The Canadian Cluster Comparison Project: detailed study of systematics and updated weak lensing masses

By H. Hoekstra, R. Herbonnet, A. Muzzin, Arif Babul, A. Mahdavi, M. Viola, M. Cacciato. 2015

294 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Masses of clusters of galaxies from weak gravitational lensing analyses of ever larger samples are increasingly used as the reference to which baryonic scaling relations are compared. In this paper we revisit the analysis of a sample of 50 clusters studied as part of the Canadian Cluster Comparison Project. We examine the key sources of systematic error in cluster masses. We quantify the robustness of our shape measurements and calibrate our algorithm empirically using extensive image simulations. The source redshift distribution is revised using the latest state-of-the-art photometric redshift catalogs that include new deep near-infrared observations. Nonetheless we find that the uncertainty in the determination of photometric redshifts is the largest source of systematic error for our mass estimates. We use our updated masses to determine b, the bias in the hydrostatic mass, for the clusters detected by Planck. Our results suggest 1-b=0.76+-0.05(stat)}+-0.06(syst)}, which does not resolve the tension with the measurements from the primary cosmic microwave background.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b851b0feafddaf71db9693344f2ee40a5b5b3a42

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

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).”
CLASH: JOINT ANALYSIS OF STRONG-LENSING, WEAK-LENSING SHEAR, AND MAGNIFICATION DATA FOR 20 GALAXY CLUSTERS (2015, methodology): “Hoekstra et al. (2015) measure NFW masses from CFHT reduced tangential shear measurements within 0.5–2 Mpch−170 (r2500c <∼ R <∼ 1.5r500c), assuming the c–”
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: weak lensing shape catalogues (2017, methodology): “Studies using image simulations have shown that, when using simulations to calibrate the signal, neighbouring galaxies can indeed have a significant effect on multiplicative bias (Hoekstra et al. 2015; Hoekstra, Viola & Herbonnet 2017; Samuroff et al. 2018).”
KiDS-450: cosmological parameter constraints from tomographic weak gravitational lensing (2016, methodology): “Instead, we perform the GGL analysis for our BOSS sample only at large θ where the dilution effect is minimal because the multiplicative boost factor goes to unity (Hoekstra et al. 2015).”
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: redshift distributions of the weak-lensing source galaxies (2017, methodology): “…techniques that find COSMOS samples of galaxies matched to a lensing source catalogue by a combination of magnitude, colour, and morphological properties have been applied by numerous studies (Applegate et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015; Okabe & Smith 2016; Cibirka et al. 2017; Amon et al. 2018).”
Gravitational lensing analysis of the Kilo-Degree Survey (2015, background): “As shown in Viola, Kitching & Joachimi (2014) and Hoekstra et al. (2015), calibration corrections can be sensitive to the ellipticity distribution.”
RELICS: Reionization Lensing Cluster Survey (2019, background): “…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 estimates from SPT (Bleem et al. 2015) and ACT…”
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).”
Weak Lensing Measurement of the Mass--Richness Relation of SDSS redMaPPer Clusters (2016, methodology): “…et al. 1996), groups (e.g. Leauthaud et al. 2010) and galaxy clusters (e.g. Sheldon et al. 2004a; Johnston et al. 2007a; von der Linden et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015; Okabe & Smith 2015; van Uitert et al. 2016), as well as the large-scale distribution of matter through the technique known as…”
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).”
Planck2015 results (2015, unknown): “An alternative lensing calibration analysis by the Canadian Cluster Comparison Project, which uses 37 clusters in common with the Planck cluster sample (Hoekstra et al. 2015) finds (1 − b) = 0.76 ± 0.05 (stat.)”
The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A Catalog of >4000 Sunyaev–Zel’dovich Galaxy Clusters (2020, background): “…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; Miyatake et al. 2019).”
Galaxy Alignments: Observations and Impact on Cosmology (2015, methodology): “As an example, tangential shear is important in determining the masses of galaxy clusters (Okabe et al. 2010; Applegate et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015), where ensemble-averaged tangential shear as a function of cluster-centric radius can be related to the projected mass, or fit by a parametric…”
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: weak lensing mass calibration of redMaPPer galaxy clusters (2018, background): “…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; Medezinski et al. 2018b;…”
Cluster Cosmology Constraints from the 2500 deg2 SPT-SZ Survey: Inclusion of Weak Gravitational Lensing Data from Magellan and the Hubble Space Telescope (2018, methodology): “In dH16, the amplitude of the observable–mass relation was set by a prior on the X-ray normalization AYX, which in turn was informed by external WL data sets (CCCP and WtG; Applegate et al. 2014; von der Linden et al. 2014; Hoekstra et al. 2015).”
KiDS+VIKING-450: Cosmic shear tomography with optical and infrared data (2018, methodology): “To quantify the biases and thus calibrate the shape measurement pipeline it is essential that the algorithm performance is determined using mock data that are sufficiently realistic (e.g. Miller et al. 2013; Hoekstra et al. 2015).”