Paper detail

Comparing gravitational redshifts of SDSS galaxy clusters with the magnification redshift enhancement of background BOSS galaxies

A clean measurement of the evolution of the galaxy cluster mass function can significantly improve our understanding of cosmology from the rapid growth of cluster masses below z < 0.5. Here we examine the consistency of cluster catalogues selected from the SDSS by applying two independent gravity-based methods using all available spectroscopic redshifts from the DR10 release. First, we detect a gravitational redshift related signal for 20,119 and 13,128 clusters with spectroscopic redshifts contained in the GMBCG and redMaPPer catalogues, respectively, at a level of $\sim - 10$ km s$^{-1}$. This we show is consistent with the magnitude expected using the richness-mass relations provided by the literature and after applying recently clarified relativistic and flux bias corrections. This signal is also consistent with the richest clusters in the larger catalogue of Wen et al. (2012), corresponding to $M_{200m} \gtrsim 2 \times 10^{14}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,h^{-1}$, however we find no significant detection of gravitational redshift signal for less riched clusters, which may be related to bulk motions from substructure and spurious cluster detections. Second, we find all three catalogues generate mass-dependent levels of lensing magnification bias, which enhances the mean redshift of flux-selected background galaxies from the BOSS survey. The magnitude of this lensing effect is generally consistent with the corresponding richness-mass relations advocated for the surveys. We conclude that all catalogues comprise a high proportion of reliable clusters, and that the GMBCG and redMaPPer cluster finder algorithms favor more relaxed clusters with a meaningful gravitational redshift signal, as anticipated by the red-sequence colour selection of the GMBCG and redMaPPer samples.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.