the analysis of how the red galaxies in our sample have assembled, investigating the stellar-mass density 2D distribution, the ages of stellar populations present in different parts of the galaxy, and the location of the dusty starbursts that many of our sources present.

Figure 11 shows the distribution of the stellar population properties for all pixels in our analysis as a function of galactocentric distance (in absolute units and relative to the

effective radius) and for different galaxy subsamples. Median values and quartiles are marked and provided in Table 2. We note three interesting results from this figure.

First, focusing on the top-right panel, the $z > 4$ SFGs (including high-z SMGs) subsample (depicted in blue) is identified with the highest dust attenuations, typically $A(V) > 2$ mag. For $z < 4$ SFGs, there is a tail of systems harboring regions (pixels) with similarly large dust contents, many of which belong to the MIPS24 emitters in our sample. We remark that the submillimeter and millimeter surveys in the CEERS field are heterogeneous in area coverage and depth, so our $z > 4$ SFG sample could still include additional SMGs. Distinctively, quiescent galaxies are composed of regions with $A(V) < 1$ mag dust attenuations, the median being around 0.3 mag. The regions with the highest attenuations are preferentially located in the inner 2 kpc, or $2 \times r_{e,M}$, with a significant gradient toward larger radii, similar to what has been reported at lower redshifts (see Wang et al. 2017; Miller et al. 2022), but with larger nuclear attenuations in the case of SMGs (compared to main-sequence galaxies at $z \sim 2$; see, e.g., Tacchella et al. 2018). XELG-z6 present a quite flat attenuation distribution, which extends from unobscured to $A(V) = 3$ mag, i.e., the starburst we see as an emission line is also dusty, but these are very compact sources, as we mentioned earlier.

The second result we highlight is that all the galaxies in our sample present evolved stellar populations in terms of mass-weighted age. The frequency plots for QGs and SFGs peak at similar ages, around 1 Gyr, although the distribution for quiescent galaxies is skewed to older values, the contrary can be said for SFGs. The distribution of mass-weighted ages for regions in $z > 4$ SFGs is different from that for $z < 4$ SFGs—the former tends to have more regions with ages between 1 and 10 Myr. Most of these very young regions are in the inner 2.5 kpc, within $1.5 \times r_{e,M}$. Even though the histograms of mass-weighted ages for QGs and SFGs (especially those at the lowest redshifts) peak at similar values, with the latter starting forming earlier, there is a significant number of pixels (dominating in number but not in mass) that had already formed 5% of their current mass at $5 < z < 10$. This contrasts with the properties of XELG-z6—most of their pixels are assembling their mass quickly at $z = 6-7$.

The last result we extract from Figure 11 refers to the stellar-mass surface density. QGs and $z < 4$ SFGs present very similar distributions at the dense end, at values higher than $10^{8.5} M_\odot$ kpc$^{-2}$. Relatively, the regions with the highest densities, above $10^{9.5} M_\odot$ kpc$^{-2}$, are more common in quiescent galaxies and at distances within 2 kpc or one effective radius. We see a tail at the high-density end for $z > 4$ SFGs and XELG-z6, with larger values than those observed by QGs, but this is probably an artifact introduced by the different redshifts and spatial resolutions of the subsample. The two higher-redshift subsamples would be more comparable, and XELG-z6 present more pixels with higher densities, compared to $z > 4$ SFGs.

## 7. Summary and Conclusions

We have presented a novel approach to the study of galaxies at cosmological distances with the combination of JWST and HST data. Using their superb sensitivities and spatial resolution along a wide spectral region covering the optical and near- and mid-infrared, we analyze spectral energy distributions on a pixel-by-pixel basis for a sample of 138 mid-IR-selected (F356W $< 27.5$ mag), HST/near-IR-faint (F160W $> 24$ mag),
with IRAC versus HST data (pink crosses), but those samples seem to be biased toward massive systems, $log M_*/M_{\odot} > 10$. This might be linked to limitations in the area of our CEERS survey, not comparable (yet) to the data sets used by those previous works. It might also be linked to confusion problems in the IRAC observations since many of our galaxies are indeed surrounded by neighbors and only the JWST data have now been able to separate them in the mid-IR. And, obviously, IRAC samples are biased toward brighter objects, compared to the new JWST data.

Compared to ALMA sources, our sample presents similar stellar masses at $z > 4$. Probably the selections are converging in this epoch. We also remark that some of the ALMA sources at $7 < z < 10$ could well be progenitors of our lower-redshift galaxies because they lie within the locus occupied by our SFHs.

It is worth noting that the sample of XELG-z6 presents an average track, implying that they are quickly assembling a significant fraction of their stellar mass at $z \sim 7$.

