1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \input{defs.tex}
3: \input{journals}
4: \newcommand{\mode}{submit}
5:
6: \topmargin -0.5in
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title[$M_X/M_L$ relation]{Evidence for Non-Hydrostatic Gas from the Cluster X-ray to Lensing Mass Ratio}
11: \author[A. Mahdavi et al.]{A. Mahdavi$^1$, H. Hoekstra$^{1,2}$, A. Babul$^1$, J. P. Henry$^3$
12: \\
13: $^1$University of Victoria, Elliott Building, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2 Canada\\
14: $^2$Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow\\
15: $^3$Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822}
16: \maketitle
17:
18: \newcommand{\rata}{1.03 \pm 0.07}
19: \newcommand{\ratb}{0.90 \pm 0.09}
20: \newcommand{\ratc}{0.78 \pm 0.09}
21: \newcommand{\twrata}{1.06 \pm 0.07}
22: \newcommand{\twratb}{0.96 \pm 0.09}
23: \newcommand{\twratc}{0.85 \pm 0.10}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26:
27: Using a uniform analysis procedure, we measure spatially resolved weak
28: gravitational lensing and hydrostatic X-ray masses for a sample of 18
29: clusters of galaxies. We find a radial trend in the X-ray to lensing
30: mass ratio: at $r_{2500}$ we obtain a ratio $M_X/M_L = \rata$ which
31: decreases to $M_X/M_L = \ratc$ at $r_{500}$. This difference is
32: significant at $3\sigma$ once we account for correlations between the
33: measurements. We show that correcting the lensing mass for excess
34: correlated structure outside the virial radius slightly reduces, but
35: does not eliminate this trend. An X-ray mass underestimate, perhaps
36: due to nonthermal pressure support, can explain the residual
37: trend. The trend is not correlated with the presence or absence of a
38: cool core. We also examine the cluster gas fraction $f_\mr{gas}$ and
39: find no correlation with $M_L$, an important result for techniques
40: that aim to determine cosmological parameters using $f_\mr{gas}$.
41:
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \begin{keywords}
45: Gravitational lensing - X-rays: galaxies: clusters - dark matter
46: - galaxies: clusters: general
47: \end{keywords}
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: Rich clusters of galaxies host the most massive collapsed dark matter
52: halos. The X-ray emitting intracluster medium (ICM) bound to this halo
53: can be a useful tracer of the dark matter content of the
54: cluster. Under the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium the gradients
55: of the gas pressure $P$ and total gravitational potential $\Phi$ are
56: related by the simple differential equation
57: \begin{equation}
58: \nabla P = \rho_g \nabla \Phi
59: \end{equation}
60: where $\rho_g$ is the gas density. The hydrostatic method is in
61: principle powerful, because spatially resolved measurements of the gas
62: pressure can constrain the shape of the halo and hence yield useful
63: limits on fundamental dark matter properties and cosmology.
64:
65: In reality, we do not know the reliability of hydrostatic mass
66: estimates. Not only are merging clusters of galaxies in a
67: nonhydrostatic state, but the plasma in many apparently relaxed
68: systems may be affected by additional nonequilibrium processes, which
69: serve to boost $P$ and hence cause an underestimate of the cluster
70: mass from X-ray observations of the thermal bremsstrahlung emission.
71: In early hydrodynamic N-body simulations, \cite{Evrard90} found the
72: first signs of this underestimate, attributing it to incomplete
73: thermalization of the ICM. More recent N-body work has shown that
74: energy input from active galactic nuclei, pressure support from
75: turbulence and residual bulk motions, and variations in the merging
76: history may contribute substantially to this systematic bias
77: \citep{Dolag05,Faltenbacher05,Rasia06,Nagai07,Ameglio07}. Importantly,
78: constraints on dark energy from the cluster mass function are highly
79: sensitive to intrinsic scatter and systematic error in the
80: mass-observable relation \citep{Lima05}; the scatter also
81: significantly influences the normalization of the primordial
82: fluctuation spectrum $\sigma_8$ \citep{Balogh06}.
83:
84: Comparison with independent methods can provide a powerful means of
85: checking the reliability of X-ray mass measurements. Here we focus on
86: comparison of hydrostatic X-ray masses with those derived from weak
87: gravitational lensing. Unlike the hydrostatic method, gravitational
88: lensing does not require assumptions regarding the dynamical state of
89: the cluster. Early work comparing lensing and X-ray masses showed
90: that while strong gravitational lensing masses in merging clusters
91: sometimes exceeded X-ray masses by factors of $\approx 1.5-2$, weak
92: lensing masses measured at larger radii are consistent with the X-ray
93: data to within $\approx 20\%$
94: \citep{MiraldaEscude95,Squires96b,Allen96,Squires97,Allen98b}. This
95: picture is supported by subsequent ground- and space-based
96: observations of relaxed and merging clusters, albeit with fairly large
97: uncertainties
98: \citep{Allen02,Smith02,Hoekstra02,Ettori03,Cypriano04,Hicks06}.
99:
100: Only recently has data with the accuracy required to carry out a
101: systematic comparison of larger samples of hydrostatic and lensing
102: masses become available. Recent studies, however, are apparently in
103: conflict. For a sample of 30 clusters, \cite{Pedersen07} report a 30\%
104: excess in the normalization of lensing mass-temperature (M-T) relative
105: to the X-ray value within\footnote{For a cluster at redshift $z$, the
106: overdensity radius $r_\Delta$ is the radius within which the mean
107: matter density is $\Delta$ times the critical density of the
108: universe at redshift $z$. $M_\Delta$ is the mass within that
109: radius.} $r_{500}$. However, \cite{Hoekstra07} using 20 clusters
110: which also form the basis of this paper, report no significant excess
111: in the M-T normalization at $r_{2500}$.
