Galaxy cluster matter profiles

I. Self-similarity, mass calibration, and observable-mass relation validation employing cluster mass posteriors

¹ University Observatory, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Scheinerstr. 1, 81679 Munich, Germany
² Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Giessenbachstr. 1, 85748 Garching, Germany
³ Universitat Innsbruck, Institut fur Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Technikerstr. 25/8, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
⁴ Laboratório Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia – LIneA, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20921-400, Brazil
⁵ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, PO Box 500, Batavia, IL, 60510, USA
⁶ Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
⁷ Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil
⁸ Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK
⁹ Department of Physics and Astronomy, Pevensey Building, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK
¹⁰ Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
¹¹ Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
¹² Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, (Barcelona), Spain
¹³ Astronomy Unit, Department of Physics, University of Trieste, Via Tiepolo 11, I-34131 Trieste, Italy
¹⁴ INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Trieste, Via G. B. Tiepolo 11, I-34143 Trieste, Italy
¹⁵ Institute for Fundamental Physics of the Universe, Via Beirut 2, 34014 Trieste, Italy
¹⁶ Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Hamburg, Germany
¹⁷ Department of Physics, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana, 502285, India
¹⁸ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr., Pasadena, CA, 91109, USA
¹⁹ Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA
²⁰ Instituto de Fisica Teorica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
²¹ Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), 08034 Barcelona, Spain
²² Institute of Space Sciences (ICE, CSIC), Campus UAB, Carrer de Can Magrans, s/n, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
²³ Center for Astrophysical Surveys, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 1205 West Clark St., Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
²⁴ Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
²⁵ Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA
²⁶ Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
²⁷ Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA
²⁸ Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA
²⁹ Australian Astronomical Optics, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2113, Australia
³⁰ Lowell Observatory, 1400 Mars Hill Rd, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, USA
³¹ Departamento de Física Matemática, Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, CP 66318, São Paulo, SP, 05314-970, Brazil
³² George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA
³³ LPSC Grenoble – 53, Avenue des Martyrs, 38026 Grenoble, France
³⁴ Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, E-08010 Barcelona, Spain
³⁵ Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Peyton Hall, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA
³⁶ Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20921-400, Brazil
³⁷ Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA
³⁸ Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain
³⁹ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
⁴⁰ Computer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA
⁴¹ Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S Cass Ave, Lemont, IL, 60439, USA
⁴² Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, 501 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA
⁴³ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

^⋆ Corresponding author; aditya.singh@physik.lmu.de

Received: 15 July 2024
Accepted: 29 January 2025

Abstract

We present a study of the weak lensing inferred matter profiles ΔΣ(R) of 698 South Pole Telescope (SPT) thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (tSZE) selected and MCMF optically confirmed galaxy clusters in the redshift range 0.25 <  z <  0.94 that have associated weak gravitational lensing shear profiles from the Dark Energy Survey (DES). Rescaling these profiles to account for the mass dependent size and the redshift dependent density produces average rescaled matter profiles ΔΣ(R/R_200c)/(ρ_critR_200c) with a lower dispersion than the unscaled ΔΣ(R) versions, indicating a significant degree of self-similarity. Galaxy clusters from hydrodynamical simulations also exhibit matter profiles that suggest a high degree of self-similarity, with RMS variation among the average rescaled matter profiles with redshift and mass falling by a factor of approximately six and 23, respectively, compared to the unscaled average matter profiles. We employed this regularity in a new Bayesian method for weak lensing mass calibration that employs the so-called cluster mass posterior P(M₂₀₀|ζ̂, λ̂, z), which describes the individual cluster masses given their tSZE (ζ̂) and optical (λ̂, z) observables. This method enables simultaneous constraints on richness λ-mass and tSZE detection significance ζ-mass relations using average rescaled cluster matter profiles. We validated the method using realistic mock datasets and present observable-mass relation constraints for the SPT×DES sample, where we constrained the amplitude, mass trend, redshift trend, and intrinsic scatter. Our observable-mass relation results are in agreement with the mass calibration derived from the recent cosmological analysis of the SPT×DES data based on a cluster-by-cluster lensing calibration. Our new mass calibration technique offers a higher efficiency when compared to the single cluster calibration technique. We present new validation tests of the observable-mass relation that indicate the underlying power-law form and scatter are adequate to describe the real cluster sample but that also suggest a redshift variation in the intrinsic scatter of the λ-mass relation may offer a better description. In addition, the average rescaled matter profiles offer high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) constraints on the shape of real cluster matter profiles, which are in good agreement with available hydrodynamical ΛCDM simulations. This high S/N profile contains information about baryon feedback, the collisional nature of dark matter, and potential deviations from general relativity.