Paper detail

Velocity Anisotropy and Shape Bias in the Caustic Technique

We use the Millennium Simulation to quantify the statistical accuracy and precision of the escape velocity technique for measuring cluster-sized halo masses at z~0.1. We show that in 3D, one can measure nearly unbiased (<4%) halo masses (>1.5x10^14 M_solar h^-1) with 10-15% scatter. Line-of-sight projection effects increase the scatter to ~25%, where we include the known velocity anisotropies. The classical &#34;caustic&#34; technique incorporates a calibration factor which is determined from N-body simulations. We derive and test a new implementation which eliminates the need for calibration and utilizes only the observables: the galaxy velocities with respect to the cluster mean v, the projected positions r_p, an estimate of the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) density concentration and an estimate of the velocity anisotropies, beta. We find that differences between the potential and density NFW concentrations induce a 10% bias in the caustic masses. We also find that large (100%) systematic errors in the observed ensemble average velocity anisotropies and concentrations translate to small (5%-10%) biases in the inferred masses.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.