LoCuSS: comparison of observed X-ray and lensing galaxy cluster scaling relations with simulations

By Y.-Y. Zhang, A. Finoguenov, H. Böhringer, Jean-Paul Kneib, Graham P. Smith, R. Kneissl, N. Okabe, H. Dahle. 2008

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The Local Cluster Substructure Survey (LoCuSS, Smith et al.) is a systematic multi-wavelength survey of more than 100 X-ray luminous galaxy clusters in the redshift range 0.14-0.3 selected from the ROSAT All Sky Survey. We used data on 37 LoCuSS clusters from the XMM-Newton archive to investigate the global scaling relations of galaxy clusters. The scaling relations based solely on the X-ray data ($S{-}T$, $S{-}Y_{\rm X}$, $P{-}Y_{\rm X}$, $M{-}T$, $M{-}Y_{\rm X}$, $M{-}M_{\rm gas}$, $M_{\rm gas}{-}T$, $L{-}T$, $L{-}Y_{\rm X}$, and $L{-}M$) obey empirical self-similarity and reveal no additional evolution beyond the large-scale structure growth. They also reveal up to 17 per cent segregation between all 37 clusters and non-cool core clusters. Weak lensing mass measurements are also available in the literature for 19 of the clusters with XMM-Newton data. The average of the weak lensing mass to X-ray based mass ratio is $1.09\pm 0.08$, setting the limit of the non-thermal pressure support to $9 \pm 8$ per cent. The mean of the weak lensing mass to X-ray based mass ratio of these clusters is ~1, indicating good agreement between X-ray and weak lensing masses for most clusters, although with 31-51 per cent scatter. The scatter in the mass-observable relations ($M{-}Y_{\rm X}$, $M{-}M_{\rm gas}$, and $M{-}T$) is smaller using X-ray based masses than using weak lensing masses by a factor of 2. With the scaled radius defined by the Y X profile – $r_{500}^{ Y_{\rm X},X}$, $r_{500}^{Y_{\rm X},{\rm wl}}$, and $r_{500}^{Y_{\rm X},{\rm si}}$, we obtain lower scatter in the weak lensing mass based mass-observable relations, which means the origin of the scatter is M wl and $M^{\rm X}$ instead of Y X . The normalization of the $M{-}Y_{\rm X}$ relation using X-ray mass estimates is lower than the one from simulations by up to 18–24 per cent at $3\sigma$ significance. This agrees with the $M{-}Y_{\rm X}$ relation based on weak lensing masses, the normalization of the latter being ~20 per cent lower than the one from simulations at ~$2\sigma$ significance. This difference between observations and simulations is also indicated in the $M{-}M_{\rm gas}$ and $M{-}T$ relations. Despite the large scatter in the comparison of X-ray to lensing, the agreement between these two completely independent observational methods is an important step towards controlling astrophysical and measurement systematics in cosmological scaling relations.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d9851147d74ca9ca7d21fb2230669146f4ef65e

