THEYSZ-YXSCALING RELATION AS DETERMINED FROMPLANCKANDCHANDRA

Rozo, Eduardo; Vikhlinin, A.

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/1/67

Cited by 37 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean ratio is very well constrained with a precision of 2.5%, log(Y 500 /Y X ) = −0.027±0.010. This confirms at higher precision the strong agreement between the SZ and X-ray measurements (within R 500 ) of the intra-cluster gas properties found by PEP XI and other studies Sifón et al 2013;Marrone et al 2012;Rozo et al 2012). The ratio is consistent with the X-ray prediction.…”

Section: The Best-fit Y 500 -Y X Relationsupporting

confidence: 88%

Planck2013 results. XXIX. ThePlanckcatalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich sources

Ade

Aghanim

Armitage-Caplan

et al. 2014

A&A

396

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the all-sky Planck catalogue of clusters and cluster candidates derived from Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect detections using the first 15.5 months of Planck satellite observations. The catalogue contains 1227 entries, making it over six times the size of the Planck Early SZ (ESZ) sample and the largest SZ-selected catalogue to date. It contains 861 confirmed clusters, of which 178 have been confirmed as clusters, mostly through follow-up observations, and a further 683 are previously-known clusters. The remaining 366 have the status of cluster candidates, and we divide them into three classes according to the quality of evidence that they are likely to be true clusters. The Planck SZ catalogue is the deepest all-sky cluster catalogue, with redshifts up to about one, and spans the broadest cluster mass range from (0.1 to 1.6) × 10 15 M . Confirmation of cluster candidates through comparison with existing surveys or cluster catalogues is extensively described, as is the statistical characterization of the catalogue in terms of completeness and statistical reliability. The outputs of the validation process are provided as additional information. This gives, in particular, an ensemble of 813 cluster redshifts, and for all these Planck clusters we also include a mass estimated from a newly-proposed SZ-mass proxy. A refined measure of the SZ Compton parameter for the clusters with X-ray counter-parts is provided, as is an X-ray flux for all the Planck clusters not previously detected in X-ray surveys.

show abstract

Section: The Best-fit Y 500 -Y X Relationsupporting

confidence: 88%

Planck2013 results. XXIX. ThePlanckcatalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich sources

Ade

Aghanim

Armitage-Caplan

et al. 2014

A&A

396

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Constraints from SZ selected samples are emerging (Vanderlinde et al, 2010;Sehgal et al, 2011;Reichardt et al, 2013), and while they are currently weak because of the relatively large uncertainty in the SZ-mass scaling relation, the extensive follow-up campaigns that are currently underway will reduce this scaling uncertainty and bring these constraints to a level comparable to those from optical and X-ray cluster catalogs (e.g. High et al, 2012;Hoekstra et al, 2012;Planck Collaboration, 2012;Rozo et al, 2012d). Regardless of the wavelength of choice, current cluster abundance constraints are limited not by the number of clusters but by uncertainty in mass calibration.…”

Section: The Current State Of Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational probes of cosmic acceleration

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accelerating expansion of the universe is the most surprising cosmological discovery in many decades, implying that the universe is dominated by some form of "dark energy" with exotic physical properties, or that Einstein's theory of gravity breaks down on cosmological scales. The profound implications of cosmic acceleration have inspired ambitious efforts to understand its origin, with experiments that aim to measure the history of expansion and growth of structure with percent-level precision or higher. We review in detail the four most well established methods for making such measurements: Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), weak gravitational lensing, and the abundance of galaxy clusters. We pay particular attention to the systematic uncertainties in these techniques and to strategies for controlling them at the level needed to exploit "Stage IV" dark energy facilities such as BigBOSS, LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. We briefly review a number of other approaches including redshift-space distortions, the Alcock-Paczynski effect, and direct measurements of the Hubble constant H 0 . We present extensive forecasts for constraints on the dark energy equation of state and parameterized deviations from General Relativity, achievable with Stage III and Stage IV experimental programs that incorporate supernovae, BAO, weak lensing, and cosmic microwave background data. We also show the level of precision required for clusters or other methods to provide constraints competitive with those of these fiducial programs. We emphasize the value of a balanced program that employs several of the most powerful methods in combination, both to cross-check systematic uncertainties and to take advantage of complementary information. Surveys to probe cosmic acceleration produce data sets that support a wide range of scientific investigations, and they continue the longstanding astronomical tradition of mapping the universe in ever greater detail over ever larger scales.

