Density profiles of galaxy groups and clusters from SDSS galaxy–galaxy weak lensing

By Rachel Mandelbaum, Uros Seljak, R. Cool, M. Blanton, C. Hirata, J. Brinkmann. 2006

191 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present results of a measurement of the shape of the density profile of galaxy groups and clusters traced by 43 335 Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) with spectroscopic redshifts from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The galaxies are selected such that they are the brightest within a cylindrical aperture, split into two luminosity samples and modelled as the sum of stellar and dark matter components. We present a detailed investigation of many possible systematic effects that could contaminate our signal and develop methods to remove them, including a detected intrinsic alignment for galaxies within 100 h -1 kpc of LRGs which we remove using photometric redshift information. The resulting lensing signal is consistent with NFW (Navarro, Frenk & White) profile dark matter haloes; the singular isothermal sphere (SIS) profile is ruled out at the 96 (conservatively) and 99.96 per cent confidence level (CL) for the fainter and brighter lens samples (respectively) when we fit using lensing data between 0.4 and 2 h -1 Mpc with total signal-to-noise ratio of 19 and 25 for the two lens samples. The lensing signal amplitude suggests that the faint and bright sample galaxies typically reside in haloes of mass (2.9 ± 0.4) x 10 13 and (6.7 ± 0.8) x 10 13 h -1 M ⊙ , respectively, in good agreement with predictions based on halo spatial density with normalization lower than the 'concordance' σ 8 = 0.9. When fitting for the concentration parameter in the NFW profile, we find c = 5.0 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 1 (sys), and c = 5.6 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 1 (sys) for the faint and bright samples, consistent with A cold dark matter (CDM) simulations. We also split the bright sample further to determine masses and concentrations for cluster-mass haloes, finding mass (1.3 ± 0.2) x 10 14 h -1 M ⊙ for the sample of LRGs brighter than -22.6 in r. We establish that on average there is a correlation between the halo mass and central galaxy luminosity relation that scales as M α L 2 .

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Global and Planetary Change, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5c895c2eaa0cbbf75b2fd7656ce95cdbac2920a5

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 Global and Planetary Change

