The REFLEX galaxy cluster survey - VII. Omega(m) and sigma(8) from cluster abundance and large-scale clustering

By P. Schuecker, H. Bohringer, C. Collins, L. Guzzo. 2002

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

For the first time the large-scale clustering and the mean abundance of galaxy clusters are analysed simultaneously to get precise constraints on the normalized cosmic matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and the linear theory RMS fluctuations in mass $\sigma_8$. A self-consistent likelihood analysis is described which combines, in a natural and optimal manner, a battery of sensitive cosmological tests where observational data are represented by the (Karhunen-Loeve) eigenvectors of the sample correlation matrix. This method breaks the degeneracy between $\Omega_{\rm m}$ and $\sigma_8$. The cosmological tests are performed with the ROSAT ESO Flux-Limited X-ray (REFLEX) cluster sample. The computations assume cosmologically flat geometries and a non-evolving cluster population mainly over the redshift range $0<z<0.3$. The REFLEX sample gives the cosmological constraints and their $1\sigma$ random errors of $\Omega_{\rm m}\,=\,0.341\,^{+0.031}_{-0.029}$ and $\sigma_8\,=\,0.711\,^{+0.039}_{-0.031}$. Possible systematic errors are evaluated by estimating the effects of uncertainties in the value of the Hubble constant, the baryon density, the spectral slope of the initial scalar fluctuations, the mass/X-ray luminosity relation and its intrinsic scatter, the biasing scheme, and the cluster mass density profile. All these contributions sum up to total systematic errors of $\sigma_{\Omega_{\rm m}}=^{+0.087}_{-0.071}$ and $\sigma_{\sigma_8}=^{+0.120}_{-0.162}$.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a165623770fc8dc55ade41bdb8e5ad27528e6848

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 Statistical and Nonlinear Physics

