Self-Calibration in Cluster Studies of Dark Energy: Combining the Cluster Redshift Distribution, the Power Spectrum, and Mass Measurements

By S. Majumdar, Joseph J. Mohr. 2003

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We examine the prospects for measuring the dark energy equation-of-state parameter w within the context of any uncertain redshift evolution of galaxy cluster structure (building on our earlier work) and show that including the redshift-averaged cluster power spectrum (cl) and direct mass measurements of 100 clusters helps tremendously in reducing cosmological parameter uncertainties. Specifically, we show that when combining the redshift distribution and the power spectrum information for a particular X-ray survey (DUET) and two Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect surveys (South Pole Telescope and Planck), the constraints on the dark energy equation-of-state w can be improved by roughly a factor of 4. Because surveys designed to study the redshift distribution of clusters will have all the information necessary to construct cl, the benefit of adding cl in reducing uncertainties comes at no additional observational cost. Combining detailed mass studies of 100 clusters with the redshift distribution improves the parameter uncertainties by a factor of 3-5. The data required for these detailed mass measurements—assumed to have 1 σ uncertainties of 30%—are accumulating in the XMM-Newton and Chandra archives. The best constraints are obtained when one combines both the power spectrum constraints and the mass measurements with the cluster redshift distribution; when using the survey to extract the parameters and evolution of the mass-observable relations, we estimate uncertainties on w of ~4%-6%. These parameter constraints are possible with cluster surveys that are carried out over large, contiguous regions of the sky, so that the cluster power spectrum can be reasonably measured. In combination with cosmic microwave background or distance measurements that have different parameter degeneracies, cluster studies of dark energy will provide enhanced constraints and allow for cross-checks of systematics.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0901941b3eeb4b227c6b8ead103e4dd7927d2a08

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

GALAXY CLUSTERS DISCOVERED WITH A SUNYAEV–ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT SURVEY (2008, methodology): “Galaxy cluster catalogs selected via the SunyaevZel’dovich effect are promising in both respects (Carlstrom et al. 2002; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Melin et al. 2005).”
Toward a Halo Mass Function for Precision Cosmology: The Limits of Universality (2008, methodology): “The widely adopted strategy is therefore to calibrate abundance as a function of total halo mass and calibrate the relation between mass and observable cluster properties either separately or within a survey itself using nuisance parameters (e.g. Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Lima & Hu 2004, 2005, 2007).”
Observational probes of cosmic acceleration (2012, methodology): “One such statistical method uses the spatial clustering of the clusters themselves, as characterized by the variance of counts-in-cells (Lima and Hu, 2004) or by the cluster correlation function or power spectrum (Schuecker et al., 2003; Majumdar and Mohr, 2004; Hütsi and Lahav, 2008).”
A WEAK LENSING STUDY OF X-RAY GROUPS IN THE COSMOS SURVEY: FORM AND EVOLUTION OF THE MASS–LUMINOSITY RELATION (2009, background): “Sufficiently large cluster surveys may be able to deal with the evolution and scatter in mass-observable relations by internally calibrating for these uncertainties (the so called “self-calibration method”, Levine et al. 2002; Hu 2003; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Wang et al. 2004b; Lima & Hu 2005).”
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT III: COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETER CONSTRAINTS (2008, methodology): “Ultimately, as the cluster surveys detect ∼ 104 clusters with accurately measured X-ray parameters, the so-called self-calibration techniques (Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Lima & Hu 2004) can be employed to further constrain the evolution in theMtot vs. proxy relations.”
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS FROM THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY MaxBCG CLUSTER CATALOG (2009, methodology): “…self-calibration approach, in which one uses the clustering of clusters (Schuecker et al. 2003; Estrada et al. 2008) and cluster abundance data to derive cosmological con- straints with no a-priori knowledge of the observable– mass relation (Hu 2003; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Lima & Hu 2004, 2005).”
The Dependence of Halo Clustering on Halo Formation History, Concentration, and Occupation (2005, unknown): “…of clusters, or any sample inwhich the primary observable that clusters are selected on is correlated with formation time or halo concentration, mass estimates from ‘‘self-calibration,’’ using the clustering of clusters (Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Lima & Hu 2005), may bias results toward higher masses.”
ON THE CLUSTER PHYSICS OF SUNYAEV–ZEL'DOVICH AND X-RAY SURVEYS. I. THE INFLUENCE OF FEEDBACK, NON-THERMAL PRESSURE, AND CLUSTER SHAPES ON Y–M SCALING RELATIONS (2011, methodology): “…Bonamente et al. 2008; Marrone et al. 2009; Andersson et al. 2010; Sayers et al. 2011; Marrone et al. 2011), self-calibration techniques (e.g., Majumdar & Mohr 2003, 2004; Lima & Hu 2004; Chaudhuri & Majumdar 2011; Nath & Majumdar 2011), simulations (e.g., da Silva et al. 2004; Motl et al.…”
A MaxBCG Catalog of 13,823 Galaxy Clusters from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (2007, background): “…to predict the evolution of galaxies and gas (e.g., Springel et al. 2005; Kravtsov et al. 2006) while new observations are extracting ever more direct and precise measurements of total cluster mass proxies (Vikhlinin et al. 2006; Diaferio et al. 2005; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Katgert et al. 2004).”
A GMBCG GALAXY CLUSTER CATALOG OF 55,424 RICH CLUSTERS FROM SDSS DR7 (2010, background): “Their abundance and spatial distribution encode rich information about the Universe (Evrard 1989; Oukbir & Blanchard 1992), making them sensitive probes for cosmology (Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Hu 2003; Lima & Hu 2004, 2005).”
CIRS: Cluster Infall Regions in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I. Infall Patterns and Mass Profiles (2006, background): “Establishing these relations for local clusters is critical for future studies of clusters in the distant universe with the goal of constraining dark energy (Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Lin et al. 2004).”
Acoustic oscillations in the SDSS DR4 luminous red galaxy sample power spectrum (2005, background): “There have been several works discussing the usag of galaxies (Blake & Glazebrook 2003; Hu & Haiman 2003; Linder 2003; Seo & Eisenstein 2003) and clusters of galaxies (Hu & Haiman 2003; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Hütsi 2005) for this purpose.”
Weighing the giants – IV. Cosmology and neutrino mass (2014, background): “…benefit of incorporating additional measurements of masses or mass proxies for even a subset of discovered clusters is that these aspects of the model can be constrained rather than assumed, expanding the scope of cosmological models that can be investigated (e.g. Majumdar & Mohr 2004).”
The representative XMM-Newton cluster structure survey (REXCESS) of an X-ray luminosity selected galaxy cluster sample (2007, background): “…clusters were among the first probes to be used to constrain dark energy models (Wang & Steinhardt 1998), and their importance as cosmological probes is increasingly being recognised (e.g. Rosati et al. 2002; Schuecker et al. 2003a,b; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Allen et al. 2004; Haiman et al. 2005).”
MEASURING THE ULTIMATE HALO MASS OF GALAXY CLUSTERS: REDSHIFTS AND MASS PROFILES FROM THE HECTOSPEC CLUSTER SURVEY (HeCS) (2012, background): “Establishing these relations for local clusters is critical for future studies of clusters in the distant universe with the goal of constraining dark energy (Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Lin et al. 2004).”