Self-Calibration of Cluster Dark Energy Studies: Observable-Mass Distribution

By Marcos Lima, Wayne Hu. 2005

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The exponential sensitivity of cluster number counts to the properties of the dark energy implies a comparable sensitivity to not only the mean but also the actual distribution of an observable-mass proxy given the true cluster mass. For example a 25% scatter in mass can provide a $\ensuremath{\sim}50%$ change in the number counts at $z\ensuremath{\sim}2$ for the upcoming SPT survey. Uncertainty in the scatter of this amount would degrade dark energy constraints to uninteresting levels. Given the shape of the actual mass function, the properties of the distribution may be internally monitored by the shape of the observable mass function. As a proof of principle, for a simple mass-independent Gaussian distribution the scatter may be self-calibrated to allow a measurement of the dark energy equation of state of $\ensuremath{\sigma}(w)\ensuremath{\sim}0.1$. External constraints on the mass variance of the distribution that are more accurate than $\ensuremath{\Delta}{\ensuremath{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{ln}M}^{2}l0.01$ at $z\ensuremath{\sim}1$ can further improve constraints by up to a factor of 2. More generally, cluster counts and their sample variance measured as a function of the observable provide internal consistency checks on the assumed form of the observable-mass distribution that will protect against misinterpretation of the dark energy constraints.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5a1e202e0402a421d4b2602011f112c5e4637cc7

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

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT III: COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETER CONSTRAINTS (2008, background): “…up to ±50% with respect to the nominal values do not signi cantly change the best t cosmological parame- ters. is conclusion is seemingly di erent from Lima & Hu (2005) because in that paper, they consider proxies with larger scatter (the e ect on the cosmological parameter constraints is…”
Observational probes of cosmic acceleration (2012, background): “(For a more rigorous argument that arrives at the same conclusion, see Lima and Hu 2005.)”
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 LARGE-SCALE BIAS OF DARK MATTER HALOS: NUMERICAL CALIBRATION AND MODEL TESTS (2010, background): “Indeed, “selfcalibration” of cluster surveys is not possible without theadditional information present in clustering data (Lima & Hu 2004, 2005; Majumdar & Mohr 2004; Oguri 2009).”
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).”
Toward a Halo Mass Function for Precision Cosmology: The Limits of Universality (2008, methodology): “The success of such a strategy, however, depends on how well cluster observables correlate with total cluster mass and whether evolution of this correlation with time is sufficiently simple (e.g., Lima & Hu 2005).”
The X-Ray Luminosity-Mass Relation for Local Clusters of Galaxies (2006, background): “Power-law relationships between bulk properties are expected on dimensional grounds (Kaiser 1986), but the scatter about mean mass-observable relationships, a crucial element of self-calibration exercises (Levine et al. 2002; Lima & Hu 2005), is presently poorly understood.”
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.”
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT. II. SAMPLES AND X-RAY DATA REDUCTION (2008, background): “The V (M) function is unchanged in this case by variations of σ , while the estimate of the cluster mass function is still very strongly affected (see Lima & Hu 2005).”
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).”
Galaxy cluster X-ray luminosity scaling relations from a representative local sample (REXCESS) (2008, background): “…the absolute extent of the scatter limits the constraints that can beput on cosmological models with the cluster population, the magnitude of the scatter, its source(s), and how to correct for it constitute some of the most important open issues in the study of clusters (see e.g. Lima & Hu 2005).”
LoCuSS: Subaru Weak Lensing Study of 30 Galaxy Clusters (2009, methodology): “In particular, well-calibrated mass-observable scaling relations are critically important for the use of cluster counting experiments to constrain the nature of dark energy (e.g., Lima & Hu 2005).”
ROBUST OPTICAL RICHNESS ESTIMATION WITH REDUCED SCATTER (2011, background): “…expected to be noisy tracers of the underlying halo mass.17 This is particularly problematic because the sensitivity of cluster abundance studies is sensitive to the uncertainty in the scatter of the mass–observable relation, and this sensitivity increases with increasing scatter (Lima & Hu 2005).”
ON THE ACCURACY OF WEAK-LENSING CLUSTER MASS RECONSTRUCTIONS (2010, background): “…in principle the total mass-observable relations can be calibrated self-consistently within a given clusterample (e.g., Majumdar & Mohr 2003, 2004; Lima & Hu 2005), there is also significant hope that masses measured using weak lensing (WL) observations can be used to accurately calibrate such…”
Virial Scaling of Massive Dark Matter Halos: Why Clusters Prefer a High Normalization Cosmology (2007, background): “…scatter in these relations is a few tens of percent or less (O’Hara et al. 2006), making these signatures, and derived quantities such as the gas mass fraction (Allen et al. 2004; LaRoque et al. 2006), a foundation for likelihood estimates of cosmological parameters (Voit 2005; Lima & Hu 2005).”
Evidence for non-hydrostatic gas from the cluster X-ray to lensing mass ratio (2007, background): “…constraints on dark energy from the cluster mass function are highly sensitive to intrinsic scatter and systematic error in the mass-observable relation (Lima & Hu 2005); the scatter also significantly influences the normalization of the primordial fluctuation spectrum σ8 (Balogh et al. 2006).”
MASSIVE HALOS IN MILLENNIUM GAS SIMULATIONS: MULTIVARIATE SCALING RELATIONS (2009, background): “However, significant improvements can be realized when the error in mass variance is known (Lima & Hu 2005; Cunha & Evrard 2009).”