Constraining Cosmology using Galaxy Clusters
Reviews
- Cosmological Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clusters - ARA&A
review by Allen, Evrard & Mantz
2011
- Huterer et al. 2015 - Growth of cosmic structure: Probing dark
energy beyond
expansion
- See Section 4.2: Cluster Abundance
- The primary importance of clusters in the context of dark energy
is their complementarity to geometric probes, i.e. their ability
to distinguish between modified gravity and dark energy models
with degenerate expansion histories. Galaxy clusters are
statistically competitive with and often better than other probes.
(Fig 5, right panel, the “sweet spot” is z=0.3 - 0.8.
- The basic physics behind cluster abundances as a cosmological
probe are conceptually simple; and A cluster abundance
experiment is conceptually very simple.
- The dependence of the number of galaxy clusters on the variance
of the linear density field that allows us to utilize galaxy
clusters to constrain the growth of structure.
- Future surveys will almost certainly rely on weak lensing mass
calibration to estimate cluster masses.
- Other usages of clusters as a cosmological tool:
- Galaxy clusters can probe dark energy in other ways as well,
most notably by comparing cluster mass estimates from weak
lensing and dynamical methods such as galaxy velocity
dispersions
- Because the growth of structure is also impacted by non-zero
neutrino mass, galaxy cluster abundances can provide
competitive constraints on the sum of neutrino masses.
- Difficulties and limitations:
- To achieve the goal of DES Stage III (IV) requirement, we must
be able to measure cluster masses with 5% (2%) precision.
See Applegate et
al. (2014)
(Currently can achieve 7%, but with 20% systematic differences
among methods).
- Systematic errors in shear measurements tend to be less
critical for cluster abundance work than for cosmic shear work
(only care about circular averaged tangential shear).
- Key systematic is the calibration not only of the mean
relation between cluster observables (optical, X-ray, or mm
signals) and cluster mass, but also the scatter (shape and
amplitude) about the mean.
- Cluster centering remains an important systematic in
optical and/or low resolution experiments (e.g. Planck). (See
Oguri & Takada 2011 about
self-calibration).
- Optical observations benefit from a lower mass detection
threshold than X-ray/mm over a large redshift range, which in
turn result in improved statistical constraints.
- The synergistic nature of multi-wavelength cluster cosmology
will necessarily play a key role in future cluster abundance
experiments. A balanced multi-wavelength approach will be
critical to the success of cluster cosmology over the next
10–20 years.
- Self-calibration: the cluster-clustering signal is itself
an observable that one can use to calibrate cluster masses, and
which is insensitive to all of the above systematic effects.
- Huterer & Shafer 2018 - Dark energy two decades after: observables,
probes, consistency
tests
- See Section 5.5 Galaxy Clusters
- Clusters are versatile probes of cosmology and astrophysics
and have had an important role in the development of modern
cosmology
- Recent cluster observations typically do not have enough
signal-to-noise to determine the cluster masses directly; instead,
forward-modeling can be applied to the mass function to recast
the theory in the space of observable quantities (e.g. see Evrard
et al. 2014).
- The mass function’s near-exponential dependence on the power
spectrum in the high-mass limit is at the root of the power of
clusters to probe the growth of density fluctuations.
- (The clusters’) two-point correlation function probes the matter
power spectrum as well as the growth and geometry factors
sensitive to dark energy.
- Clusters can also be correlated with background galaxies to probe
the growth (Cluster-Galaxy lensing, see Oguri & Takada
2011
- The most important uncertainty is typically tied to parameters
that describe the scaling relations between mass and observable
properties of the cluster (e.g. Flux, temperature).
- Weinberg 2013, PhR - Observational probes of cosmic
acceleration
- See Section 6: Clusters of galaxies
Key Papers
Theoretical
Systematic, (Self-)Calibration
- Lima & Hu 2004 - Self-calibration of cluster dark energy studies:
Counts in
cells
- Important Self-calibration (Using noise as signal!): The
excess variance of counts due to the clustering of clusters
provides such an opportunity and can be measured from the survey
without additional observational cost.
- Lima & Hu 2005 - Self-calibration of cluster dark energy studies:
Observable-mass
distribution
- Given the shape of the actual mass function, the properties of the
distribution may be internally monitored by the shape of the
observable mass function.
- Hu & Cohn 2006 - Likelihood methods for cluster dark energy
surveys
- Lima & Hu 2007 - Photometric redshift requirements for
self-calibration of cluster dark energy
studies
- Self-calibration in combination with external mass inferences
helps reduce photo-z requirements and provides important
consistency checks for future cluster surveys.