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

HALO OCCUPATION DISTRIBUTION MODELING OF CLUSTERING OF LUMINOUS RED GALAXIES (2008, background): “This is consistent with the relation M ∝ L2 found by Mandelbaum et al. (2006) based on galaxy– galaxy lensing measurements.”
There's no place like home? Statistics of Milky Way-mass dark matter haloes (2009, background): “…the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) has provided a huge sample of galaxies with stellar masses similar to that of the MW, although only mean halo properties averaged over large numbers of similar galaxies can readily be measured (Mandelbaum et al. 2006; More et al. 2009).”
Gravitational lensing (2010, background): “by the authors of [144, 300, 301]) on the density profiles of galactic haloes were already described above.”
Lensing is Low: Cosmology, Galaxy Formation, or New Physics? (2016, methodology): “In practice, other effects may also modify the number density of source galaxies as a function of lens-centric distance such as magnification bias (Mandelbaum et al. 2006b), obscuration effects (Applegate et al. 2014; Melchior et al. 2015; Simet & Mandelbaum 2015), and local galaxy dependent…”
Combined strong and weak lensing analysis of 28 clusters from the Sloan Giant Arcs Survey (2011, methodology): “This stacked lensing analysis has c© RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–22 been successful for constraining mean dark matter distributions of cluster samples (e.g., Mandelbaum et al. 2006b; Johnston et al. 2007; Leauthaud et al. 2010; Okabe et al. 2010).”
A WEAK LENSING STUDY OF X-RAY GROUPS IN THE COSMOS SURVEY: FORM AND EVOLUTION OF THE MASS–LUMINOSITY RELATION (2009, methodology): “A Model for Predicting ∆Σ A halo model approach is used to model the surface mass density contrast ∆Σ as a function of transverse separation (e.g. Mandelbaum et al. 2005, 2006a,b; Yoo et al. 2006; Johnston et al. 2007).”
THE DENSITY PROFILES OF MASSIVE, RELAXED GALAXY CLUSTERS. I. THE TOTAL DENSITY OVER THREE DECADES IN RADIUS (2012, background): “…studies have shown that NFW profiles can generally provide adequate descriptions of cluster halos at radii r & 50 kpc (e.g., Kneib et al. 2003; Broadhurst et al. 2005; Mandelbaum et al. 2006; Schmidt & Allen 2007; Okabe et al. 2010; Umetsu et al. 2011; Coe et al. 2012; Morandi & Limousin 2012).”
Strong-lensing optical depths in a ΛCDM universe – II. The influence of the stellar mass in galaxies (2007, background): “Many recent observations of gravitational-lensing effects around galaxies (e.g. Mandelbaum et al. 2006b; Simon et al. 2007), and in ? hilbert@mpa-garching.mpg.de and around galaxy clusters (e.g. Mandelbaum et al. 2006a; Clowe et al. 2006; Natarajan et al. 2007; Comerford et al. 2006; Massey et al.…”
LoCuSS: Subaru Weak Lensing Study of 30 Galaxy Clusters (2009, methodology): “…different cluster redshifts was taken into account by using the weighting method in terms of the lensing efficiency functions of averaging clusters (Mandelbaum et al. 2006; also see Sheldon et al. 2009a), and the projected radius is computed from the weighted mean redshift of the sampled clusters.”
ON THE ACCURACY OF WEAK-LENSING CLUSTER MASS RECONSTRUCTIONS (2010, background): “Under the assumption of small distortions to galaxy shapes due to gravitational lensing, theaverage shape over a set of galaxies will give a measurement of the reduced shearg1,2 = γ1,2/(1−κ) (see e.g., Appendix A of Mandelbaum et al. 2006 for this result and higher order corrections).”
Mapping stellar content to dark matter haloes using galaxy clustering and galaxy–galaxy lensing in the SDSS DR7 (2015, methodology): “…Zheng & Weinberg (2007), and Yoo et al. (2006), with improved treatment c© 0000 RAS, MNRAS 000, 000–000 of the scale–dependent bias, halo exclusion effect, over/underconcentrated satellite distributions from earlier works (e.g. Berlind & Weinberg 2002; Guzik & Seljak 2002; Mandelbaum et al. 2006).”
Red Galaxy Growth and the Halo Occupation Distribution (2008, methodology): “…2006; van den Bosch et al. 2007; Zheng et al. 2007; Blake et al. 2008; Wake et al. 2008; Padmanabhan et al. 2008, Z. Zheng et al. 2008, in preparation), three-point correlation function (Kulkarni et al. 2007), satellite galaxy velocities (Conroy et al. 2007c), and lensing (Mandelbaum et al. 2006a).”
Cosmological parameter constraints from galaxy-galaxy lensing and galaxy clustering with the SDSS DR7 (2012, methodology): “We then defined the three LSS samples using the notation from Mandelbaum et al. (2006a): L3 with −19 > Mr > −20, L4 with −20 > Mr > −21, L5 with −21 > Mr > −22.”
NEW CONSTRAINTS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE STELLAR-TO-DARK MATTER CONNECTION: A COMBINED ANALYSIS OF GALAXY–GALAXY LENSING, CLUSTERING, AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS FROM z = 0.2 to z = 1 (2011, methodology): “…mass with an efficiency η(Mh, z) ≡ (M∗/Mh)×(ΩM/Ωb) that depends strongly on halo mass, peaking at Mh ∼ 1012 M and declining toward lower and higher masses at z ∼ 0 (e.g., Mandelbaum et al. 2006b; Conroy & Wechsler 2009; Moster et al. 2010; Behroozi et al. 2010; Guo et al. 2010; More et al. 2010).”
Gravitational probes of dark matter physics (2017, methodology): “As discussed above, galaxy-galaxy weak lensing and two-point correlation functions can be used to match galaxies to halos statistically [351, 570, 544, 547, 578].”
Physical properties and environments of nearby galaxies (2009, methodology): “This index often is used as a proxy for morphology (e.g., Bell et al. 2003; Shen et al. 2003; Mandelbaum et al. 2006), though it is only partially related to classical morphological determinations (§3.2).”