Researcher profile

Sunayana Bhargava

Sunayana Bhargava contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

The Growth of Intracluster Light in XCS-HSC Galaxy Clusters from $0.1 < z < 0.5$

We estimate the Intracluster Light (ICL) component within a sample of 18 clusters detected in XMM Cluster Survey (XCS) data using deep ($\sim$ 26.8 mag) Hyper Suprime Cam Subaru Strategic Program DR1 (HSC-SSP DR1) $i$-band data. We apply a rest-frame $μ_{B} = 25 \ \mathrm{mag/arcsec^{2}}$ isophotal threshold to our clusters, below which we define light as the ICL within an aperture of $R_{X,500}$ (X-ray estimate of $R_{500}$) centered on the Brightest Cluster Galaxy (BCG). After applying careful masking and corrections for flux losses from background subtraction, we recover $\sim$20% of the ICL flux, approximately four times our estimate of the typical background at the same isophotal level ($\sim$ 5%). We find that the ICL makes up about $\sim$ 24% of the total cluster stellar mass on average ($\sim$ 41% including the flux contained in the BCG within 50 kpc); this value is well-matched with other observational studies and semi-analytic/numerical simulations, but is significantly smaller than results from recent hydrodynamical simulations (even when measured in an observationally consistent way). We find no evidence for any links between the amount of ICL flux with cluster mass, but find a growth rate of $2-4$ for the ICL between $0.1 < z < 0.5$. We conclude that the ICL is the dominant evolutionary component of stellar mass in clusters from $z \sim 1$. Our work highlights the need for a consistent approach when measuring ICL alongside the need for deeper imaging, in order to unambiguously measure the ICL across as broad a redshift range as possible (e.g. 10-year stacked imaging from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory).

preprint2021arXiv

The XXL survey: XLVI. Forward cosmological analysis of the C1 cluster sample

We present the forward cosmological analysis of an $XMM$ selected sample of galaxy clusters out to a redshift of unity. Following our previous 2018 study based on the dn/dz quantity alone, we perform an upgraded cosmological analysis of the same XXL C1 cluster catalogue (178 objects), with a detailed account of the systematic errors. We follow the ASpiX methodology: the distribution of the observed X-ray properties of the cluster population is analysed in a 3D observable space (count rate, hardness ratio, redshift) and modelled as a function of cosmology. Compared to more traditional methods, ASpiX allows the inclusion of clusters down to a few tens of photons. We obtain an improvement by a factor of 2 compared to the previous analysis by letting the normalisation of the M-T relation and the evolution of the L-T relation free. Adding constraints from the XXL cluster 2-point correlation function and the BAO from various surveys decreases the uncertainties by 23 and 53 % respectively, and 62% when adding both. Switching to the scaling relations from the Subaru analysis, and letting free more parameters, our final constraints are $σ_8$ = $0.99^{+0.14}_{-0.23}$, $Ω_m$ = 0.296 $\pm$ 0.034 ($S_8 = 0.98^{+0.11}_{-0.21}$) for the XXL sample alone. Finally, we combine XXL ASpiX, the XXL cluster 2-point correlation function and the BAO, with 11 free parameters, allowing for the cosmological dependence of the scaling relations in the fit. We find $σ_8$ = $0.793^{+0.063}_{-0.12}$, $Ω_m$ = 0.364 $\pm$ 0.015 ($S_8 = 0.872^{+0.068}_{-0.12}$), but still compatible with Planck CMB at 2.2$σ$. The results obtained by the ASpiX method are promising; further improvement is expected from the final XXL cosmological analysis involving a cluster sample twice as large. Such a study paves the way for the analysis of the eROSITA and future Athena surveys.

preprint2020arXiv

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Abundances and Weak Lensing

We perform a joint analysis of the counts and weak lensing signal of redMaPPer clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 dataset. Our analysis uses the same shear and source photometric redshifts estimates as were used in the DES combined probes analysis. Our analysis results in surprisingly low values for $S_8 =σ_8(Ω_{\rm m}/0.3)^{0.5}= 0.65\pm 0.04$, driven by a low matter density parameter, $Ω_{\rm m}=0.179^{+0.031}_{-0.038}$, with $σ_8-Ω_{\rm m}$ posteriors in $2.4σ$ tension with the DES Y1 3x2pt results, and in $5.6σ$ with the Planck CMB analysis. These results include the impact of post-unblinding changes to the analysis, which did not improve the level of consistency with other data sets compared to the results obtained at the unblinding. The fact that multiple cosmological probes (supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic shear, galaxy clustering and CMB anisotropies), and other galaxy cluster analyses all favor significantly higher matter densities suggests the presence of systematic errors in the data or an incomplete modeling of the relevant physics. Cross checks with X-ray and microwave data, as well as independent constraints on the observable--mass relation from SZ selected clusters, suggest that the discrepancy resides in our modeling of the weak lensing signal rather than the cluster abundance. Repeating our analysis using a higher richness threshold ($λ\ge 30$) significantly reduces the tension with other probes, and points to one or more richness-dependent effects not captured by our model.