4.7 Article

Modelling projection effects in optically selected cluster catalogues

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 482, Issue 1, Pages 490-505

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty2665

Keywords

galaxies: clusters: general; large-scale structure of Universe

Funding

  1. DOE [DE-SC0015975]
  2. Sloan Foundation [FG-2016-6443]
  3. NASA through Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship - Chandra X-ray Center [PF5-160138]
  4. NASA [NAS8-03060]
  5. Department of Energy Cosmic Frontier program [DE-SC0010118]
  6. U.S. Department of Energy
  7. U.S. National Science Foundation
  8. Ministry of Science and Education of Spain
  9. Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom
  10. Higher Education Funding Council for England
  11. National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  12. Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago
  13. Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University
  14. Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas AM University
  15. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos
  16. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
  17. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  18. Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao
  19. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  20. National Science Foundation [AST-1138766, AST-1536171]
  21. MINECO [AYA2015-71825, ESP2015-66861, FPA2015-68048, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597, MDM-2015-0509]
  22. ERDF funds from the European Union
  23. CERCA program of the Generalitat de Catalunya
  24. European Research Council under the European Union [240672, 291329, 306478]
  25. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAAS-TRO) [CE110001020]
  26. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics [DE-AC02-07CH11359]
  27. Argonne National Laboratory
  28. University of California at Santa Cruz
  29. University of Cambridge
  30. Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas-Madrid
  31. University of Chicago
  32. University College London
  33. DES-Brazil Consortium
  34. University of Edinburgh
  35. Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zurich
  36. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
  37. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  38. Institut de Ciencies de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC)
  39. Institut de Fisica d'Altes Energies
  40. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
  41. Ludwig-Maximilians Universitat Munchen
  42. University of Michigan
  43. National Optical Astronomy Observatory
  44. University of Nottingham
  45. Ohio State University
  46. University of Pennsylvania
  47. University of Portsmouth
  48. SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
  49. Stanford University
  50. University of Sussex
  51. Texas AM University
  52. OzDES Membership Consortium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cosmological utility of galaxy cluster catalogues is primarily limited by our ability to calibrate the relation between halo mass and observable mass proxies such as cluster richness, X-ray luminosity, or the Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal. Projection effects are a particularly pernicious systematic effect that can impact observable mass proxies; structure along the line of sight can both bias and increase the scatter of the observable mass proxies used in cluster abundance studies. In this work, we develop an empirical method to characterize the impact of projection effects on redMaPPer cluster catalogues. We use numerical simulations to validate our method and illustrate its robustness. We demonstrate that modelling of projection effects is a necessary component for cluster abundance studies capable of reaching mass calibration uncertainties (e.g. the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 sample). Specifically, ignoring the impact of projection effects in the observable-mass relation - i.e. marginalizing over a lognormal model only - biases the posterior probability of the cluster normalization condition S-8 = 0.05, more than twice the uncertainty in the posterior for such an analysis.

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