Citations in the corpus

The representative XMM-Newton cluster structure survey (REXCESS) of an X-ray luminosity selected galaxy cluster sample (2007, background): “…2001a; Kerscher et al. 2003), yielding cosmological parameters in good agreement within the measurement uncertainties with the 3 year WMAP results (Schuecker et al. 2003a,b; Stanek et al. 2006; Spergel et al. 2006; note that this good agreement with the new WMAP data is also true for other…”
The Dark Side of the Halo Occupation Distribution (2003, methodology): “This normalization is suggested by several recent measurements (e.g., Borgani et al. 2001; Pierpaoli et al. 2001; Lahav et al. 2002; Schuecker et al. 2003; Jarvis et al. 2003).”
A mature cluster with X-ray emission at z = 2.07 (2010, background): “Their abundance reflects the original state of the matter density field and depends on fundamental cosmological parameters, such as the shape and normalisation of the matter power spectrum (e.g. Press & Schechter 1974, Haiman et al. 2001, Schuecker et al. 2003).”
Cosmological constraints from the local X-ray luminosity function of the most X-ray-luminous galaxy clusters (2002, result): “(Schuecker et al. 2003 report results with similar precision to those presented here).”
The 400 Square Degree ROSAT PSPC Galaxy Cluster Survey: Catalog and Statistical Calibration (2006, background): “…for this purpose (e.g., Evrard 1989; White et al. 1993; Oukbir & Blanchard 1992; Viana & Liddle 1996, 1999; Eke et al. 1998; Henry 1997, 2000; Viana et al. 2003; Vikhlinin et al. 2003; Voevodkin & Vikhlinin 2004; Schuecker et al. 2003), primarily to constrain the cosmological density parameter.”
The First Cosmic Structures and Their Effects (2004, background): “The latter values are derived from the local abundance of galaxy clusters (Pen 1998; Viana & Liddle 1999; Schuecker et al. 2003), their redshift evolution (Bahcall & Fan 1998; Eke et al. 1998; Borgani et al. 2001), mass-to-light ratio of groups of galaxies (Hoekstra et al. 2001), Xray gas mass…”
Halo Substructure and the Power Spectrum (2002, unknown): “…of 8 h−1 Mpc ), numerous recent studies relying on similar techniques, advocate rather “low” values of σ8 ∼ 0.7 − 0.8 (Jarvis et al. 2003; Bahcall et al. 2003; Schuecker et al 2003; Pierpaoli et al. 2003; Viana et al. 2002; Brown et al. 2002; Allen et al. 2002; Hamana et al. 2002; Melchiorri &…”
Cosmological Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clusters (2011, methodology): “…(2006); E09 = Ettori et al. (2009); H09 = Henry et al. (2009); L06 = LaRoque et al. (2006); M10 = Mantz et al. (2010b); R10 = Rozo et al. (2010); S03 = Schuecker et al. (2003); S04 = Schmidt, Allen & Fabian (2004); V09 = Vikhlinin et al. (2009b). d Cluster surveys extending to redshifts z >∼ 0.3…”
The ROSAT-ESO Flux Limited X-ray (REFLEX) Galaxy cluster survey. V. The cluster catalogue (2004, background): “Several results on the construction of the sample (Böhringer et al. 2001a, Paper I), the assessment of the large-scale structure (Collins et al. 2000, Paper II; Schuecker et al. 2001a, Paper III; Böhringer et al. 2002, Paper IV; Schuecker et al. 2002, 2003a (Papers VI and VII), 2003b; Kerscher et al”
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT III: COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETER CONSTRAINTS (2008, background): “Of the previous cluster results especially note- worthy is the work of Schuecker et al. (2003) whose constraints are based not only on the shape of the mass function but also on the clustering of low-z clusters. eir value is ΩMh = 0.239 ± 0.056 (errors dominated by uncertainties in the conversion…”
New constraints on dark energy from the observed growth of the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters (2007, background): “…density of the universe and the amplitude of perturbations in the density field (e.g. Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; Seljak 2002; Viana et al. 2002; Allen et al. 2003; Pierpaoli et al. 2003; ⋆ E-mail: amantz@stanford.edu Schuecker et al. 2003; Voevodkin & Vikhlinin 2004; Dahle 2006; Rozo et al. 2007).”
X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters: studying astrophysical processes in the largest celestial laboratories (2009, methodology): “Since galaxy clusters are very sensitive tracers of structure growth, a census of the cluster population as a function of redshift can be used to test cosmological models (e.g. Borgani et al. 2001; Schuecker et al. 2003a,b; Henry 2004; Vikhlinin et al. 2003, 2009; Henry et al. 2009).”
CONSTRAINING THE SCATTER IN THE MASS–RICHNESS RELATION OF maxBCG CLUSTERS WITH WEAK LENSING AND X-RAY DATA (2008, background): “Use of a mass estimator with such low scatter should lead to improved estimates ofσ8 from X-ray cluster surveys (Pierpaoli et al. 2001; Reiprich& Böhringer 2002; Schuecker et al. 2003; Henry 2004; Stanek et al. 2006).”
LoCuSS: comparison of observed X-ray and lensing galaxy cluster scaling relations with simulations (2008, methodology): “The gravitational growth of fluctuations in the matter density distribution can be traced by the evolution of the galaxy cluster mass function (e.g. Schuecker et al. 2003).”
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS FROM THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY MaxBCG CLUSTER CATALOG (2009, unknown): “…σ8 ≈ 0.65 to σ8 ≈ 1.0 (Viana & Liddle 1996, 1999; Henry & Arnaud 1991; Henry 2000; Pierpaoli et al. 2001; Borgani et al. 2001; Seljak 2002; Viana et al. 2002; Schuecker et al. 2003; Allen et al. 2003; Bahcall et al. 2003; Bahcall & Bode 2003; Henry 2004; Voevodkin & Vikhlinin 2004; Rozo et al.…”
Weighing the Giants - I. Weak-lensing masses for 51 massive galaxy clusters: project overview, data analysis methods and cluster images (2012, background): “Cluster counts paved the way in determining the now accepted value of σ8 ∼ 0.8 (e.g. Borgani et al. 2001; Schuecker et al. 2003).”