1: \documentclass[letter,oldversion]{aa}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{txfonts}
4: \usepackage{natbib}
5: \bibpunct{ (}{)}{;}{a}{}{,}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: %
9:
10: \title{Calibration of the galaxy cluster $M_{\rm 500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$
11: relation with XMM-Newton}
12: \author{M. Arnaud \inst{1},
13: E. Pointecouteau \inst{2} and
14: G.W. Pratt \inst{3}}
15: \offprints{M. Arnaud, \email{Monique.Arnaud@cea.fr}}
16:
17: \institute{
18: $^1$ Laboratoire AIM, DAPNIA/Service d'Astrophysique - CEA/DSM - CNRS
19: - Universit\'{e} Paris Diderot, B\^{a}t. 709, CEA-Saclay, F-91191
20: Gif-sur- Yvette Cedex, France \\
21: $^2$ CESR, 9 Av du colonel Roche, BP 44346, 31028 Toulouse Cedex 4,
22: France\\
23: $^3$ Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestriche Physik, Giessenbachstra{\ss}e, 85748 Garching, Germany}
24:
25: \date{Received 24 August 2007; accepted 9 September 2007}
26: \abstract
27: {The quantity $Y_{\rm X}$, the product of the
28: X-ray temperature $T_{\rm X}$ and gas mass $M_{\rm g}$, has
29: recently been proposed as a robust low-scatter mass indicator for
30: galaxy clusters.
31: Using precise measurements from XMM-Newton data of a sample of 10
32: relaxed nearby clusters, spanning a $Y_{\rm X}$ range of
33: $10^{13}$--$10^{15}$\,M$_\odot$\,keV, we investigate the
34: $M_{500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$ relation.
35: The $M_{500}$ -- $Y_{\rm
36: X}$ data exhibit a power law relation with slope
37: $\alpha=0.548 \pm 0.027$, close to the self-similar value (3/5) and
38: independent of the mass range considered. However, the
39: normalisation is $\sim 20\%$ below the prediction from numerical
40: simulations including cooling and galaxy feedback. We discuss two effects that could contribute to the normalisation offset: an
41: underestimate of the true mass due to
42: the HE assumption used in X-ray mass estimates, and an underestimate of
43: the hot gas mass fraction in the simulations. A comparison of
44: the functional form and scatter of the relations between
45: various observables and the mass suggest that $Y_{\rm X}$
46: may indeed be a better mass proxy than $T_{\rm X}$ or $M_{\rm
47: g,500}$.}
48: \keywords{Cosmology: observations, Cosmology: dark
49: matter, Galaxies: cluster: general, (Galaxies) Intergalactic
50: medium, X-rays: galaxies: clusters}
51:
52: \maketitle
53: %
54: %________________________________________________________________
55: \def\etal{et al.}
56:
57: \def\Mgv{M_{\rm g,500}}
58: \def\Mg{M_{\rm g}}
59: \def\YX {Y_{\rm X}}
60: \def\TX {T_{\rm X}}
61: \def\fgv {f_{\rm g,500}}
62: \def\fg {f_{\rm g}}
63: \def\kT {{\rm k}T}
64: \def\Mv {M_{\rm 500}}
65: \def \Rv {R_{500}}
66: \def\keV {\rm keV}
67:
68:
69: \def\MT {$M_{500}$--$T_{\rm X}$}
70: \def\MY {$M_{500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$}
71: \def\MMg {$M_{500}$--$M_{\rm g,500}$}
72: \def\MgT {$M_{\rm g,500}$--$T_{\rm X}$}
73: \def\MgY {$M_{\rm g,500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$}
74:
75: \def\msol {{\rm M_{\odot}}}
76:
77: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
78: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
79:
80: % satellites
81: \def \xmm {\hbox{\it XMM-Newton}}
82: \def \chandra {\hbox{\it Chandra }}
83:
84: \section{Introduction}
85:
86: All theoretical approaches characterise galaxy clusters in terms of
87: their mass. Models of
88: structure formation predict the space density, distribution
89: and physical properties of clusters as a function of mass and redshift
90: \citep[e.g. ][]{bertschinger98}. However, the mass is not easily measured.
91: X-ray estimates from the hydrostatic equilibrium (HE) equation are
92: valid only for reasonably relaxed clusters and require temperature
93: profiles of high statistical quality; furthermore, the available
94: precision rapidly degrades with redshift.
