E-resources
PDF-
Melchior, P.; Gruen, D.; McClintock, T.; Varga, T. N.; Sheldon, E.; Rozo, E.; Amara, A.; Becker, M. R.; Benson, B. A.; Bermeo, A.; Bridle, S. L.; Clampitt, J.; Dietrich, J. P.; Hartley, W. G.; Hollowood, D.; Jain, B.; Jarvis, M.; Jeltema, T.; Kacprzak, T.; MacCrann, N.; Rykoff, E. S.; Saro, A.; Suchyta, E.; Troxel, M. A.; Zuntz, J.; Bonnett, C.; Plazas, A. A.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Abdalla, F. B.; Annis, J.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bertin, E.; Brooks, D.; Buckley-Geer, E.; Carnero Rosell, A.; Carrasco Kind, M.; Carretero, J.; Cunha, C. E.; D’Andrea, C. B.; da Costa, L. N.; Desai, S.; Eifler, T. F.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; García-Bellido, J.; Gaztanaga, E.; Gerdes, D. W.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gschwend, J.; Gutierrez, G.; Honscheid, K.; James, D. J.; Kirk, D.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Kuropatkin, N.; Lahav, O.; Lima, M.; Maia, M. A. G.; March, M.; Martini, P.; Menanteau, F.; Miller, C. J.; Miquel, R.; Mohr, J. J.; Nichol, R. C.; Ogando, R.; Romer, A. K.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Walker, A. R.; Weller, J.; Zhang, Y.
Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 08/2017, Volume: 469, Issue: 4Journal Article
Abstract We use weak-lensing shear measurements to determine the mean mass of optically selected galaxy clusters in Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data. In a blinded analysis, we split the sample of more than 8000 redMaPPer clusters into 15 subsets, spanning ranges in the richness parameter 5 ≤ λ ≤ 180 and redshift 0.2 ≤ z ≤ 0.8, and fit the averaged mass density contrast profiles with a model that accounts for seven distinct sources of systematic uncertainty: shear measurement and photometric redshift errors; cluster-member contamination; miscentring; deviations from the NFW halo profile; halo triaxiality and line-of-sight projections. We combine the inferred cluster masses to estimate the joint scaling relation between mass, richness and redshift, ${\cal M}(\lambda ,z) \propto M_0 \lambda ^{F} (1+z)^{G}$ . We find $M_0 \equiv \langle M_{200\mathrm{m}}\,|\,\lambda =30,z=0.5 \rangle = 2.35 \pm 0.22\ \rm {(stat)} \pm 0.12\ \rm {(sys)} \times \ 10^{14}\ \mathrm{M}_{{\odot }}$ , with $F = 1.12\,\pm \,0.20\ \rm {(stat)}\, \pm \, 0.06\ \rm {(sys)}$ and $G = 0.18\,\pm \, 0.75\ \rm {(stat)}\, \pm \, 0.24\ \rm {(sys)}$ . The amplitude of the mass–richness relation is in excellent agreement with the weak-lensing calibration of redMaPPer clusters in SDSS by Simet et al. and with the Saro et al. calibration based on abundance matching of SPT-detected clusters. Our results extend the redshift range over which the mass–richness relation of redMaPPer clusters has been calibrated with weak lensing from z ≤ 0.3 to z ≤ 0.8. Calibration uncertainties of shear measurements and photometric redshift estimates dominate our systematic error budget and require substantial improvements for forthcoming studies.