112:
113: To study the difference in X-ray and lensing masses in greater detail,
114: we present a sample of 18 clusters---the largest yet with accurate
115: spatially resolved hydrostatic as well as weak lensing masses. In our
116: study, we take particular care to account for possible systematic
117: effects in the lensing and X-ray measurement process. Our data support
118: a picture in which the lensing excess is negligible at $r_{2500}$, but
119: increases at at larger radii. In Section \ref{sec:data} we discuss our
120: data reduction procedure; in Section \ref{sec:trend} we discuss the
121: trend in the $M_X - M_L$ relation; in Section \ref{sec:bias} we
122: account for potential biases; in Section \ref{sec:fgas} we consider
123: trends in the gas fraction; and in Section \ref{sec:conclusion} we
124: conclude. We assume $H_0=70$ km s\m\ Mpc\m, $\Omega_M = 0.3$, and
125: $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$.
126:
127:
128: \section{Data}
129: \label{sec:data}
130:
131:
132:
133: \subsection{Lensing data}
134:
135: The clusters in our sample were drawn from \cite{Hoekstra07}, which
136: contains a weak lensing analysis of CFH12k data from the
137: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. We refer interested readers to
138: \cite{Hoekstra07} for details of the data reduction and weak lensing
139: analysis procedure. The shear measurements discussed in this paper are
140: identical to \cite{Hoekstra07}, but here we present updated values for
141: the masses. The changes are due purely to the fact that
142: \cite{Hoekstra07} used the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) redshift
143: distribution \citep{FernandezSoto99}, which is based on data taken
144: within a much smaller field than the \cite{Ilbert06} study, based on
145: the CFHT Legacy Survey data. The conversion of the lensing signal into
146: a physical mass estimate depends directly on the source redshift
147: distribution. This dependence is quantified by the parameter
148: $\beta_\mr{lens}=\max[0,D_{ls} /D_s]$, where $D_{ls}$ and $D_s$ are
149: the angular diameter distances between the lens and the source, and
150: the observer and the source. We note that $\beta_\mr{lens}$ is an
151: important parameter because it is degenerate with the projected
152: cluster mass.
153:
154: We calculate the new $\beta_\mr{lens}$ values using the photometric
155: redshift distributions derived by \cite{Ilbert06}. The resulting
156: values are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:lensing}. The mean redshift
157: derived by \cite{Ilbert06} is higher \citep[also
158: see][]{Benjamin07} resulting in a $\sim 10\%$ reduction in the
159: inferred cluster mass compared to those in \cite{Hoekstra07}. As the
160: \cite{Ilbert06} results are based on four independent pointings, we
161: can also examine the field-to-field variation in $\beta_\mr{lens}$.
162: We find this to be a negligible effect, with a dispersion of only a
163: $1-2$ percent. Although systematic biases may still be present, the
164: results from \cite{Ilbert06} provide a significant improvement over
165: previous studies. Consequently, we expect that the current uncertainty
166: in the source redshift distribution affects our mass estimates only at
167: the few percent level.
168:
169: We base our lensing masses on the aperture mass estimates \citep[for details
170: see the discussion in \S3.5 in][]{Hoekstra07}. This approach has
171: the advantage that it is practically model independent. Additionally,
172: as the mass estimate relies only on shear measurements at large radii,
173: contamination by cluster members is minimal. \cite{Hoekstra07} removed
174: galaxies that lie on the cluster red-sequence and boosted the signal
175: based on excess number counts of galaxies. As an extreme scenario we
176: omitted those corrections and found that the lensing masses change by
177: only a few percent at most. Hence our masses are robust against
178: contamination by cluster members at the percent level.
179:
180: The weak lensing signal, however, only provides a direct estimate of
181: the {\it projected} mass. To calculate 3D masses (such as $M_{2500}$,
182: $M_{1000}$, and $M_{500}$) from the model-independent 2D aperture
183: masses we project and renormalize a density profile of the form
184: $\rho_\mr{tot}(r) \propto r^{-1} (r_{200}+c r)^{-2}$ \citep{NFW}. The
185: relationship between the concentration $c$ and the virial mass is
186: fixed at $c \propto M_\mr{200}^{-0.14}/(1+z)$ from numerical
187: simulations \citep{Bullock01}. Hence, the deprojection itself, though
188: well motivated based on numerical simulations, is model dependent.