95: Based on the regularity of the cluster population, other X-ray
96: observables such as luminosity, temperature $\TX$, or gas mass $\Mg$,
97: have been used as proxies for the mass, e.g. to constrain cosmological
98: parameters using cluster surveys \citep{voi05}. Studies of cluster
99: formation physics must also rely on mass proxies when considering
100: unbiased (i.e., covering a variety of dynamical
101: states) or distant cluster samples \citep[e.g.][]{mau07}.
102: The identification of the best mass proxy, and knowledge
103: of its exact relation to the mass, are therefore important.
104:
105: The most commonly used mass proxy, $\TX$, is expected to
106: be closely related to the mass via the virial theorem.
107: Significant progress on the calibration of the local $M$--$\TX$
108: relation for {\it relaxed} clusters has recently been made, with
109: excellent agreement now achieved between various observations
110: \citep{app05,vik06}, and comparison between observations and numerical
111: models including cooling and galaxy feedback showing agreement to the
112: $\sim10\%$ level \citep[e.g.][]{nag07b,app05}. \citet{kra06}
113: recently proposed a new mass proxy, $\YX=\TX\Mgv$, where
114: $\Mgv$ is the gas mass within $\Rv$, the radius corresponding to a
115: density contrast of $\delta=500$. $\YX$ is related to the thermal
116: energy of the gas and is the X-ray analogue of the integrated SZ
117: Comptonisation parameter, $Y_{\rm SZ}$. The numerical simulations of \citeauthor{kra06} showed
118: that, as compared to $\TX$ or $\Mgv$, $\YX$ is a better mass proxy,
119: in the sense that the intrinsic scatter was lower than for any other
120: mass indicator, regardless of cluster dynamical state (similar to
121: previous results for the $M$--$Y_{\rm SZ}$ relation, e.g.,
122: \citealt{das04,mot05,nag06}). Furthermore, its evolution appears to be
123: close to the standard self-similar
124: expectation.
125:
126: In this Letter, we present the \MY\ relation derived from precise
127: \xmm\ data and compare it to the \MMg\ and \MT\ relations. The
128: \MY\ relation is discussed with respect to previous \chandra\ results
129: and theoretical expectations \citep{nag07b}. Other relations between
130: observables, such as the variation of the gas mass fraction $\fgv$
131: with mass, are also investigated in order to shed new light on the
132: scatter and slope of the various mass-proxy relations.
133:
134: \begin{table*}
135: \caption[]{Physical cluster parameters. $\Mv$, $M_{\rm g, 500}$
136: and $f_{\rm g,500}$ are the total mass, gas mass and gas mass
137: fraction respectively, within the radius $\Rv$, inside which
138: the mean mass density is 500 times the critical
139: density at the cluster redshift. $\TX$ is the
140: spectroscopic temperature within $[0.15-0.75]R_{500}$ and
141: $Y_{\rm X}= M_{\rm g, 500} \TX$. Values are given for a
142: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$,
143: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $H_0=70$~km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Errors
144: are $1\,\sigma$.}
145: \label{tab:clu}
146: \begin{center}
147: % $$
148: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
149: \hline
150: \hline
151: Cluster & $z$ & $\TX (\keV)$& $M_{500}~(10^{14}\, \msol)$& $M_{\rm g,500}~(10^{13}\, \msol)$&$Y_{\rm X}~(10^{13}\, \msol\,\keV)$& $f_{\rm g,500}$ \\
152: \hline
153: \object{A 1983}& $0.0442$ & $2.18\pm0.09$ & $1.09_{-0.29}^{+0.45}$ & $ 0.64_{- 0.08}^{+ 0.10}$ & $ 1.39_{-0.18}^{+0.23}$ & $0.058_{-0.017}^{+0.026}$\\
