posted on 2015-04-24, 14:26authored byL. Old, R. Wojtak, G. A. Mamon, R. A. Skibba, F. R. Pearce, D. Croton, S. Bamford, P. Behroozi, R. de Carvalho, J. C. Muñoz-Cuartas, D. Gifford, M. E. Gray, A. von der Linden, M. R. Merrifield, Stuart I. Muldrew, V. Müller, R. J. Pearson, T. J. Ponman, E. Rozo, E. Rykoff, A. Saro, T. Sepp, C. Sifón, E. Tempel
This article is the second in a series in which we perform an extensive comparison of various
galaxy-based cluster mass estimation techniques that utilise the positions, velocities and
colours of galaxies. Our aim is to quantify the scatter, systematic bias and completeness of
cluster masses derived from a diverse set of 25 galaxy-based methods using two contrasting
mock galaxy catalogues based on a sophisticated halo occupation model and a semi-analytic
model. Analysing 968 clusters, we find a wide range in the RMS errors in log M200c delivered
by the different methods (0.18 to 1.08 dex, i.e., a factor of ∼1.5 to 12), with abundance
matching and richness methods providing the best results, irrespective of the input model assumptions.
In addition, certain methods produce a significant number of catastrophic cases
where the mass is under- or over-estimated by a factor greater than 10. Given the steeply
falling high-mass end of the cluster mass function, we recommend that richness or abundance
matching-based methods are used in conjunction with these methods as a sanity check for
studies selecting high mass clusters. We see a stronger correlation of the recovered to input
number of galaxies for both catalogues in comparison with the group/cluster mass, however,
this does not guarantee that the correct member galaxies are being selected. We do not observe
significantly higher scatter for either mock galaxy catalogues. Our results have implications
for cosmological analyses that utilise the masses, richnesses, or abundances of clusters, which
have different uncertainties when different methods are used.
Funding
We would like to acknowledge funding from the Science and Technology
Facilities Council (STFC). DC would like to thank the Australian
Research Council for receipt of a QEII Research Fellowship.
The Dark Cosmology Centre is funded by the Danish National
Research Foundation. The authors would like to express special
thanks to the Instituto de Fisica Teorica (IFT-UAM/CSIC in
Madrid) for its hospitality and support, via the Centro de Excelencia
Severo Ochoa Program under Grant No. SEV-2012-0249,
during the three week workshop “nIFTy Cosmology” where this
work developed. We further acknowledge the financial support of
the University of Western 2014 Australia Research Collaboration
Award for “Fast Approximate Synthetic Universes for the SKA”, the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO)
grant number CE110001020, and the two ARC Discovery
Projects DP130100117 and DP140100198. We also recognise support
from the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (UAM) for the
workshop infrastructure. RAS acknowledges support from the NSF
grant AST-1055081. CS acknowledges support from the European
Research Council under FP7 grant number 279396. SIM acknowledges
the support of the STFC consolidated grant (ST/K001000/1)
to the astrophysics group at the University of Leicester. ET acknowledge
the support from the ESF grant IUT40-2.
History
Citation
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (May 11, 2015) 449 (2): 1897-1920.
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING/Department of Physics and Astronomy
Version
VoR (Version of Record)
Published in
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (May 11
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP), Royal Astronomical Society