Paper detail

The 400d Galaxy Cluster Survey weak lensing programme: III: Evidence for consistent WL and X-ray masses at $z\approx 0.5$

Scaling properties of galaxy cluster observables with mass provide central insights into the processes shaping clusters. Calibrating proxies for cluster mass will be crucial to cluster cosmology with upcoming surveys like eROSITA and Euclid. The recent Planck results led to suggestions that X-ray masses might be biased low by $\sim\!40$ %, more than previously considered. We extend the direct calibration of the weak lensing -- X-ray mass scaling towards lower masses (as low as $1\!\times\!10^{14}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$) in a sample representative of the $z\!\sim\!0.4$--$0.5$ population. We investigate the scaling of MMT/Megacam weak lensing (WL) masses for $8$ clusters at $0.39\!\leq\!z\!\leq\!0.80$ as part of the \emph{400d} WL programme with hydrostatic \textit{Chandra} X-ray masses as well as those based on the proxies, e.g. $Y_{\mathrm{X}}\!=\!T_{\mathrm{X}}M_{\mathrm{gas}}$. Overall, we find good agreement between WL and X-ray masses, with different mass bias estimators all consistent with zero. Subdividing the sample, we find the high-mass subsample to show no significant mass bias while for the low-mass subsample, there is a bias towards overestimated X-ray masses at the $\sim\!2σ$ level for some mass proxies. The overall scatter in the mass-mass scaling relations is surprisingly low. Neither observation can be traced back to the parameter settings in the WL analysis. We do not find evidence for a strong ($\sim\!40$ %) underestimate in the X-ray masses, as suggested to reconcile Planck cluster counts and cosmological constraints. For high-mass clusters, our measurements are consistent with studies in the literature. The mass dependent bias, significant at $\sim\!2σ$, may hint at a physically different cluster population (less relaxed clusters with more substructure and mergers); or it may be due to small number statistics.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.