154: \object{MKW9}& $0.0382$ & $2.43\pm0.24$ & $0.88_{-0.18}^{+0.23}$ & $ 0.49_{- 0.05}^{+ 0.06}$ & $ 1.19_{-0.17}^{+0.18}$ & $0.055_{-0.012}^{+0.016}$\\
155: \object{A 2717}& $0.0498$ & $2.56\pm0.06$ & $1.10_{-0.11}^{+0.13}$ & $ 1.02_{- 0.05}^{+ 0.06}$ & $ 2.60_{-0.15}^{+0.16}$ & $0.093_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$\\
156: \object{A 1991}& $0.0586$ & $2.71\pm0.07$ & $1.20_{-0.12}^{+0.13}$ & $ 1.25_{- 0.06}^{+ 0.06}$ & $ 3.39_{-0.19}^{+0.19}$ & $0.104_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$\\
157: \object{A 2597}& $0.0852$ & $3.67\pm0.09$ & $2.22_{-0.21}^{+0.23}$ & $ 2.51_{- 0.08}^{+ 0.09}$ & $ 9.21_{-0.38}^{+0.39}$ & $0.113_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$\\
158: \object{A 1068}& $0.1375$ & $4.67\pm0.11$ & $3.87_{-0.27}^{+0.29}$ & $ 3.77_{- 0.10}^{+ 0.10}$ & $17.6_{-0.62}^{+0.63}$ & $0.097_{-0.007}^{+0.008}$\\
159: \object{A 1413}& $0.1430$ & $6.62\pm0.14$ & $4.82_{-0.40}^{+0.44}$ & $ 7.55_{- 0.27}^{+ 0.28}$ & $50.0_{-2.1}^{+2.1}$ & $0.157_{-0.014}^{+0.016}$\\
160: \object{A 478}& $0.0881$ & $7.05\pm0.12$ & $7.57_{-1.02}^{+1.20}$ & $ 9.33_{- 0.43}^{+ 0.46}$ & $65.8_{-3.2}^{+3.4}$ & $0.123_{-0.017}^{+0.020}$\\
161: \object{PKS 0745-191}& $0.1028$ & $7.97\pm0.28$ & $7.27_{-0.70}^{+0.80}$ & $10.71_{- 0.47}^{+ 0.50}$ & $85.3_{-4.8}^{+5.0}$ & $0.147_{-0.016}^{+0.018}$\\
162: \object{A 2204}& $0.1523$ & $8.26\pm0.22$ & $8.39_{-0.77}^{+0.86}$ & $10.55_{- 0.39}^{+ 0.40}$ & $87.2_{-4.0}^{+4.1}$ & $0.126_{-0.012}^{+0.014}$\\
163: \hline
164: \end{tabular}
165: \end{center}
166: \end{table*}
167:
168: \section{The data}
169:
170: \subsection{The sample}
171: \label{sample}
172: The sample comprises ten nearby
173: morphologically
174: relaxed clusters in the temperature range $[2-9]\,\keV$. We have
175: previously used \xmm\ data to study the structural and
176: scaling properties of the total mass \citep{pap05b,app05} and of the
177: entropy \citep{pap06}; the $\TX$, $\Mv$ and
178: $\Rv$ values derived in these papers are used in
179: the present Letter (Table~\ref{tab:clu}). The observations and data
180: reduction steps are
181: fully described in \citet{pap05b}. $\Mv$ values were derived from NFW
182: model fits to mass profiles measured down to
183: $\delta_{\rm obs}=600-700$,
184: except for the two lowest mass clusters
185: ($\delta_{\rm obs}\sim1400$),
186: thus the $\Mv$ estimates involve some
187: data extrapolation. However, as discussed in \citet{app05}, the
188: $\Mv$ estimates rely solely on the physically and
189: observationally-motivated assumption that the best fitting NFW model
190: remains valid between $\delta_{\rm obs}$ and $\delta=500$, and not on
191: a less reliable extrapolation of density and temperature profiles.
192: The temperature $\TX$ was derived from a single-temperature fit to the
193: integrated spectrum in the $[0.1$--$0.5]\,R_{200}$ aperture, the
194: inner radius defined to exclude the
195: cooling core region and the outer radius chosen to ensure a
196: sufficiently
197: precise $\TX$ estimate over the whole mass range. This aperture corresponds to $[0.15$--$0.75]\,\Rv$, while an aperture of
198: $[0.15$--$1]\,\Rv$ is used for the definition of $\TX$ in numerical
199: simulations and in the Chandra analysis \citep{nag07b}. For typical decreasing temperature profiles, these $\TX\ $ values are expected to be
200: slightly
201: smaller by $3$--$6\%$
202: \footnote{The difference is $3\%$ for A1413 \citep[][]{app05}, a cluster for which the temperature profiles measured up to $\Rv$ both with \xmm\ and \chandra\ are in excellent agreement
203: \citep{pa02,vik05}.
