Paper detail

Toward Unbiased Galaxy Cluster Masses from Line of Sight Velocity Dispersions

We study the use of red sequence selected galaxy spectroscopy for unbiased estimation of galaxy cluster masses. We use the publicly available galaxy catalog produced using the semi-analytic model of De Lucia & Blaizot (2007) on the Millenium Simulation (Springel et al. 2005). We explore the impacts on selection using galaxy color, projected separation from the cluster center, and galaxy luminosity. We study the relationship between cluster mass and velocity dispersion and identify and characterize the following sources of bias and scatter: halo triaxiality, dynamical friction of red luminous galaxies and interlopers. We show that due to halo triaxiality the intrinsic scatter of estimated line of sight dynamical mass is about three times larger (30-40%) than the one estimated using the 3D velocity dispersion (~12%) and a small bias (~1%) is induced. We find evidence of increasing scatter as a function of redshift and provide a fitting formula to account for it. We characterize the amount of bias and scatter introduced by dynamical friction when using subsamples of red-luminous galaxies to estimate the velocity dispersion. We study the presence of interlopers in spectroscopic samples and their effect on the estimated cluster dynamical mass. Our results show that while cluster velocity dispersions extracted from a few dozen red sequence selected galaxies do not provide precise masses on a single cluster basis, an ensemble of cluster velocity dispersions can be combined to produce a precise calibration of a cluster survey mass observable relation. Currently, disagreements in the literature on simulated subhalo velocity dispersion mass relations place a systematic floor on velocity dispersion mass calibration at the 15% level in mass. We show that the selection related uncertainties are small by comparison, providing hope that with further improvements this systematic floor can be reduced.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.