Paper detail

Mock weak lensing analysis of simulated galaxy clusters: bias and scatter in mass and concentration

(Abridged) We quantify the bias and scatter in galaxy cluster masses and concentrations derived from an idealised mock weak gravitational lensing (WL) survey, and their effect on the cluster mass-concentration relation. For this, we simulate WL distortions on a population of background galaxies due to a large (~3000) sample of galaxy cluster haloes extracted from the Millennium Simulation at z~0.2. This study takes into account the influence of shape noise, cluster substructure and asphericity as well as correlated large-scale structure, but not uncorrelated large-scale structure along the line of sight and observational effects. We find a small, but non-negligble, negative median bias in both mass and concentration at a level of ~5%, the exact value depending both on cluster mass and radial survey range. Both the mass and concentration derived from WL show considerable scatter about their true values. This scatter has, even for the highest mass clusters of M200 > 10^14.8 M_sun, a level of ~30% and ~20% for concentration and mass respectively and increases strongly with decreasing cluster mass. For a typical survey analysing 30 galaxies per arcmin^2 over a radial range from 30" to 15' from the cluster centre, the derived M200-c relation has a slope and normalisation too low compared to the underlying true (3D) relation by ~40% and ~15% respectively. The scatter and bias in mass are shown to reflect a departure at large radii of the true WL shear/matter distribution of the simulated clusters from the NFW profile adopted in modelling the mock observations. Orientation of the triaxial cluster haloes dominates the concentration scatter (except at low masses, where galaxy shape noise becomes dominant), while the bias in c is mostly due to substructure within the virial radius.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.