Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userImpact of Weak Lensing Mass Calibration on eROSITA Galaxy Cluster Cosmological Studies -- a Forecast
61
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We forecast the impact of weak lensing (WL) cluster mass calibration on the cosmological constraints from the X-ray selected galaxy cluster counts in the upcoming eROSITA survey. We employ a prototype cosmology pipeline to analyze mock cluster catalogs. Each cluster is sampled from the mass function in a fiducial cosmology and given an eROSITA count rate and redshift, where count rates are modeled using the eROSITA effective area, a typical exposure time, Poisson noise and the scatter and form of the observed X-ray luminosity-- and temperature--mass--redshift relations. A subset of clusters have mock shear profiles to mimic either those from DES and HSC or from the future Euclid and LSST surveys. Using a count rate selection, we generate a baseline cluster cosmology catalog that contains 13k clusters over 14,892~deg$^2$ of extragalactic sky. Low mass groups are excluded using raised count rate thresholds at low redshift. Forecast parameter uncertainties for $Omega_mathrm{M}$, $sigma_8$ and $w$ are 0.023 (0.016; 0.014), 0.017 (0.012; 0.010), and 0.085 (0.074; 0.071), respectively, when adopting DES+HSC WL (Euclid; LSST), while marginalizing over the sum of the neutrino masses. A degeneracy between the distance--redshift relation and the parameters of the observable--mass scaling relation limits the impact of the WL calibration on the $w$ constraints, but with BAO measurements from DESI an improved determination of $w$ to 0.043 becomes possible. With Planck CMB priors, $Omega_text{M}$ ($sigma_8$) can be determined to $0.005$ ($0.007$), and the summed neutrino mass limited to $sum m_ u < 0.241$ eV (at 95%). If systematics on the group mass scale can be controlled, the eROSITA group and cluster sample with 43k objects and LSST WL could constrain $Omega_mathrm{M}$ and $sigma_8$ to 0.007 and $w$ to 0.050.
rate research
Read More
In light of the tension in cosmological constraints reported by the Planck team between their SZ-selected cluster counts and Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature anisotropies, we compare the Planck cluster mass estimates with robust, weak-lensing mass measurements from the Weighing the Giants (WtG) project. For the 22 clusters in common between the Planck cosmology sample and WtG, we find an overall mass ratio of $left< M_{Planck}/M_{rm WtG} right> = 0.688 pm 0.072$. Extending the sample to clusters not used in the Planck cosmology analysis yields a consistent value of $left< M_{Planck}/M_{rm WtG} right> = 0.698 pm 0.062$ from 38 clusters in common. Identifying the weak-lensing masses as proxies for the true cluster mass (on average), these ratios are $sim 1.6sigma$ lower than the default mass bias of 0.8 assumed in the Planck cluster analysis. Adopting the WtG weak-lensing-based mass calibration would substantially reduce the tension found between the Planck cluster count cosmology results and those from CMB temperature anisotropies, thereby dispensing of the need for new physics such as uncomfortably large neutrino masses (in the context of the measured Planck temperature anisotropies and other data). We also find modest evidence (at 95 per cent confidence) for a mass dependence of the calibration ratio and discuss its potential origin in light of systematic uncertainties in the temperature calibration of the X-ray measurements used to calibrate the Planck cluster masses. Our results exemplify the critical role that robust absolute mass calibration plays in cluster cosmology, and the invaluable role of accurate weak-lensing mass measurements in this regard.
Weak gravitational lensing of background galaxies provides a direct probe of the projected matter distribution in and around galaxy clusters. Here we present a self-contained pedagogical review of cluster--galaxy weak lensing, covering a range of topics relevant to its cosmological and astrophysical applications. We begin by reviewing the theoretical foundations of gravitational lensing from first principles, with special attention to the basics and advanced techniques of weak gravitational lensing. We summarize and discuss key findings from recent cluster--galaxy weak-lensing studies on both observational and theoretical grounds, with a focus on cluster mass profiles, the concentration--mass relation, the splashback radius, and implications from extensive mass calibration efforts for cluster cosmology.
We present the mass calibration for galaxy clusters detected with the AMICO code in KiDS DR3 data. The cluster sample comprises $sim$ 7000 objects and covers the redshift range 0.1 < $z$ < 0.6. We perform a weak lensing stacked analysis by binning the clusters according to redshift and two different mass proxies provided by AMICO, namely the amplitude $A$ (measure of galaxy abundance through an optimal filter) and the richness $lambda^*$ (sum of membership probabilities in a consistent radial and magnitude range across redshift). For each bin, we model the data as a truncated NFW profile plus a 2-halo term, taking into account uncertainties related to concentration and miscentring. From the retrieved estimates of the mean halo masses, we construct the $A$-$M_{200}$ and the $lambda^*$-$M_{200}$ relations. The relations extend over more than one order of magnitude in mass, down to $M_{200} sim 2 (5) times 10^{13} M_odot/h$ at $z$ = 0.2 (0.5), with small evolution in redshift. The logarithmic slope is $sim 2.0$ for the $A$-mass relation, and $sim 1.7$ for the $lambda^*$-mass relation, consistent with previous estimations on mock catalogues and coherent with the different nature of the two observables.
In this paper, we analyze in detail with numerical simulations how the mask effect can influence the weak lensing peak statistics reconstructed from the shear measurement of background galaxies. It is found that high peak fractions are systematically enhanced due to masks, the larger the masked area, the higher the enhancement. In the case with about $13%$ of the total masked area, the fraction of peaks with SNR $ uge 3$ is $sim 11%$ in comparison with $sim 7%$ of the mask-free case in our considered cosmological model. This can induce a large bias on cosmological studies with weak lensing peak statistics. Even for a survey area of $9hbox{ deg}^2$, the bias in $(Omega_m, sigma_8)$ is already close to $3sigma$. It is noted that most of the affected peaks are close to the masked regions. Therefore excluding peaks in those regions can reduce the bias but at the expense of loosing usable survey areas. Further investigations find that the enhancement of high peaks number can be largely attributed to higher noise led by the fewer number of galaxies usable in the reconstruction. Based on Fan et al. (2010), we develop a model in which we exclude only those large masks with radius larger than $3arcmin. For the remained part, we treat the areas close to and away from the masked regions separately with different noise levels. It is shown that this two-noise-level model can account for the mask effect on peak statistics very well and the cosmological bias is significantly reduced.
Using $sim$140 deg$^2$ Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) survey data, we stack the weak lensing (WL) signal around five Planck clusters found within the footprint. This yields a 15$sigma$ detection of the mean Planck cluster mass density profile. The five Planck clusters span a relatively wide mass range, $M_{rm WL,500c} = (2-30)times10^{14},M_odot/h$ with a mean mass of $M_{rm WL,500c} = (4.15pm0.61)times10^{14},M_odot/h$. The ratio of the stacked Planck Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) mass to the stacked WL mass is $ langle M_{rm SZ}rangle/langle M_{rm WL}rangle = 1-b = 0.80pm0.14$. This mass bias is consistent with previous WL mass calibrations of Planck clusters within the errors. We discuss the implications of our findings for the calibration of SZ cluster counts and the much discussed tension between Planck SZ cluster counts and Planck $Lambda$CDM cosmology.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