204: In the simulations of \citet{nag07a}, the $[0.15$--$0.5]\,\Rv$ temperature is $6\%$ higher than that in $[0.15$--$1]\,\Rv$. A smaller difference is expected for the aperture used here.}.
205:
206:
207: \begin{table}[t]
208: \caption[]{Observed scaling relations. For each observable
209: set $(B,A)$, we fitted a power law relation of the form $B
210: = C(A/A_0)^\alpha$, with $A_0 = 5\,\keV; 4\times10^{13}\msol;
211: 2\times10^{14}\,\msol\,\keV$ for $\TX$, $M_{\rm g,500}$ and
212: $Y_{\rm X}$ respectively. $\sigma_{\rm log,r}$ and
213: $\sigma_{\rm log,i}$ are the raw and intrinsic scatter about
214: the best fitting relation in the $\log$--$\log$ plane. The \MT\
215: relation is the same as that given in \cite{app05}. }
216: \label{tab:rel}
217: \begin{center}
218: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
219: \hline
220: \hline
221: Relation & $\log_{10} C $ & $\alpha$ & $\sigma_{\rm log,r}$&$\sigma_{\rm log,i}$ \\% & $\chi^2$\\
222: \hline
223: $h(z) M_{500}$--$\TX$ & $14.580 \pm 0.016$ &$1.71 \pm 0.09$ & $0.064$ & $0.039$ \\%& 12.7\\
224: $h(z)^{2/5} M_{500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$ & $14.556 \pm 0.015$ &$0.548 \pm 0.027$ & $0.062$ & $0.039$ \\%& 14.4\\
225: $M_{500}$--$M_{\rm g,500}$ &$14.542 \pm 0.015$ &$0.803 \pm 0.040$ & $0.065$ & $0.044$\\% & 16.6 \\
226: $h(z) M_{g,500}$--$\TX$ & $13.651 \pm 0.010$ &$2.10 \pm 0.05$ & $0.048$ & $0.036$ \\%& 12.7\\
227: $h(z)^{2/5} M_{\rm g,500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$ & $13.619 \pm 0.008$ &$0.678 \pm 0.014$ & $0.017$ & - \\%& 5.7 \\
228: $f_{\rm g,500}$--$Y_{\rm X}$ & $-0.939 \pm 0.016$ &$0.133 \pm 0.028$ & $0.067$ & 0.044 \\%& 5.7 \\
229: \hline
230: \end{tabular}
231: \end{center}
232: \end{table}
233:
234: \begin{figure}[t]
235: \centering
236: \includegraphics[ width=0.85\columnwidth, keepaspectratio]{Fig_MYXcomp.eps}
237: \caption{\label{my} The \MY\ relation as seen by \xmm\ from a sample
238: of 10 local relaxed clusters. The red solid line is the best fitting
239: power law and the shaded orange area corresponds to the $1\,\sigma$
240: uncertainty. The predicted relation from numerical simulations
241: including cooling and galaxy feedback \citep{nag07b} is over-plotted
242: as a green dot-dashed line (true mass) and as a green solid
243: line (mass estimated from mock X-ray observations and the HE
244: equation). The dotted and dashed blue lines are the observed
245: relations derived from Chandra data by \citet{nag07b} and
246: \citet{mau07} respectively (see text). }
247: \end{figure}
248:
249: %===============================================================
250: \begin{figure*}[th]
251: \begin{center}
252: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\hsize}
253: \resizebox{\hsize}{!} {
254: \includegraphics{Fig_MT.eps}
255: \hspace{8mm}
256: \includegraphics{Fig_MMg.eps}
257: \hspace{8mm}
258: \includegraphics{Fig_MYX.eps}
259: }
260: \end{minipage}\\[2mm]
261: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\hsize}
262: \resizebox{\hsize}{!} {
263: \includegraphics{Fig_MgYX.eps}
264: \hspace{8mm}
265: \includegraphics{Fig_fgMb.eps}
266: \hspace{8mm}
267: \includegraphics{Fig_fgYX.eps}
268: }
269: \end{minipage}
270: \caption{\label{rel} Correlations between X-ray
271: observables. Solid lines: best fitting power law relations. Dashed lines: standard self-similar
272: relation (slope indicated in each figure) normalised to data from the three
273: most massive clusters. Green
274: dotted line in top-left panel: best fitting power law \MT\ relation
275: for the hot cluster sub-sample \citep{app05}. Green lines in bottom-middle
276: panel: gas mass fraction from the \MMg\ relation in the numerical simulations of \citet{nag07b}, using the true mass (dash-dotted line) and the HE mass (full line). }
277: \end{center}
278: \end{figure*}
279: %===============================================================