- Majumdar & Mohr 2003 - Importance of Cluster Structural Evolution in
Using X-Ray and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect Galaxy Cluster Surveys to
Study Dark
Energy
- We show that for a particular X-ray survey (Sunyaev-Zeldovich
effect [SZE] survey), the constraints on w degrade by roughly a
factor of 3 (factor of 2) when one accounts for the possibility of
nonstandard cluster evolution.
- Majumdar & Mohr 2004 - Self-Calibration in Cluster Studies of Dark
Energy: Combining the Cluster Redshift Distribution, the Power
Spectrum, and Mass
Measurements
- The best constraints are obtained when one combines both the power
spectrum constraints and the mass measurements with the cluster
redshift distribution; when using the survey to extract the
parameters and evolution of the mass-observable relations, we
estimate uncertainties on w of ~4%-6%
- Hu 2003 - Self-consistency and calibration of cluster number count
surveys for dark
energy
- “we find that the ambiguity from the normalization of the
mass-observable relationships, or an extrapolation of external
mass-observable determinations from higher masses, can be largely
eliminated with a sufficiently deep survey, even allowing for an
arbitrary evolution”
- Wu, Rozo & Wechsler 2008 - The Effects of Halo Assembly Bias on
Self-Calibration in Galaxy Cluster
Surveys
- Halo assembly bias: the clustering amplitude of halos depends
not only on the halo mass, but also on various secondary
variables.
- The impact of the secondary dependence is determined by (1) the
scatter in the observable-mass relation and (2) the correlation
between observable and secondary variables. Could be important
to DES and LSST like survey
- Cunha 2009 - Cross-calibration of cluster mass
observables
- We use a Fisher matrix analysis to study the improvements in
the joint dark energy and cluster mass-observables constraints
resulting from combining cluster counts and clustering abundances
measured with different techniques.
- The cross-calibrated constraints are less sensitive to
variations in the mass threshold or maximum redshift range.
- Cunha, Huterer & Frieman 2009 - Constraining dark energy with
clusters: Complementarity with other
probes
- We find that optimally combined optical and Sunyaev-Zeldovich
effect cluster surveys should improve the Dark Energy Task Force
figure of merit
- Wu, Rozo & Wechsler 2010 - Annealing a Follow-up Program:
Improvement of the Dark Energy Figure of Merit for Optical Galaxy
Cluster
Surveys
- Considering clusters selected from optical imaging in the Dark
Energy Survey, we find that approximately 200 low-redshift X-ray
clusters or massive Sunyaev-Zel’dovich clusters can improve the
dark energy figure of merit by 50%, provided that the follow-up
mass measurements involve no systematic error.
- The scatter in the optical richness–mass distribution, which needs
to be made as tight as possible to improve the efficacy of
follow-up observations
- Oguri & Takada 2011, PhRvD - Combining cluster observables and
stacked weak lensing to probe dark energy: Self-calibration of
systematic
uncertainties
- Rozo et al. 2011, ApJ - Stacked Weak Lensing Mass Calibration:
Estimators, Systematics, and Impact on Cosmological Parameter
Constraints
- Evrard, Arnault, Huterer & Farahi 2014 - A model for multiproperty
galaxy cluster
statistics
- We derive closed-form expressions for the space density of haloes
as a function of multiple observables as well as forms for the
low-order moments of properties of observable-selected samples.
Cluster mass calibration and scaling relations
Using Velocity Distribution Function
Important References
- Galaxy clusters have been recognized as powerful cosmological probes
- Henry et al. 2009; Vikhlinin et al. 2009; Mantz et al. 2010; Rozo
et al. 2010; Clerc et al. 2012; Benson et al. 2013; Hasselfield et
al. 2013).
- Early optical cluster finders can be divided into roughly two classes
- Those based on photometric redshifts
- Kepner et al. 1999; van Breukelen & Clewley 2009; Milkeraitis
et al. 2010; Durret et al. 2011; Szabo et al. 2011;
Soares-Santos et al. 2011; Wen et al. 2012
- Those utilizing the cluster red sequence
- Annis et al. 1999; Gladders & Yee 2000; Koester et al. 2007a;
Gladders et al. 2007; Gal et al. 2009; Thanjavur et al. 2009;
Hao et al. 2010; Murphy et al. 2012