The last two samples we compare with are the Labbe et al. (2022) massive high-z galaxies and $z > 9$ JWST galaxy candidates (Naidu et al. 2022; Finkelstein et al. 2022). The former significantly deviates from our SFHs; they would seem to correspond more, should their stellar mass and redshift be accurate, to progenitors of very massive HST-dark galaxies, which we have not yet detected with JWST, maybe due to survey area limitations. In fact, for the galaxies in that paper that we have in our sample, we obtain similar redshifts but up to $10 \times$ smaller stellar masses. The masses and redshifts for the $z > 9$ samples compare well with the tracks followed by many of our SFHs, although they typically lie around 1 dex below the average SFH for our samples, implying that we are not seeing comparable populations. Furthermore, $z > 9$ detections would be more compatible with the $log M_*/M_{\odot} < 10$, $3 < z < 5$ galaxies in the CANDELS or our sample (including quiescent objects).

The right panels of Figure 10 present the histograms of formation redshifts of our sample. On the bottom panel, we show when our red galaxies reached masses $10^{8-10} M_{\odot}$. Typically, $10^8 M_{\odot}$ of stars were assembled by $z \sim 15$, with a large scatter. Our galaxies formed their first $10^9 M_{\odot}$ by $z \sim 12$ (on average) and reached masses as high as $10^{10} M_{\odot}$ at $z = 7$. Complementary, we also show the histograms of formation redshifts for 5%, 10%, and 25% of the current stellar mass of the galaxies in our sample. Overall, our SFHs, especially those for quiescent galaxies, imply a very active universe beyond $z > 10$ and up to $z \sim 25$, with some quite massive galaxies ($log M_*/M_{\odot} > 10$) at even $z = 15-20$ (or, quite probably, several progenitors to merge later). We remark that all this star formation activity can occur in situ or ex situ in distinct progenitors at high redshifts.

## 6.5. Spatially Resolved Analysis of the Stellar Populations

In this section, we focus on the analysis of how the red galaxies in our sample have assembled, investigating the stellar-mass density 2D distribution, the ages of stellar populations present in different parts of the galaxy, and the location of the dusty starbursts that many of our sources present.

Figure 11 shows the distribution of the stellar population properties for all pixels in our analysis as a function of galactocentric distance (in absolute units and relative to the

effective radius) and for different galaxy subsamples. Median values and quartiles are marked and provided in Table 2. We note three interesting results from this figure.

First, focusing on the top-right panel, the $z > 4$ SFGs (including high-z SMGs) subsample (depicted in blue) is identified with the highest dust attenuations, typically $A(V) > 2$ mag. For $z < 4$ SFGs, there is a tail of systems harboring regions (pixels) with similarly large dust contents, many of which belong to the MIPS24 emitters in our sample. We remark that the submillimeter and millimeter surveys in the CEERS field are heterogeneous in area coverage and depth, so our $z > 4$ SFG sample could still include additional SMGs. Distinctively, quiescent galaxies are composed of regions with $A(V) < 1$ mag dust attenuations, the median being around 0.3 mag. The regions with the highest attenuations are preferentially located in the inner 2 kpc, or $2 \times r_{e,M}$, with a significant gradient toward larger radii, similar to what has been reported at lower redshifts (see Wang et al. 2017; Miller et al. 2022), but with larger nuclear attenuations in the case of SMGs (compared to main-sequence galaxies at $z \sim 2$; see, e.g., Tacchella et al. 2018). XELG-z6 present a quite flat attenuation distribution, which extends from unobscured to $A(V) = 3$ mag, i.e., the starburst we see as an emission line is also dusty, but these are very compact sources, as we mentioned earlier.

The second result we highlight is that all the galaxies in our sample present evolved stellar populations in terms of mass-weighted age. The frequency plots for QGs and SFGs peak at similar ages, around 1 Gyr, although the distribution for quiescent galaxies is skewed to older values, the contrary can be said for SFGs. The distribution of mass-weighted ages for regions in $z > 4$ SFGs is different from that for $z < 4$ SFGs—the former tends to have more regions with ages between 1 and 10 Myr. Most of these very young regions are in the inner 2.5 kpc, within $1.5 \times r_{e,M}$. Even though the histograms of mass-weighted ages for QGs and SFGs (especially those at the lowest redshifts) peak at similar values, with the latter starting forming earlier, there is a significant number of pixels (dominating in number but not in mass) that had already formed 5% of their current mass at $5 < z < 10$. This contrasts with the properties of XELG-z6—most of their pixels are assembling their mass quickly at $z = 6-7$.

The last result we extract from Figure 11 refers to the stellar-mass surface density. QGs and $z < 4$ SFGs present very similar distributions at the dense end, at values higher than $10^{8.5} M_{\odot}$ kpc$^{-2}$. Relatively, the regions with the highest densities, above $10^{9.5} M_{\odot}$ kpc$^{-2}$, are more common in quiescent galaxies and at distances within 2 kpc or one effective radius. We see a tail at the high-density end for $z > 4$ SFGs and XELG-z6, with larger values than those observed by QGs, but this is probably an artifact introduced by the different redshifts and spatial resolutions of the subsample. The two higher-redshift subsamples would be more comparable, and XELG-z6 present more pixels with higher densities, compared to $z > 4$ SFGs.

