ner_tags: O B-Wavelength B-Survey O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O B-Wavelength I-Wavelength O O O B-Telescope O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: , z BOSS magnitudes. We have renormalized Maraston etal. ( 2013 ) stellar masses to a Chabrier IMF, by subtracting 0.05dex, and converted to our cosmology by subtracting 0.035dex, too. On average, our stellar masses are 0.08dex larger, this discrepancy is related to differences in data sample and template prescription adopted. However, the difference is also stronger at z 0.5, i.e. 0.12dex, and is inverted at 0.6 z 0.7, where our masses get smaller than BOSS estimates of 0.06dex. The trends of M dyn / M stay qualitatively the same. Thus, the results of this paper do not change if different stellar mass estimates are adopted, and conclusions are unaffected. Stellar mass uncertainties. The median uncertainty of the Chabrier IMF stellar masses determined in Section 2.3 in our massive galaxy sample is 0.13dex. We studied the impact of these uncertainties on our mass selection and all the trends discussed in this paper. We have randomly perturbed each mass, assuming a Gaussian with as mean the best-fitting mass and standard deviation the error of the best-fitting mass. Thus, we have selected the most massive galaxies with log M /M 11.2, using the new perturbed masses. The impact on the M dyn / M z trend is negligible. Stellar M / L gradients. We already shown how the gradients impact the results by comparing the g - and K -band results for the SPIDER sample in Section 3 . However, in general, at masses log M /M 11.2 the colour and stellar M / L gradients are weak, thus the correction would be small (Tortora etal. 2011 ). Later analysis would also take into account possible gradients in the IMF (Martn-Navarro etal. 2015 ). Mass profile slope. In addition to uncertainties in stellar mass estimates, the choice of the mass profile can be inappropriate for lower e (or M ) galaxies and cause an excess of negative M dyn / M values, mainly at high- z (e.g. Sonnenfeld etal. 2013 ). In particular, M dyn / M and the slope of total mass density are tightly correlated, with shallower density profiles corresponding to larger M dyn / M (Humphrey Buote 2010 ; Remus etal. 2013 ; Dutton Treu 2014 ; Tortora etal. 2014b ). To quantify the impact of a free-varying total mass density slope, , we have adopted a power-law mass density r , with slope steeper and shallower than isothermal. In Tortora etal. ( 2014c ) we have shown that using two extreme values for the density slope, i.e. 2.5 and 1.5, which bracket most of the results in the literature, then we find that the average M dyn / M get smaller (larger) of 0.1 (0.05)dex for 2.5 (1.5). However, in the realistic case with a varying slope with mass, smaller changes would be expected (Dutton Treu 2014 ; Tortora etal. 2014b ). If is constant with time, then, at fixed mass, these corrections would shift all the results of the same factor, leaving naturally unaffected the observed trend with redshift. On the other hand, if we assume that the slope is varying with redshift, then the only way to totally remove any M dyn / M