189:
190:
191:
192: \begin{figure}
193: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{xraycomp.eps}
194: \caption{Comparison of JACO measurements of $M_{2500}$ with other
195: recent Chandra measurement for a subset of 9 clusters. All masses
196: are in units of $10^{14} M_\odot$. The Abell 383, 963, and 2390
197: masses (filled points) are from \protect\cite{Allen07}; the
198: remainder (unfilled points) are from \protect\cite{LaRoque06}. The
199: JACO masses shown are estimated using X-ray data only, rather than
200: calculated using the lensing values of $r_{2500}$ as in Table
201: \protect\ref{tbl:xray}.}
202: \label{fig:xraycomp}
203: \end{figure}
204:
205:
206: \begin{table*}
207: \begin{minipage}{126mm}
208: \caption{Weak-Lensing Measurements}
209: \label{tbl:lensing}
210: \begin{tabular}{lrrcrcrcr}
211: \hline
212: Cluster & $z$ & $\beta_\mr{lens}$ & $M_{2500}$ & $r_{2500}$ & $M_{1000}$ & $r_{1000}$ & $M_{500}$ & $r_{500}$ \\
213: \hline
214: Abell 68 & 0.255& 0.504 & $2.56\pm0.60$ & 0.52 & $4.51\pm1.30$ & 0.85 & $ 6.64\pm2.44$ & 1.22\\
215: Abell 209 & 0.206& 0.627 & $1.89\pm0.67$ & 0.48 & $4.40\pm1.61$ & 0.86 & $7.14\pm1.93$ & 1.27\\
216: Abell 267 & 0.230& 0.522 & $2.14\pm0.39$ & 0.49 & $3.70\pm1.10$ & 0.80 & $6.29\pm1.93$ & 1.21\\
217: Abell 370 & 0.375& 0.412 & $3.86\pm0.66$ & 0.57 & $7.79\pm1.86$ & 0.97 & $13.27\pm3.40$ & 1.47\\
218: Abell 383 & 0.187& 0.641 & $0.76\pm0.33$ & 0.35 & $2.29\pm1.04$ & 0.69 & $4.49\pm1.96$ & 1.09\\
219: Abell 963 & 0.206& 0.592 & $1.39\pm0.41$ & 0.43 & $2.50\pm0.90$ & 0.71 & $4.16\pm1.54$ & 1.06\\
220: Abell 1689 & 0.183& 0.639 & $4.74\pm0.77$ & 0.65 & $9.11\pm1.31$ & 1.10 & $14.29\pm2.40$ & 1.61\\
221: Abell 1763 & 0.223& 0.574 & $2.93\pm0.59$ & 0.55 & $5.51\pm1.43$ & 0.92 & $10.47\pm2.84$ & 1.43\\
222: Abell 2218 & 0.176& 0.644 & $2.66\pm0.64$ & 0.54 & $4.59\pm1.10$ & 0.88 & $6.10\pm1.64$ & 1.22\\
223: Abell 2219 & 0.226& 0.562 & $3.10\pm0.60$ & 0.56 & $6.81\pm1.79$ & 0.98 & $10.27\pm2.31$ & 1.42\\
224: Abell 2390 & 0.228& 0.586 & $3.04\pm0.59$ & 0.55 & $6.29\pm1.43$ & 0.96 & $8.79\pm1.99$ & 1.35\\
225: CL 0024.0+1652 & 0.390& 0.379 & $3.16\pm0.63$ & 0.53 & $5.90\pm1.66$ & 0.88 & $9.87\pm3.36$ & 1.32\\
226: MS 0015.9+1609 & 0.547& 0.267 & $3.74\pm0.87$ & 0.53 & $11.30\pm3.07$ & 1.03 & $19.51\pm5.77$ & 1.56\\
227: MS 0906.5+1110 & 0.170& 0.674 & $1.99\pm0.57$ & 0.49 & $4.87\pm1.54$ & 0.90 & $9.46\pm2.06$ & 1.41\\
228: MS 1358.1+6245 & 0.329& 0.447 & $2.23\pm0.51$ & 0.48 & $4.11\pm1.33$ & 0.80 & $6.64\pm2.66$ & 1.18\\
229: MS 1455.0+2232 & 0.257& 0.564 & $1.51\pm0.36$ & 0.43 & $3.11\pm1.00$ & 0.75 & $4.83\pm1.70$ & 1.09\\
230: MS 1512.4+3647 & 0.373& 0.434 & $0.74\pm0.36$ & 0.33 & $1.43\pm0.74$ & 0.55 & $2.94\pm2.11$ & 0.89\\
231: MS 1621.5+2640 & 0.428& 0.368 & $2.03\pm0.87$ & 0.45 & $5.40\pm1.80$ & 0.84 & $7.64\pm2.74$ & 1.19\\
232: \hline
233: \end{tabular}
234:
235: \medskip
236: All masses are in units of $10^{14} M_\odot$; all radii are in units of Mpc; $z$ is the redshift
237: of the clusters, and $\beta_\mr{lens}$ is a measure of the source redshift distribution.
238: \end{minipage}
239: \end{table*}
240:
241: \subsection{X-ray data}
242:
243: Data for 18 of the 20 clusters in \cite{Hoekstra07} are available in
244: the Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO) public archive. We analyze and fit
245: these data using the Joint Analysis of Cluster Observations (JACO)
246: package \citep{Mahdavi07}. The reduction procedure follows the
247: detailed description in \cite{Mahdavi07}, except as discussed
248: below. We briefly summarize the procedure here. We reprocess the raw
249: CXO data with CALDB 3.3, including the charge transfer inefficiency
250: correction for ACIS-I data. To remove the particle background, we
251: subtract the appropriate blank-sky observation renormalized to match
252: 9-12 keV count rates in the most source-free region of the data. We
253: examine the residual spectra in 9-12 keV energy range for each cluster
254: to ensure that the particle background is cleanly subtracted.
255:
256: We then extract spectra in circular annuli centered on the X-ray
257: surface brightness peak, masking any detected non-cluster sources. The
258: residual diffuse astrophysical background is fit as an additive
259: component as described in the analysis below.
260:
261: The spectra are fit with a projected 3D cluster model. We begin with
262: a mass profile consisting of an NFW dark matter distribution and a gas
263: density of the form
264: \begin{equation}
265: \rho_g = \sum_{i=1}^{N_\beta} \rho_i (1+r^2/r_{x,i}^2)^{-3
266: \beta_{i}/2},
267: \end{equation}
268: where $r_{x,i}$ are the core radii and $\beta_i$ are the slopes of the
269: $N_\beta$ independent``$\beta$-model gas distributions.
270: We assume that the gas metallicity is of the form
271: \begin{equation}
272: Z(r) = Z_0 (1+r^2/r_z^2)^{-3 \beta_Z/2}.
273: \end{equation}
274: where $Z_0$ is the central metallicity, and $r_Z$ and $\beta_Z$
275: describe the metallicity profile.