280:
281:
282: The integrated gas mass depends sensitively on the gas density at
283: large radius. To compute $\Mgv$, we re-derived the gas density
284: profile from the emissivity corrected surface brightness profiles
285: using the deprojection and PSF-deconvolution technique recently
286: developed by \citet{cro06}. This derivation is free of any
287: assumption on profile shape, such as power law behaviour at large
288: radius, a feature common to all analytical fitting models used thus far
289: \citep[e.g.][]{pa02,pap05b,vik06}. Furthermore, the statistical errors
290: are readily estimated from a built-in Monte-Carlo procedure
291: \citep[see][for details]{cro06}. For the present sample, there is
292: excellent agreement between the deprojected density profiles and the
293: analytical model profiles derived in our previous work
294: \citep{pap05b,pap06}. The significant differences are in the very
295: central regions of some clusters \citep[e.g.][Fig 12]{cro06} and for
296: A2597 at large radii, where the deprojected profile is slightly
297: steeper than the model profile. The gas mass estimated
298: with the two methods differs by less than $3\%$, except for A2597
299: ($8\%$ difference). For all clusters, except for A1983 and MKW9, the
300: surface brightness profiles extend at least up to $\Rv$, or very close to
301: it, so that extrapolation uncertainty is not an issue. For A1983 and MKW9, the $\Mgv$
302: estimated from extrapolation in the $\log$--$\log$ plane are $31\%$
303: (A1983) and $67\%$ (MKW9) larger than the gas mass measured at
304: $\delta_{\rm obs}$
305: ; as shown below, these points do not however have a
306: significant effect on the results.
307:
308: The resulting $\Mgv$, $\fgv$ and $\YX$ values are listed in
309: Table~\ref{tab:clu}. Errors on $\Mgv$ include both statistical errors
310: and errors due to uncertainties in $\Rv$, which are summed
311: quadratically, with the latter dominating the error budget.
312:
313: \subsection{Scaling relations}
314:
315: For each observable set $(B,A)$ we fitted a power law relation of the form
316: $h(z)^nB = C(A/A_0)^\alpha$, where
317: $h(z)$ is the Hubble constant
318: normalised to its present value
319: and $n$ is fixed to the expected
320: scaling with $z$. The fit was performed using linear
321: regression in the $\log$--$ \log$ plane, taking into account the
322: errors on both variables
323: \citep[\texttt{FITEXY};][]{numrec}. The pivot
324: point $A_{0}$ is chosen so that the normalisation and slope are nearly
325: independent parameters. For the $M_{500}$--$Y_{X}$ relation for
326: instance, the covariance in $\log(C)$ and $\alpha$ normalised to the
327: product of their standard errors is 0.042. The resulting values are
328: given in Table~\ref{tab:rel}, and the various correlations are plotted
329: in Fig.~\ref{my} and Fig.~\ref{rel}.
330: Table~\ref{tab:rel} also shows the raw and intrinsic scatter about
331: the best fitting relations in the $\log$--$ \log$ plane.
332: The raw scatter was estimated using the vertical distances to the
333: regression line, weighted by the error. The
334: intrinsic scatter was computed from the quadratic difference between the
335: raw scatter and the scatter expected from the statistical errors.
336:
337: The regression method is strictly valid only if the intrinsic
338: scatter is negligible as compared to the statistical scatter; in fact
339: they are of the same order (Table~\ref{tab:rel}). We verified that the
340: results are unchanged using the variation of the method discussed in
341: \citet{pap06}.
342: Finally, the \MY\ relation is robust to exclusion of
343: A1983 and MKW9, for which data extrapolations were required (see above): the differences are at the $+0.4\,\sigma$ and $-0.2\,\sigma$ levels for the slope and normalisation, respectively.
