The X-Ray Luminosity-Mass Relation for Local Clusters of Galaxies

By R. Stanek, August E. Evrard, H. Bohringer, P. Schuecker, B. N. U. O. Michigan, U. California, Berkeley, M. F. Physik. 2006

135 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We investigate the relationship between soft X-ray luminosity and mass for low-redshift clusters of galaxies by comparing observed number counts and scaling laws to halo-based expectations of ΛCDM cosmologies. We model the conditional likelihood of halo luminosity as a lognormal distribution of fixed width, centered on a scaling relation, L ∝ Mpρ(z), and consider two values for s, appropriate for self-similar evolution or no evolution. Convolving with the halo mass function, we compute expected counts in redshift and flux that, after appropriate survey effects are included, we compare to REFLEX survey data. Counts alone provide only an upper limit on the scatter in mass at fixed luminosity, σln M < 0.4. We argue that the observed, intrinsic variance in the temperature-luminosity relation is directly indicative of mass-luminosity variance and derive σln M = 0.43 ± 0.06 from HIFLUGCS data. When added to the likelihood analysis, we derive values p = 1.59 ± 0.05, ln L15,0 = 1.34 ± 0.09, and σln M = 0.37 ± 0.05 for self-similar redshift evolution in a concordance (Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7, σ8 = 0.9) universe. The present-epoch intercept is sensitive to power spectrum normalization, L15,0 ∝ σ, and the slope is weakly sensitive to the matter density, p ∝ Ω. We find a substantially (factor 2) dimmer intercept and slightly steeper slope than the values published using hydrostatic mass estimates of the HIFLUGCS sample and show that a Malmquist bias of the X-ray flux-limited sample accounts for this effect. In light of new WMAP constraints, we discuss the interplay between parameters and sources of systematic error and offer a compromise model with Ωm = 0.24, σ8 = 0.85, and somewhat lower scatter σln M = 0.25, in which hydrostatic mass estimates remain accurate to ~15%. We stress the need for independent calibration of the L-M relation via weak gravitational lensing.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bbda7790d973485791d7efc8f8d367fccf3fb36e

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

MASSIVE HALOS IN MILLENNIUM GAS SIMULATIONS: MULTIVARIATE SCALING RELATIONS (2009, methodology): “Rykoff et al. (2008) stack Rosat All-Sky Survey data (Voges et al. 1999) in the same maxbcg richness bins, and find that the mean X-ray luminosity–mass relation derived with richness binning is consistent at the ∼ 2σ level with relations derived solely from X–ray data (Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; St”
A WEAK LENSING STUDY OF X-RAY GROUPS IN THE COSMOS SURVEY: FORM AND EVOLUTION OF THE MASS–LUMINOSITY RELATION (2009, methodology): “The details of the M − LX relation are also important (regardless of the choice of a mass proxy) for determining effective volumes as a function of mass in X-ray flux limited surveys (Stanek et al. 2006; Vikhlinin et al. 2009).”
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT. II. SAMPLES AND X-RAY DATA REDUCTION (2008, background): “The effect becomes strong if the scatter in LX for fixed M is large (Stanek et al. 2006; Nord et al. 2008), as observed.”
Scaling Properties of a Complete X-ray Selected Galaxy Group Sample (2014, unknown): “This effect has previously been taken into account for scaling relations, for example by Ikebe et al. (2002), Stanek et al. (2006), Pacaud et al. (2007), Vikhlinin et al. (2009), Pratt et al. (2009), and Mittal et al. (2011).”
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT III: COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETER CONSTRAINTS (2008, background): “Smaller biases are introduced if the e ects of scatter in deriving the mass-luminosity relation are neglected resulting in incorrect computations of the sur- vey volume (Stanek et al. 2006).”
The Observed Growth of Massive Galaxy Clusters II: X-ray Scaling Relations (2009, result): “…et al. (2007) observed a similar effect in an analysis of XMM–Newton Large Scale Structure (XMM-LSS) clusters that accounted for the survey selection function, as did Stanek et al. (2006), who incorporated both the selection function and cluster mass function into an analysis of the REFLEX sample.”
Primordial non-Gaussianity from the large-scale structure (2010, methodology): “Scaling relations between the cluster mass, xray temperature and Compton y-parameter calibrated using theory, observations and detailed simulations of cluster formation [118, 119] can then be exploited to predict the observed distribution functions of x-ray and SZ signals and assess the capability o”
Active galactic nuclei: what’s in a name? (2017, background): “The hot-gas component can be up-to LX ≈ 1041–1042 erg s−1 from galaxies (e.g. Boroson et al. 2011; Mineo et al. 2012b) and can be as high as LX ≈ 1044–1045 erg s−1 in the cores of massive galaxy clusters (e.g. Stanek et al. 2006; Ebeling et al. 2010).”
Virial Scaling of Massive Dark Matter Halos: Why Clusters Prefer a High Normalization Cosmology (2007, background): “It is likely that local X-ray flux-limited samples are missing the low-luminosity tail of the halo population (Stanek et al. 2006), and this may correspond to the subset with low ICM gas fractions.”
LoCuSS: comparison of observed X-ray and lensing galaxy cluster scaling relations with simulations (2008, methodology): “C are only available in electronic form at http://www.aanda.org galaxy cluster samples using reliable mass measurements (e.g. Reiprich & Böhringer 2002; Voit 2005; Stanek et al. 2006).”
The Observed Growth of Massive Galaxy Clusters I: Statistical Methods and Cosmological Constraints (2009, methodology): “Conversely, rigorous analysis of the scaling relations must take into account the cluster mass function and the selection function of the data set, as discussed by Mantz et al. (2010a, hereafter Paper II; see also Stanek et al. 2006; Pacaud et al. 2007).”
The X-ray brightest clusters of galaxies from the Massive Cluster Survey (2010, background): “…Crawford et al. 1995, 1999; Ebeling et al. 1997; Hudson & Ebeling 1997; Edge et al. 1999, Smith et al. 2001; Schuecker et al. 2001; Allen et al. 2003; Kocevski et al. 2004, 2006; Smith et al. 2005; Stanek et al. 2006; Kocevski & Ebeling 2006; AtrioBarandela et al. 2008; Kashlinsky et al. 2008).”
The representative XMM-Newton cluster structure survey (REXCESS) of an X-ray luminosity selected galaxy cluster sample (2007, background): “The latter parameter is also an important input into the construction of a precise cosmological model test (e.g. in analogy to Stanek et al. 2006).”
Cosmological Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clusters (2011, background): “The effects of selection bias must therefore be accounted for in the calibration of scaling relations, much as in the cosmological analysis (e.g. Stanek et al. 2006; Sahlén et al. 2009).”
The XMM-Newton Wide-Field Survey in the COSMOS Field: Statistical Properties of Clusters of Galaxies (2006, background): “…procedure decreases an observational bias towards low-mass groups with strong cool cores, and make a selection of the sample to be closer to mass selection, and reduces the bias discussed in Stanek et al. (2006) and O’Hara et al. (2006), while facilitating the modelling of the cluster detection.”
CONSTRAINING THE SCATTER IN THE MASS–RICHNESS RELATION OF maxBCG CLUSTERS WITH WEAK LENSING AND X-RAY DATA (2008, methodology): “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).”