## 7. Summary and Conclusions

We have presented a novel approach to the study of galaxies at cosmological distances with the combination of JWST and HST data. Using their superb sensitivities and spatial resolution along a wide spectral region covering the optical and near- and mid-infrared, we analyze spectral energy distributions on a pixel-by-pixel basis for a sample of 138 mid-IR-selected (F356W $< 27.5$ mag), HST/near-IR-faint (F160W $> 24$ mag),
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Radial distribution of the main stellar population properties for our sample of HST-faint and HST-dark galaxies, divided into four samples: quiescent galaxies (QGs, red), star-forming galaxies at $z < 4$ and $z > 4$ (in cyan and blue), and XELG-z6 sources (green). From top to bottom, we show attenuations in the V band, mass-weighted ages, redshift at which each pixel formed 5% of its current stellar mass, and stellar-mass surface density. In the left column, we plot these properties as a function of absolute galactocentric distances in kiloparsec. In the middle-column panels, we normalize the distances using the effective radius calculated in the stellar-mass maps. In the right column, we show histograms of all properties, jointly with median and quartiles.</figcaption></figure>

red (F150W – F356W > 1.5 mag) galaxies, some of them qualifying as what has been commonly known as HST-dark galaxies, but also extending previous surveys of optical/near-IR dark galaxies to fainter mid-IR magnitudes. Our innovative technique provides several independent estimations for the photometric redshift of each individual galaxy, which can also

be used to help with the segmentation of JWST images. In addition, we carry out a two-dimensional analysis of the stellar populations in this type of galaxies, with promising results about the identification of highly dust-obscured star-forming knots within galaxies, a typical limitation of stellar population synthesis modeling of broadband data. This method reveals for
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 11.** Radial distribution of the main stellar population properties for our sample of HST-faint and HST-dark galaxies, divided into four samples: quiescent galaxies (QGs, red), star-forming galaxies at $z < 4$ and $z > 4$ (in cyan and blue), and XELG-z6 sources (green). From top to bottom, we show attenuations in the V band, mass-weighted ages, redshift at which each pixel formed 5% of its current stellar mass, and stellar-mass surface density. In the left column, we plot these properties as a function of absolute galactocentric distances in kiloparsec. In the middle-column panels, we normalize the distances using the effective radius calculated in the stellar-mass maps. In the right column, we show histograms of all properties, jointly with median and quartiles.</figcaption></figure>

red (F150W – F356W > 1.5 mag) galaxies, some of them qualifying as what has been commonly known as HST-dark galaxies, but also extending previous surveys of optical/near-IR dark galaxies to fainter mid-IR magnitudes. Our innovative technique provides several independent estimations for the photometric redshift of each individual galaxy, which can also

be used to help with the segmentation of JWST images. In addition, we carry out a two-dimensional analysis of the stellar populations in this type of galaxies, with promising results about the identification of highly dust-obscured star-forming knots within galaxies, a typical limitation of stellar population synthesis modeling of broadband data. This method reveals for
the first time the integrated and spatially resolved properties of HST-dark and JWST-only galaxies and improves those of previously detected HST-faint galaxies.

Our JWST-based color-magnitude selection reveals the existence of evolved, relatively massive galaxies with redshifts $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 7$, with a triality in their nature. (1) Massive, dusty SFGs with redshifts ranging from $z \sim 2$ up to $z \sim 6$, with dust emission detected in mid-to-far-IR preferentially below $z < 3$, and at (sub)millimeter, and/or radio wavelengths at higher redshifts. This type dominates our sample; they add up to 71% of all our selected red galaxies. (2) Quiescent or dormant (i.e., subject to reignition at later epochs; QGs) galaxies between $z=3$ and $z=5$, accounting for 18% of our sample. And the remaining 11% of galaxies forming (3) a population of very compact galaxies with red colors in the rest-frame optical, blue F356W–F410W colors probably arising from high-EW [O III] $\lambda$4959, 5007 and $H\beta$ emission lines (partly explaining their selection by our F150W–F356W color cut), and a UV upturn, presenting very high specific SFRs and lying at $6 < z < 7$ (and possibly at redshifts as low as $z \sim 5$), and thus being identified as extreme emission-line galaxies (of starburst or active galactic nucleus origin), XELG-z6.

The existence of all these types of galaxies implies high levels of star formation activity in redshifts as high to $z=10-25$, where most of our galaxies had already formed (in situ or ex situ) to $10^8 M_\odot$, more than half to $10^9 M_\odot$, and a few up to $10^{10} M_\odot$.

The SFGs in our selection present different properties at $z<4$ and $z>4$. The lower-redshift galaxies are larger than the higher-redshift sources, with relatively less area experiencing a dusty (up to $A(V) = 5$ mag) starburst, and they also expand to higher stellar masses. Therefore, they are more evolved systems in terms of stellar populations and morphology, which is dominated by a disk with dusty star-forming knots concentrating in the inner 2 kpc. In terms of the SFH, all SFGs present secular epochs with SFRs around $5-10 M_\odot \text{ yr}^{-1}$ broken by a starburst producing 100 Myr-averaged SFRs 8–10 times larger than those values.