276:
277: The 3D temperature profile is calculated self-consistently using the
278: equation of hydrostatic equilibrium:
279: \begin{equation}
280: T(r) = \frac{1}{\rho_g} \left( \rho_{100} T_{100} + \frac{\mu m_p}{k} \int_{r}^{r_{100}}
281: \frac{G M \rho_g}{r^{\prime 2}} \, dr^\prime \right)
282: \label{eq:hydrosol}
283: \end{equation}
284: where $M$ is the total mass profile, $\mu$ is the mean molecular
285: weight, $m_p$ is the proton mass, $r_{100}$ is the radius at which the
286: gas distribution is truncated, $\rho_{100}$ is the gas density at the
287: truncation radius, and $T_{100}$ is the temperature at that radius. We
288: project the resulting 3D emissivity along the line of sight, absorb it
289: by the galactic hydrogen column as fixed by \cite{Dickey90}, convolve
290: the result by the instrumental response, and compare with the measured
291: spectra using a $\chi^2$ statistic. A standard MEKAL plasma with
292: variable abundance serves as the spectral model.
293:
294: The fitting procedure begins with a single $\beta$ model fit
295: ($N_\beta=1$); if this yields a poor fit, one or two $\beta$ model
296: components are added until the fit becomes acceptable. In two cases
297: (Abell 1689 and Abell 2390) we could only obtain a good fit by also
298: excising the central 70 kpc, as \cite{Vikhlinin06} suggest. Other
299: simultaneously fit parameters are the gas metallicity profile (3 free
300: parameters), the dark matter profile (2 free parameters), the
301: normalizations of the diffuse astrophysical backgrounds (3 free
302: parameters), and the temperature at the truncation radius $T_{100}$.
303: The astrophysical backgrounds are modeled as a power law with fixed
304: slope 1.4 and free normalization (to model unresolved background AGN),
305: and a unredshifted thermal plasma with free normalization and $T <
306: 0.5$ keV (to model the local soft X-ray background).
307:
308: Accounting for the covariance of all measurable parameters, proper
309: treatment of the truncation of the gas distribution, simultaneous
310: fitting of the background, and the absence of subjectively weighted 2D
311: temperatures \citep{Vikhlinin06b} are unique features of the JACO code
312: and are described in detail in \cite{Mahdavi07}.
313:
314: The measured masses are robust to variations of the gas truncation
315: radius; varying this radius between $r_{200}$ and $r_{50}$ yields a
316: $3\%$ random variation in the measured masses. $T_{100}$ was often
317: poorly constrained (only lower limits were possible with lower quality
318: data). The JACO error analysis routines include this uncertainty in
319: the final masses.
320:
321: The resulting total gravitating masses are listed in Table
322: \ref{tbl:xray}. In Figure \ref{fig:xraycomp} we compare these masses
323: with the values reported for the same Chandra observations in
324: \cite{LaRoque06} and \cite{Allen07}. We find that our masses on the
325: average in excellent agreement with the two samples, with the
326: \cite{LaRoque06} values being somewhat lower, and the \cite{Allen07}
327: values somewhat higher, than ours.
328:
329: \begin{table*}
330: \begin{minipage}{166mm}
331: \caption{X-ray Measurements}
332: \label{tbl:xray}
333: \begin{tabular}{lrrcccccc}
334: \hline
335: Cluster & $N_\beta$ & $\chi^2/\nu$ & $M_{2500}$ & $M_{1000}$ & $M_{500}$ & $f_{2500}$ & $r_\mr{cool}$ & Extrapolated\\
336: \hline
337: Abell 68 & 1 & 98/98 & $3.18 \pm 1.96$ & $ 4.98 \pm 4.10$ &$ 6.63 \pm 6.15$ & $0.09 \pm 0.06$ & $\ldots$ & 1000,500\\
338: Abell 209 & 1 & 184/179 & $2.00 \pm 0.45$ & $ 3.97 \pm 1.77$ &$ 5.91 \pm 2.98$ & $0.12 \pm 0.03$ & $\ldots$ & 1000,500\\
339: Abell 267 & 1 & 317/303 & $2.27 \pm 0.31$ & $ 4.08 \pm 0.98$ &$ 6.26 \pm 2.05$ & $0.10 \pm 0.01$ & $0.030 \pm 0.030$ & 500\\
340: Abell 370 & 1 & 915/804 & $2.99 \pm 0.24$ & $ 5.81 \pm 1.47$ &$ 9.22 \pm 1.28$ & $0.12 \pm 0.01$ & $\ldots$ & 500\\
341: Abell 383 & 3 & 402/366 & $1.22 \pm 0.06$ & $ 3.04 \pm 0.65$ &$ 5.03 \pm 1.34$ & $0.10 \pm 0.01$ & $0.114 \pm 0.014$ & 500\\
342: Abell 963 & 3 & 1129/1071& $1.92 \pm 0.21$ & $ 3.24 \pm 0.52$ &$ 4.20 \pm 1.64$ & $0.11 \pm 0.01$ & $0.079 \pm 0.008$ & 1000,500\\
343: Abell 1689 & 3 & 1065/917 & $4.47 \pm 0.89$ & $ 7.40 \pm 2.32$ &$ 9.86 \pm 3.23$ & $0.12 \pm 0.02$ & $0.082 \pm 0.015$ & 500\\
344: Abell 1763 & 1 & 440/419 & $2.56 \pm 0.17$ & $ 4.78 \pm 0.50$ &$ 7.68 \pm 1.11$ & $0.12 \pm 0.01$ & $\ldots$ & 500\\
345: Abell 2218 & 2 & 790/745 & $2.43 \pm 0.49$ & $ 2.89 \pm 0.89$ &$ 5.99 \pm 2.33$ & $0.11 \pm 0.02$ & $\ldots$ & 1000,500\\
