show the sum of the random and systematic error described in their paper. The blue circles with the error bars show our result which is same as the magenta points in figure \[fig5\] but the error bars are the typical uncertainty. In the magnitude range of $-22.0 \leq M_{\mathrm{UV}} \leq -20.0$, our results consistent with the previous works. Although the dynamic range of $M_{\mathrm{UV}}$ is smaller than the previous works, the luminous star-forming galaxies at *z* $\sim$ 4, which are selected from the ground-based wide field images, seem to show the weaker $\beta$–$M_{\mathrm{UV}}$ relation over the magnitude range of $-22.0 \leq M_{\mathrm{UV}} \leq -20.0$.

![ Comparison of this work with the previous studies at the similar redshift. For the sake of clarity, the vertical scale is changed from figure \[fig5\]. The red open diamonds and green open triangle with the error bars show the results from @LeeKS11 and @Bouw14, respectively. The blue open circles with the error bars show the result from our sample which is same as the magenta points in figure \[fig5\], but the error bars are the typical uncertainty. []{data-label="fig6"}](Pic.liter-comp-new1812.v1.eps){width="80mm"}

It seems that the distribution of the objects in figure \[fig5\] is truncated and the shape of 