Euclid preparation: XXIV. Calibration of the halo mass function in (?)CDM cosmologies

Euclid s photometric galaxy cluster survey has the potential to be a very competitive cosmological probe. The main cosmological probe with observations of clusters is their number count, within which the halo mass function (HMF) is a key theoretical quantity. We present a new calibration of the analytic HMF, at the level of accuracy and precision required for the uncertainty in this quantity to be subdominant with respect to other sources of uncertainty in recovering cosmological parameters from Euclid cluster counts. Our model is calibrated against a suite of N-body simulations using a Bayesian approach taking into account systematic errors arising from numerical effects in the simulation. First, we test the convergence of HMF predictions from different N-body codes, by using initial conditions generated with different orders of Lagrangian Perturbation theory, and adopting different simulation box sizes and mass resolution. Then, we quantify the effect of using different halo finder algorithms, and how the resulting differences propagate to the cosmological constraints. In order to trace the violation of universality in the HMF, we also analyse simulations based on initial conditions characterised by scale-free power spectra with different spectral indexes, assuming both Einsteinde Sitter and standard CDM expansion histories. Based on these results, we construct a fitting function for the HMF that we demonstrate to be sub-percent accurate in reproducing results from 9 different variants of the CDM model including massive neutrinos cosmologies. The calibration systematic uncertainty is largely sub-dominant with respect to the expected precision of future massobservation relations; with the only notable exception of the effect due to the halo finder, that could lead to biased cosmological inference

The XXL survey: first results and future

The XXL survey currently covers two 25 sq. deg. patches with XMM observations of ~10ks. We summarise the scientific results associated with the first release of the XXL data set, that occurred mid 2016. We review several arguments for increasing the survey depth to 40 ks during the next decade of XMM operations. X-ray (z1 cluster density. It will eventually constitute a reference study and an ideal calibration field for the upcoming eROSITA and Euclid missions

The XXL Survey: I. Scientific motivations - XMM-Newton observing plan - Follow-up observations and simulation programme

We present the XXL Survey, the largest XMM programme totaling some 6.9 Ms to date and involving an international consortium of roughly 100 members. The XXL Survey covers two extragalactic areas of 25 deg2 each at a point-source sensitivity of ~ 5E-15 erg/sec/cm2 in the [0.5-2] keV band (completeness limit). The survey's main goals are to provide constraints on the dark energy equation of state from the space-time distribution of clusters of galaxies and to serve as a pathfinder for future, wide-area X-ray missions. We review science objectives, including cluster studies, AGN evolution, and large-scale structure, that are being conducted with the support of approximately 30 follow-up programmes. We describe the 542 XMM observations along with the associated multi-lambda and numerical simulation programmes. We give a detailed account of the X-ray processing steps and describe innovative tools being developed for the cosmological analysis. The paper provides a thorough evaluation of the X-ray data, including quality controls, photon statistics, exposure and background maps, and sky coverage. Source catalogue construction and multi-lambda associations are briefly described. This material will be the basis for the calculation of the cluster and AGN selection functions, critical elements of the cosmological and science analyses. The XXL multi-lambda data set will have a unique lasting legacy value for cosmological and extragalactic studies and will serve as a calibration resource for future dark energy studies with clusters and other X-ray selected sources. With the present article, we release the XMM XXL photon and smoothed images along with the corresponding exposure maps. The XMM XXL observation list (Table B.1) is available in electronic form at the CDS. The present paper is the first in a series reporting results of the XXL-XMM survey

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field