The QGs in our sample are relatively young, as expected by the age of the universe at the time of observation, and are caught in a poststarburst phase around 1 Gyr after a star formation event with up to 10 times higher SFRs than the earliest evolutionary stages. These starbursts occur at $5 < z < 7$ for $z < 3.5$ QGS, where we have some dusty SFGs with instantaneous SFRs above $100 M \text{ yr}^{-1}$.

High-redshift ($z>4$) SFGs could be linked to low-redshift ($z<3.5$) QGs in terms of SFH, sizes, and stellar-mass density profiles. The dusty SFGs could also be linked to XELG-z6 galaxies regarding the peak of star formation, but the secular SFR level is lower for the latter, which might imply that they do not have a progenitor-descendant relationship or mergers play a significant role at $z>7$ to increase the secular level for low-z QGs.

We would like to thank Prof. Giulia Rodighiero for carefully and very constructively reviewing the manuscript. P.G.P.-G. acknowledges support from Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 through grant PGC2018-093499-B-I00. Á.G.A. acknowledges the support of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid through the predoctoral grant CT17/17-CT18/17. This work has made use of the Rainbow Cosmological Surveys Database, which is

operated by the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, partnered with the University of California Observatories at Santa Cruz (UCO/Lick, UCSC). This work is based on observations carried out under project number W20CK with the IRAM NOEMA Interferometer. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN (Spain).

The data used in this paper come from the CEERS project and are available and documented at ceers.github.io/dr05.html and at MAST via 10.17909/z7p0-8481. See Bagley et al. (2022) for details.

**Software:** astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2022), EAZY (Brammer et al. 2008), GALFIT (Peng et al. 2002), matplotlib (Hunter 2007), NumPy (van der Walt et al. 2011), photutils (Bradley et al. 2022), PZETA (Pérez-González et al. 2005, Pérez-González et al. 2008b), Rainbow pipeline (Pérez-González et al. 2005, Pérez-González et al. 2008b; Barro et al. 2011), SciPy (Virtanen et al. 2020), SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996), Synthesizer (Pérez-González et al. 2005, Pérez-González et al. 2008b).

## ORCID iDs

Pablo G. Pérez-González https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4528-5639

Guillermo Barro https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813-875X

Marianna Annunziatella https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-8040

Luca Costantin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6820-0015

Ángela García-Argumánez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8365-5525

Elizabeth J. McGrath https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8688-2443

Rosa M. Mérida https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-5845

Jorge A. Zavala https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7051-1100

Pablo Arrabal Haro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7959-8783

Micaela B. Bagley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-9218

Bren E. Backhaus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8534-7502

Peter Behroozi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2517-6446

Eric F. Bell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5564-9873

Laura Bisigello https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0492-4924

Véronique Buat https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3441-903X

Antonello Calabrò https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2536-1614

Caitlin M. Casey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0930-6466

Nikko J. Cleri https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7151-009X

Rosemary T. Coogan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4343-0479

M. C. Cooper https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1371-6019

Asantha R. Cooray https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3892-0190

Avishai Dekel https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4174-0374

Mark Dickinson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-5131

David Elbaz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7631-647X

Henry C. Ferguson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7113-2738

Steven L. Finkelstein https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8519-1130

Adriano Fontana https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-2823

Maximilien Franco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3560-8599

Jonathan P. Gardner https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2098-9568

Mauro Giavalisco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7831-8751

Carlos Gómez-Guijarro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4085-9165

Andrea Grazian https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5688-0663

Norman A. Grogin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9440-8872
the first time the integrated and spatially resolved properties of HST-dark and JWST-only galaxies and improves those of previously detected HST-faint galaxies.

Our JWST-based color-magnitude selection reveals the existence of evolved, relatively massive galaxies with redshifts $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 7$, with a triality in their nature. (1) Massive, dusty SFGs with redshifts ranging from $z \sim 2$ up to $z \sim 6$, with dust emission detected in mid-to-far-IR preferentially below $z < 3$, and at (sub)millimeter, and/or radio wavelengths at higher redshifts. This type dominates our sample; they add up to 71% of all our selected red galaxies. (2) Quiescent or dormant (i.e., subject to reignition at later epochs; QGs) galaxies between $z=3$ and $z=5$, accounting for 18% of our sample. And the remaining 11% of galaxies forming (3) a population of very compact galaxies with red colors in the rest-frame optical, blue F356W–F410W colors probably arising from high-EW [O III] λ4959, 5007 and Hβ emission lines (partly explaining their selection by our F150W–F356W color cut), and a UV upturn, presenting very high specific SFRs and lying at $6 < z < 7$ (and possibly at redshifts as low as $z \sim 5$), and thus being identified as extreme emission-line galaxies (of starburst or active galactic nucleus origin), XELG-z6.

The existence of all these types of galaxies implies high levels of star formation activity in redshifts as high to $z=10-25$, where most of our galaxies had already formed (in situ or ex situ) to $10^8 M_\odot$, more than half to $10^9 M_\odot$, and a few up to $10^{10} M_\odot$.

The SFGs in our selection present different properties at $z<4$ and $z>4$. The lower-redshift galaxies are larger than the higher-redshift sources, with relatively less area experiencing a dusty (up to $A(V) = 5$ mag) starburst, and they also expand to higher stellar masses. Therefore, they are more evolved systems in terms of stellar populations and morphology, which is dominated by a disk with dusty star-forming knots concentrating in the inner 2 kpc. In terms of the SFH, all SFGs present secular epochs with SFRs around $5-10 M_\odot \text{ yr}^{-1}$ broken by a starburst producing 100 Myr-averaged SFRs 8–10 times larger than those values.

The QGs in our sample are relatively young, as expected by the age of the universe at the time of observation, and are caught in a poststarburst phase around 1 Gyr after a star formation event with up to 10 times higher SFRs than the earliest evolutionary stages. These starbursts occur at $5 < z < 7$ for $z < 3.5$ QGS, where we have some dusty SFGs with instantaneous SFRs above $100 M \text{ yr}^{-1}$.

High-redshift ($z>4$) SFGs could be linked to low-redshift ($z<3.5$) QGs in terms of SFH, sizes, and stellar-mass density profiles. The dusty SFGs could also be linked to XELG-z6 galaxies regarding the peak of star formation, but the secular SFR level is lower for the latter, which might imply that they do not have a progenitor-descendant relationship or mergers play a significant role at $z>7$ to increase the secular level for low-z QGs.

We would like to thank Prof. Giulia Rodighiero for carefully and very constructively reviewing the manuscript. P.G.P.-G. acknowledges support from Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 through grant PGC2018-093499-B-I00. Á.G.A. acknowledges the support of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid through the predoctoral grant CT17/17-CT18/17. This work has made use of the Rainbow Cosmological Surveys Database, which is

operated by the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), CSIC-INTA, partnered with the University of California Observatories at Santa Cruz (UCO/Lick, UCSC). This work is based on observations carried out under project number W20CK with the IRAM NOEMA Interferometer. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany) and IGN (Spain).

The data used in this paper come from the CEERS project and are available and documented at ceers.github.io/dr05.html and at MAST via 10.17909/z7p0-8481. See Bagley et al. (2022) for details.

**Software:** astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2022), EAZY (Brammer et al. 2008), GALFIT (Peng et al. 2002), matplotlib (Hunter 2007), NumPy (van der Walt et al. 2011), photutils (Bradley et al. 2022), PZETA (Pérez-González et al. 2005, Pérez-González et al. 2008b), Rainbow pipeline (Pérez-González et al. 2005, Pérez-González et al. 2008b; Barro et al. 2011), SciPy (Virtanen et al. 2020), SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996), Synthesizer (Pérez-González et al. 2005, Pérez-González et al. 2008b).

## ORCID iDs

Pablo G. Pérez-González https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4528-5639

Guillermo Barro https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813-875X

Marianna Annunziatella https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-8040

Luca Costantin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6820-0015

Ángela García-Argumánez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8365-5525

Elizabeth J. McGrath https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8688-2443

Rosa M. Mérida https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-5845

Jorge A. Zavala https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7051-1100

Pablo Arrabal Haro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7959-8783

Micaela B. Bagley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9921-9218

Bren E. Backhaus https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8534-7502

Peter Behroozi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2517-6446

Eric F. Bell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5564-9873

Laura Bisigello https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0492-4924

Véronique Buat https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3441-903X

Antonello Calabrò https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2536-1614

Caitlin M. Casey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0930-6466

Nikko J. Cleri https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7151-009X

Rosemary T. Coogan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4343-0479

M. C. Cooper https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1371-6019

Asantha R. Cooray https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3892-0190

Avishai Dekel https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4174-0374

Mark Dickinson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-5131

David Elbaz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7631-647X

Henry C. Ferguson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7113-2738

Steven L. Finkelstein https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8519-1130

Adriano Fontana https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-2823

Maximilien Franco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3560-8599

Jonathan P. Gardner https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2098-9568

Mauro Giavalisco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7831-8751

Carlos Gómez-Guijarro https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4085-9165

Andrea Grazian https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5688-0663

Norman A. Grogin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9440-8872
Yuchen Guo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4162-6523

Marc Huertas-Company https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1416-8483

Shardha Jogee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1590-0568

Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9187-3605

Lisa J. Kewley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-3943

Allison Kirkpatrick https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1306-1545

Dale D. Kocevski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8360-3880

Anton M. Koekemoer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6610-2048

Arianna S. Long https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7530-8857

Jennifer M. Lotz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-5643

Ray A. Lucas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1581-7825

Casey Papovich https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7503-8482

