Weighing the giants – IV. Cosmology and neutrino mass

By A. Mantz, A. V. D. Linden, S. Allen, D. Applegate, P. Kelly, R. Morris, David Rapetti, R. Schmidt, S. Adhikari, M. Allen and 14 more. 2014

199 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We employ robust weak gravitational lensing measurements to improve cosmological constraints from measurements of the galaxy cluster mass function and its evolution, using X-ray selected clusters detected in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey. Our lensing analysis constrains the absolute mass scale of such clusters at the 8 per cent level, including both statistical and systematic uncertainties. Combining it with the survey data and X-ray follow-up observations, we find a tight constraint on a combination of the mean matter density and late-time normalization of the matter power spectrum, $\sigma_8(\Omega_m/0.3)^{0.17}=0.81\pm0.03$, with marginalized, one-dimensional constraints of $\Omega_m=0.26\pm0.03$ and $\sigma_8=0.83\pm0.04$. For these two parameters, this represents a factor of two improvement in precision with respect to previous work, primarily due to the reduced systematic uncertainty in the absolute mass calibration provided by the lensing analysis. Our new results are in good agreement with constraints from cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, both WMAP and Planck (plus WMAP polarization), under the assumption of a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with minimal neutrino mass. Consequently, we find no evidence for non-minimal neutrino mass from the combination of cluster data with CMB, supernova and baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, regardless of which all-sky CMB data set is used (and independent of the recent claimed detection of B-modes on degree scales). We also present improved constraints on models of dark energy (both constant and evolving), modifications of gravity, and primordial non-Gaussianity. Assuming flatness, the constraints for a constant dark energy equation of state from the cluster data alone are at the 15 per cent level, improving to $\sim 6$ per cent when the cluster data are combined with other leading probes.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/119828ad150baca58856334894cdf77db375f0e3

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

Citations in the corpus

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: weak lensing mass calibration of redMaPPer galaxy clusters (2018, background): “…specifically designed to calibrate the masses of galaxy clusters (Applegate et al. 2014; von der Linden et al. 2014a,b; Hoekstra et al. 2015; Mantz et al. 2015b; Okabe & Smith 2016; Dietrich et al. 2017; Melchior et al. 2017; Simet et al. 2017; Medezinski et al. 2018b; Miyatake et al. 2018;…”
The Canadian Cluster Comparison Project: detailed study of systematics and updated weak lensing masses (2015, background): “…constrain cosmological parameters, such as the mean density m and the normalization of the matter power spectrum σ 8 (e.g. Bahcall & Fan 1998; Henry 2000; Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; Henry et al. 2009), or the dark energy equation-of-state w (e.g. Vikhlinin et al. 2009; Mantz et al. 2010, 2015).”
Testing Inflation with Large Scale Structure: Connecting Hopes with Reality (2014, background): “3% confidence intervals from X-ray selected clusters (with Planck constraints on the homogeneous cosmology and the power spectrum) are f loc NL = −94 +148 −77 for the usual local ansatz and f loc NL = −48 +60 −11 for a scenario where the higher moments are relatively more important than in the stand”
Planck2015 results (2015, unknown): “However, an analysis of cluster counts of X-ray-selected clusters by the WtG collaboration, incorporating the WtG weak lensing mass calibration, finds σ8(Ωm/0.3)0.17 = 0.81±0.03, in good agreement with the Planck CMB results for base ΛCDM (Mantz et al. 2015).”
Baryon impact on the halo mass function: Fitting formulae and implications for cluster cosmology (2015, background): “Note the very different scales in both panels. the mass bias from different authors (Planck Collaboration et al. 2015b).”
The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts (2018, background): “…by uncertainties in the observable-to-mass scaling relation (e.g., Vikhlinin et al. 2009; Vanderlinde et al. 2010; Sehgal et al. 2011; Benson et al. 2013; Hasselfield et al. 2013b; Planck Collaboration 2014c; Mantz et al. 2014; Planck Collaboration 2016j; Mantz et al. 2015; de Haan et al. 2016).”
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS FROM GALAXY CLUSTERS IN THE 2500 SQUARE-DEGREE SPT-SZ SURVEY (2016, methodology): “Finally, we compare to more recent cosmological constraints from WtG (Mantz et al. 2015).”
Halo and subhalo demographics with Planck cosmological parameters: Bolshoi–Planck and MultiDark–Planck simulations (2016, methodology): “The key to constructing the cluster mass function from these observations is to obtain a reliable mass calibration from gravitational lensing (e.g., Rozo et al. 2014; Mantz et al. 2015).”