4.7 Article

A KiDS weak lensing analysis of assembly bias in GAMA galaxy groups

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 468, Issue 3, Pages 3251-3265

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx705

Keywords

gravitational lensing: weak; methods: statistical; surveys; galaxies: haloes; large-scale structure of Universe

Funding

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. European Research Council [279396, 647112, 240185]
  3. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) [50QE1103]
  4. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [614.001.103]
  5. European Regional Development Fund [ERDF-080]
  6. Emmy Noether grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Hi 1495/2-1]
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [TR33]
  8. STFC Ernest Rutherford Research Grant [ST/L00285X/1]
  9. La Silla Paranal Observatory [177.A-3016, 177.A-3017, 177.A-3018]
  10. STFC [ST/P000541/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/P000541/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate possible signatures of halo assembly bias for spectroscopically selected galaxy groups from the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey using weak lensing measurements from the spatially overlapping regions of the deeper, high-imaging-quality photometric Kilo-Degree Survey. We use GAMA groups with an apparent richness larger than 4 to identify samples with comparable mean host halo masses but with a different radial distribution of satellite galaxies, which is a proxy for the formation time of the haloes. We measure the weak lensing signal for groups with a steeper than average and with a shallower than average satellite distribution and find no sign of halo assembly bias, with the bias ratio of 0.85(-0.25)(+0.37), which is consistent with the Lambda cold dark matter prediction. Our galaxy groups have typical masses of 10(13) M-circle dot h(-1), naturally complementing previous studies of halo assembly bias on galaxy cluster scales.

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