4.7 Article

MODEL-FREE MULTI-PROBE LENSING RECONSTRUCTION OF CLUSTER MASS PROFILES

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 769, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/13

Keywords

cosmology; observations - dark matter - galaxies; clusters; general - galaxies; clusters; individual (MACS J1206.2-0847) - gravitational lensing; strong - gravitational lensing; weak

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lens magnification by galaxy clusters induces characteristic spatial variations in the number counts of background sources, amplifying their observed fluxes and expanding the area of sky, the net effect of which, known as magnification bias, depends on the intrinsic faint-end slope of the source luminosity function. The bias is strongly negative for red galaxies, dominated by the geometric area distortion, whereas it is mildly positive for blue galaxies, enhancing the blue counts toward the cluster center. We generalize the Bayesian approach of Umetsu et al. for reconstructing projected cluster mass profiles, by incorporating multiple populations of background sources for magnification-bias measurements and combining them with complementary lens-distortion measurements, effectively breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy and improving the statistical precision of cluster mass measurements. The approach can be further extended to include strong-lensing projected mass estimates, thus allowing for non-parametric absolute mass determinations in both the weak and strong regimes. We apply this method to our recent CLASH lensing measurements of MACS J1206.2-0847, and demonstrate how combining multi-probe lensing constraints can improve the reconstruction of cluster mass profiles. This method will also be useful for a stacked lensing analysis, combining all lensing-related effects in the cluster regime, for a definitive determination of the averaged mass profile.

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