redMaPPer II: X-ray and SZ Performance Benchmarks for the SDSS Catalog

We evaluate the performance of the SDSS DR8 redMaPPer photometric cluster catalog by comparing it to overlapping X-ray and SZ selected catalogs from the literature. We confirm the redMaPPer photometric redshifts are nearly unbiased ( < 0.005), have low scatter (\sigma_z ~ 0.006-0.02, depending on redshift), and have a low catastrophic failure rate (~ 1%). Both the T_X-\lambda\ and Mgas-\lambda\ scaling relations are consistent with a mass scatter of \sigma_{\ln M|\lambda} ~ 25%, albeit with a ~ 1% outlier rate due to projection effects. This failure rate is somewhat lower than that expected for the full cluster sample, but is consistent with the additional selection effects introduced by our reliance on X-ray and SZ selected reference cluster samples. Where the redMaPPer DR8 catalog is volume limited (z < 0.35), the catalog is 100% complete above T_X > 3.5 keV, and L_X > 2\times 10^{44} erg/s, decreasing to 90% completeness at L_X ~ 10^{43} erg/s. All rich (\lambda > 100), low redshift (z < 0.25) redMaPPer clusters are X-ray detected in the ROSAT All Sky Survey (RASS), and 86% of the clusters are correctly centered. Compared to other SDSS photometric cluster catalogs, redMaPPer has the highest completeness and purity, and the best photometric redshift performance, though some algorithms do achieve comparable performance to redMaPPer in subsets of the above categories and/or in limited redshift ranges. The redMaPPer richness is clearly the one that best correlates with X-ray temperature and gas mass. Most algorithms (including redMaPPer) have very similar centering performance, with only one exception which performs worse.Comment: comments welcom

redMaPPer III: A Detailed Comparison of the Planck 2013 and SDSS DR8 RedMaPPer Cluster Catalogs

We compare the Planck Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) cluster sample (PSZ1) to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) redMaPPer catalog, finding that all Planck clusters within the redMaPPer mask and within the redshift range probed by redMaPPer are contained in the redMaPPer cluster catalog. These common clusters define a tight scaling relation in the richness-SZ mass ($\lambda$--$M_{SZ}$) plane, with an intrinsic scatter in richness of $\sigma_{\lambda|M_{SZ}} = 0.266 \pm 0.017$. The corresponding intrinsic scatter in true cluster halo mass at fixed richness is $\approx 21\%$. The regularity of this scaling relation is used to identify failures in both the redMaPPer and Planck cluster catalogs. Of the 245 galaxy clusters in common, we identify three failures in redMaPPer and 36 failures in the PSZ1. Of these, at least 12 are due to clusters whose optical counterpart was correctly identified in the PSZ1, but where the quoted redshift for the optical counterpart in the external data base used in the PSZ1 was incorrect. The failure rates for redMaPPer and the PSZ1 are $1.2\%$ and $14.7\%$ respectively, or 9.8% in the PSZ1 after subtracting the external data base errors. We have further identified 5 PSZ1 sources that suffer from projection effects (multiple rich systems along the line-of-sight of the SZ detection) and 17 new high redshift ($z\gtrsim 0.6$) cluster candidates of varying degrees of confidence. Should all of the high-redshift cluster candidates identified here be confirmed, we will have tripled the number of high redshift Planck clusters in the SDSS region. Our results highlight the power of multi-wavelength observations to identify and characterize systematic errors in galaxy cluster data sets, and clearly establish photometric data both as a robust cluster finding method, and as an important part of defining clean galaxy cluster samples.Comment: comments welcom

Galaxy Cluster Mass Estimation from Stacked Spectroscopic Analysis

We use simulated galaxy surveys to study: i) how galaxy membership in redMaPPer clusters maps to the underlying halo population, and ii) the accuracy of a mean dynamical cluster mass, $M_\sigma(\lambda)$, derived from stacked pairwise spectroscopy of clusters with richness $\lambda$. Using $\sim\! 130,000$ galaxy pairs patterned after the SDSS redMaPPer cluster sample study of Rozo et al. (2015 RMIV), we show that the pairwise velocity PDF of central--satellite pairs with $m_i < 19$ in the simulation matches the form seen in RMIV. Through joint membership matching, we deconstruct the main Gaussian velocity component into its halo contributions, finding that the top-ranked halo contributes $\sim 60\%$ of the stacked signal. The halo mass scale inferred by applying the virial scaling of Evrard et al. (2008) to the velocity normalization matches, to within a few percent, the log-mean halo mass derived through galaxy membership matching. We apply this approach, along with mis-centering and galaxy velocity bias corrections, to estimate the log-mean matched halo mass at $z=0.2$ of SDSS redMaPPer clusters. Employing the velocity bias constraints of Guo et al. (2015), we find $\langle \ln(M_{200c})|\lambda \rangle = \ln(M_{30}) + \alpha_m \ln(\lambda/30)$ with $M_{30} = 1.56 \pm 0.35 \times 10^{14} M_\odot$ and $\alpha_m = 1.31 \pm 0.06_{stat} \pm 0.13_{sys}$. Systematic uncertainty in the velocity bias of satellite galaxies overwhelmingly dominates the error budget.Comment: 14 pages, 7 figure

