X_LAE vs. z compared with previous results. Upper left and right panels: sky noise vs. z. The purple and orange lines show the 1σ flux of the sky noise in the mosaic field (for a wavelength width of 600 km s⁻¹). The sky noise in the udf-10 field is ≈1.7 times lower than in the mosaic field. The dark-grey and light-grey hashed areas show redshift ranges that are not included in our sample and that are highly affected by sky lines, respectively. Lower left (right) panel: X_LAE vs. z for −20.25 ≤ M₁₅₀₀ ≤ −18.75 mag and EW(Lyα) ≥ 25 Å (EW(Lyα) ≥ 55 Å). Purple (orange) pentagons indicate our MUSE results. A grey square, triangle (right), diamond, inverted triangle, circle, triangle (left), cross, triangle, and thin diamond represent the results by Stark et al. (2011), Treu et al. (2013), Schenker et al. (2014), Tilvi et al. (2014), De Barros et al. (2017), Pentericci et al. (2018), Arrabal Haro et al. (2018), Caruana et al. (2018), and Mason et al. (2019), respectively. The upper limits in Tilvi et al. (2014) and Mason et al. (2019) show the 86% and 68% confidence levels of X_LAE, respectively, while other error bars show 1σ uncertainties of X_LAE. We note that the original M₁₅₀₀ ranges in Treu et al. (2013), Schenker et al. (2014), Tilvi et al. (2014), De Barros et al. (2017), Arrabal Haro et al. (2018), and Mason et al. (2019) are M₁₅₀₀ ≥ −20.25 mag. In Caruana et al. (2018), the original M₁₅₀₀ range can be roughly estimated from the apparent F775W cut (see Fig. 1), and they include Lyα halos in the flux measurement. For visualization purposes, we slightly shift the data points of Tilvi et al. (2014) and Arrabal Haro et al. (2018) along the abscissae.