Paper detail

Systematic bias in the estimate of cluster mass and the fluctuation amplitude from cluster abundance statistics

We revisit the estimate of the mass fluctuation amplitude, sigma_8, from the observational X-ray cluster abundance. In particular, we examine the effect of the systematic difference between the cluster virial mass estimated from the X-ray spectroscopy, M_{vir, spec}, and the true virial mass of the corresponding halo, M_{vir}. Mazzotta et al. (2004) recently pointed out the possibility that alpha_M = M_{vir, spec}/M_{vir} is systematically lower than unity. We perform the statistical analysis combining the latest X-ray cluster sample and the improved theoretical models and find that sigma_8 \sim 0.76 +/- 0.01 + 0.50 (1-alpha_M) for 0.5 \le alpha_M \le 1, where the quoted errors are statistical only. Thus if alpha_M \sim 0.7, the value of sigma_8 from cluster abundance alone is now in better agreement with other cosmological data including the cosmic microwave background, the galaxy power spectrum and the weak lensing data. The current study also illustrates the importance of possible systematic effects in mapping real clusters to underlying dark halos which changes the interpretation of cluster abundance statistics.

preprint2006arXivOpen 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.