ner_tags: 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 O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O B-Wavelength B-Wavelength O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O B-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 B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Wavelength O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O B-Wavelength O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Wavelength O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-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 O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O
tokens: plot the evolution of the median size of the distribution (our results in large green circles) and compare our values to those reported in the literature (in light green): square (Pirzkal et al. 2007 ), hexagon (Taniguchi et al. 2009 ), triangles (Bond et al. 2009 , 2011 ), circles (Malhotra et al. 2012 ), diamond (Kobayashi et al. 2016 ), and inverted triangle (Guaita et al. 2015 ). We show as blue squares the median size for a sample of HAEs selected at lower redshift using the same narrow-band technique (Paulino-Afonso et al. 2017 ). We complement this figure with results for UV-selected SFGs from the literature (in light blue): large diamond (van der Wel et al. 2014 ) and left-facing triangle (Ribeiro et al. 2016 ). Finally, we show the derived size evolution of LAEs (green solid line) and SFGs (blue dashed line). The inset plot shows the estimated size ratio between SFGs and LAEs. Estimates point to SFGs being ∼5 times larger at z ∼ 0 and of the same size as LAEs at z ∼ 5.5. We hypothesize that Lyα-selected galaxies are small/compact throughout cosmic time likely linked with the physical processes that drive Lyα escape. At higher and higher redshifts, typical SFGs start to have the typical sizes of Lyα emitters, which can be seen as an alternative explanation for the rise of the Lyα emitting fraction of SFGs/LBGs into z ∼ 6. 6.3 Relations between LAEs, HAEs, and UV-selected galaxies When compared to the typical sizes of SFGs (selected as Hα emitters, HAEs) that have been studied in a previous work (Paulino-Afonso et al. 2017 ), we immediately see that the two populations are not alike in terms of their extent. Despite having only one common period with observations of both populations (at z = 2.23), where HAEs are almost two times larger than LAEs, our prediction of LAE sizes at lower redshifts is consistently lower than what we report for the HAE population. This is even more contrasting if we include the sample at z ∼ 0, where almost no evolution is expected for the LAE population. This is potentially corroborated by the existence of green pea galaxies (Cardamone et al. 2009 ; Izotov, Guseva Thuan 2011 ) that are compact in nature and found to have Lyα detections and high Lyα escape fractions (e.g. Henry et al. 2015 ; Yang et al. 2016 ; Verhamme et al. 2017 ). We also use two recent and comprehensive studies on the evolution of UV-selected SFGs (van der Wel et al. 2014 ; Ribeiro et al. 2016 , see also Shibuya, Ouchi Harikane 2015 ) that overlap both HAEs and LAEs that we have studied to complement our observations. These confirm our findings that at z ∼ 2 the typical star-forming population is larger in size than the LAE population (by a factor of ∼3). However, we see that this difference fades away and, by z ∼ 5, the two populations are indistinguishable from one another, in what their median extent is concerned. These results are in agreement with previous findings where both populations are compared (e.g. Malhotra et al. 2012 ;