Table 3
Best-fit dynamical parameters for the NFW M(r) model.
| Method | Sample | N members | r 200 | r -2 | M 200 | c 200 |
| [Mpc] | [Mpc] | [1015 M⊙] | ||||
|
|
||||||
| σlos+rν | R ≤ 1.98 Mpc (passive only) | 261 | 1.98 ± 0.10 |
0.63
|
1.41 ± 0.21 | 3.1 ± 0.5 |
| MAMPOSSt | 0.05 ≤ R ≤ 1.96 Mpc | 330 |
|
|
1.37 ± 0.18 | 7.3 ± 2.4 |
| Caustic | R ≤ 2 × 1.96 Mpc | 527 |
|
|
1.63 ± 0.58 | 4.4 ± 3.0 |
| MAMPOSSt+Caustic |
|
|
1.37 ± 0.24 | 5.6 ± 1.9 | ||
| Lensing | U12 | 1.96 ± 0.11 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 1.37 ± 0.23 | 5.8 ± 1.1 | |
Notes.Nmembers is the number of cluster
members in the different samples used for the dynamical analyses. The results of the
σlos + rν
method are listed in italic to indicate that they are based on the simplified
assumptions that light traces mass and that the galaxy and DM particle velocity
distributions are identical. These assumption are dropped for the MAMPOSSt and
Caustic methods. The error on r200 and that on
r-2 are obtained by marginalizing on the other
parameters. The errors on M200 and
c200 are derived from propagating the symmetrized
errors on r200 and r-2. The
line labeled “MAMPOSSt+Caustic” lists the results obtained by the combination of the
MAMPOSSt and Caustic solutions. These results are therefore based on the samples
used separately for the MAMPOSSt and Caustic methods. Since the two samples largely
overlap and the two methods are not entirely independent, the errors are in this
case multiplied by 
.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.