Calibrating thePlanckcluster mass scale with CLASH

Abstract

We determine the mass scale of Planck galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing mass measurements from the Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble (CLASH). We have compared the lensing masses to the Planck Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) mass proxy for 21 clusters in common, employing a Bayesian analysis to simultaneously fit an idealized CLASH selection function and the distribution between the measured observables and true cluster mass. We used a tiered analysis strategy to explicitly demonstrate the importance of priors on weak lensing mass accuracy. In the case of an assumed constant bias, b SZ , between true cluster mass, M 500 , and the Planck mass proxy, M PL , our analysis constrains 1 − b SZ = 0.73 ± 0.10 when moderate priors on weak lensing accuracy are used, including a zero-mean Gaussian with standard deviation of 8% to account for possible bias in lensing mass estimations. Our analysis explicitly accounts for possible selection bias effects in this calibration sourced by the CLASH selection function. Our constraint on the cluster mass scale is consistent with recent results from the Weighing the Giants program and the Canadian Cluster Comparison Project. It is also consistent, at 1.34σ, with the value needed to reconcile the Planck SZ cluster counts with Planck's base ΛCDM model fit to the primary cosmic microwave background anisotropies.

Calibrating the Planck Cluster Mass Scale with Cluster Velocity Dispersions

“…Assuming a prior on the mass bias from Penna-Lima et al (2016), we derive b 1.12 0.07 v =  , consistent with our baseline value from Munari et al (2013;b 1.08 v =…”

“…Battaglia et al (2016) have pointed out the potential impact of the Eddington bias-the steep mass function scattering the meaning is: the scatter is larger for low-mass objects more low-mass than high-mass objects into an SZ-signal bin-on these mass calibrations. Using a complete Bayesian analysis to account for this and other effects, Penna-Lima et al (2016) obtained a value of b 25 %, which is consistent with previous measurements. This illustrates the importance of the cluster mass measurements and the need for independent determinations, as well as the need for increasing precision.…”

“…Battaglia et al (2016) propose a correction for WtG and CCCP that is really more akin to a Malmquist bias, i.e., due to selection effects arising from the fact that some clusters in the WtG and CCCP samples do not have Planck mass proxy measurements. and the CLASH (Postman et al 2012) analysis by Penna-Lima et al (2016 Given the large differences in the velocity bias as predicted by simulations, it is worth turning the vice-the strong dependence of our mass calibration on velocity bias-into a virtue. Relying on accurate mass estimates provided by weaklensing analyses, we derive a constraint on b v from our measured velocity dispersions.…”

“…Relying on accurate mass estimates provided by weaklensing analyses, we derive a constraint on b v from our measured velocity dispersions. We adopt the Planck mass calibration obtained by Penna-Lima et al (2016), based on the lensing mass measurements from the Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble (CLASH). Using a Bayesian analysis of CLASH mass measurements and Planck SZ measurements, they marginalize over nuisance parameters describing the cluster scaling relations and the sample selection function to obtain b 1 0.73 0.10…”

The scatter and evolution of the global hot gas properties of simulated galaxy cluster populations

“…This is similar to the range (1 − b ≈ 0.7 − 0.95) suggested by recent measurements of the scaling relation between weak lensing (see e.g. von der Hoekstra et al 2015;Penna-Lima et al 2016;Smith et al 2016) or CMB lensing (see e.g. Melin & Bartlett 2015) and hydrostatic masses.…”