Robust weak-lensing mass calibration of Planck galaxy clusters

By A. V. D. Linden, A. Mantz, S. Allen, D. Applegate, P. Kelly, R. Morris, A. Wright, M. Allen, P. Burchat, David L. Burke and 7 more. 2014

185 citations recorded by the source corpus.

In light of the tension in cosmological constraints reported by the Planck team between their SZ-selected cluster counts and Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature anisotropies, we compare the Planck cluster mass estimates with robust, weak-lensing mass measurements from the Weighing the Giants (WtG) project. For the 22 clusters in common between the Planck cosmology sample and WtG, we find an overall mass ratio of hMPlanck=MWtGi = 0:688 0:072. Extending the sample to clusters not used in the Planck cosmology analysis yields a consistent value ofhMPlanck=MWtGi = 0:698 0:062 from 38 clusters in common. Identifying the weak-lensing masses as proxies for the true cluster mass (on average), these ratios are 1:6 lower than the default bias factor of 0.8 assumed in the Planck cluster analysis. Adopting the WtG weak-lensing-based mass calibration would substantially reduce the tension found between the Planck cluster count cosmology results and those from CMB temperature anisotropies, thereby dispensing of the need for “new physics” such as uncomfortably large neutrino masses (in the context of the measured Planck temperature anisotropies and other data). We also find modest evidence (at 95 per cent confidence) for a mass dependence of the calibration ratio and discuss its potential origin in light of systematic uncertainties in the temperature calibration of the X-ray measurements used to calibrate the Planck cluster masses. Our results exemplify the critical role that robust absolute mass calibration plays in cluster cosmology, and the invaluable role of accurate weak-lensing mass measurements in this regard.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1d88d2283013201c5709bccbe927e06f9341f2b0

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 Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: weak lensing mass calibration of redMaPPer galaxy clusters (2018, background): “…in a broad range of weak lensing experiments 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;…”
Baryon impact on the halo mass function: Fitting formulae and implications for cluster cosmology (2015, result): “…to be lower in comparison to masses obtained using velocity dispersions or through abundance matching that includes constraints from external cosmological probes; other studies using weak lensing mass constraints come to similar conclusions (e.g. von der Linden et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015).”
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS FROM GALAXY CLUSTERS IN THE 2500 SQUARE-DEGREE SPT-SZ SURVEY (2016, methodology): “…scale of the sample from a reanalysis of Vikhlinin et al. (2009b) using the more recent weak lensing mass estimates from Hoekstra et al. (2015, denoted with H15) and the Weighing the Giants (WtG) project (Kelly et al. 2014; Applegate et al. 2014; von der Linden et al. 2014a; Mantz et al. 2015).”
The Canadian Cluster Comparison Project: detailed study of systematics and updated weak lensing masses (2015, methodology): “The slope is similar to that found by von der Linden et al. (2014b) and our results therefore support their conclusion that the bias in the hydrostatic masses used by Planck depends on the cluster mass, but our normalization is 9 per cent higher.”
The SPTpol Extended Cluster Survey (2019, methodology): “…have also contrasted the estimated Planck masses against masses estimated using other observables, with values of (1− b) ranging from ∼0.7 to unity (e.g., von der Linden et al. 2014, 0.688±0.072; Hoekstra et al. 2015, 0.76±0.05; Smith et al. 2016, 0.95±0.04; Medezinski et al. 2018, 0.80±0.14).”
RELICS: Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey (2019, methodology): “…et al. 2010; MCXC Piffaretti et al. 2011); weak lensing mass estimates (Sereno 2015 compilation including Weighing the Giants Applegate et al. 2014, von der Linden et al. 2014b; Umetsu et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015); SDSS clusters (Wong et al. 2013; Wen et al. 2012); and other SZ mass…”
Weighing the giants – IV. Cosmology and neutrino mass (2014, methodology): “However, von der Linden et al. (2014b) have shown that the mass calibration used by the Planck team is biased low compared with the WtG lensing measurements.”
The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Catalog of >4000 Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Galaxy Clusters (2020, background): “…is the key systematic that limits their ability to constrain cosmological parameters and is a topic of much debate in the literature (e.g., von der Linden et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015; Battaglia et al. 2016; Planck Collaboration et al. 2016a; Smith et al. 2016; Medezinski et al. 2018;…”
Planck2015 results (2015, unknown): “The recent, empirical normalization of the relation by the Weighing the Giants lensing programme (WtG; von der Linden et al. 2014) gives 0.69 ± 0.07 for the 22 clusters in common with the Planck cluster sample.”
The first-year shear catalog of the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program Survey (2017, background): “…and provides an important means to calibrate mass-observable relations of clusters for using cluster abundances to constrain cosmology (e.g., Leauthaud et al. 2010; Okabe et al. 2010; Donahue et al. 2014; von der Linden et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015; Okabe & Smith 2016; Battaglia et al. 2016).”
CLASH: JOINT ANALYSIS OF STRONG-LENSING, WEAK-LENSING SHEAR, AND MAGNIFICATION DATA FOR 20 GALAXY CLUSTERS (2015, methodology): “The WtG Project The WtG collaboration conducted weak-lensing shear mass measurements for 51 X-ray-selected luminous clusters at 0.15 <∼ z <∼ 0.7 (z = 0.387) using deep multi-color Subaru/Suprime-Cam and CFHT/MegaPrime optical imaging (von der Linden et al. 2014b; Applegate et al. 2014).”
Planck 2013 results. XX. Cosmology from Sunyaev-Zeldovich cluster counts (2013, background): “Most recent work points to relatively good agreement between X-ray and WL masses, with MHE/MWL ' 0.9 on average, and MHE/MWL ' 1 for relaxed systems (Mahdavi et al. 2013; von der Linden et al. 2014).”