344:
345: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
346: \subsection{Comparison with theoretical predictions}
347: The slope of the observed relation:
348: \begin{equation}
349: h(z)^{2/5}\Mv = 10^{14.556 \pm 0.015} \left[\frac{\YX}{2\times10^{14}\,{\msol}\,\keV}\right]^{0.548 \pm 0.027}{\rm h_{70}^{-1}\,\msol}
350: \end{equation}
351: is slightly smaller than the standard self-similar value
352: ($\alpha=3/5$), at the $1.9\,\sigma$ significance level, consistent
353: with the \MMg\ and \MT\ relations (Table \ref{tab:rel} and
354: Fig.~\ref{rel} top panel). The \MMg\ relation is shallower than
355: expected, reflecting the increase in gas mass fraction with mass
356: (Fig.~\ref{rel} bottom-middle panel), while the \MT\ is steeper.
357: At a given mass the gas mass is smaller and the temperature is
358: higher, leading to a partial cancellation in the product $\YX= \Mg
359: \TX$ (see also below).
360:
361: The observed normalisation is $\sim 20\%$ smaller over the whole $\YX$ range
362: than that derived from numerical simulations including cooling and galaxy feedback \citep{nag07b}, while the observed slope is
363: consistent with the predicted slope, $\alpha = 0.568\pm 0.006$, within
364: the $1\,\sigma$ error (Fig.~\ref{my}).
365: Better agreement is obtained
366: with the simulated $M_{500}^{HE}$--$\YX$ relation, where $M_{500}^{HE}$ is the mass estimated from mock X--ray
367: observations and the HE equation. Although
368: the predicted slope, $\alpha = 0.596\pm 0.010$,
369: %(close to the self-similar value),
370: is slightly higher, the difference in normalisation drops
371: to $\sim\,8\%$ ($2.4\,\sigma$) at $\YX = 2\times10^{14}\,{\msol}\,\keV$. As
372: discussed by \citet{nag07b}, the offset in normalization, also observed
373: with \chandra\ data, may arise from an underestimate of the true mass
374: by the HE equation, perhaps due to residual non-thermal pressure
375: support. These numerical simulations also
376: predict a hot gas mass fraction systematically smaller than observed
377: (Fig.~\ref{rel} bottom-middle panel). The difference is smaller for simulated $\fgv$ using $M_{500}^{HE}$ and again could be due, in part, to biases in X--ray mass estimates. Nevertheless, there may also be an underestimate of $\fgv$ in the simulations, possibly due in part to over-condensation of hot gas into the cold dense phase \citep[][]{nag07b}. This would contribute to the offset, by shifting the \MY\ relation to the left in the $\log$--$\log$ plane. Finally, as the normalization depends on $\TX^{0.6}$, the difference in the exact definition of $\TX$ (see Sec.~\ref{sample}) could contribute by $\lesssim 4\%$ to the offset.
378:
379: \subsection{Comparison with \chandra\ results}
380:
381: Our \MY\ relation is very similar to that derived by \citet{nag07b}
382: from the \chandra\ data presented in \citet[][see our
383: Fig.~\ref{my}]{vik06}. The slope $\alpha =0.526
384: \pm0.038$ is consistent with our value, $\alpha = 0.548\pm0.027$,
385: and the normalisation at $\YX = 2\times10^{14}\,\msol\,\keV$, $\Mv =
386: 3.82\times10^{14}\,{\rm h_{70}^{-1}}\,\msol$, is higher than our value,
387: $(3.60\pm0.13)\times10^{14}\msol$, at only the $1.6\,\sigma$ level. Even
388: better agreement is obtained with the best fitting relation quoted by
389: \citet[][dashed line in Fig.~\ref{my}]{mau07}, derived from the same
390: data excluding the lowest mass cluster
391: (A. Vikhlinin, priv. communication). Here the slope ($\alpha
392: =0.564$) is closer to the self-similar value, as we have found, and
393: the difference in normalisation is less than $5\%$ over the whole mass
394: range.
395:
396:
397: \subsection{Comparison of mass proxies for relaxed clusters}
398:
399: For {\it relaxed} clusters, \citet{kra06} found similar scatter in the
400: \MT\ and \MMg\ relations ($\sigma_{\rm log} = 0.055$ and 0.047
401: respectively), but two times less scatter in the \MY\ relation (0.022).
