4.7 Article

SHELS: TESTING WEAK-LENSING MAPS WITH REDSHIFT SURVEYS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 709, 期 2, 页码 832-850

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/832

关键词

galaxies: clusters: individual (CXOU J091551+293637, CXOU J091554+293316, CXOU J091601+292750, XMMU J091935+303155, A781, CXOU J09202+302938, CXOU J092053+302800, CXOU J092110+302751); galaxies: distances and redshifts; gravitational lensing: weak; large-scale structure of universe

资金

  1. Smithsonian Institution
  2. Lucent Technologies
  3. NSF [AST 04-41-72, AST 01-34753, AST-0708433]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Weak-lensing surveys are emerging as an important tool for the construction of mass-selected clusters of galaxies. We evaluate both the efficiency and completeness of a weak-lensing selection by combining a dense, complete redshift survey, the Smithsonian Hectospec Lensing Survey (SHELS), with a weak-lensing map from the Deep Lens Survey (DLS). SHELS includes 11,692 redshifts for galaxies with R <= 20.6 in the 4 deg(2) DLS field; the survey is a solid basis for identifying massive clusters of galaxies with redshift z less than or similar to 0.55. The range of sensitivity of the redshift survey is similar to the range for the DLS convergence map. Only four of the 12 convergence peaks with signal to noise >= 3.5 correspond to clusters of galaxies with M greater than or similar to 1.7 x 10(14) M-circle dot. Four of the eight massive clusters in SHELS are detected in the weak-lensing map yielding a completeness of similar to 50%. We examine the seven known extended cluster X-ray sources in the DLS field: three can be detected in the weak-lensing map, three should not be detected without boosting from superposed large-scale structure, and one is mysteriously undetected even though its optical properties suggest that it should produce a detectable lensing signal. Taken together, these results underscore the need for more extensive comparisons among different methods of massive cluster identification.

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