the median $<$M$_*$$>$ of the 5$\times$10$^{9}$ $<$ M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$ total sample, which also increases with increasing M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$ (the median $<$M$_*$$>$ of the 5$\times$10$^{10}$ $<$ M$_*$/M$_{\odot}$ sample also increases with increasing M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$). We overplot the M$_*$ values from E07, multiplied by two. Because our simulated $<$SFR$>$ values are similar to those in observations (cf. Figure \[fig-elbaz\]), our lower $<$sSFR$>$ values indicate that our simulated stellar masses are too high. Indeed, we find better agreement between the simulated and observed stellar masses when we multiply the observed M$_*$ by two.

Our $<$sSFR$>$ increases by about a factor of two while the $<$sSFR$>$ in E07 increases by a factor of about four. Further, the shape of our sSFR-density relation is quite different from that in E07 as it is flat from 10$^{12}$$<$M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$/M$_{\odot}$$<$5$\times$10$^{12}$. However, as in E07, we find that although M$_*$ increases, sSFR does not decrease up to at least M$_{\mathrm{sph}}$$\sim$5$\times$10$^{12}$. This is true for either mass range or resolution we consider. Since we expect an increase in M$_*$ to drive a decrease in sSFR, our $<$sSFR$>$-density relation may be flatter than that in E07 because our $<$M$_*$$>$-density relation increases more steeply (Figure \[fig-essfr\]). We find that our stellar masses tend to be larger 