, MNRAS, vol.444, p.34, 2014.
, PASJ, 2017.
, MNRAS, vol.459, p.51, 2016.
, , 2016.
, MNRAS, vol.404, p.1922, 2010.
, ApJ, vol.830, p.23, 2016.
, ApJ, vol.819, p.20, 2016.
, A&AS, vol.117, p.393, 1996.
, ApJ, vol.592, p.819, 2003.
, MNRAS, vol.437, p.1362, 2014.
, AJ, vol.114, p.635, 1997.
, MNRAS, vol.455, p.4013, 2016.
, A&A, vol.582, p.62, 2015.
, A&A, vol.604, p.134, 2017.
, MNRAS, vol.434, p.3469, 2013.
, MNRAS, vol.466, p.1, 2017.
, MNRAS, vol.413, p.971, 2011.
, MNRAS, vol.390, p.64, 2008.
, MNRAS, vol.441, p.3359, 2014.
, MNRAS, vol.433, p.2545, 2013.
, ApJ, vol.672, p.122, 2008.
, ApJ, vol.778, p.14, 2013.
, ApJ, vol.793, p.91, 2014.
, ApJ, vol.255, p.382, 1982.
, MNRAS, vol.465, p.1454, 2017.
, ApJ, vol.330, p.634, 1988.
, ApJ, vol.839, p.17, 2017.
, ApJ, vol.838, p.21, 2017.
, ApJ, vol.585, p.161, 2003.
, ApJ, vol.807, p.2, 2015.
, MNRAS, vol.454, p.3500, 2015.
, A&A, vol.555, p.66, 2013.
, ApJ, vol.610, p.745, 2004.
, MNRAS, vol.452, p.2087, 2015.
, ApJ, vol.569, p.101, 2002.
, AJ, vol.130, p.55, 2005.
, ApJ, vol.833, p.168, 2016.
, ApJ, vol.809, p.21, 2015.
, ApJ, vol.813, p.15, 2015.
, ApJ, vol.663, p.150, 2007.
, ApJ, vol.490, p.493, 1997.
, ApJ, vol.822, p.31, 2016.
, AJ, vol.124, p.266, 2002.
, A&A, vol.433, p.415, 2005.
, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing, 1992.
, MNRAS, vol.349, p.1381, 2004.
, AJ, vol.128, p.1078, 2004.
, MNRAS, vol.416, p.2640, 2011.
, MNRAS, vol.468, p.703, 2017.
, MNRAS, vol.468, p.4039, 2017.
, MNRAS, vol.470, p.4231, 2017.
, A&A, vol.575, p.48, 2015.
, MNRAS, 2017.
, ApJ, vol.839, p.13, 2017.
, MNRAS, vol.261, p.43, 1993.
, MNRAS, vol.452, p.3529, 2015.
, MNRAS, vol.463, p.2746, 2016.
, ApJS, vol.225, p.11, 2016.
, MNRAS, vol.452, p.937, 2015.
L110 directly measured in the highest-z groups because their angular sizes are then smaller than 1 . 5. The fitted power-law size distribution thus already enters into the correction factor. Moreover, we normalised the distribution here per, MNRAS, vol.464, 2017. ,
, Since the number of UDGs is a strong function of the halo mass (cf. 3), primarily probing high-mass haloes at high redshift would introduce an artificial tilt in the measured relation. To circumvent this, we scaled the UDG numbers by dividing them over M 1.1 200 . Again, if we were to probe the same halo mass distribution at different redshifts
, 200 (i.e. 3? higher or lower than the fiducial model), we find ?2.70 ± 0.34 and ?2.70 ± 0.33, respectively. Uncertainties in the assumed abundance-mass distribution thus have a negligible effect on the measured size distribution