Weak-lensing calibration of a stellar mass-based mass proxy for redMaPPer and Voronoi Tessellation clusters in SDSS Stripe 82

Abstract

We present the first weak lensing calibration of µ , a new galaxy cluster mass proxy corresponding to the total stellar mass of red and blue members, in two cluster samples selected from the SDSS Stripe 82 data: 230 redMaPPer clusters at redshift 0.1 z < 0.33 and 136 Voronoi Tessellation (VT) clusters at 0.1 z < 0.6. We use the CS82 shear catalogue and stack the clusters in µ bins to measure a mass-observable power law relation. For redMaPPer clusters we obtain M 0 = (1.77 ± 0.36) × 10 14 h −1 M , α = 1.74 ± 0.62. For VT clusters, we find M 0 = (4.31 ± 0.89) × 10 14 h −1 M , α = 0.59 ± 0.54 and M 0 = (3.67 ± 0.56) × 10 14 h −1 M , α = 0.68 ± 0.49 for a low and a high redshift bin, respectively. Our results are consistent, internally and with the literature, indicating that our method can be applied to any clusterfinding algorithm. In particular, we recommend that µ be used as the mass proxy for VT clusters. Catalogs including µ measurements will enable its use in studies of galaxy evolution in clusters and cluster cosmology.

AMICO galaxy clusters in KiDS-DR3: weak lensing mass calibration

“…For this reason, there is not an obvious mass proxy in the galaxy distribution and the scaling between the mass and any galaxy observable can only be calibrated empirically. Many different mass proxies have been suggested in the literature, mainly based on the number of (red) galaxies inside a given radius (Andreon & Hurn 2010;Rykoff et al 2012), their luminosities (Mulroy et al 2014) or photometric stellar mass estimates (Pereira et al 2018).…”

μ⋆ masses: weak-lensing calibration of the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 redMaPPer clusters using stellar masses

“…The technique of stacking the weak-lensing signal of many systems in a given observable interval provides one of the most direct and modelindependent methods to calibrate the MORs. The community has made a concerted effort to determine the scaling relations empirically (Sheldon et al 2001;Johnston et al 2007;Applegate et al 2014;Oguri 2014;von der Linden et al 2014a, b;Ford et al 2015;Hoekstra et al 2015;Mantz et al 2015;Wen & Han 2015;Wiesner, Lin & Soares-Santos 2015;Okabe & Smith 2016;Melchior et al 2017;Simet et al 2017;Medezinski et al 2018;Murata et al 2018Murata et al , 2019Pereira et al 2018;Bellagamba et al 2019;Dietrich et al 2019;McClintock et al 2019;Miyatake et al 2019). The MORs are not the same for these cluster samples and mass proxies.…”

“…This is a challenging regime but the potential impact makes it worth exploring alternative mass proxies that might be more robust against projection effects. Alternative optical mass proxies are possible (Andreon 2012;Mulroy et al 2017;Pereira et al 2018;Bellagamba et al 2019;Palmese et al 2020;Sampaio-Santos et al 2020). For example, one could incorporate the count of star-forming galaxies into the richness.…”

“…In Pereira et al (2018) and Palmese et al (2020), we introduced and studied a physically motivated mass proxy named μ , which is based on the total stellar mass and therefore accounts for the red and blue members of the clusters. Andreon (2012) was the first to propose a stellar-mass-based mass proxy for clusters, but since then such kind of proxy has mostly been studied in simulations (Ascaso et al 2016(Ascaso et al , 2017Farahi et al 2018;Kravtsov, Vikhlinin & Meshcheryakov 2018;Bradshaw et al 2020).…”

“…In Pereira et al (2018), we provided a first calibration of the massμ relation at low z using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Stripe 82 data. In this work, we use stacked weak-lensing signal to measure the mean galaxy cluster mass of redMaPPer clusters identified in the DES Y1 data using μ as a mass proxy.…”