346: Abell 2219 & 1 & 2272/2249& $4.62 \pm 0.47$ & $10.88 \pm 3.18$ &$ 17.32 \pm 6.50$ & $0.11 \pm 0.01$ & $\ldots$ & 1000,500\\
347: Abell 2390 & 3 & 3663/3341& $3.75 \pm 0.31$ & $ 7.53 \pm 1.09$ &$ 10.87 \pm 2.09$ & $0.14 \pm 0.01$ & $0.099 \pm 0.009$ & 1000,500\\
348: CL 0024.0+1652 & 1 & 165/127 & $1.86 \pm 0.34$ & $ 4.87 \pm 0.74$ &$ 9.92 \pm 9.90$ & $0.09 \pm 0.02$ & $0.073 \pm 0.023$ & 1000,500\\
349: MS 0015.9+1609 & 1 & 632/580 & $2.67 \pm 0.19$ & $ 6.52 \pm 1.09$ &$ 10.28 \pm 2.42$ & $0.21 \pm 0.01$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$\\
350: MS 0906.5+1110 & 2 & 587/549 & $1.59 \pm 0.19$ & $ 2.49 \pm 0.45$ &$ 3.23 \pm 0.73$ & $0.11 \pm 0.01$ & $0.030 \pm 0.030$ & 500\\
351: MS 1358.1+6245 & 2 & 752/675 & $2.83 \pm 0.78$ & $ 6.31 \pm 2.81$ &$ 11.08 \pm 6.33$ & $0.09 \pm 0.02$ & $0.077 \pm 0.012$ & 500\\
352: MS 1455.0+2232 & 3 & 1869/1685& $1.40 \pm 0.04$ & $ 2.25 \pm 0.10$ &$ 2.96 \pm 0.16$ & $0.15 \pm 0.01$ & $0.123 \pm 0.010$ & $\ldots$\\
353: MS 1512.4+3647 & 1 & 254/243 & $0.69 \pm 0.13$ & $ 1.15 \pm 0.28$ &$ 1.74 \pm 0.44$ & $0.12 \pm 0.02$ & $0.095 \pm 0.028$ & $\ldots$\\
354: MS 1621.5+2640 & 1 & 237/255 & $1.54 \pm 0.21$ & $ 3.61 \pm 0.54$ &$ 5.43 \pm 1.22$ & $0.13 \pm 0.02$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$\\
355: \hline
356: \end{tabular}
357:
358: \medskip
359: All masses at density contrast $\Delta$ are in units of $10^{14}
360: M_\odot$ and measured within the lensing radius $r_\Delta$ as listed
361: in Table \protect\ref{tbl:lensing}. $N_\beta$ is the number of
362: $\beta$-models required to achieve a good fit; $\chi^2/\nu$ is the
363: ratio of the $\chi^2$ statistic to the number of degrees of freedom
364: $\nu$ for the simultaneous fit to all spectra in all annuli; all
365: masses are in units of $10^{14} M_\odot$. The cumulative gas fraction
366: $f_{2500}$ is the ratio of the gas mass to the total mass at
367: $r_{2500}$; $r_\mr{cool}$ is the radius (in units of Mpc) within which
368: the isobaric cooling time is less than the age of the universe at the
369: redshift of the cluster. Also shown are the density contrasts at which
370: the masses had to be extrapolated beyond the available field-of-view.
371: \end{minipage}
372: \end{table*}
373:
374: \begin{figure}
375: \begin{tabular}{c}
376: \includegraphics[width=76mm]{m2500.eps} \\
377: \includegraphics[width=76mm]{m1000.eps} \\
378: \includegraphics[width=76mm]{m500.eps}
379: \end{tabular}
380: \caption{Ratio of the hydrostatic X-ray mass to the gravitational
381: lensing mass, both measured within the lensing overdensity radii
382: $r_{2500}$, $r_{1000}$, and $r_{500}$. All masses are in units of
383: $10^{14} M_\odot$. There is significant trend of decreasing $M_X/M_L$ with
384: increasing radius. Filled circles and unfilled squares show systems
385: with and without cool cores, respectively (we define non-cool core clusters
386: as those where the cooling time is nowhere smaller than the age of the universe
387: at the redshift of the cluster).}
388: \label{fig:results}
389: \end{figure}
390:
391: \section{The $M_X/M_L$ Ratio}
392: \label{sec:trend}
393:
394: \subsection{A Radial Trend}
395: \label{sec:fit}
396:
397: We examine the relationship between the X-ray and lensing masses at
398: each density contrast using a simple constant of proportionality:
399: \begin{equation}
400: M_{\Delta,X} = a_\Delta M_{\Delta,L}
401: \end{equation}
402: Both $M_X$ and $M_L$ are measured within the weak-lensing derived
403: value of $r_\Delta$. To estimate $a_\Delta$ properly, we minimize a
404: modified $\chi^2$ statistic appropriately weighted for errors in both
405: coordinates \citep{Press92}:
406: \begin{equation}
407: \chi^2 = \sum \frac{(M_{\Delta,X} - a_\Delta M_{\Delta,L})^2}
408: {\sigma_{\Delta,X}^2 + a_\Delta^2 \sigma_{\Delta,L}^2}
409: \end{equation}
410: This formulation implies no intrinsic scatter in the data, an
411: assumption we validate below. We derive errors in $a_\Delta$ by
412: locating the values at which $\chi^2-\chi^2_\mr{min}=1$, which
413: correspond to the 68\% confidence interval.
414:
415: The results appear in Figure \ref{fig:results}. The simple one-parameter
416: fit provides a good description of the relationship between
417: $M_X$ and $M_L$ at all radii, and a clear trend is always
418: present. The goodness-of-fit figure $\chi^2/\nu = $ 16/17,
419: 11/17, and 14/17 for masses measured within $r_{2500}$, $r_{1000}$,
420: and $r_{500}$, respectively. Therefore, there is no evidence of
421: intrinsic scatter in the $M_X - M_L$ relation. All scatter can be
422: explained by the statistical error.
