Paper detail

The effects of ellipticity and substructure on estimates of cluster density profiles based on lensing and kinematics

We address the question of how well the density profile of galaxy clusters can be determined by combining strong lensing and velocity dispersion data. We use cosmological dark matter simulations of clusters to test the reliability of the method, producing mock catalogues of tangential and radial gravitational arcs and simulating the radial velocity dispersion profile of the cluster brightest central galaxy. The density profiles of the simulated clusters closely follow the NFW form, but we find that the recovered values of the inner slope are systematically underestimated, by about 0.4 in the mean, if the lens is assumed to be axially symmetric. However, if the ellipticity and orientation of the iso-contours of the cluster lensing potential are taken into account, then the inner slopes can be recovered quite accurately for a significant subset of the clusters whose central surface density profiles appear the most regular. These have lensing potentials with ellipticities in the range 0.15-0.4. Further simulations projecting one cluster along many random lines-of-sight show that, even for lower ellipticities, the central slopes are underestimated by $\sim 10-35%$. These simulations closely mimic past observations (see e.g. Sand et al., 2004), suggesting that existing estimates of the central slopes may be biased towards low values. For the remaining clusters, where the lensing potential is strongly perturbed by active merging or by substructure, the correct determination of the inner slope requires a more accurate model for the lens. When the halo profile is modelled by a generalised NFW profile, we find that the inferred scale radius and characteristic density, unlike the inner slope, are generally poorly constrained, since there is a strong degeneracy between these two parameters.

preprint2007arXivOpen 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.