Paper detail

Mass Bias of Weak Lensing Shear-selected Galaxy Cluster Samples

We estimate the bias on weak lensing mass measurements of shear-selected galaxy cluster samples. The mass bias is expected to be significant because constructions of cluster samples from peaks in weak lensing mass maps and measurements of cluster masses from their tangential shear profiles share the same noise. We quantify this mass bias from large sets of mock cluster samples with analytical density profiles and realistic large-scale structure noise from ray-tracing simulations. We find that, even for peaks with signal-to-noise ratio larger than $4.0$ in weak lensing mass maps constructed in a deep survey with a high source galaxy number density of $30~\mathrm{arcmin}^{-2}$, derived weak lensing masses for these shear-selected clusters are still biased high by $\sim55\%$ on average. Such a large bias mainly originates from up-scattered low mass objects, which is an inevitable consequence of selecting clusters with a noisy observable directly linked to the mass measurement. We also investigate the dependence of the mass bias on different physical and observational parameters, finding that the mass bias strongly correlates with cluster redshifts, true halo masses, and selection signal-to-noise thresholds, but having moderate dependence on observed weak lensing masses and survey depths. This bias, albeit considerable, can still be modeled accurately in statistical studies of shear-selected clusters as the intrinsic scatter around the mean bias is found to be reasonable in size. We demonstrate that such a bias can explain the deviation in X-ray properties previously found on a shear-selected cluster sample. Our result will be useful for turning large samples of shear-selected clusters available in future surveys into potential probes of cosmology and cluster astrophysics.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.