423:
424: We find $a_{2500} = \rata$, $a_{1000} = \ratb$, and $a_{500} = \ratc$.
425: The formal significance of the result is higher than it seems from the
426: quoted errors, because the three slopes $a_\Delta$ are correlated and
427: therefore cannot be compared directly as a function of $\Delta$. This
428: is because the masses at each radius are correlated with the masses at
429: other radii. Wherever the X-ray masses are extrapolated (as shown in
430: Table \ref{tbl:xray}), they are highly correlated with $M_{2500,X}$;
431: the lensing masses at all radii are highly correlated, because the
432: aperture masses are derived by integrating over the tangential shear
433: from the radius of interest out to large radius.
434:
435: To properly evaluate the significance of the difference between
436: $a_{2500}$ and $a_{500}$, we employ a bootstrap procedure with,
437: calculating $a_{2500}-a_{500}$ many times. The resulting distribution
438: appears in Figure \ref{fig:bootstrap}. We find that $a_{2500}-a_{500}$
439: follows a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 0.24 and a standard
440: deviation of 0.08. Thus, the difference in the $M_X/M_L$ ratios at
441: $r_{2500}$ and $r_{500}$ is significant at the 3$\sigma$ level. Using
442: a Monte Carlo simulation of the bootstrap processes, we confirm that
443: the error obtained in this way is unbiased and the ``error on the
444: error'' is close to the expected value, $0.07/\sqrt{36} \approx 0.01$,
445: or 16\%.
446:
447: \subsection{Interpretation}
448:
449: The variation of this constant of proportionality $a_\Delta$ as a
450: function of radius can yield useful constraints on cluster
451: physics. This statistically significant gradient in $M_X/M_L$ may be
452: explained through an X-ray mass underestimate. For example, the
453: cosmological N-body simulations discussed by \cite{Nagai07} predict a
454: low $M_X/M_\mr{true}$ on account of nonthermal pressure support in the
455: ICM: effects such as residual bulk motions cause hydrostatic mass
456: estimates to be biased low. Earlier studies based on simulations
457: \citep[e.g.][]{Evrard90,Faltenbacher05,Rasia06,Hallman06} support this
458: conclusion. \cite{Nagai07} find that, on the average, clusters at
459: $z=0$ exhibit little significant bias within $r_{2500}$ ($-0.12 \pm
460: 0.16$). However, within $r_{500}$, the fractional bias is more
461: significant ($-0.16 \pm 0.10$). Assuming that weak gravitational
462: lensing mass has been corrected for projection effects (see below),
463: the direction and magnitude of the effect predicted by \cite{Nagai07}
464: at $r_{500}$ would seem to match our observed trend (see Figure
465: \ref{fig:twohalo}).
466:
467: An independent check on this result is a comparison with previously
468: reported normalization of the $M_L - T$ relation. At $r_{2500}$,
469: \cite{Hoekstra07} finds consistency between the normalizations of the
470: $M_L - T$ from CFHT data and the $M_X - T$ relation from
471: \cite{Vikhlinin06}. On the other hand, at $r_{500}$ \cite{Pedersen07}
472: finds the normalization to be high by $\approx 30\%$. These results
473: are consistent with the trend we detect here.
474:
475: If, as we suggest, incomplete thermalization of ICM is responsible for
476: the X-ray mass underestimate, we should expect clusters with the most
477: substructure to exhibit the greatest deviations from $M_X = M_L$
478: \citep[e.g. Abell 781,][]{Sehgal07}. Recent theoretical work has
479: shown that it may be possible to correct for the X-ray mass
480: underestimate in this way \citep{Jeltema07}. We look for such a trend
481: in Figure \ref{fig:results} by dividing the clusters into cool core
482: and non-cool core subsamples, under the hypothesis that clusters with
483: cool cores are less likely to have experienced recent mergers. We find
484: that there is no statistically significant difference in the $M_X -
485: M_L$ relation for cool core and non-cool core clusters. This agrees
486: with N-body simulations showing that the existence of a cool core is
487: not a reliable predictor of the equilibrium state of a cluster of
488: galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{Poole06,Poole07,Burns07}. More refined estimates of the level
489: of substructure in each cluster are needed to evaluate the possibility
490: of correcting for the X-ray underestimate. We will explore this avenue
491: in a future paper.
492:
493:
494: \begin{figure}
495: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{covar.eps}
496: \caption{The histogram shows the probability distribution of the
497: difference between $M_x/M_L$ measured at $r_{2500}$ and $M_x/M_L$
498: measured at $r_{500}$. The difference is positive at $3\sigma$
499: significance. For comparison, we plot a normal distribution
500: with $\mu=0.24$, $\sigma=0.08$.}
501: \label{fig:bootstrap}
502: \end{figure}
503:
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{twohalo.eps}
507: \caption{The $M_X/M_L$ ratio as a function of overdensity $\Delta.$
508: The unfilled squares show the data
509: before correction for excess structure along the line of
510: sight as described by \protect\cite{Johnston07}; the filled
511: circles show the data after correction for the effect.
512: The trend is consistent with the X-ray mass underestimate
513: predicted by N-body work \protect\citep[shaded region, ][]{Nagai07}.}
514: \label{fig:twohalo}
515: \end{figure}
516:
517: \section{Potential Biases}
518: \label{sec:bias}
519:
520: As discussed above, we interpret the change in $M_X/M_L$ with
521: overdensity $\Delta$ as evidence of a deviation from hydrostatic
522: equilibrium. However, an obvious concern is whether the result can be
523: explained by biases in our measurements. After all, the geometries of
524: real clusters are more complicated than assumed here (although the
525: ensemble averaged system should be close to spherical). In this
526: section we focus on a number of potential effects that could lead to a
527: radial dependence. Note that other effects can change $M_X/M_L$, but do
528: so independent of scale; for instance a change in the mean source
529: redshift simply changes all $M_\Delta$'s by the same factor.