402: We can compare with the present data, the statistical quality allowing us to estimate the intrinsic scatter for the
403: first time. %%In fact
404: The scatter
405: (Table~\ref{tab:rel})
406: is the same for the \MY\ and \MT\ relations
407: ($\sigma_{\rm log,i} = 0.039$) and slightly larger for the \MMg\
408: relation ($\sigma_{\rm log,i} = 0.044$). The latter may reflect that
409: the \MMg\ relation is not actually a power law:
410: the gas mass fraction appears constant at $\Mv
411: \gtrsim 2-3\times10^{14} \msol$, with a progressive drop at lower mass (Fig.~\ref{rel} bottom-middle panel).
412:
413: In fact the behaviour of $\fgv$ appears to be the primary factor
414: driving the scatter in the \MY\ relation. The \MgY\ relation is
415: extremely tight (Fig.~\ref{rel}
416: and Table~\ref{tab:rel}), being well fitted by a power law
417: %($\chi^2_{red}=0.7$),
418: with no measurable scatter, in spite of the precision of the
419: data. Since $\Mv=\Mgv /\fgv$, the scatter in the \MY\ relation simply
420: reflects the scatter in the $\fgv$--$\YX$ relation (cf. top and
421: bottom left panels of Fig.~\ref{rel}). This scatter could arise from true scatter in $\fgv$ and/or scatter in the X--ray mass to true mass ratio, e.g., due to variations in the magnitude of nonthermal pressure support.
422: Note that a low-scatter
423: correlation between $\Mgv$ and $\YX$ is expected: it is
424: straightforward to show that the logarithmic scatter in the \MgY\
425: relation is 1/3 of the scatter in the \MgT\ relation for
426: $\Mgv \propto \TX^{\sim 2}$ (Table~\ref{tab:rel}).
427:
428: In terms of observed scatter in the relation with mass, $\YX$
429: thus does not appear to be a better proxy than $\TX$, and is only slightly
430: better than $\Mgv$. However we caution against over-inerpretation. Firstly, the present results are for relaxed
431: clusters only: with the current data we cannot check if the scatter is
432: insensitive to dynamical state \citep{kra06,poo07}. Secondly, the
433: scatter estimates should be
434: confirmed using larger cluster samples with stricter
435: selection criteria.
436:
437: However, in terms of functional dependence with mass, $\YX$ is clearly
438: a better proxy than $\Mgv$: it is better fitted by a simple
439: power-law, and has a slope closer to the standard self-similar value
440: (Table~\ref{tab:rel}). Furthermore, although the quality of the
441: power law fits to \MT\ and \MY\ are formally similar ($\chi^2/{\rm
442: d.o.f}\sim13/8$), with similar ($\sim2\,\sigma$) deviations from the standard slope, there is some indication that $\YX$ is
443: also a better proxy than $\TX$ in this regard. The slope of the \MT\
444: relation may depend on mass range \citep{app05}, reaching the standard value when cool clusters are excluded, but the slope of the \MY\ relation remains stable in that case ($0.7\,\sigma$ difference).
445:
446: \subsection{Concluding remarks}
447:
448: Our results suggest that the various mass scaling relations
449: might be better understood by considering the gas thermal energy
450: ($\YX$) and mass ($\fgv$) as its most fundamental properties.
451: Let us suppose that the thermal energy content of the gas is the quantity most closely related to the mass (i.e. the best mass proxy is indeed $\YX$), and
452: that its relation with mass has a quasi-standard slope. Let us further note that the gas mass fraction appears constant at high
453: mass, with a progressive decrease below
454: a 'break' mass (reflecting gas loss or incomplete accretion in low
455: mass systems due to non gravitational effects). Since
456: $M/T^{3/2}$ varies as $(M/\YX^{3/5})^{5/2} f_{\rm g}^{3/2}$, one
457: then expects a steepening of the \MT\ relation at low mass, with a
458: standard slope at high mass.
459:
460: A deeper understanding of the mass scaling relations will come from
461: the X-ray study of larger unbiased samples of local clusters,
462: such as REXCESS \citep{boh07}, combined with lensing data.
463: This is necessary
464: to ascertain the dependence of the \MY\ relation on dynamical
465: state, and to calibrate its normalisation and slope. This step is essential because the use of $\YX$ as a mass proxy, as in the case of $\TX$, requires a detailed understanding of non-gravitational effects, in particular of the impact of cooling and feedback on the fraction of primordial gas that remains in the gravitationally bound hot phase. Precise measurements at $z=0$ are
466: needed to constrain models, on which one must rely for high z
467: studies.
