The 2XMMi/SDSS Galaxy Cluster Survey

Takey, A.; Schwope, A. D.; Lamer, G.

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220213

Cited by 36 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a significant difference from other archive processings, such as the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS, Mehrtens et al 2012) and 2XMMi/SDSS Galaxy Cluster Survey (T13, Takey et al 2013). The main reason for this choice is that excluding some 200 clusters would significantly decrease the final sample.…”

Section: X-class Clustersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This led to generating a plethora of RASS X-ray catalogues (e.g. Ebeling et al 2000;Böhringer et al 2000;Reiprich & Böhringer 2002, and many others), which have since been complemented both by targeted Pacaud et al (2007) and serendipitous (Barkhouse et al 2006;Lloyd-Davies et al 2011;Clerc et al 2012b;Takey et al 2013) cluster searches with the XMM-Newton or Chandra observatory. At the same time, the advent of multi-band photometric data has led to dramatic improvements in optical cluster finding and an explosion of algorithms (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a scaling relation) between mass proxies, such as X-ray gas temperature and optical richness (e.g. Popesso et al 2004Popesso et al , 2005Rykoff et al 2008;Gal et al 2009;Wen et al 2012;Takey et al 2013;Rozo et al 2014a). These crosscorrelations can involve up to a few thousand objects and are performed in a so-called blind way with little attention to the objects left out by the procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The X-CLASS−redMaPPer galaxy cluster comparison

Sadibekova

Pierre

Clerc

et al. 2014

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. This paper is the first in a series undertaking a comprehensive correlation analysis between optically selected and X-rayselected cluster catalogues. The rationale of the project is to develop a holistic picture of galaxy clusters utilising optical and X-raycluster-selected catalogues with well-understood selection functions. Aims. Unlike most of the X-ray/optical cluster correlations to date, the present paper focuses on the non-matching objects in either waveband. We investigate how the differences observed between the optical and X-ray catalogues may stem from (1) a shortcoming of the detection algorithms; (2) dispersion in the X-ray/optical scaling relations; or (3) substantial intrinsic differences between the cluster populations probed in the X-ray and optical bands. The aim is to inventory and elucidate these effects in order to account for selection biases in the further determination of X-ray/optical cluster scaling relations. Methods. We correlated the X-CLASS serendipitous cluster catalogue extracted from the XMM archive with the redMaPPer optical cluster catalogue derived from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (DR8). We performed a detailed and, in large part, interactive analysis of the matching output from the correlation. The overlap between the two catalogues has been accurately determined and possible cluster positional errors were manually recovered. The final samples comprise 270 and 355 redMaPPer and X-CLASS clusters, respectively. X-ray cluster matching rates were analysed as a function of optical richness. In the second step, the redMaPPer clusters were correlated with the entire X-ray catalogue, containing point and uncharacterised sources (down to a few 10 −15 erg s −1 cm −2 in the [0.5−2] keV band). A stacking analysis was performed for the remaining undetected optical clusters. Results. We find that all rich (λ ≥ 80) clusters are detected in X-rays out to z = 0.6. Below this redshift, the richness threshold for X-ray detection steadily decreases with redshift. Likewise, all X-ray bright clusters are detected by redMaPPer. After correcting for obvious pipeline shortcomings (about 10% of the cases both in optical and X-ray), ∼50% of the redMaPPer (down to a richness of 20) are found to coincide with an X-CLASS cluster; when considering X-ray sources of any type, this fraction increases to ∼80%; for the remaining objects, the stacking analysis finds a weak signal within 0.5 Mpc around the cluster optical centres. The fraction of clusters totally dominated by AGN-type emission appears to be a few percent. Conversely, ∼40% of the X-CLASS clusters are identified with a redMaPPer (down to a richness of 20) − part of the non-matches being due to the X-CLASS sample extending further out than redMaPPer (z < 1.5 vs. z < 0.6), but extending the correlation down to a richness of 5 raises the matching rate to ∼65%. Conclusions. This state-of-the-art study involving two well-validated cluster catalogues has shown itself to be complex, and it points to a number of issues inherent to blind c...

show abstract

Section: X-class Clustersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The X-CLASS−redMaPPer galaxy cluster comparison

Sadibekova

Pierre

Clerc

et al. 2014

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Large X-ray surveys select galaxy clusters by their observables (e.g. Ebeling et al 2000;Böhringer et al 2004;Clerc et al 2012;Hilton et al 2012;Takey et al 2013), particularly the X-ray luminosity (L), rather than by their masses (M). The L − M relation is required to recover the selection function in terms of cluster masses and predict the cluster masses, hence the cluster mass function.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