Nor Pirzkal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3382-5941

Swara Ravindranath https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-6527

Rachel S. Somerville https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-6821

Sandro Tacchella https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8224-4505

Jonathan R. Trump https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-0470

Weichen Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9593-8274

Stephen M. Wilkins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3903-6935

Stijn Wuyts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3735-1931

Guang Yang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8835-7722

L. Y. Aaron Yung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3466-035X

## References

Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. S., Fabian, A. C., Tanvir, N. R., & Glazebrook, K. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 641

Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Ferreira, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4755

Alcalde Pampliega, B., Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 135

Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., Oesch, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4464

Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2022, arXiv:2211.02495

Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Gallego, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 30

Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Cava, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 22

Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.14733

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

Bowler, R. A. A., Bourne, N., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & McLeod, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1631

Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: v1.5.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092

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

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

Buat, V., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Seibert, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L51

Burgarella, D., Bogdanoska, J., Nanni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A73

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

Calzetti, D., Kennicutt, R. C., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 870

Caputi, K. I., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L20

Carnall, A. C., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, Advance Access

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

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Smail, I., & Ivison, R. J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 772

Chary, R., & Elbaz, D. 2001, ApJ, 556, 562

Costantin, L., Méndez-Abreu, J., Corsini, E. M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 889, L3

Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., Renzini, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 746

Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 93

Dannerbauer, H., Walter, F., & Morrison, G. 2008, ApJL, 673, L127

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

Domínguez Sánchez, H., Pérez-González, P. G., Esquej, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3743

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

Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817

Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119

Elston, R., Rieke, G. H., & Rieke, M. J. 1988, ApJL, 331, L77

Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.14999

Fang, J. J., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 100

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

Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L55

Franco, M., Elbaz, D., Béthermin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A152

Franx, M., Labbé, I., Rudnick, G., et al. 2003, ApJL, 587, L79

Fumagalli, M., Labbé, I., Patel, S. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 35

Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016b, A&A, 595, A2

Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A1

García-Argumánez, Á., Pérez-González, P. G., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.14062

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

Gruppioni, C., Pozzi, F., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 23

Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 207, 24

Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.01612

Huang, J. S., Zheng, X. Z., Rigopoulou, D., et al. 2011, ApJL, 742, L13

Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

Ivison, R. J., Chapman, S. C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L77

Ji, Z., & Giavalisco, M. 2023, ApJ, 943, 54

Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36

Kokorev, V., Brammer, G., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2012, ApJS, 263, 38

Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 15

Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305

Labbé, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L19

Labbe, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.12446

Laporte, N., Ellis, R. S., Witten, C. E. C., & Roberts-Borsani, G. 2022, arXiv:2212.05072

Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 3

Leja, J., Tacchella, S., & Conroy, C. 2019b, ApJL, 880, L9

Lisiecki, K., Malek, K., Siudek, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A95

Lovell, C. C., Harrison, I., Harikane, Y., Tacchella, S., & Wilkins, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2511

Mancini, C., Matute, I., Cimatti, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 500, 705

Manning, S. M., Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 23

Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2211.08255

Mérida, M., Pérez-González, P., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, submitted

Miller, T. B., Whitaker, K. E., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 941, L37

Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18

Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14

Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., Aird, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 10

Nayyeri, H., Mobasher, B., Hemmati, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 68

Nelson, E. J., Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.01630

Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.13582

Pacifici, C., Charlot, S., Blaizot, J., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2002

Patel, S. G., Holden, B. P., Kelson, D. D., et al. 2012, ApJL, 748, L27

Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

Pérez-González, P. G., Gil de Paz, A., Zamorano, J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 508

Pérez-González, P. G., Trujillo, I., Barro, G., et al. 2008a, ApJ, 687, 50

Pérez-González, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Villar, V., et al. 2008b, ApJ, 675 234

Pérez-González, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Egami, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 82

Pérez-González, P. G., Egami, E., Rex, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L15

Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJL, 210, L53

Rawle, T. D., Altieri, B., Egami, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1626

Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Fadda, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 792

Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 259

Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., van Mierlo, S. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 128

Roberts-Borsani, G. W., Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 143

Rodighiero, G., Bisigello, L., Iani, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L19

Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140

Rodriguez-Munoz, L., Rodighiero, G., Mancini, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 586
Yuchen Guo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4162-6523

Marc Huertas-Company https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1416-8483

Shardha Jogee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1590-0568

Jeyhan S. Kartaltepe https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9187-3605

Lisa J. Kewley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-3943

Allison Kirkpatrick https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1306-1545

Dale D. Kocevski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8360-3880

Anton M. Koekemoer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6610-2048

Arianna S. Long https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7530-8857

Jennifer M. Lotz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-5643

Ray A. Lucas https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1581-7825

Casey Papovich https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7503-8482

Nor Pirzkal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3382-5941

Swara Ravindranath https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-6527

Rachel S. Somerville https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6748-6821

Sandro Tacchella https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8224-4505

Jonathan R. Trump https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-0470

Weichen Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9593-8274

Stephen M. Wilkins https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3903-6935