468: Significant progress is also expected from forthcoming SZ data (e.g from the Planck Surveyor all sky survey),
469: especially if combined with \xmm\ or Chandra data, which will allow a
470: full study of the $M$--$Y_{\rm SZ}$ relation.
471:
472:
473: \begin{acknowledgements}
474: We thank A. Kravtsov and D. Nagai for useful comments on the manuscript, and the referee for a speedy and pertinent response.
475: \end{acknowledgements}
476:
477: \begin{thebibliography}{}
478:
479: \bibitem[{{Arnaud \etal}(2005)}]{app05}
480: Arnaud, M., Pointecouteau, E. \& Pratt, G.W. 2005, \aap, 441, 893
481:
482: \bibitem[{{Bertschinger}(1998)}]{bertschinger98}
483: {Bertschinger}, E. 1998, \araa, 36, 599
484:
485: \bibitem[{{B{\"o}hringer \etal}(2007)}]{boh07}
486: {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Schuecker}, P., {Pratt}, G.~W. \etal, 2007,
487: \aap, 469, 363
488:
489: \bibitem[{{Croston \etal}(2006)}]{cro06}
490: Croston, J.H., Arnaud, M., Pointecouteau, E. \& Pratt, G.W. 2006,
491: \aap, 459, 1007
492:
493: \bibitem[{{da Silva \etal}(2004)}]{das04}
494: da Silva, A.C., Kay, S.T., Liddle, A.R \& Thomas, P. 2004, \mnras,
495: 348, 1401
496:
497: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov \etal}(2006)}]{kra06}
498: Kravtsov, A.V., Vikhlinin, A. \& Nagai, D. 2006, \apj, 650, 128
499:
500: \bibitem[{{Maughan}(2007)}]{mau07}
501: Maughan, B.J. 2007, \apj, in press, astro-ph/0703504
502:
503: \bibitem[{{Motl \etal }(2005)}]{mot05}
504: Motl, P.M., Hallman, E.J., Burns, J.O. \& Norman, M.L. 2005, \apj,
505: 623, L63
506:
507: \bibitem[{{Nagai }(2006)}]{nag06}
508: Nagai, D. 2006, \apj, 650, 538
509:
510: \bibitem[{{Nagai \etal}(2007a)}]{nag07a}
511: Nagai, D., Vikhlinin, A. \& Kravtsov, A. 2007a, \apj,
512: 655, 98
513:
514: \bibitem[{{Nagai \etal}(2007b)}]{nag07b}
515: Nagai, D., Kravtsov, A. \& Vikhlinin, A. 2007b, \apj,
516: submitted, astro-ph/0703661
517:
518: \bibitem[{{Pointecouteau \etal}(2005)}]{pap05b}
519: Pointecouteau, E., Arnaud, M. \& Pratt, G.W. 2005, \aap, 435, 1
520:
521: \bibitem[{{Pratt \& Arnaud}(2002)}]{pa02}
522: Pratt, G.W. \& Arnaud, M. 2002, \aap, 394, 375
523:
524:
525: \bibitem[{{Pratt \etal}(2006)}]{pap06}
526: Pratt, G.W., Arnaud, M. \& Pointecouteau, E. 2006, \aap, 446, 429
527:
528: \bibitem[{{Poole \etal}(2007)}]{poo07}
529: Poole, G..P., Babul, A., McCarthy, I.G., Fardal, M.A., Bildfell, C.J., Quinn, T., Mahdavi, A., 2007, \mnras, submitted, astro-ph/0701586
530:
531: \bibitem[{{Press} {\etal}(1992)}]{numrec}
532: {Press}, W.H., {Teukolsky}, S.A., {Vetterling}, S.A. \& {Flannery}
533: B.P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, Second Edition, p.660
534:
535: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin \etal}(2005)}]{vik05}
536: Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., Murray, S, Jones, C., Forman,
537: W., \& Van Speybroeck, L. 2005, \apj, 628, 655
538:
539: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin \etal}(2006)}]{vik06}
540: Vikhlinin~A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., Jones, C.,
541: Markevitch, M., Murray, S. \& Van Speybroeck, L. 2006, \apj,
542: 640, 691
543:
544: \bibitem[Voit(2005)]{voi05}Voit, G.M.~2005, Rev. Mod. Phys., 77, 207
545:
546:
547:
548: \end{thebibliography}
549:
550: \end{document}
551:
552: