Paper detail

Lensed arc statistics: comparison of Millennium-simulation galaxy clusters to Hubble Space Telescope observations of an X-ray selected sample

It has been debated for a decade whether there is a large overabundance of strongly lensed arcs in galaxy clusters, compared to expectations from LambdaCDM cosmology. We perform ray tracing through the most massive halos of the Millennium simulation at several redshifts in their evolution, using the Hubble Ultra Deep Field as a source image, to produce realistic simulated lensed images. We compare the lensed arc statistics measured from the simulations to those of a sample of 45 X-ray selected clusters, observed with the Hubble Space Telescope, that we have analysed in Horesh et al. (2010). The observations and the simulations are matched in cluster masses, redshifts, observational effects, and the algorithmic arc detection and selection. At z=0.6 there are too few massive-enough clusters in the Millennium volume for a proper statistical comparison with the observations. At redshifts 0.3<z<0.5, however, we have large numbers of simulated and observed clusters, and the latter are an unbiased selection from a complete sample. For these redshifts, we find excellent agreement between the observed and simulated arc statistics, in terms of the mean number of arcs per cluster, the distribution of number of arcs per cluster, and the angular separation distribution. At z ~ 0.2 some conflict remains, with real clusters being ~3 times more efficient arc producers than their simulated counterparts. This may arise due to selection biases in the observed subsample at this redshift, to some mismatch in masses between the observed and simulated clusters, or to physical effects that arise at low redshift and enhance the lensing efficiency, but which are not represented by the simulations.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.