The 400d Galaxy Cluster Survey weak lensing programme

Israel, Holger; Reiprich, T. H.; Erben, T.; Massey, Richard; Sarazin, Craig L.; Schneider, Peter; Vikhlinin, A.

doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322870

Cited by 46 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We address the question of whether a Chandra-derived scaling relation could solve this tension, i.e., whether systematic cross-calibration uncertainties between Chandra and XMM-Newton can explain the inconsistent Planck results. The results in Israel et al (2014a), where Chandra X-ray masses agree with cluster masses of a weak-lensing analysis indicate that the hydrostatic assumption does not cause a major bias with respect to weak-lensing masses. While we clearly isolate here the systematic uncertainty resulting directly and only from X-ray calibration uncertainties, a comparison of mass estimates and/or cosmological constraints from different sources is much more complicated (Rozo et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

XMM-NewtonandChandracross-calibration using HIFLUGCS galaxy clusters

Schellenberger

Reiprich

Lovisari

et al. 2015

A&A

182

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. Robust X-ray temperature measurements of the intracluster medium (ICM) of galaxy clusters require an accurate energydependent effective area calibration. Since the hot gas X-ray emission of galaxy clusters does not vary on relevant timescales, they are excellent cross-calibration targets. Moreover, cosmological constraints from clusters rely on accurate gravitational mass estimates, which in X-rays strongly depend on cluster gas temperature measurements. Therefore, systematic calibration differences may result in biased, instrument-dependent cosmological constraints. This is of special interest in light of the tension between the Planck results of the primary temperature anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich-plus-X-ray cluster-count analyses. Aims. We quantify in detail the systematics and uncertainties of the cross-calibration of the effective area between five X-ray instruments, EPIC-MOS1/MOS2/PN onboard XMM-Newton and ACIS-I/S onboard Chandra, and the influence on temperature measurements. Furthermore, we assess the impact of the cross-calibration uncertainties on cosmology. Methods. Using the HIFLUGCS sample, consisting of the 64 X-ray brightest galaxy clusters, we constrain the ICM temperatures through spectral fitting in the same, mostly isothermal regions and compare the different instruments. We use the stacked residual ratio method to evaluate the cross-calibration uncertainties between the instruments as a function of energy. Our work is an extension to a previous one using X-ray clusters by the International Astronomical Consortium for High Energy Calibration (IACHEC) and is carried out in the context of IACHEC. Results. Performing spectral fitting in the full energy band, (0.7-7) keV, as is typical of the analysis of cluster spectra, we find that best-fit temperatures determined with XMM-Newton/EPIC are significantly lower than Chandra/ACIS temperatures. This confirms the previous IACHEC results obtained with older calibrations with high precision. The difference increases with temperature, and we quantify this dependence with a fitting formula. For instance, at a cluster temperature of 10 keV, EPIC temperatures are on average 23% lower than ACIS temperatures. We also find systematic differences between the three XMM-Newton/EPIC instruments, with the PN detector typically estimating the lowest temperatures. Testing the cross-calibration of the energy-dependence of the effective areas in the soft and hard energy bands, (0.7-2) keV and (2-7) keV, respectively, we confirm the previously indicated relatively good agreement between all instruments in the hard and the systematic differences in the soft band. We provide scaling relations to convert between the different instruments based on the effective area, gas temperature, and hydrostatic mass. We demonstrate that effects like multitemperature structure and different relative sensitivities of the instruments at certain energy bands cannot explain the observed differences. We conclude that using XMM...

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 51%

“…by upscaling the Chandra masses by 25% to simulate the strongest bias still allowed by the weak lensing (WL) masses determined by Israel et al (2014a). We found a 7% higher Ω M and 6% higher σ 8 for the WL masses compared to the Chandra analysis.…”

Section: Cosmological Impactmentioning

confidence: 70%

XMM-NewtonandChandracross-calibration using HIFLUGCS galaxy clusters

Schellenberger

Reiprich

Lovisari

et al. 2015

A&A

182

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, our mass calibration approach improves upon the Planck Collaboration XX (2014) method, because we account for collinearity and use a directly measured mass instead of a mass proxy. Our approach also improves upon methods used in studies using weak-lensing masses, such as Mahdavi et al (2013), Israel et al (2014), von den Linder et al (2014, Ford et al (2014), and Sereno et al (2014), because we model the selection+mass function and account for collinearity. Published works based on calibrations using projected weak-lensing masses are rare at best.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The insignificant evolution of the richness-mass relation of galaxy clusters

Andreon

Congdon

2014

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analysed the richness-mass scaling of 23 very massive clusters at 0.15 < z < 0.55 with homogenously measured weak-lensing masses and richnesses within a fixed aperture of 0.5 Mpc radius. We found that the richness-mass scaling is very tight (the scatter is <0.09 dex with 90% probability) and independent of cluster evolutionary status and morphology. This implies a close association between infall and evolution of dark matter and galaxies in the central region of clusters. We also found that the evolution of the richness-mass intercept is minor at most, and, given the minor mass evolution across the studied redshift range, the richness evolution of individual massive clusters also turns out to be very small. Finally, it was paramount to account for the cluster mass function and the selection function. Ignoring them would lead to larger biases than the (otherwise quoted) errors. Our study benefits from: a) weak-lensing masses instead of proxy-based masses thereby removing the ambiguity between a real trend and one induced by an accounted evolution of the used mass proxy; b) the use of projected masses that simplify the statistical analysis thereby not requiring consideration of the unknown covariance induced by the cluster orientation/triaxiality; c) the use of aperture masses as they are free of the pseudo-evolution of mass definitions anchored to the evolving density of the Universe; d) a proper accounting of the sample selection function and of the Malmquist-like effect induced by the cluster mass function; e) cosmological simulations for the computation of the cluster mass function, its evolution, and the mass growth of each individual cluster.

show abstract

“…to an accuracy that matches today's precision cosmology requirements (e.g. von der Linden et al 2014;Israel et al 2014). The main arguments invoked are: instrumental calibration issues Planck Collaboration XX 2014), biases in hydrostatic mass estimates, reliability of the mass proxy used (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

The 400d Galaxy Cluster Survey weak lensing programme

Cited by 46 publications

References 98 publications

XMM-NewtonandChandracross-calibration using HIFLUGCS galaxy clusters

XMM-NewtonandChandracross-calibration using HIFLUGCS galaxy clusters

The insignificant evolution of the richness-mass relation of galaxy clusters

The X-CLASS−redMaPPer galaxy cluster comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About