show abstract

“…For instance, the difference in calibration between XMM-Newton and Chandra can induce differences in Y X . This is typically 5 percent, from a comparison of XMM-Newton based values published by Planck Collaboration XI (2011) to Chandra values for 28 ESZ clusters by Rozo et al (2012). This can lead to differences of up to 10 percent in the mass M Y X 500 derived from Y X , owing to the dependence of the mass on Y X .…”

Section: A43 Consistency With He Bias Predictions and Absolute Calmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic discrepancies in the relevant scaling relations have, however, been identified and studied in stacking analyses of X-ray, SZ, and lensing data for the very large MaxBCG cluster sample, e.g., Planck Collaboration XII (2011), Biesiadzinski et al (2012), Draper et al (2012), Rozo et al (2012), and Sehgal et al (2013), suggesting that the issue is not yet fully settled from an observational point of view. The uncertainty reflects the inherent biases of the different mass estimates.…”

Section: Comparison With Planck Primary Cmb Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planck2013 results. XX. Cosmology from Sunyaev–Zeldovich cluster counts

Ade¹,

Aghanim²,

Arnaud³

et al. 2014

A&A

514

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present constraints on cosmological parameters using number counts as a function of redshift for a sub-sample of 189 galaxy clusters from the Planck SZ (PSZ) catalogue. The PSZ is selected through the signature of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect, and the sub-sample used here has a signal-to-noise threshold of seven, with each object confirmed as a cluster and all but one with a redshift estimate. We discuss the completeness of the sample and our construction of a likelihood analysis. Using a relation between mass M and SZ signal Y calibrated to X-ray measurements, we derive constraints on the power spectrum amplitude σ 8 and matter density parameter Ω m in a flat ΛCDM model. We test the robustness of our estimates and find that possible biases in the Y-M relation and the halo mass function are larger than the statistical uncertainties from the cluster sample. Assuming the X-ray determined mass to be biased low relative to the true mass by between zero and 30%, motivated by comparison of the observed mass scaling relations to those from a set of numerical simulations, we find that σ 8 = 0.75 ± 0.03, Ω m = 0.29 ± 0.02, and σ 8 (Ω m /0.27) 0.3 = 0.764 ± 0.025. The value of σ 8 is degenerate with the mass bias; if the latter is fixed to a value of 20% (the central value from numerical simulations) we find σ 8 (Ω m /0.27) 0.3 = 0.78 ± 0.01 and a tighter one-dimensional range σ 8 = 0.77 ± 0.02. We find that the larger values of σ 8 and Ω m preferred by Planck's measurements of the primary CMB anisotropies can be accommodated by a mass bias of about 40%. Alternatively, consistency with the primary CMB constraints can be achieved by inclusion of processes that suppress power on small scales relative to the ΛCDM model, such as a component of massive neutrinos. We place our results in the context of other determinations of cosmological parameters, and discuss issues that need to be resolved in order to make further progress in this field.

show abstract

THEY_SZ-Y_XSCALING RELATION AS DETERMINED FROMPLANCKANDCHANDRA

Cited by 37 publications

References 58 publications

Planck2013 results. XXIX. ThePlanckcatalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich sources

Planck2013 results. XXIX. ThePlanckcatalogue of Sunyaev-Zeldovich sources

Observational probes of cosmic acceleration

Planck2013 results. XX. Cosmology from Sunyaev–Zeldovich cluster counts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About