Mass Function Predictions Beyond Λcdm

Bhattacharya, Suman; Heitmann, Katrin; White, Martin; Lukić, Zarija; Wagner, Christian; Habib, Salman

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/122

Cited by 227 publications

(367 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

349

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus we need more detailed modelling of the baryon physics in cluster outskirts, where incomplete virialisation of the intra-cluster medium affects the thermal pressure. Even if a universal behaviour of cluster quantities is anticipated from the simplest model of gravitational collapse, dispersion is also expected, even without considering the effects of non-gravitational physics, as shown by numerical simulations of halo formation (e.g., Navarro et al 1997;Reed et al 2011;Bhattacharya et al 2011;Gao et al 2012). This is plainly reflected in the large level of dispersion that we observe across our sample of simulated clusters.…”

Section: Comparison With the Planck Pressure Profilementioning

confidence: 68%

“…Meanwhile, we modelled each total mass profile with an NFW profile with the mass, M 500 , derived from Eq. (9), and the concentration estimated from the c-−M relation by Bhattacharya et al (2011). We checked that the average of the individual NFW mass models agrees with the NFW model derived from the average values of M 500 and c 500 across the sample.…”

Section: Constraint On the Gas Mass Fractionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The scale-free dark matter (DM) collapse drives the evolution of halo concentration across cosmic time (see e.g., recent work by Bhattacharya et al 2011;Gao et al 2012), and the ensuing similarity yields both a universal dark matter distribution and simple global scaling relations that should describe the entire halo population (Bertschinger 1985;Kaiser et al 1995;Navarro et al 1995;Evrard et al 1996;Navarro et al 1997;Voit 2005;Arnaud et al 2005). However, the observable properties of clusters are determined by the visible baryonic component, which is subject to more complex physical processes related to galaxy formation and feedback.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Planckintermediate results

Ade

Aghanim

Arnaud

et al. 2013

A&A

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking advantage of the all-sky coverage and broad frequency range of the Planck satellite, we study the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) and pressure profiles of 62 nearby massive clusters detected at high significance in the 14-month nominal survey. Careful reconstruction of the SZ signal indicates that most clusters are individually detected at least out to R 500 . By stacking the radial profiles, we have statistically detected the radial SZ signal out to 3 × R 500 , i.e., at a density contrast of about 50-100, though the dispersion about the mean profile dominates the statistical errors across the whole radial range. Our measurement is fully consistent with previous Planck results on integrated SZ fluxes, further strengthening the agreement between SZ and X-ray measurements inside R 500 . Correcting for the effects of the Planck beam, we have calculated the corresponding pressure profiles. This new constraint from SZ measurements is consistent with the X-ray constraints from XMM-Newton in the region in which the profiles overlap (i.e., [0.1-1] R 500 ), and is in fairly good agreement with theoretical predictions within the expected dispersion. At larger radii the average pressure profile is slightly flatter than most predictions from numerical simulations. Combining the SZ and X-ray observed profiles into a joint fit to a generalised pressure profile gives best-fit parameters [P 0 , c 500 , γ, α, β] = [6.41, 1.81, 0.31, 1.33, 4.13]. Using a reasonable hypothesis for the gas temperature in the cluster outskirts we reconstruct from our stacked pressure profile the gas mass fraction profile out to 3 R 500 . Within the temperature driven uncertainties, our Planck constraints are compatible with the cosmic baryon fraction and expected gas fraction in halos. Key words. cosmology: observations -galaxies: clusters: general -galaxies: clusters: intracluster medium -submillimeter: general -X-rays: general Appendices are available in electronic form at

show abstract

Section: Comparison With the Planck Pressure Profilementioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Constraint On the Gas Mass Fractionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Planckintermediate results

Ade

Aghanim

Arnaud

et al. 2013

A&A

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, consistency in halo definitions is clearly critical. For instance, Bhattacharya et al (2011) find that mass functions in their suite of wCDM simulations -which are calculated using friendsof-friends halo finders -deviate by up to 10% from a fitting formula calibrated on their ΛCDM simulation suite. It seems likely that Stage III and certainly Stage IV experiments will need to move to emulator based methods with comprehensive N-body libraries (e.g., Lawrence et al, 2010) rather than simple fitting formulae.…”

