not detected in the SHARDS ALL-bands stack, but only in the ACS HST stack,
hence the median value of the aperture radii is the one imposed for the HST-
faint sample when measuring within ground-based images. Looking at the radial
profile we see that between 26-29 mag our stacked galaxies resemble that of a
point-like source. The same is obtained when switching to the ACS HST stack.
The median aperture turns smaller at fainter magnitudes and the resulting
stacked galaxy can be approximated to a point-like source. The radii
considered enclose $\sim$90% of the total flux, with the total defined as the
flux enclosed within 0.6 ″, where the signal equalizes the level of the sky.
Complementary to this last point, we calculate the isophotal radius for each
HST-selected galaxy, defined as the radius where we reach 2 times the sky
surface brightness. The median isophotal radius is 0.3 ″.

##  Appendix C Main Sequence Slopes

Table 9: Main sequence slopes from the Illustris TNG50 simulation and previous
literature values. The second and third columns show the redshifts and stellar
mass limits where the slope from column 4 is applicable, i.e, where the
samples used in the calculations are complete.

|  z |  log M⋆/M⊙ |  MS slope
---|---|---|---
Elbaz et al. (2007) |  1.00 |  $>8.9$ |  0.90
Pirzkal et al. (2013) |  1.00 |  $>8.0$ |  0.22$\pm$0.04
Iyer et al. (2018) |  1.00 |  $>$7.99 (7.62∗) |  0.69$\pm$0.08
Karim et al. (2011) |  1.10 |  $>9.3$ |  0.54$\pm$0.03
Pearson et al. (2018) |  1.24 |  $>$9.6∗∗ |  0.48$\pm$0.09
Speagle et al. (2014) |  1.25 |  $>9.7$ |  0.71$\pm$0.03
Whitaker et al. (2012) |  1.25 |  $>$10.1 |  0.54
Karim et al. (2011) |  1.40 |  $>9.5$ |  0.70$\pm$0.03
Dunne et al. (2009) |  1.45 |  $>9.7$ |  0.86$\pm$0.01
Sobral et al. (2013) |  1.45 |  $>9.7$ |  0.34$\pm$0.03
|  |  $>8.8$ |  0.99$\pm$0.04
Whitaker et al. (2014) |  1.00$<z<$1.50 |  |
|  |  $>10.2$ |  0.51$\pm$0.07
Tomczak et al. (2016) |  1.00$<z<$1.25 |  $>8.8$ |  0.97$\pm$0.07
Tomczak et al. (2016) |  1.25$<z<$1.50 |  $>9.0$ |  0.99$\pm$0.06
|  |  8.0$<$log M$<$8.6 |  1.19
TNG50 |  1.00$<z<$1.50 |  |
|  |  8.6$<$log M$<$10.2 |  0.93
Kashino et al. (2013) |  1.55 |  $>$9.7 |  0.81$\pm$0.04
Pearson et al. (2018) |  1.59 |  $>$10∗∗ |  0.51$\pm$0.09
Speagle et al. (2014) |  1.75 |  $>9.7$ |  0.74$\pm$0.03
Whitaker et al. (2012) |  1.75 |  $>$10.4 |  0.47
Karim et al. (2011) |  1.80 |  $>$9.7 |  0.59$\pm$0.07
Daddi et al. (2007) |  1.95 |  $>$9.3 |  0.90
Dunne et al. (2009) |  1.95 |  $>$10 |  0.88$\pm$0.03
|  |  $>9.0$ |  1.04$\pm$0.05
Whitaker et al. (2014) |  1.50$<z<$2.0 |  |
|  |  $>10.2$ |  0.62$\pm$0.06
Tomczak et al. (2016) |  1.50$<z<$2.0 |  $>9.4$ |  1.19$\pm$0.08
Santini et al. (2017) |  1.30$<z<$2.0 |  $>8.3$ |  1.04$\pm$0.03
|  |  8.2$<$log M$<$8.7 |  1.18
TNG50 |  1.50$<z<$2.0 |  |
|  |  8.7$<$log M$<$10.2 |  0.88
Pannella et al. (2009) |  2.00 |  $>$9.7 |  0.95$\pm$0.07
Rodighiero et al. (2011) |  2.00 |  $>$9.2 |  0.79
Zahid et al. (2012) |  2.00 |  $>$9.3 |  0.46$\pm$0.07
Iyer et al. (2018) |  2.00 |  $>$7.91 (7.74∗) |  0.76$\pm$0.07
Pearson et al. (2018) |  2.02 |  $>$10.2∗∗ |  0.74$\pm$0.14
Reddy (2009) |  2.05 |  $>$8.7 |  0.97$\pm$0.07
Sawicki (2012) |  2.2 |  $>8.0$ |  0.89$\pm$0.03
Sobral et al. (2013) |  2.23 |  $>$9.7 |  0.31$\pm$0.03
Karim et al. (2011) |  2.25 |  $>$9.8 |  0.56$\pm$0.05
Speagle et al. (2014) |  2.25 |  $>9.7$ |  0.76$\pm$0.03
Whitaker et al. (2012) |  2.25 |  $>$10.7 |  0.41
|  |  $>9.2$ |  0.91$\pm$0.06
Whitaker et al. (2014) |  2.00$<z<$2.50 |  |
|  |  $>10.5$ |  0.67$\pm$0.06
Tomczak et al. (2016) |  2.00$<z<$2.50 |  $>9.6$ |  1.01$\pm$0.11
|  |  8.4$<$log M$<$9.0 |  1.17
TNG50 |  2.00$<z<$2.50 |  |
|  |  9.0$<$log M$<$10.5 |  0.80
Pearson et al. (2018) |  2.59 |  $>$10.4∗∗ |  0.83$\pm$0.15
Dunne et al. (2009) |  2.60 |  $>$10.1 |  0.65$\pm$0.12
Karim et al. (2011) |  2.75 |  $>$10.1 |  0.56$\pm$0.15
Speagle et al. (2014) |  2.75 |  $>9.7$ |  0.78$\pm$0.03
Magdis et al. (2010) |  3.00 |  $>$10 |  0.91
Iyer et al. (2018) |  3.00 |  $>$8.59 (7.57∗) |  0.80$\pm$0.07
Tomczak et al. (2016) |  2.50$<z<$3.00 |  $>9.8$ |  1.16$\pm$0.28
Santini et al. (2017) |  2.00$<z<$3.00 |  $>8.5$ |  1.16$\pm$0.03
|  |  8.5$<$log M$<$9.2 |  1.23
TNG50 |  2.50$<z<$3.00 |  |
|  |  9.2$<$log M$<$10.5 |  0.85

Note. — ∗ The values of the slope here listed from Iyer et al. (2018) are the
total ones, that take into account both, direct fits and trajectories. The
value in brackets corresponds to the limit probed using trajectories.

Note. — ∗∗ Mass limit for the deep regions of COSMOS.