4.7 Article

Cosmic variance of the galaxy cluster weak lensing signal

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 449, Issue 4, Pages 4264-4276

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv532

Keywords

gravitational lensing: weak; galaxies: clusters: general; cosmology: observations

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB-Transregio 33]
  2. DFG cluster of excellence 'Origin and Structure of the Universe'

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intrinsic variations of the projected density profiles of clusters of galaxies at fixed mass are a source of uncertainty for cluster weak lensing. We present a semi-analytical model to account for this effect, based on a combination of variations in halo concentration, ellipticity and orientation, and the presence of correlated haloes. We calibrate the parameters of our model at the 10 per cent level to match the empirical cosmic variance of cluster profiles at M-200m approximate to 10(14)...10(15) h(-1) M-circle dot, z = 0.25...0.5 in a cosmological simulation. We show that weak lensing measurements of clusters significantly underestimate mass uncertainties if intrinsic profile variations are ignored, and that our model can be used to provide correct mass likelihoods. Effects on the achievable accuracy of weak lensing cluster mass measurements are particularly strong for the most massive clusters and deep observations (with approximate to 20 per cent uncertainty from cosmic variance alone at M-200m approximate to 10(15) h(-1) M-circle dot and z=0.25), but significant also under typical ground-based conditions. We show that neglecting intrinsic profile variations leads to biases in themass-observable relation constrained with weak lensing, both for intrinsic scatter and overall scale (the latter at the 15 per cent level). These biases are in excess of the statistical errors of upcoming surveys and can be avoided if the cosmic variance of cluster profiles is accounted for.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available