E07 Figure 8. The qualitative agreement between the trends at $z$=1 is clear, although there is a large amount of uncertainty in the alignment and stretch in the x-axis. In order to compare our density measure (M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$) directly with that used in E07, we re-scale the E07 density values. The largest group in the E07 $z$=0.8-1.2 sample has L$_{\mathrm{X}}$\[0.5-2 keV\] = 2$\times$10$^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, so is about 2-3$\times$10$^{13}$ M$_{\odot}$ (Stanek et al. 2006). Thus, we choose the highest local density bin in the GOODS-N sample to be in a M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$ bin centered at 1.5$\times$10$^{13}$ M$_{\odot}$, and assume that there is a one-to-one relationship between the 2D ($\Sigma_{gal}$ in E07) and 3D (M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$ in this work) local density measures–i.e. $\Sigma$ $\propto$ $\rho$.

\

In agreement with observed local mass-density relations (e.g. Balogh et al. 2001; Blanton et al. 2003), E07 find that the average stellar mass of 0.8$<$$z$$<$1.2 galaxies increases as a function of local density (top panel of their Figure 20). Based on the relationship between mass and sSFR (e.g. Blanton et al. 2003; Baldry et al. 2004), this indicates that the sSFR of galaxies should *decrease* as a function of increasing local density. However, when they consider only massive 