Stijn Wuyts https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3735-1931

Guang Yang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8835-7722

L. Y. Aaron Yung https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3466-035X

## References

Abraham, R. G., Ellis, R. S., Fabian, A. C., Tanvir, N. R., & Glazebrook, K. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 641

Adams, N. J., Conselice, C. J., Ferreira, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 4755

Alcalde Pampliega, B., Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 135

Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., Oesch, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4464

Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2022, arXiv:2211.02495

Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Gallego, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 193, 30

Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Cava, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 22

Barrufet, L., Oesch, P. A., Weibel, A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.14733

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

Bowler, R. A. A., Bourne, N., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & McLeod, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1631

Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: v1.5.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.6825092

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

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

Buat, V., Iglesias-Páramo, J., Seibert, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L51

Burgarella, D., Bogdanoska, J., Nanni, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A73

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

Calzetti, D., Kennicutt, R. C., Engelbracht, C. W., et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 870

Caputi, K. I., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L20

Carnall, A. C., McLeod, D. J., McLure, R. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, Advance Access

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

Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Smail, I., & Ivison, R. J. 2005, ApJ, 622, 772

Chary, R., & Elbaz, D. 2001, ApJ, 556, 562

Costantin, L., Méndez-Abreu, J., Corsini, E. M., et al. 2020, ApJL, 889, L3

Daddi, E., Cimatti, A., Renzini, A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 746

Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Faber, S. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 93

Dannerbauer, H., Walter, F., & Morrison, G. 2008, ApJL, 673, L127

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

Domínguez Sánchez, H., Pérez-González, P. G., Esquej, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3743

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

Donnari, M., Pillepich, A., Nelson, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4817

Elbaz, D., Dickinson, M., Hwang, H. S., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A119

Elston, R., Rieke, G. H., & Rieke, M. J. 1988, ApJL, 331, L77

Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.14999

Fang, J. J., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 100

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

Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Arrabal Haro, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L55

Franco, M., Elbaz, D., Béthermin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A152

Franx, M., Labbé, I., Rudnick, G., et al. 2003, ApJL, 587, L79

Fumagalli, M., Labbé, I., Patel, S. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 35

Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016b, A&A, 595, A2

Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A1

García-Argumánez, Á., Pérez-González, P. G., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.14062

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

Gruppioni, C., Pozzi, F., Rodighiero, G., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 23

Guo, Y., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., et al. 2012, ApJS, 207, 24

Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., Oguri, M., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.01612

Huang, J. S., Zheng, X. Z., Rigopoulou, D., et al. 2011, ApJL, 742, L13

Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

Ivison, R. J., Chapman, S. C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJL, 660, L77

Ji, Z., & Giavalisco, M. 2023, ApJ, 943, 54

Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

Kennicutt, R. C., Jr. 1998, ARA&A, 36, 189

Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 36

Kokorev, V., Brammer, G., Fujimoto, S., et al. 2012, ApJS, 263, 38

Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 15

Kron, R. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 305

Labbé, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L19

Labbe, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2022, arXiv:2207.12446

Laporte, N., Ellis, R. S., Witten, C. E. C., & Roberts-Borsani, G. 2022, arXiv:2212.05072

Leja, J., Carnall, A. C., Johnson, B. D., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 3

Leja, J., Tacchella, S., & Conroy, C. 2019b, ApJL, 880, L9

Lisiecki, K., Malek, K., Siudek, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A95

Lovell, C. C., Harrison, I., Harikane, Y., Tacchella, S., & Wilkins, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2511

Mancini, C., Matute, I., Cimatti, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 500, 705

Manning, S. M., Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 23

Matthee, J., Mackenzie, R., Simcoe, R. A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2211.08255

Mérida, M., Pérez-González, P., Sánchez-Blázquez, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, submitted

Miller, T. B., Whitaker, K. E., Nelson, E. J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 941, L37

Muzzin, A., Marchesini, D., Stefanon, M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, 18

Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., van Dokkum, P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 940, L14

Nandra, K., Laird, E. S., Aird, J. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 10

Nayyeri, H., Mobasher, B., Hemmati, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 68

Nelson, E. J., Suess, K. A., Bezanson, R., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.01630

Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2022, arXiv:2208.13582

Pacifici, C., Charlot, S., Blaizot, J., & Brinchmann, J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2002

Patel, S. G., Holden, B. P., Kelson, D. D., et al. 2012, ApJL, 748, L27

Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

Pérez-González, P. G., Gil de Paz, A., Zamorano, J., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 508

Pérez-González, P. G., Trujillo, I., Barro, G., et al. 2008a, ApJ, 687, 50

Pérez-González, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Villar, V., et al. 2008b, ApJ, 675 234

Pérez-González, P. G., Rieke, G. H., Egami, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 630, 82

Pérez-González, P. G., Egami, E., Rex, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L15

Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJL, 210, L53

Rawle, T. D., Altieri, B., Egami, E., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1626

Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Fadda, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 792

