The XMM Cluster Survey analysis of the SDSS DR8 redMaPPer Catalogue:mplications for scatter, selection bias, and isotropy in cluster scaling relations

In this paper, we present the X-ray analysis of SDSS DR8 redMaPPer (SDSSRM) clusters using data products from the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS). In total, 1189 SDSSRM clusters fall within the XMM-Newton footprint. This has yielded 456 confirmed detections accompanied by X-ray luminosity (LX) measurements. Of these clusters, 381 have an associated X-ray temperature measurement (TX). This represents one of the largest samples of coherently derived cluster TX values to date. Our analysis of the X-ray observable to richness scaling relations has demonstrated that scatter in the TX − λ relation is roughly a third of that in the LX − λ relation, and that the LX − λ scatter is intrinsic, i.e. will not be significantly reduced with larger sample sizes. Analysis of the scaling relation between LX and TX has shown that the fits are sensitive to the selection method of the sample, i.e. whether the sample is made up of clusters detected “serendipitously” compared to those deliberately targeted by XMM. These differences are also seen in the LX − λ relation and, to a lesser extent, in the TX − λ relation. Exclusion of the emission from the cluster core does not make a significant impact on the findings. A combination of selection biases is a likely, but yet unproven, reason for these differences. Finally, we have also used our data to probe recent claims of anisotropy in the LX − TX relation across the sky. We find no evidence of anistropy, but stress this may be masked in our analysis by the incomplete declination coverage of the SDSS

The <i>XMM</i> Cluster Survey:An independent demonstration of the fidelity of the eFEDS galaxy cluster data products and implications for future studies

Abstract We present the first comparison between properties of clusters of galaxies detected by the eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS) and the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS). We have compared, in an ensemble fashion, properties from the eFEDS X-ray cluster catalogue with those from the Ultimate XMM eXtragaLactic (XXL) survey project (XXL-100-GC). We find the redshift and temperature (TX) distributions to be similar, with a larger proportion of clusters above 4 keV in the XXL-100-GC sample; fractional temperature uncertainties are significantly larger in eFEDS compared to XXL. We find 62 eFEDS cluster candidates with XMM data (eFEDS-XMM sample); 10 do not have good enough XMM data to confirm or deny, 11 are classed as sample contaminants, and 4 have their X-ray flux contaminated by another source. The majority of eFEDS-XMM sources have longer XMM exposures than eFEDS, and most eFEDS positions are within 100 kpc of XCS positions. Our eFEDS-XCS sample of 37 clusters is used to calculate minimum sample contamination fractions of ∼18 per cent and ∼9 per cent in the eFEDS X-ray and optically confirmed samples respectively, in general agreement with eFEDS findings. We directly compare 29 X-ray luminosities (LX) measured by eFEDS and XCS, finding excellent agreement. Eight clusters have a TX measured by XCS and eFEDS, and we find that XMM temperatures are 25±9 per cent larger than their eROSITA counterparts. Finally, we construct LX - TX scaling relations based on eFEDS and XCS measurements, which are in tension; the tension is decreased when we measure a third scaling relation with calibrated XCS temperatures

The <i>XMM</i> Cluster Survey:An independent demonstration of the fidelity of the eFEDS galaxy cluster data products and implications for future studies

Abstract We present the first comparison between properties of clusters of galaxies detected by the eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS) and the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS). We have compared, in an ensemble fashion, properties from the eFEDS X-ray cluster catalogue with those from the Ultimate XMM eXtragaLactic (XXL) survey project (XXL-100-GC). We find the redshift and temperature (TX) distributions to be similar, with a larger proportion of clusters above 4 keV in the XXL-100-GC sample; fractional temperature uncertainties are significantly larger in eFEDS compared to XXL. We find 62 eFEDS cluster candidates with XMM data (eFEDS-XMM sample); 10 do not have good enough XMM data to confirm or deny, 11 are classed as sample contaminants, and 4 have their X-ray flux contaminated by another source. The majority of eFEDS-XMM sources have longer XMM exposures than eFEDS, and most eFEDS positions are within 100 kpc of XCS positions. Our eFEDS-XCS sample of 37 clusters is used to calculate minimum sample contamination fractions of ∼18 per cent and ∼9 per cent in the eFEDS X-ray and optically confirmed samples respectively, in general agreement with eFEDS findings. We directly compare 29 X-ray luminosities (LX) measured by eFEDS and XCS, finding excellent agreement. Eight clusters have a TX measured by XCS and eFEDS, and we find that XMM temperatures are 25±9 per cent larger than their eROSITA counterparts. Finally, we construct LX - TX scaling relations based on eFEDS and XCS measurements, which are in tension; the tension is decreased when we measure a third scaling relation with calibrated XCS temperatures

The XMM Cluster Survey analysis of the SDSS DR8 redMaPPer Catalogue: Implications for scatter, selection bias, and isotropy in cluster scaling relations

In this paper we present the X-ray analysis of SDSS DR8 redMaPPer (SDSSRM) clusters using data products from the $XMM$ Cluster Survey (XCS). In total, 1189 SDSSRM clusters fall within the $XMM$-Newton footprint. This has yielded 456 confirmed detections accompanied by X-ray luminosity ($L_{X}$) measurements. Of the detected clusters, 382 have an associated X-ray temperature measurement ($T_{X}$). This represents one of the largest samples of coherently derived cluster $T_{X}$ values to date. Our analysis of the X-ray observable to richness ($\lambda$) scaling relations has demonstrated that scatter in the $T_{X}-\lambda$ relation is roughly a third of that in the $L_{X}-\lambda$ relation, and that the $L_{X}-\lambda$ scatter is intrinsic, i.e. will not be significantly reduced with larger sample sizes. Our analysis of the scaling relation between $L_{X}$ and $T_{X}$ has shown that the fits are sensitive to the selection method of the sample, i.e. whether the sample is made up of clusters detected "serendipitously" compared to those deliberately targeted by $XMM$. These differences are also seen in the $L_{X}-\lambda$ relation and, to a lesser extent, in the $T_{X}-\lambda$ relation. Exclusion of the emission from the cluster core does not make a significant impact to the findings. A combination of selection biases is a likely, but as yet unproven, reason for these differences. Finally, we have also used our data to probe recent claims of anisotropy in the $L_{X}-T_{X}$ relation across the sky. We find no evidence of anistropy, but stress that this may be masked in our analysis by the incomplete declination coverage of the SDSS DR8 sample