HIFLUGCS: X-ray luminosity-dynamical mass relation and its implications for mass calibrations with the SPIDERS and 4MOST surveys

Zhang

Reiprich

Schneider

et al. 2017

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present the X-ray luminosity versus dynamical mass relation for 63 nearby clusters of galaxies in a flux-limited sample, the HIFLUGCS (consisting of 64 clusters). The luminosity measurements are obtained based on ∼ 1.3 Ms of clean XMM-Newton data and ROSAT pointed observations. The masses are estimated using optical spectroscopic redshifts of 13647 cluster galaxies in total. We classify clusters into disturbed and undisturbed ones, based on a combination of the X-ray luminosity concentration and the offset between the brightest cluster galaxy and X-ray flux-weighted center. Given sufficient numbers (i.e. ≥45) of member galaxies in computing the dynamical masses, the luminosity versus mass relations agree between the disturbed and undisturbed clusters. The cool-core clusters still dominate the scatter in the luminosity versus mass relation even when a core corrected X-ray luminosity is used, which indicates that the scatter of this scaling relation mainly reflects the structure formation history of the clusters. As shown by the clusters with a small number of spectroscopically confirmed members, the dynamical masses can be underestimated and thus lead to a biased scaling relation. To investigate the potential of spectroscopic surveys to follow up high-redshift galaxy clusters/groups observed in X-ray surveys for the identifications and mass calibrations, we carried out Monte-Carlo re-sampling of the cluster galaxy redshifts and calibrated the uncertainties of the redshift and dynamical mass estimates when only reduced numbers of galaxy redshifts per cluster are available. The re-sampling considers the SPIDERS and 4MOST configurations, designed for the follow-up of the eROSITA clusters, and was carried out for each cluster in the sample at the actual cluster redshift as well as at the assigned input cluster redshifts of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8. For following up very distant cluster/groups, we also carried out the mass calibration based on the re-sampling with only ten redshifts per cluster, and redshift calibration based on the re-sampling with only five and ten redshifts per cluster, respectively. Our results demonstrate the power of combining upcoming X-ray and optical spectroscopic surveys for mass calibration of clusters. The scatter in the dynamical mass estimates for the clusters with at least ten members is within 50%.

show abstract

“…Still most of the X-ray selected clusters are based on ROentgen SATellite (ROSAT) discoveries but XMM-Newton is ramping up thanks to its high sensitivity and despite its comparatively small survey area (see e.g. Clerc et al 2014;Mehrtens et al 2012;Takey et al 2013Takey et al , 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Integrated Cluster Finder for the ARCHES project

Mints

Schwope

Rosen

et al. 2016

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Clusters of galaxies are important for cosmology and astrophysics. They may be discovered through either the summed optical/IR radiation originating from their member galaxies or via X-ray emission originating from the hot intracluster medium. X-ray samples are not affected by projection effects but a redshift determination typically needs optical and infrared follow-up to then infer X-ray temperatures and luminosities. Aims. We want to confirm serendipitously discovered X-ray emitting cluster candidates and measure their cosmological redshift through the analysis and exploration of multi-wavelength photometric catalogues. Methods. We developed a tool, the Integrated Cluster Finder (ICF), to search for clusters by determining overdensities of potential member galaxies in optical and infrared catalogues. Based on a spectroscopic meta-catalogue we calibrated colour-redshift relations that combine optical (SDSS) and IR data (UKIDSS, WISE). The tool is used to quantify the overdensity of galaxies against the background via a modified redMaPPer technique and to quantify the confidence of a cluster detection. Results. Cluster finding results are compared to reference catalogues found in the literature. The results agree to within 95−98%. The tool is used to confirm 488 out of 830 cluster candidates drawn from 3XMMe in the footprint of the SDSS and CFHT catalogues. Conclusions. The ICF is a flexible and highly efficient tool to search for galaxy clusters in multiple catalogues and is freely available to the community. It may be used to identify the cluster content in future X-ray catalogues from XMM-Newton and eventually from eROSITA.

show abstract

The 2XMMi/SDSS Galaxy Cluster Survey

Cited by 36 publications

References 88 publications

The X-CLASS−redMaPPer galaxy cluster comparison

The X-CLASS−redMaPPer galaxy cluster comparison

HIFLUGCS: X-ray luminosity-dynamical mass relation and its implications for mass calibrations with the SPIDERS and 4MOST surveys

The Integrated Cluster Finder for the ARCHES project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About