4.7 Article

Characterizing strong lensing galaxy clusters using the Millennium-XXL and MOKA simulations

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1651

关键词

gravitational lensing: strong; methods: numerical

资金

  1. CNES
  2. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  3. project Equip@Meso of the programme 'Investissements d'Avenir' [ANR-10-EQPX-29-01]
  4. OCEVU Labex [ANR- 11-LABX-0060]
  5. A*MIDEX project - 'Investissements d'Avenir' French government programme [ANR-11-IDEX-000102]
  6. Programme National de Cosmologie et Galaxie (PNCG)
  7. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Directorate General for Country Promotion
  8. INAF via PRIN-INAF [2014 1.05.01.94.02]
  9. ASI [ASI/INAF/I/023/12/0, I/023/12/0]
  10. MIUR PRIN
  11. PRIN INAF
  12. [AYA2015-66211-C2-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we investigate the strong lensing statistics in galaxyclusters. We extract dark matter haloes from the Millennium- XXL simulation, compute their Einstein radius distribution, and find a very good agreement with Monte Carlo predictions produced with the MOKA code. The distribution of the Einstein radii is well described by a lognormal distribution, with a considerable fraction of the largest systems boosted by different projection effects. We discuss the importance of substructures and triaxiality in shaping the size of the critical lines for cluster size haloes. We then model and interpret the different deviations, accounting for the presence of a Brightest Central Galaxy (BCG) and two different stellar mass density profiles. We present scaling relations between weak lensing quantities and the size of the Einstein radii. Finally, we discuss how sensible is the distribution of the Einstein radii on the cosmological parameters Omega(M) - sigma(8) finding that cosmologies with higher Omega(M) and sigma(8) possess a large sample of strong lensing clusters. The Einstein radius distribution may help distinguish Planck13 and WMAP7 cosmology at 3 sigma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据