Issue 
A&A
Volume 564, April 2014



Article Number  A129  
Number of page(s)  15  
Section  Cosmology (including clusters of galaxies)  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201322870  
Published online  17 April 2014 
Online material
Appendix A: Further scaling relations and tests
Fig. A.1
Lensing mass – Xray luminosity relation. The M–L_{X} relation is shown, for both (filled circles) and (small triangles). Open triangles represent the sample clusters for which MMT lensing masses are not available. The V09a M–L_{X} relation at z = 0.40 (z = 0.80) is denoted by a longdashed black (shortdashed red) line. Shaded (hatched) areas show the respective 1σ intrinsic scatter ranges. 

Open with DEXTER 
Appendix A.1: The L_{X}–M relation
To better assess the consistency of our weak lensing masses with the Vikhlinin et al. (2009a) results, we compare them to the L_{X}–M_{Y}relation derived by V09a using the masses of their lowz cluster sample. Figure A.1 inverts this relation by showing the masses as a function of the 0.5–2.0 keVChandra luminosities measured by V09a. Statistical uncertainties in the Chandra fluxes and, hence, luminosities are negligible for our purposes. We calculate the expected 68 % confidence ranges in mass for a given luminosity by inverting the scatter in L_{X} at a fixed M^{Y} as given in Eq. (22) of V09a. For two fiducial redshifts, z = 0.40 and z = 0.80, spanning the unevenly populated redshift range of the eight clusters, the M–L_{X} relations and their expected scatter are shown in Fig. A.1. Small filled triangles in Fig. A.1 show the masses from which V09a derived the L_{X}–M relation. Our 8 MMT clusters are nicely tracing the distribution of the overall sample of 36 clusters (open triangles).
As an important step in the calculation of the mass function, these authors show that their procedure is able to correct for the Malmquist bias even in the presence of evolution in the L_{X}–M
relation, which they include in the model. We emphasise that the Malmquist bias correction – which is not included here – applied by V09a moves the clusters upwards in Fig. A.1, such that the sample agrees with the bestfit from the lowz sample, as Fig. 12 in V09a demonstrates.
As already seen in Fig. 2, the M^{wl} (large symbols in Fig. A.1) and M^{Y} agree well. Thus we can conclude that the WL masses are consistent with the expectations from their L_{X}. Finally, we remark that the higher Xray luminosities for the some of the same clusters reported by Maughan et al. (2012) in their study of the L_{X}–T_{X} relation are not in disagreement with V09a, as Maughan et al. (2012) used bolometric luminosities.
Appendix A.2: Redshift scaling and crossscaling of Xray masses
Here we show further results mentioned in the main body of the article. Figure A.2 shows two examples of the Xray/WL mass ratio as a function of redshift. Owing to the inhomegenous redshift coverage of our clusters, we cannot constrain a redshift evolution. All of our bias estimates are consistent with zero bias.
Table A.2 shows the fit results and bias estimates for various tests we performed modifying our default model, as well as for ancillary scaling relations. In particular, we probe the scaling behaviour of hydrostatic masses against the V09a estimates, for which we find a M^{Y}/M^{hyd} tentatively biased high by ~15%, while M^{T} and M^{G} do not show similar biases.
Appendix A.3: Choice of centre and fitting range
Weak lensing masses obtained from profile fitting have been shown to be sensitive to the choice of the fitting range (Becker & Kravtsov 2011; Hoekstra et al. 2011b; Oguri & Hamana 2011). Taking these results into account, we fitted the WL masses within a fixed physical mass range. Varying the fitting range by using r_{min} = 0 instead of 0.2 Mpc in one and r_{max} = 4.0 Mpc instead of 5.0 Mpc in another test, we find no evidence for a crucial influence on our results.
Both simulations and observations establish (e.g. Dietrich et al. 2012; George et al. 2012) that WL masses using lensing cluster centres are biased high due to random noise with respect to those based on independently obtained cluster centres, e.g. the ROSAT centres we employ. The fact that the – relation gives slightly milder difference between b_{MC} for the high and lowM^{wl} bins when the peak of the Sstatistics is assumed as the cluster centre (Table A.2) can be explained by the larger relative M^{wl} “boost” for clusters with larger offset between Xray and lensing peaks. This affects the flatprofile clusters (Sect. 4.1) in particular, translating into a greater effect for the c_{fit} case than for c_{B13}based masses. We find that WL cluster centres only slightly alleviate the observed massdependence.
Fig. A.2
Continuation of Fig. 2. Panel A) shows log (M^{T}/M^{wl}) within , panel B) shows log (M^{G}/M^{wl}) within . Like panel A) of Fig. 2, panel C) presents log (M^{hyd}/M^{wl}), but showing both WL masses measured at a fixed physical radius r_{fix}. Filled dots and dotdashed lines correspond to r_{fix} = 800 kpc, while triangles and tripledotdashed lines denote r_{fix} = 600 kpc. Uncertainties for the 600 kpc case were omitted for clarity. Panel D) shows log (M^{hyd}/M^{wl}) from Fig. 2 as a function of redshift. Thin solid lines indicating the 1σ uncertainty range of the bestfit Monte Carlo/jackknife regression line (dotdashed). 

Open with DEXTER 
© ESO, 2014
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext 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 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.