Section: Theoretical Systematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational probes of cosmic acceleration

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accelerating expansion of the universe is the most surprising cosmological discovery in many decades, implying that the universe is dominated by some form of "dark energy" with exotic physical properties, or that Einstein's theory of gravity breaks down on cosmological scales. The profound implications of cosmic acceleration have inspired ambitious efforts to understand its origin, with experiments that aim to measure the history of expansion and growth of structure with percent-level precision or higher. We review in detail the four most well established methods for making such measurements: Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), weak gravitational lensing, and the abundance of galaxy clusters. We pay particular attention to the systematic uncertainties in these techniques and to strategies for controlling them at the level needed to exploit "Stage IV" dark energy facilities such as BigBOSS, LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. We briefly review a number of other approaches including redshift-space distortions, the Alcock-Paczynski effect, and direct measurements of the Hubble constant H 0 . We present extensive forecasts for constraints on the dark energy equation of state and parameterized deviations from General Relativity, achievable with Stage III and Stage IV experimental programs that incorporate supernovae, BAO, weak lensing, and cosmic microwave background data. We also show the level of precision required for clusters or other methods to provide constraints competitive with those of these fiducial programs. We emphasize the value of a balanced program that employs several of the most powerful methods in combination, both to cross-check systematic uncertainties and to take advantage of complementary information. Surveys to probe cosmic acceleration produce data sets that support a wide range of scientific investigations, and they continue the longstanding astronomical tradition of mapping the universe in ever greater detail over ever larger scales.

show abstract

“…We decided to use the Tinker mass function as a reference because the halo masses are defined as spherical overdensities with respect to the mean background density, a definition that is closer to theory and actual observations than the friend-of-friend masses that were used for the Crocce mass function. We added the Crocce et al (2010) mass function to our analysis because it differs significantly at the high-mass end from other simulations (Bhattacharya et al 2011). The mass function is based on simulations with a box size much larger than the horizon scale, which gives more statistics at the high-mass end at the price of leaving the realm of the Newtonian approximation.…”

Section: The Impact Of the Mass Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The strongest gravitational lenses

Waizmann

Redlich

Bartelmann

2012

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. With the amount and quality of galaxy cluster data increasing, the question arises whether or not the standard cosmological model can be questioned on the basis of a single observed extreme galaxy cluster. Usually, the word extreme refers directly to cluster mass, which is not a direct observable and thus subject to substantial uncertainty. Hence, it is desirable to extend studies of extreme clusters to direct observables, such as the Einstein radius. Aims. We aim to evaluate the occurrence probability of the large observed Einstein radius of MACS J0717.5+3745 within the standard ΛCDM cosmology. In particular, we want to model the distribution function of the single largest Einstein radius in a given cosmological volume and to study which underlying assumptions and effects have the strongest impact on the results. Methods. We obtain this distribution by a Monte Carlo approach, based on the semi-analytic modelling of the halo population on the past lightcone. After sampling the distribution, we fit the results with the general extreme value (GEV) distribution which we use for the subsequent analysis. Results. We find that the distribution of the maximum Einstein radius is particularly sensitive to the precise choice of the halo mass function, lens triaxiality, the inner slope of the halo density profile and the mass-concentration relation. Using the distributions so obtained, we study the occurrence probability of the large Einstein radius of MACS J0717.5+3745, finding that this system is not in tension with ΛCDM. We also find that the GEV distribution can be used to fit very accurately the sampled distributions and that all of them can be described by a (type-II) Fréchet distribution. Conclusions. With a multitude of effects that strongly influence the distribution of the single largest Einstein radius, it is more than doubtful that the standard ΛCDM cosmology can be ruled out on the basis of a single observation. If, despite the large uncertainties in the underlying assumptions, one wanted to do so, a much larger Einstein radius ( > ∼ 100 ) than that of MACS J0717.5+3745 would have to be observed.

show abstract

Mass Function Predictions Beyond Λcdm

Cited by 227 publications

References 61 publications

Planckintermediate results

Planckintermediate results

Observational probes of cosmic acceleration

The strongest gravitational lenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About