ner_tags: O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: used in Barro etal. ( 2013 ) and van Dokkum etal. ( 2015 ) plotted for reference in addition to the van der Wel z 0.75 relation with its intrinsic scatter. Also plotted are the red nugget populations from Taylor etal. ( 2010 ), Damjanov etal. ( 2009 ) and van Dokkum etal. ( 2008 ), which suggest an evolution towards increasing size at lower redshifts. Our source galaxies are much more consistent with this trend within the red nugget populations, whereas the lens galaxies are consistent with the global population (though they span a very small range in stellar mass). Table 5. Inference on the sizemass relation for the source galaxy population, for 1C and 2C models. The parameters correspond to those defined in equations ( 3 ) and ( 4 ); we model the sources as following the linear relation log( R e /kpc) SM log( M /10 11 M ) SM with an intrinsic scatter SM in the log R e direction, and allowing the masses to be drawn from an underlying Gaussian distribution . It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the EELs sources are compact. We also plot the fits to the sizemass relation from van der Wel etal. ( 2014 ) both at z 0.25 and 0.75, which are chosen to bracket the redshifts of the EELs sources in the left-hand panel. Nearly all the sources lie distinctly below these lines. For comparison, the lens galaxy sample straddles the z 0.25 sizemass relation, as might be expected given their average redshift . In the right-hand panel, we show the EELs lenses and sources alongside the red nugget populations from van Dokkum etal. ( 2008 ), Damjanov etal. ( 2009 ) and Taylor etal. ( 2010 ), which span redshifts between z 2 and z 0, in addition to the compactness criteria for classifying high-redshift nuggets used by Barro etal. ( 2013 ) and van Dokkum etal. ( 2015 ) and the global z 0.75 sizemass relation of van der Wel etal. ( 2014 ), along with its intrinsic scatter. Seen in this context, the EELs source population appears to occupy a region closer to the red nuggets rather than normal ETGs. We note, however, that the relations shown on this plot are meant to define some sort of boundary between compact and non-compact objects, with the former all lying below it; our EELs sources are instead scattered above and below these lines. Specifically, 9 out of the 13 systems would be classed as compact according to Barro etal. ( 2013 )s criterion, whereas van Dokkum etal. ( 2015 )s slightly stricter definition reduces this to 7 though, due to differences in the two criteria at high and low masses, these two subsamples do not completely overlap. Given the distinct position in sizemass space of our sources, in addition to the diversity of conflicting compactness definitions that exist, we do not think it is valuable to classify our sources in this way. Rather, we simply note that they seem to be quite massive and significantly more compact than the majority of ETGs at similar redshifts, and may be better associated with the red nugget population. For instance, they may