Reddy, N. A., Kriek, M., Shapley, A. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 259

Rinaldi, P., Caputi, K. I., van Mierlo, S. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 128

Roberts-Borsani, G. W., Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 143

Rodighiero, G., Bisigello, L., Iani, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, L19

Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Snyder, G. F., Lotz, J. M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4140

Rodriguez-Munoz, L., Rodighiero, G., Mancini, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 586
Sanders, D. B., & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749

Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 76

Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L27

Schouws, S., Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 31

Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74

Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 83

Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Cordoba: Observatorio Astronomico)

Simpson, J. M., Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 125

Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24

Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Labbe, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 58

Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 122

Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Springel, V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3548

Stefanon, M., Marchesini, D., Muzzin, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 11

Stefanon, M., Yan, H., Mobasher, B., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 32

Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Price, S. H., & Barro, G. 2019, ApJL, 885, L22

Sun, F., Egami, E., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 114

Swinbank, A. M., Karim, A., Smail, I., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1066

Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 56

Tacchella, S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 927, 170

Tacchella, S., Conroy, C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 926, 134

Tadaki, K.-i., Belli, S., Burkert, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 74

Talia, M., Cimatti, A., Giulietti, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 23

Tortora, C., Napolitano, N. R., Radovich, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, L11

van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, CSE, 13, 22

van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, NatMe, 17, 261

Wang, L., Gao, F., Best, P. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A8

Wang, T., Elbaz, D., Schreiber, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 84

Wang, T., Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., et al. 2019, Natur, 572, 211

Wang, W., Faber, S. M., Liu, F. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4063

Wang, W., Kassin, S. A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 161

Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1715

Williams, C. C., Labbe, I., Spilker, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 154

Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., & Labbe, I. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1879

Woodrum, C., Williams, C. C., Rieke, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 39

Wuys, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 114

Xiao, M., Elbaz, D., Gómez-Guijarro, C., et al. 2022, arXiv:2210.03135

Yamaguchi, Y., Kohno, K., Hatsukade, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 73

Zavala, J. A., Aretxaga, I., Geach, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3369

Zavala, J. A., Aretxaga, I., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5585

Zavala, J. A., Buat, V., Casey, C. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L9

Zhou, L. D., Elbaz, S., Franco, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A155

Zuckerman, L. D., Belli, S., Leja, J., & Tacchella, S. 2021, ApJL, 922, L32
Sanders, D. B., & Mirabel, I. F. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 749

Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 76

Santini, P., Fontana, A., Castellano, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L27

Schouws, S., Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 31

Schreiber, C., Pannella, M., Elbaz, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A74

Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 83

Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Cordoba: Observatorio Astronomico)

Simpson, J. M., Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 125

Skelton, R. E., Whitaker, K. E., Momcheva, I. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 24

Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Labbe, I., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 58

Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 122

Sparre, M., Hayward, C. C., Springel, V., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3548

Stefanon, M., Marchesini, D., Muzzin, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 11

Stefanon, M., Yan, H., Mobasher, B., et al. 2017, ApJS, 229, 32

Suess, K. A., Kriek, M., Price, S. H., & Barro, G. 2019, ApJL, 885, L22

Sun, F., Egami, E., Pérez-González, P. G., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 114

Swinbank, A. M., Karim, A., Smail, I., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1066

Tacchella, S., Carollo, C. M., Förster Schreiber, N. M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 56

Tacchella, S., Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 927, 170

Tacchella, S., Conroy, C., Faber, S. M., et al. 2022b, ApJ, 926, 134

Tadaki, K.-i., Belli, S., Burkert, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 74

Talia, M., Cimatti, A., Giulietti, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 23

Tortora, C., Napolitano, N. R., Radovich, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, L11

van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, CSE, 13, 22

van der Wel, A., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 28

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, NatMe, 17, 261

Wang, L., Gao, F., Best, P. N., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A8

Wang, T., Elbaz, D., Schreiber, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 84

Wang, T., Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D., et al. 2019, Natur, 572, 211

Wang, W., Faber, S. M., Liu, F. S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4063

Wang, W., Kassin, S. A., Pacifici, C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 161

Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., Brammer, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1715

Williams, C. C., Labbe, I., Spilker, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 154

Williams, R. J., Quadri, R. F., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., & Labbe, I. 2009, ApJ, 691, 1879

Woodrum, C., Williams, C. C., Rieke, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 39

Wuyts, S., Förster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 114

Xiao, M., Elbaz, D., Gómez-Guijarro, C., et al. 2022, arXiv:2210.03135

Yamaguchi, Y., Kohno, K., Hatsukade, B., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 73

Zavala, J. A., Aretxaga, I., Geach, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3369

Zavala, J. A., Aretxaga, I., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 5585

Zavala, J. A., Buat, V., Casey, C. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L9

Zhou, L. D., Elbaz, S., Franco, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A155

Zuckerman, L. D., Belli, S., Leja, J., & Tacchella, S. 2021, ApJL, 922, L32