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

Gas entropy in a representative sample of nearby X-ray galaxy clusters (REXCESS): relationship to gas mass fraction (2009, background): “…high resolution spatially resolvedmeasurement of the entropy to be obtained across a wide range of cluster and group masses (Pratt & Arnaud 2003; Piffaretti et al. 2005; Pratt et al. 2006; Morandi & Ettori 2007; Nagai et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2008; Sanderson et al. 2009; Johnson et al. 2009).”
THE LARGE-SCALE BIAS OF DARK MATTER HALOS: NUMERICAL CALIBRATION AND MODEL TESTS (2010, background): “This expectation is borne out for observables such as gas mass, core-excised luminosity, integrated SZ flux or its X-ray analog,YX (e.g., Mohr et al. 1999; Vikhlinin et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2008; Vikhlinin et al. 2009; Arnaud et al. 2007, 2009; Sun et al. 2009).”
Total mass biases in X-ray galaxy clusters (2008, background): “Zhang et al. (2008) obtain a ratio of 1.09 ± 0.08 between the weak lensing and X-ray mass estimates extracted at r500 from a sample of 19 clusters.”
X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: studying astrophysical processes in the largest celestial laboratories (2009, methodology): “studies (Zhang et al. 2008; Mahdavi et al. 2008) showing that the X-ray mass determination provides a much smaller individual uncertainty.”
Scaling Properties of a Complete X-ray Selected Galaxy Group Sample (2014, background): “A weak dependence on the redshift and lower gas mass in low mass systems than expected from the self-similar scenario has been found by Vikhlinin et al. (2003) and Zhang et al. (2008), respectively.”
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS FROM SUNYAEV–ZEL'DOVICH-SELECTED CLUSTERS WITH X-RAY OBSERVATIONS IN THE FIRST 178 deg2 OF THE SOUTH POLE TELESCOPE SURVEY (2011, unknown): “They combined this result with measurements from Zhang et al. (2008), which similarly compared weak-lensing and YX-based mass estimates for a sample of 19 clusters at z < 0.3, to estimate a 1σ uncertainty of 9% on the Chandra mass scale calibration.”
MASSIVE HALOS IN MILLENNIUM GAS SIMULATIONS: MULTIVARIATE SCALING RELATIONS (2009, unknown): “…via an integrated Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect (Carlstrom 2004) or via X-ray imaging and spectroscopy, is a signal that scales as a power-law in mass with only ∼ 15% scatter (White et al. 2002; Kravtsov et al. 2006; Maughan 2007; O’Hara et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2008; Jeltema et al. 2008).”
The Observed Growth of Massive Galaxy Clusters II: X-ray Scaling Relations (2009, background): “…1.5–1.8 for band luminosities or 1.7–2.3 for bolometric luminosities (e.g. Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; Zhang et al. 2007; M08; Rykoff et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008; Pratt et al. 2009; Vikhlinin et al. 2009a), though we note good agreement with a previous study of very luminous clusters…”
Weighing the Giants – III. Methods and measurements of accurate galaxy cluster weak-lensing masses (2012, background): “…uncertainties in theChandra calibration, whereas for Vikhlinin et al. (2009a) the limits are derived from weak lensing calibrations (Hoekstra 2007; Zhang et al. 2008), quoted as a9% uncertainty but neglecting an additional systematic uncertainty on the lensing masses known to be at least 10%…”
ON THE ACCURACY OF WEAK-LENSING CLUSTER MASS RECONSTRUCTIONS (2010, background): “…Relations Recently, samples of galaxy clusters with masses inferred from weak lensing have grown to the point where scaling relations between cluster observables and WL masses can be analyzed in detail (e.g., Zhang et al. 2008; Vikhlinin et al. 2009; Henry et al. 2009; Okabe et al. 2010b).”
Weighing the giants – IV. Cosmology and neutrino mass (2014, methodology): “Their mass calibration was based on hydrostatic estimates from Chandra data, with a systematic uncertainty of ∼ 9 per cent estimated by comparing to the lensing data available at the time (Hoekstra 2007; Zhang et al. 2008), assuming a fixed cosmology.”
Toward a Halo Mass Function for Precision Cosmology: The Limits of Universality (2008, background): “…and were shown to exist observationally (e.g., Mohr et al. 1999; Lin et al. 2004; Vikhlinin et al. 2006; Maughan 2007; Arnaud et al. 2007; Sheldon et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2008) in the case when both observables and masses are defined within a certainspherical radius enclosing a given overdensity.”
RESIDUAL GAS MOTIONS IN THE INTRACLUSTER MEDIUM AND BIAS IN HYDROSTATIC MEASUREMENTS OF MASS PROFILES OF CLUSTERS (2009, methodology): “More recently, mass estimates via strong lensing (Smith et al. 2005), weak lensing (e.g., Dahle 2006; Mahdavi et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008), combined strong and weak lensing (Bradač et al. 2006; Limousin et al. 2007; Oguri et al. 2009), and Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (e.g., Carlstrom et al. 2002,…”
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT. II. SAMPLES AND X-RAY DATA REDUCTION (2008, methodology): “A similar agreement is found for the weak lensing masses in Zhang et al. (2008).”
Lensing and x-ray mass estimates of clusters (simulations) (2012, methodology): “The literature is rich of studies where clusters have been classified into relaxed, or regular, and unrelaxed, or disturbed, because of their X-ray morphology (e.g. Zhang et al. 2008; Vikhlinin et al. 2009).”
JOINT ANALYSIS OF CLUSTER OBSERVATIONS. II. CHANDRA/XMM-NEWTON X-RAY AND WEAK LENSING SCALING RELATIONS FOR A SAMPLE OF 50 RICH CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES (2012, methodology): “We begin by examining the lensing mass–gas temperature relationship in Figure 6; while exhibiting significant intrinsic scatter (Ventimiglia et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2008; Mantz et al. 2010), the M–”
CONSTRAINING THE SCATTER IN THE MASS–RICHNESS RELATION OF maxBCG CLUSTERS WITH WEAK LENSING AND X-RAY DATA (2008, methodology): “One difficulty is the fact that there is very little agreement on the meaning ofLX , with many works focusing on core-excised and/or core-corrected bolometric X-ray lumunisoties (e.g. Bardeau et al. 2007b; Zhang et al. 2007, 2008).”
Weighing simulated galaxy clusters using lensing and X-ray (2009, methodology): “For example, analyzing a sample of 19 clusters observed with SUBARU and XMM-Newton, Zhang et al. (2008) find that M500,WL/M500,X = 1.09±0.08.”
X-RAY PROPERTIES OF THE FIRST SUNYAEV–ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT SELECTED GALAXY CLUSTER SAMPLE FROM THE SOUTH POLE TELESCOPE (2010, background): “However, comparisons of hydrostatic and weak lensing mass estimates of low redshift (z < 0.3) clusters show agreement at the <9% level and suggest no significant bias (e.g., Zhang et al. 2008; Vikhlinin et al. 2009a; Zhang et al. 2010).”