The X-CLASS - redMaPPer galaxy cluster comparison: I. Identification procedures

We performed a detailed and, for a large part interactive, analysis of the matching output between the X-CLASS and redMaPPer cluster catalogues. The overlap between the two catalogues has been accurately determined and possible cluster positional errors were manually recovered. The final samples comprise 270 and 355 redMaPPer and X-CLASS clusters respectively. X-ray cluster matching rates were analysed as a function of optical richness. In a second step, the redMaPPer clusters were correlated with the entire X-ray catalogue, containing point and uncharacterised sources (down to a few 10^{-15} erg s^{-1} cm^{-2} in the [0.5-2] keV band). A stacking analysis was performed for the remaining undetected optical clusters. Main results show that neither of the wavebands misses any massive cluster (as coded by X-ray luminosity or optical richness). After correcting for obvious pipeline short-comings (about 10% of the cases both in optical and X-ray), ~50% of the redMaPPer (down to a richness of 20) are found to coincide with an X-CLASS cluster; when considering X-ray sources of any type, this fraction increases to ~ 80%; for the remaining objects, the stacking analysis finds a weak signal within 0.5 Mpc around the cluster optical centers. The fraction of clusters totally dominated by AGN-type emission appears to be of the order of a few percent. Conversely ~ 40% of the X-CLASS clusters are identified with a redMaPPer (down to a richness of 20) - part of the non-matches being due to the fact that the X-CLASS sample extends further out than redMaPPer (z<1 vs z<0.6); extending the correlation down to a richness of 5, raises the matching rate to ~ 65%.Comment: 15 pages, 20 figures, 2 table

Constraining the Scatter in the Mass-Richness Relation of maxBCG Clusters With Weak Lensing and X-ray Data

We measure the logarithmic scatter in mass at fixed richness for clusters in the maxBCG cluster catalog, an optically selected cluster sample drawn from SDSS imaging data. Our measurement is achieved by demanding consistency between available weak lensing and X-ray measurements of the maxBCG clusters, and the X-ray luminosity--mass relation inferred from the 400d X-ray cluster survey, a flux limited X-ray cluster survey. We find \sigma_{\ln M|N_{200}}=0.45^{+0.20}_{-0.18} (95% CL) at N_{200} ~ 40, where N_{200} is the number of red sequence galaxies in a cluster. As a byproduct of our analysis, we also obtain a constraint on the correlation coefficient between \ln Lx and \ln M at fixed richness, which is best expressed as a lower limit, r_{L,M|N} >= 0.85 (95% CL). This is the first observational constraint placed on a correlation coefficient involving two different cluster mass tracers. We use our results to produce a state of the art estimate of the halo mass function at z=0.23 -- the median redshift of the maxBCG cluster sample -- and find that it is consistent with the WMAP5 cosmology. Both the mass function data and its covariance matrix are presented.Comment: 14 pages, 6 figures, submitted to Ap

On the mass‐to‐light ratios of fossil groups. Are they simply dark clusters?

Defined as X‐ray bright galaxy groups with large differences between the luminosities of their brightest and second brightest galaxies, ‘fossil groups’ are believed to be some of the oldest galaxy systems in the Universe. They have therefore been the subject of much recent research. In this work we present a study of 10 fossil group candidates with an average of 33 spectroscopically confirmed members per group, making this the deepest study of its type to date. We also use these data to perform an analysis of the luminosity function of our sample of fossil groups. We confirm the high masses previously reported for many of fossil systems, finding values more similar to those of clusters than of groups. We also confirm the high dynamical mass‐to‐light ratios reported in many previous studies. While our results are consistent with previous studies in many ways, our interpretation is not. This is because we show that, while the luminosities of the bright central galaxies (BCGs) in these systems are consistent with their high dynamical masses, their richnesses (total number of galaxies above some canonical value) are extremely low. This leads us to suggest a new interpretation of fossil systems in which the large differences between the luminosities of their brightest and second brightest galaxies are simply the result of the high BCG luminosities and low richnesses, while the high masses and low richnesses also explain the high mass‐to‐light ratios. Our results therefore suggest that fossil systems can be characterized as cluster‐like in their masses and BCG luminosities, but possessing the richnesses and optical luminosities of relatively poor groups. These findings are not predicted by any of the current models for the formation of fossil groups. Therefore, if this picture is confirmed, current ideas about the formation and evolution of fossil systems will need to be reformulated.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89559/1/j.1365-2966.2011.19625.x.pd