Table 6
Comparisons of w0 in this study with those in previous studies with the same selection functions.
| Study | Redshift | MUV limit | log LLyα limit | Reference w0 | w0 in this study |
| [AB mag] | [erg s-1] | [Å] | [Å] | ||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
|
|
|||||
| z ~ 3.6 | |||||
|
|
|||||
| Gronwall et al. (2007) | 3.1 | − 18.0 | 42.0 | 75 ± 6 | 74 ± 19 |
| Ciardullo et al. (2012) | 3.1 | − 18.6 | 42.0 | 64 ± 9 | 60 ± 20 |
|
|
|||||
| z ~ 4.9 | |||||
|
|
|||||
| Zheng et al. (2014) | 4.5 | − 17.0 | 42.4 | 50 ± 11a ( ) |
143 ± 64 |
|
|
|||||
| z ~ 6.0 | |||||
|
|
|||||
| Kashikawa et al. (2011) | 5.7 | − 18.0 | 42.0 | 108 ± 20 b | 157 ± 110 |
| Kashikawa et al. (2011) | 6.6 | − 18.0 | 42.0 | 79 ± 19 b | 157 ± 110 |
Notes. Comparisons of our w0 with those in previous studies. For fair comparisons, we apply to our LAEs similar selection cuts adopted in previous studies. (1) Reference study; (2) typical redshift in the reference study; (3) lower limit of MUV in the reference study; (4) lower limit of LLyα in the reference study; (5) w0 values in the reference study; and (6) w0 values in our LAEs with similar selection cuts of (3) and (4).
The value without parentheses is the scale factor obtained from a direct fitting to the distribution, while the value with parentheses indicates w0 derived from simulations in Zheng et al. (2014).
Since the scale factors are not listed in Kashikawa et al. (2011), we take the values from Zheng et al. (2014) who fitted the EW0 distribution of LAEs in Kashikawa et al. (2011).
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.