530:
531: \subsection{Elongation Bias}
532:
533: An explanation of our results could be that we are introducing a
534: systematic bias through spherical modeling of what we know ought to be
535: triaxial systems. \cite{Piffaretti03} consider this question in
536: detail. They find that for a broad distribution of elongations and
537: inclinations, the differences between triaxial and spherical X-ray
538: mass estimates are negligible, of order 3\%. This fraction is much
539: smaller than the effect we observe. For clusters elongated nearly
540: exactly along the line of sight, \cite{Piffaretti03} do find that
541: assuming spherical symmetry causes the projected X-ray mass to be
542: underestimated by up to 30\% at $r_{500}$. It is conceivable that
543: through X-ray selection, a number of clusters in our samples might be
544: preferentially elongated close to the line of sight. However, even if
545: present, such elongations cannot reproduce the trend we observe. As
546: \cite{Piffaretti03} show, geometries that yield a 30\% projected mass
547: deficit at $r_{500}$ ought to show a similar deficit at $r_{2500}$,
548: which we do not observe. Thus while the overall normalization of the
549: trend in Figure \ref{fig:twohalo} might be affected by preferential
550: selection of elongated objects, the trend itself cannot be.
551:
552:
553:
554: \subsection{Extrapolation Bias}
555:
556: We also investigate whether the fact that most $M_{500,X}$ are
557: extrapolated could affect the results. The four clusters for which no
558: X-ray mass extrapolations are necessary are MS 0016, MS 1455, MS 1512,
559: and MS 1621. For these clusters alone, we find $a_{2500} = 0.83 \pm
560: 0.13$, and $a_{500} = 0.61 \pm 0.13$. The difference in these ratios
561: is similar to that of the full sample. Thus there is no indication
562: that the substantial difference between $a_{2500}$ and $a_{500}$ is
563: caused by the extrapolation of the X-ray masses. For the extrapolated
564: sample only, we obtain $a_{2500} = 1.07 \pm 0.08$ and $a_{500} = 0.84
565: \pm 0.11$. Thus the overall ratios for the extrapolated and
566: unextrapolated subsamples do not differ significantly (the subsamples
567: are uncorrelated, and thus at fixed $\Delta$ we can fairly compare the
568: nominal errors in $a_\Delta$ for the extrapolated and unextrapolated
569: subsamples).
570:
571: \subsection{Dependence on the Mass-Concentration Relation}
572:
573: We check whether our use of the \cite{Bullock01} mass-concentration
574: relation to deproject the weak lensing masses could cause the observed
575: trend. We vary the normalization and redshift dependence of the
576: mass-concentration relation. The corresponding mean concentration
577: varies by $\sim 30\%$ (which we note is a rather extreme change),
578: which leads to a systematic variation in the $M_{2500,L}/M_{500,L}$
579: ratio less than 5\%. More recent N-body work shows that the slope of
580: the mass-concentration relation may be somewhat shallower than the
581: \cite{Bullock01} value \citep[e.g.][]{Neto07}. However, because our
582: sample spans only an order of magnitude in mass, the effect of
583: changing the slope to the \cite{Neto07} value (-0.1) is negligible. We
584: therefore conclude that the use of an incorrect NFW concentration
585: cannot reproduce a result of the strength we observe.
586:
587: \subsection{Two-Halo Term Correction}
588:
589: Finally, we consider the possibility that deprojections of weak
590: lensing mass measurements \emph{in general} are biased. When
591: considering the accuracy of weak lensing masses at better than the
592: 20\% level, an important effect is the contribution of nearby large
593: scale structure to the weak lensing mass\footnote{ As opposed to
594: distant large scale structure which is a source of random noise and
595: not a bias \citep{Hoekstra01}.}. The recent detection of a
596: ``two-halo term''---excess mass due to halos and uncollapsed material
597: outside the virial radius---in Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
598: clusters \citep{Johnston07} provides direct observational evidence for
599: considering such a contribution.
600:
601:
602: The ``two-halo'' term could be an important effect in our
603: measurements. We have carried out the deprojection of the weak lensing
604: masses assuming that they are described by an NFW profile. However, in
605: \cite{Johnston07} SDSS data, shear measurements out to 30 Mpc indicate
606: that outside the virial radius, the matter density profile gradually
607: flattens. For the range of masses we consider, the \cite{Johnston07}
608: ``two-halo'' density profile is very approximately represented by the
609: form
610: \begin{equation}
611: \rho_{2H} \propto \frac{1+(0.25 r/r_{200})^2}{r (r_{200} + c r)^2}
612: \label{eq:2h}
613: \end{equation}
614: The above equation resembles an NFW profile within $r_{200}$, but
615: acquires a flatter $r^{-1}$ shape outside $4 r_{200}$. The profile
616: is truncated at 30 Mpc, near where the cluster-mass correlation
617: function becomes negligible \citep{Hayashi07}.
618:
619: If equation \ref{eq:2h} describes the correct density profile, and yet
620: we mistakenly use an NFW profile to deproject the lensing mass, then
621: our 3D mass estimates would exceed the true value. It is
622: straightforward to calculate exactly how much we would overestimate
623: the masses; we can project both the NFW and the ``two-halo'' profile
624: along the line of sight, and take the ratio of the estimated NFW and
625: ``two-halo'' 3D masses. This ratio then represents a correction that we
626: can apply to our data on a case-by-case basis. The results appear in
627: Figure \ref{fig:twohalo}. We find that while the two-halo term
628: correction does not remove the trend in $a_\Delta$, it does mitigate
629: it, particularly with regards to the large deficit seen at $r_{500}$.
