4.7 Article

COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS FROM THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY MaxBCG CLUSTER CATALOG

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 708, Issue 1, Pages 645-660

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/645

Keywords

cosmological parameters; cosmology: observations; large-scale structure of universe

Funding

  1. Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics
  2. NSF [AST 0707985, AST-0807304, AST-0708150]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-76SF00515, DE-AC02-98CH10886]
  4. Terman Fellowship at Stanford University
  5. TABASGO foundation
  6. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  7. Japanese Monbukagakusho
  8. Max Planck Society
  9. Higher Education Funding Council for England

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use the abundance and weak-lensing mass measurements of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey maxBCG cluster catalog to simultaneously constrain cosmology and the richness-mass relation of the clusters. Assuming a flat ACDM cosmology, we find sigma(8)(Omega(m)/0.25)(0.41) = 0.832 +/- 0.033 after marginalization over all systematics. In common with previous studies, our error budget is dominated by systematic uncertainties, the primary two being the absolute mass scale of the weak-lensing masses of the maxBCG clusters, and uncertainty in the scatter of the richness-mass relation. Our constraints are fully consistent with the WMAP five-year data, and in a joint analysis we find sigma(8) = 0.807 +/- 0.020 and Omega(m) = 0.265 +/- 0.016, an improvement of nearly a factor of 2 relative to WMAP5 alone. Our results are also in excellent agreement with and comparable in precision to the latest cosmological constraints from X-ray cluster abundances. The remarkable consistency among these results demonstrates that cluster abundance constraints are not only tight but also robust, and highlight the power of optically selected cluster samples to produce precision constraints on cosmological parameters.

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