630:
631: The $M_X/M_L$ trend remains because any extraneous mass along the line
632: of sight affects mass estimates at all radii, and the difference
633: between the excess at $r_{2500}$ and $r_{500}$ is not sufficient to
634: remove the radial trend in the uncorrected data. The corrected values
635: are $a_{2500} = \twrata$, $a_{1000} = \twratb$, and $a_{500} =
636: \twratc$. If we repeat the bootstrap procedure in Section
637: \ref{sec:fit}, we find that the difference between $a_{2500}$ and
638: $a_{500}$ is reduced to $0.20 \pm 0.08$, still significant at
639: $2.5\sigma$, i.e. better than the 98\% confidence level.
640:
641:
642: \section{Gas Fraction Trends}
643: \label{sec:fgas}
644:
645: We also consider the X-ray gas fraction $f_\mr{gas}$ as a function of
646: lensing mass. The gas fraction is an important quantity for cosmology
647: with clusters of galaxies. Under the assumption that $f_\mr{gas}$
648: approaches a universal value at large enough radii, it is possible to
649: derive constraints on the dark energy equation of state
650: \citep[see][and references therein]{Allen07}. The constraints depend
651: crucially on the assumption of universality; if $f_\mr{gas}$ were not
652: a universal number independent of mass and redshift, the dark energy
653: constraints would not be correct \citep[e.g.][]{Vikhlinin06}.
654:
655:
656: \begin{figure}
657: \begin{tabular}{c}
658: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{f2500-M2500L.eps}\\
659: \includegraphics[width=84mm]{fgasz.eps}
660: \end{tabular}
661: \caption{The X-ray gas fraction as a function of (\emph{top}) weak
662: lensing mass at $r_{2500}$ and (\emph{bottom}) redshift. There is no
663: evidence of a trend with mass or redshift. Filled circles and unfilled squares
664: show systems with and without cool cores, respectively. The solid
665: horizontal line shows the \protect\cite{Allen07} value.}
666: \label{fig:fgas}
667: \end{figure}
668:
669:
670: In Figure \ref{fig:fgas} we show the X-ray gas fraction as a function
671: of the lensing mass at $r_{2500}$. There is remarkably little scatter
672: in the relation. The clearest outlier in $f_\mr{gas}$ is MS 0015.9, a
673: previously known high $f_\mr{gas}$ system with triaxial structure
674: elongated along the line of sight \citep{Piffaretti03}. Otherwise, the
675: gas fractions are closely clustered around $0.1$. The mean value for
676: all systems is $\langle f_{2500}\rangle = 0.119 \pm 0.006$. This value
677: is in excellent agreement with the value found by \cite{Allen07} for
678: 42 clusters, $f_{2500} = 0.110 \pm 0.002$.
679:
680: Importantly, $f_{2500}$ is uncorrelated with both $M_{2500,L}$ and $z$
681: (Kendall's $\tau$ is 0.079 and 0.217, respectively). We therefore
682: cannot reject the hypothesis that $f_{2500}$ is independent of lensing
683: mass and redshift.
684:
685:
686: \section{Conclusion}
687: \label{sec:conclusion}
688:
689: We provide a comparison of hydrostatic X-ray and weak lensing masses
690: for a sample of 18 galaxy clusters. What makes our analysis unique is
691: the uniform analysis of Chandra X-ray data and CFHT weak lensing data.
692: This significantly improves the reliability of the comparison. At
693: $r_{2500}$ we find excellent agreement between lensing and X-ray
694: masses: we obtain a ratio $M_X/M_L = \rata$. Interestingly, we observe
695: a significant decrease in this ratio towards larger radii. At
696: $r_{500}$ the ratio is $M_X/M_L = \ratc$. Accounting for correlations
697: between the mass measurements, we find that the difference in the
698: ratios is $0.24\pm0.08$, significant at $3\sigma$. The trend of
699: $M_X/M_L$ with radius is consistent with previous measurements of the
700: $M_L - T$ relation, and is not caused by the assumption of spherical
701: symmetry, extrapolation beyond the Chandra field of view, or
702: uncertainty in the mass-concentration relation.
703:
704: The trend remains even after we correct for a systematic overestimate
705: of the weak lensing mass due to correlated large scale structure. We
706: show that the trend is consistent with simulations in which nonthermal
707: pressure support causes a systematic underestimate of the cluster mass.
708: Interestingly, the underestimate is not correlated with the presence
709: or absence of a cool core. These results are relevant for upcoming
710: surveys that aim to measure the cosmological parameters from large
711: cluster samples, especially for observations seeking measurements
712: closer to $r_{500}$.
713:
714: We also determine the X-ray gas fraction at $r_{2500}$; this quantity
715: has been used in several studies to measure $w$, the parameter of the
716: dark energy equation of state. We find that $f_{2500}$ is not
717: correlated with lensing mass or redshift.
718:
719: We thank Gus Evrard and Andrey Kravtsov for enlightening
720: discussions. AB and HH acknowledge support from NSERC. AB also
721: acknowledges support from the Leverhulme trust in the form of a
722: visiting professorship at Oxford and Durham Universities. HH also
723: acknowledges support from the Canadian Insititute for Advanced
724: Research and grants from NSERC, CFI and BCKDF. This work was partially
725: supported by NASA grant NNX07AE73G. Additional research funding was
726: provided by J. Criswick.
727:
728:
729: \ifthenelse{\equal{\mode}{submit}}{
730: \input{ms.bbl}
731: }{\bibliographystyle{myrefs/mn2e}
732: \bibliography{myrefs/myrefs} }
733: \end{document}
734: