1: 

2: 

3: %\documentclass[aps,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

4: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

5: \usepackage{epsfig, natbib, graphicx, color}

6: \usepackage{apjfonts}

7: 

8: \def\black{\color{black}}

9: \def\white{\color{white}}

10: 

11: \input epsf

12: \newcommand{\sfig}[2]{\centerline{ \epsfxsize = #2 \epsfbox{#1} }}

13: 

14: 

15: %--------------------------------------------------

16: %--------------------------------------------------

17: % Cosmology

18: 

19: \newcommand{\OL}{\Omega_\Lambda}

20: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega_m}

21: 

22: 

23: %--------------------------------------------------

24: %--------------------------------------------------

25: 

26: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\mbox{Mpc}}

27: \newcommand{\hMpc}{h^{-1}\mbox{Mpc}}

28: \newcommand{\msun}{M_\odot}

29: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}

30: 

31: \newcommand{\ncl}[0]{\bar{n}_{cl}}

32: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

33: \newcommand{\avgN}{\langle N|m \rangle}

34: \newcommand{\NNm}{\langle N(N-1)|m \rangle}

35: \newcommand{\NNNm}{\langle N(N-1)(N-2)|m \rangle}

36: \newcommand{\avgn}{\langle \bar n \rangle}

37: 

38: \newcommand{\avgNa}{\langle \bar N_a \rangle}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\eval}[0]{\mbox{\Large $\vert$\normalsize}}

41: 

42: \newcommand{\na}{\bar n_a}

43: \newcommand{\nap}{\bar n_{a'}}

44: \newcommand{\ba}{b_a}

45: \newcommand{\bap}{b_{a'}}

46: \newcommand{\psia}{\psi_a}

47: \newcommand{\psiap}{\psi_{a'}}

48: \newcommand{\tpsia}{\tilde\psi_a}

49: \newcommand{\avgpsia}{\langle \psia|m \rangle}

50: \newcommand{\avgpsiap}{\langle \psiap|m' \rangle}

51: \newcommand{\avgsbcga}{\langle\sigma_{BCG}^2|a \rangle}

52: 

53: \newcommand{\Na}{N_a}

54: \newcommand{\Nap}{N_{a'}}

55: 

56: 

57: \newcommand{\sbcg}{\sigma_{BCG}^2}

58: \newcommand{\zetabcg}{\zeta_{BCG}}

59: \newcommand{\zetasat}{\zeta_{sat}}

60: 

61: \newcommand{\cs}{c_{s^2}}

62: 

63: \newcommand{\poa}{p^0_a}

64: \newcommand{\pa}{p_a}

65: \newcommand{\pap}{p_{a'}}

66: \newcommand{\pgala}{p^{gal}_a}

67: 

68: \newcommand{\fa}{f_{a,a'}}

69: 

70: \newcommand{\nm}{ \frac{d\avgn}{dm}}

71: \newcommand{\nmp}{\frac{d\avgn}{dm'}}

72: \newcommand{\avgna}{\langle \na \rangle}

73: \newcommand{\avgnap}{\langle \nap \rangle}

74: 

75: \newcommand{\sa}{s_a^2}

76: \newcommand{\sap}{s_{a'}^2}

77: \newcommand{\avgsa}{\langle s_a^2 \rangle}

78: \newcommand{\avgsigma}{\langle \sigma^2|m\rangle}

79: 

80: \newcommand{\ssat}{\sigma_{sat}^2}

81: 

82: \newcommand{\fsat}{f_{sat}}

83: 

84: \newcommand{\Nt}{R_{T}}

85: \newcommand{\Ng}{N_{\rm gals}}

86: \newcommand{\N}{R_{obs}}

87: \newcommand{\Nmin}{N_{min}}

88: \newcommand{\mmin}{m_{min}}

89: \newcommand{\Nsat}{R_{sat}}

90: 

91: \newcommand{\om}{\Omega_m}

92: \newcommand{\ode}{\Omega_{DE}}

93: \newcommand{\ob}{\Omega_b}

94: 

95: \newcommand{\sA}{\sigma_{15}^2}

96: \newcommand{\NA}{R_{15}}

97: \newcommand{\aN}{{\alpha_N}}

98: \newcommand{\as}{{\alpha_\sigma}}

99: 

100: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

101: 

102: \newcommand{\Pchi}{P_{\chi^2}}

103: 

104: \newcommand{\pnn}{P(\N|\Nt)}

105: \newcommand{\ps}{P_s(\N|\Nt)}

106: \newcommand{\pn}{P_n(\N|\Nt)}

107: 

108: \newcommand{\corr}{C_{a,a'}}

109: \newcommand{\lk}{{\cal{L}}}

110: 

111: \newcommand{\zh}{z_h}

112: \newcommand{\zhp}{{z_h'}}

113: \newcommand{\zc}{z_c}

114: \newcommand{\bz}{b_z}

115: \newcommand{\zmin}{z_{min}}

116: \newcommand{\zmax}{z_{max}}

117: \newcommand{\rhob}{\rho_b}

118: 

119: \newcommand{\chip}{{\chi'}}

120: 

121: \newcommand{\hatn}{\bm{\hat n}}

122: \newcommand{\hatnp}{\bm{\hat{n}'}}

123: 

124: \newcommand{\gaa}{g_a}

125: \newcommand{\gaap}{g_{a'}}

126: \newcommand{\lmin}{L_{min}}

127: 

128: \newcommand{\Ns}{N_s}

129: 

130: \newcommand{\bn}{\hat \bm{n}}

131: 

132: \newcommand{\bx}{\bm{x}}

133: \newcommand{\bp}{\bm{p}}

134: \newcommand{\bq}{\bm{q}}

135: \newcommand{\br}{\bm{r}}

136: 

137: \newcommand{\LCDM}{\Lambda\mbox{CDM}}

138: \newcommand{\Rmax}{R_{max}}

139: 

140: \newcommand{\xioh}{\xi^{1h}(r|\bx')}

141: \newcommand{\xith}{\xi^{2h}(r|\bx')}

142: 

143: \newcommand{\Rc}{R_c}

144: \newcommand{\LBCG}{L_{BCG}}

145: \newcommand{\Lsat}{L_{sat}}

146: 

147: \newcommand{\kpc}{\mbox{kpc}}

148: 

149: \newcommand{\Lx}{L_X}

150: \newcommand{\Lxa}{\tilde\Lx}

151: 

152: \newcommand{\Var}{\mbox{Var}}

153: 

154: \newcommand{\keV}{\mbox{keV}}

155: 

156: \newcommand{\ergs}{\mbox{ergs}}

157: \newcommand{\erf}{\mbox{erf}}

158: 

159: 

160: \citestyle{aa}

161: \shortauthors{Rozo et al.}

162: \shorttitle{Scatter in the Mass-Richness Relation}

163: 

164: \begin{document}

165: \title{Constraining the Scatter in the Mass-Richness Relation of maxBCG Clusters With Weak Lensing

166: and X-ray Data}

167: \author{Eduardo Rozo\altaffilmark{1}, Eli S. Rykoff\altaffilmark{2}, August Evrard\altaffilmark{3,4,5}, Matthew Becker\altaffilmark{6},

168: Timothy McKay\altaffilmark{3,4,5}, Risa H. Wechsler\altaffilmark{7}, Benjamin P. Koester\altaffilmark{8,9},

169: Jiangang Hao\altaffilmark{3}, Sarah Hansen\altaffilmark{8,9}, 

170: Erin Sheldon\altaffilmark{10}, David Johnston\altaffilmark{11}, James Annis\altaffilmark{12}, Joshua Frieman\altaffilmark{8,9,12}}

171: 

172: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics (CCAPP), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210}

173: \altaffiltext{2}{TABASGO Fellow, Physics Department, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2233B Broida Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106}

174: \altaffiltext{3}{Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

175: \altaffiltext{4}{Astronomy Department, Universityof Michigan, AnnArbor, MI 48109}

176: \altaffiltext{5}{Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

177: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}

178: \altaffiltext{7}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics \& Cosmology,

179:   Physics Department, and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,

180:   Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305}

181: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}

182: \altaffiltext{9}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637} 

183: \altaffiltext{10}{Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Physics Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003}

184: \altaffiltext{11}{ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109}

185: \altaffiltext{12}{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box500, Batavia, IL 60510}

186: 

187: 

188: \begin{abstract}

189: We measure the logarithmic scatter in mass at fixed richness for clusters in the maxBCG cluster catalog, an

190: optically selected cluster sample drawn from SDSS imaging data.  Our measurement is achieved by demanding

191: consistency between available weak lensing

192: and X-ray measurements of the maxBCG clusters, and the X-ray luminosity--mass relation inferred from the

193: 400d X-ray cluster survey, a flux limited X-ray cluster survey.

194: We find $\sigma_{\ln M|N_{200}}=0.45^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$

195: ($95\%$ CL) at $N_{200}\approx 40$, where $N_{200}$ is the number of red sequence galaxies in

196: a cluster.  As a byproduct of our analysis, we also obtain a constraint

197: on the correlation coefficient between $\ln \Lx$ and $\ln M$ at fixed richness, which is best expressed

198: as a lower limit, $r_{L,M|N} \geq 0.85\ (95\%\ \mbox{CL})$.  This is the first observational constraint

199: placed on a correlation coefficient involving two different cluster mass tracers.

200: We use our results to produce a state of the art estimate of the halo mass function at $z=0.23$ --- the

201: median redshift of the maxBCG cluster sample --- 

202: and find that it is consistent with the WMAP5 cosmology.   Both the mass function data

203: and its covariance matrix are presented.

204: \end{abstract}

205: 

206:  \keywords{galaxies: clusters -- X-rays: galaxies: clusters - cosmology: observation}

207: 

208: 

209: \section{Introduction}

210: 

211: The space density of galaxy clusters as a function of cluster mass is a well-known

212: cosmological probe \citep[see e.g.][]{holderetal01,haimanetal01,rozoetal04,limahu04}, 

213: and ranks among the best observational tools

214: for constraining $\sigma_8$, 

215: the normalization of the matter power spectrum in the low redshift

216: universe \citep[see e.g.][]{frenketal90,henry91,

217: schueckeretal03,gladdersetal07,rozoetal07a}.\footnote{$\sigma_8$ 

218: is formally defined

219: as the variance of the linear matter density averaged over spheres with radius

220: $R=8\ h^{-1}\ \Mpc$.}  The basic idea is this: in the high mass limit,

221: the cluster mass function falls off exponentially with mass, with the fall-off  

222: depending sensitively on the amplitude of the matter density fluctuations.  

223: Observing this exponential cutoff can thus place tight constraints 

224: on $\sigma_8$.

225: In practice, however, the same exponential dependence that makes cluster abundances a powerful

226: cosmological probe also renders it susceptible to an important systematic effect,

227: namely uncertainties in the estimated masses of clusters.  

228: 

229: Because mass is not

230: a direct observable, cluster masses must be determined using observable mass

231: tracers such as X-ray emission, SZ decrements, weak lensing shear, or cluster richness (a measure of the galaxy

232: content of the cluster).   Of course, such mass estimators are noisy,

233: meaning there can be significant scatter between the observable mass tracer

234: and cluster mass.  Since the mass function declines steeply with mass, up-scattering of low mass 

235: systems into high mass bins can result in a significant boost to the number of systems with apparently 

236: high mass \citep{limahu05}.  If this effect is not properly modeled,

237: the value of $\sigma_8$ derived from such a cluster sample will be overestimated.

238: 

239: One approach for dealing with this difficulty is to employ mass tracers

240: that have minimal scatter, thereby reducing the impact of

241: said scatter on the recovered halo mass function. 

242: For instance, \citet{kravtsovetal06} introduced a new X-ray mass estimator, $Y_X=M_{gas}T_X$,

243: which in their simulations exhibits an intrinsic scatter of only $\approx 8\%$, independent

244: of the dynamical state of the cluster. 

245: Use of a mass estimator with such low scatter should lead to 

246: improved estimates of $\sigma_8$ from X-ray cluster surveys  \citep{pierpaolietal01,rb02,schueckeretal03,

247: henry04,staneketal06}.

248: 

249: Such tightly-correlated mass tracers are not always available.

250: In such cases, determination of the scatter in the mass-observable relation 

251: is critical to accurately inferring the mass function and thereby determining cosmological parameters.

252: Of course, in practice, it is impossible to determine this scatter to arbitrary

253: accuracy, but since the systematic boost to the mass function is

254: proportional to the square of the scatter \citep{limahu05} (i.e. the variance), even moderate constraints

255: on the scatter can result in tight $\sigma_8$ constraints.

256: 

257: In this paper, we use optical and X-ray observations to constrain the scatter in the mass--richness 

258: relation for the

259: maxBCG cluster catalog presented in \citet{koesteretal07a}.

260: Specifically, we use observational constraints on the mean 

261: mass--richness relation, and on the mean and scatter of the $\Lx-$richness relation,

262: to convert independent estimates of the scatter in the $\Lx-M$ relation into estimates

263: of the scatter in the mass--richness relation.  An interesting byproduct

264: of our analysis is a constraint on the correlation coefficient between 

265: mass and X-ray luminosity at fixed richness.  To our knowledge, this is the first

266: time that a correlation coefficient involving multiple cluster mass tracers

267: has been empirically determined.

268: 

269: The layout of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec:notation} we lay out the notation and definitions 

270: used throughout the paper.  Section \ref{sec:data} presents the

271: data sets used in our analysis.  In section \ref{sec:rough} we present a pedagogical

272: description of our method for constraining the scatter in the richness-mass relation,

273: while section \ref{sec:formalism} formalizes the argument.  Our results are found

274: in section \ref{sec:results}, and we compare them to previous work in section \ref{sec:other_work}.

275: In section \ref{sec:mf}, we use our result to estimate the halo mass function in the local

276: universe at $z=0.23$, the median redshift of the maxBCG cluster sample, and we demonstrate

277: that our recovered mass function is consistent with the latest cosmological constraints

278: from WMAP \citep{wmap08}.  A detailed cosmological analysis of our results will be presented

279: in a forthcoming paper (Rozo et al., in preparation).  Our summary and conclusions are 

280: presented in section \ref{sec:conclusions}.

281: 

282: \subsection{Notation and Conventions}

283: \label{sec:notation}

284: 

285: We summarize here the notation and conventions

286: employed in this work.

287: Given any three cluster mass tracers (possibly including mass itself) $X,Y,$

288: and $Z$, we make the standard assumption that the probability distribution $P(X,Y|Z)$ is 

289: a bivariate lognormal.  The parameters $A_{X|Z}$, $B_{X|Z}$, and $\alpha_{X|Z}$ are defined such that

290: %

291: \begin{eqnarray}

292: \avg{\ln X|Z} & = & A_{X|Z}+\alpha_{X|Z}\ln Z \\

293: \ln \avg{X|Z} & = & B_{X|Z} + \alpha_{X|Z}\ln Z.

294: \end{eqnarray}

295: %

296: Note the slopes of the mean and logarithmic mean are the same, as appropriate

297: for a log-normal distribution.  The scatter in $\ln X$ at fixed $Z$ is denoted $\sigma_{X|Z}$,

298: and the correlation coefficient between $\ln X$ and $\ln Y$ at fixed $Z$ is denoted

299: $r_{X,Y|Z}$.  {\it We emphasize that all quoted scatters are the scatter in the natural logarithm,

300: not in dex.}

301: Note these parameters are simply the elements of the covariance matrix

302: specifying the Gaussian distribution $P(\ln X,\ln Y|\ln Z)$.

303: Under our lognormal assumption for $P(X,Y|Z)$, the parameters $A_{X|Z}$ and 

304: $B_{X|Z}$ are related via

305: %

306: \begin{equation}

307: B_{X|Z} = A_{X|Z}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{X|Z}^2.

308: \end{equation}

309: 

310: In this work, the quantities of interest are cluster mass $M$, X-ray luminosity $\Lx$, and 

311: cluster richness $N$.  Unless otherwise specified, cluster mass is defined as 

312: $M_{500c}$, the mass contained within an overdensity of 

313: 500 relative to critical.  $\Lx$ is the total luminosity in the rest-frame $0.5-2.0\ \keV$ band,

314: and $N$ is the maxBCG richness measure $N_{200}$, the number of red sequence galaxies

315: with luminosity above $0.4L_*$ within an aperture such that the mean density within said

316: radius is, on average, $200\Omega_m^{-1}$ times the mean galaxy density assuming $\Omega_m=0.3$.  

317: Likewise, unless otherwise

318: stated all parameters governing the relations between $M$, $\Lx$, and $N$ assume that

319: $M$ is measured in units of $10^{14}\ \msun$, $\Lx$ is measured in units of

320: $10^{43}\ \mathrm{ergs}/\mathrm{s}$, and $N$ is measured in ``units'' of $40$ galaxies.

321: For instance, including units explicitly, the mean relation between

322: cluster mass and richness reads

323: %

324: \begin{equation}

325: \frac{\avg{M|N}}{10^{14}\ \msun} = \exp(B_{M|N}) \left (\frac{N}{40}\right)^{\alpha_{M|N}}.

326: \end{equation}

327: %

328: A Hubble constant parameter $h=0.71$ is assumed through out.\footnote{For

329: other values of $h$, our weak lensing masses scale as $M \propto h^{-1}$ and the X-ray

330: luminosities as $\Lx \propto h^{-2}$.}  In addition, the weak lensing data presented in this

331: analysis assumed a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.27$.   

332: The recovered mass function has the standard hubble parameter

333: degeneracy.

334: 

335: %-----------------------------------------------------

336: %-----------------------------------------------------

337: %-----------------------------------------------------

338: %-----------------------------------------------------

339: %-----------------------------------------------------

340: %-----------------------------------------------------

341: %-----------------------------------------------------

342: 

343: \section{Data Sets}

344: \label{sec:data}

345: 

346: In this work we use the public maxBCG cluster catalog presented in \citet{koesteretal07a},

347: which is an optically selected volume limited catalog of close to $14,000$ clusters 

348: over the redshift range $z\in[0.1,0.3]$.  These clusters were found

349: in $~7500\ \deg^2$ of imaging data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS,][]{yorketal00}

350: using the maxBCG cluster finding algorithm \citep{koesteretal07}.  This algorithm identifies

351: clusters as overdensities of red sequence galaxies. All clusters are assigned a redshift

352: based on the SDSS photometric data only, and these redshifts are known to be accurate 

353: to within a dispersion $\Delta z \approx 0.01$.  Every cluster is also assigned a richness

354: measure $N_{200}$, which is the number of red sequence galaxies above a luminosity cut

355: of $0.4L_*$ and within a

356: specified scaled aperture, centered on the Brightest Cluster Galaxy (BCG) of

357: each cluster.  Only clusters with $N_{200} \geq 10$ are included in the final catalog.

358: Interested readers are referred to \citet{koesteretal07a} and \citet{koesteretal07} for further 

359: details.  In the interest

360: of economy of notation, from now on we denote the maxBCG richness measure

361: simply as $N$.

362: 

363: The relationship between cluster richness and various well known mass tracers

364: has been studied in large, homogeneous samples, such as 2MASS \citep{daietal07}

365: and SDSS \citep{beckeretal07, 

366: johnstonetal07,rykoffetal08a,mandelbaumetal08}.  Of particular

367: interest to us are the weak lensing measurements of the mean mass as a function of richness, 

368: and the X-ray measurements of the mean and scatter of the

369: X-ray luminosity as a function of richness.   The former analysis has been carried out

370: by \citet{johnstonetal07} based on the weak lensing data presented in

371: \citet{sheldonetal07}, and independently by \citet{mandelbaumetal08b}.

372: In short, \citet{sheldonetal07} stacked maxBCG clusters 

373: within narrow richness bins, and measured the average weak lensing

374: shear profile of the clusters.

375: These shear profiles were turned into surface mass density contrast profiles

376: using the redshift distribution of background sources estimated with the methods

377: of \citet{limaetal08} and the neural net photometric redshift estimators described

378: in \citet{oyaizuetal08}. Then,

379: \citet{johnstonetal07} fit the resulting profiles using a halo model scheme 

380: to obtain tight constraints on the mean mass of maxBCG clusters for 

381: each of the richness bins under consideration.  

382: The \citet{mandelbaumetal08} analysis is very similar in spirit to the one described above.

383: The main differences are the way the source redshift distribution is estimated, and 

384: the details of the model fitting use to recover the masses.  The differences in

385: the results between these two analysis are discussed in appendix \ref{sec:m-n_priors},

386: where we use them to set priors on the mass--richness relation.

387: 

388: The measurement of the mean X-ray luminosity of maxBCG clusters has

389: been carried out by \cite{rykoffetal08a} following an approach similar to that pioneered

390: in \citet{daietal07}.  The necessary X-ray data is readily available from the ROSAT All-Sky

391: Survey \citep[RASS,][]{vogesetal99}.  In short, \cite{rykoffetal08a} stacked

392: the RASS photon maps \citep{vogesetal01} centered on

393: maxBCG clusters in narrow richness bins.  The background subtracted 

394: stacked photon counts within a $750\ h^{-1}\ \kpc$ aperture were used to 

395: estimate the mean X-ray luminosity $\Lx$ in the $0.1-2.4\ \keV$ rest frame

396: of the clusters.  In addition, \cite{rykoffetal08a} measured the scatter in

397: X-ray luminosity at fixed richness by individually measuring $\Lx$ for

398: all maxBCG clusters with $N\geq 30$.  It is worth noting that due to the 

399: shallowness of RASS,  many of the maxBCG clusters are not X-ray 

400: luminous enough to be detected individually.  However, non-detection

401: and upper limits for $\Lx$ for individual systems 

402: were properly taken into consideration using the

403: Bayesian approach detailed in \citet{kelly07}, and the recovered mean

404: X-ray luminosity from this Baysian analysis was fully consistent

405: with the stacked means.

406: 

407: In addition to the data sets above, we use the constraints on the $\Lx-M$ relation from 

408: \citet{vikhlininetal08}.  These constraints are based on the 400d cluster X-ray survey, a flux

409: limited cluster survey based on ROSAT pointed observations with an effective

410: sky coverage of 397 $\deg^2$ \citep{bureninetal07}.  Briefly, \citet{vikhlininetal08} measured 

411: both the total soft band X-ray luminosity and the cluster

412: mass for each cluster in the sample.  X-ray luminosities are estimated from

413: ROSAT data, and measure the luminosity in the rest-fram $0.5-2.0\ \keV$ band,

414: extrapolated to infinity assuming standard $\beta$ profiles.

415: Cluster masses are estimated based

416: on the values of $Y_X$ derived from followup Chandra observations, though they note

417: that the results they obtain using different mass tracers such as X-ray temperature and

418: total gas mass are very similar.  The $M-Y_X$ relation is

419: itself calibrated based on hydro-static mass estimates.   Importantly, \citet{vikhlininetal08}

420: explicitly correct for the Malmquist bias expected for a flux limited cluster sample, so the

421: $\Lx-M$ relation they derive can be interpreted as the relation one would obtain using a

422: mass limited cluster sample.

423: 

424: For this work, we have repeated the analysis in \citet{rykoffetal08a}

425: with a slightly different definition for $\Lx$.  In particular, we measure

426: the X-ray luminosity in the rest-frame $0.5-2.0\ \keV$ band within a $1\ h^{-1} \Mpc$

427: aperture.  The change in band is tailored to match the energy band

428: used by \citet{vikhlininetal08} , which we used to place priors on the 

429: $\Lx-M$ relation.  It is worth noting that \citet{vikhlininetal08} do not

430: use a $1\ h^{-1}\Mpc$ aperture, as we do.  We have, however, carefully

431: calibrated the scaling between our $\Lx$ definition and that of \citet{vikhlininetal08}

432: so as to be able to use their results in our analysis.end

433: A detailed description of  our measurements can be found in appendix \ref{app:lx-n_priors}.

434: 

435: 

436: 

437: %-----------------------------------------------------

438: %-----------------------------------------------------

439: %-----------------------------------------------------

440: %-----------------------------------------------------

441: %-----------------------------------------------------

442: %-----------------------------------------------------

443: %-----------------------------------------------------

444: 

445: 

446: 

447: \section{Relating Cluster Mass, X-ray Luminosity, and Richness}

448: \label{sec:rough}

449: 

450: The problem we are confronted with is the following: we have four pieces of observational

451: data, namely

452: %

453: \begin{itemize}

454: \item The abundance of galaxy clusters as a function of richness.

455: \item The mean relation between cluster richness and mass.

456: \item The mean and variance of the relation between cluster richness and

457: X-ray luminosity.

458: \item The mean and variance of the relation between cluster X-ray luminosity and

459: mass.

460: \end{itemize}

461: %

462: From this data, we wish to determine the scatter in mass

463: at fixed richness for the cluster sample under consideration.

464: 

465: The basic idea behind our analysis is as follows. Consider the

466: probability $P(M,L_X|N)$, which we take to be Gaussian in $\ln M$ and $\ln \Lx$.  

467: This probability distribution is completely specified

468: by the mean and variance of both $M$ and $\Lx$ at fixed richness, and by the

469: correlation coefficient between $M$ and $\Lx$.   Of these, there are only two

470: quantities that are not already observationally constrained: $\sigma_{M|N}$, 

471: the scatter in mass

472: at fixed richness, and $r_{M,L|N}$, the correlation coefficient between mass and $\Lx$ at fixed richness.

473: 

474: Suppose now that we guessed values for these two quantities, so that

475: the probability distribution $P(M,\Lx|N)$ is fully specified.  Given the 

476: abundance function $n(N)$,

477: we can use $P(M,\Lx|N)$ to randomly assign a mass and an X-ray

478: luminosity to every cluster in the sample.  We can then select a mass

479: limited sub-sample, and measure the corresponding

480: $\Lx-M$ relation, comparing it to the $\Lx-M$ measurement from \citet[][]{vikhlininetal08}.

481: Since the $\Lx-M$ relation

482: we predict depends on our assumptions about $P(M,\Lx|N)$,

483: there should only be a small region in parameters space where

484: our predictions are consistent with independent observational constraints on the

485: $\Lx-M$ relation.

486: 

487: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

488: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

489: 

490: \begin{figure}[t]

491: \epsscale{1.2}

492: \plotone{f1.eps}

493: \caption{Contours of constant $\Lx-M$ parameters.  For each assumed

494: value of the scatter $\sigma_{M|N}$ and correlation coefficient

495: parameter $r_{M,L|N}$, we predict the amplitude, slope, and scatter

496: of the $\Lx-M$ relation of a mass selected sample of clusters with

497: $M\geq 3\times 10^{14}\ \msun$.

498: Contours of constant amplitude, slope, and scatter are shown with

499: the solid, dashed, and dotted lines respectively.  The thicker lines

500: correspond to the central values of the $\Lx-M$ priors discussed in appendix

501: \ref{app:lx-m_priors} and summarized in Table \ref{tab:priors}, 

502: while the the other two contours enclose

503: the $95\%$ confidence region for each of the parameters.  The second slope contour

504: falls to outside the region of parameter space shown in the figure.

505: The intersection of the three separate regions correspond to acceptable 

506: values for the two unknown parameters $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{M,L|N}$.

507: }

508: \label{fig:contours}

509: \end{figure} 

510: 

511: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

512: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

513: 

514: Figure \ref{fig:contours} illustrates this idea.  To create the figure, we have

515: set every observed parameter of the distribution $P(M,\Lx|N)$ to the

516: central value of the priors described in appendix \ref{app:priors} and summarized

517: in table \ref{tab:priors}.   We then

518: defined a grid in the two dimensional space spanned by $\sigma_{M|N}$

519: and $r_{M,L|N}$, and carried through the argument described above.

520: The resulting predictions for the amplitude, slope, and scatter of the

521: $\Lx-M$ relation as a function of $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{M,L|N}$

522: are shown in the figure.

523: We plot contours of constant amplitude, slope, and scatter of the $\Lx-M$

524: relation as solid, dashed, and dotted lines respectively.  The thicker curves

525: correspond to the central values of the priors,

526: while thinner curves demark

527: the corresponding $95\%$ confidence limits. 

528: As we can see, all three contours intersect in a finite

529: region of parameter space, indicating good agreement between our weak lensing

530: and X-ray data, and the independent determination of the $\Lx-M$ relation.   

531: Based on Figure \ref{fig:contours}, we expect a detailed analysis should constrain

532: our parameters to

533: $\sigma_{M|N}\approx 0.40$, and $r_{M,L|N}\approx 0.9$.  

534: The rest of this paper is simply a way of formalizing the argument described 

535: above in order to place errors on both $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{M,L|N}$.

536: 

537: 

538: %-----------------------------------------------------

539: %-----------------------------------------------------

540: %-----------------------------------------------------

541: %-----------------------------------------------------

542: %-----------------------------------------------------

543: %-----------------------------------------------------

544: %-----------------------------------------------------

545: 

546: 

547: \section{Formalism}

548: \label{sec:formalism}

549: 

550: We wish to formalize the above argument in order to place quantitative

551: constraints on the scatter in mass at fixed richness.  Details of how we go 

552: about doing so are presented below.  Readers interested only in our results

553: can move directly to section \ref{sec:results}.

554: 

555: \subsection{Likelihood Model}

556: 

557: As we mentioned above,

558: the key point in our analysis is our ability to compute 

559: the amplitude and slope of the mean relation $\avg{\ln \Lx|M}$, 

560: and the scatter about this mean, as a function of our two parameters

561: of interest: the scatter in mass at fixed richness and the correlation 

562: coefficient between $M$ and $\Lx$ at fixed $N$.  

563: Let us define $\bx=\{ A_{L|M},\alpha_{L|M}, \sigma_{L|M} \}$, and let

564: $\bp=\{ \sigma_{M|N}, r_{M,L|N} \}$ denote our parameters of interest.

565: Our predictions for the $\Lx-M$ relation as a function of our parameters

566: of interest can be summarized simply as $\bx(\bp)$.

567: Now, adopting a Bayesian framework, a set of priors on $\bx$ is simply a probability

568: distribution $P_\bx(\bx)$.   Since $\bx$ is a function of $\bp$, the priors immediately define

569: a probability distribution over $\bp$ given by

570: %

571: \begin{equation}

572: P(\bp) = P_\bx(\bx(\bp))\det (\partial \bx/\partial \bp).

573: \end{equation}

574: %

575: Since we know how to compute both $P_\bx(\bx)$ and $\bx(\bp)$,

576: we can find any confidence regions for our parameters of interest.

577: 

578: The problem we are confronted with, however, is slightly more complicated, in that

579: the functions $\bx$ depend not only on $\bp$, but also on additional nuisance parameters $\bq$.

580: Indeed, our predictions for

581: the observable parameters of the $\Lx-M$ relation depend on both the abundance

582: function of clusters and $P(M,\Lx|N)$.  The abundance function can

583: be accurately described by a Schechter function (we explicitly checked a Schechter function is

584: statistically acceptable),

585: %

586: \begin{equation}

587: n(N) \propto N^{-\tau}\exp( - N/N_* ).

588: \label{eq:abundance}

589: \end{equation}

590: %

591: Given a Schechter fit, 

592: our prediction for the $\Lx-M$ relation will also depend on the value

593: of the parameters $\tau$ and $N_*$.  Likewise, the distribution $P(M,\Lx|N)$

594: also depends on the

595: amplitude and slope of the means $\avg{M|N}$ and $\avg{\Lx|N}$, as well as

596: the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed $N$.  All in all, we have six additional

597: nuisance parameters

598: $\bq=\{ N_*, \tau, B_{M|N},\alpha_{M|N}, A_{L|N}, \alpha_{L|N}, \sigma_{L|N} \}$.

599: Let $\br=\{\bp,\bq\}$ denote the full set of parameters.  The priors

600: from the $\Lx-M$ relation define a probability distribution over $\br$ given by

601: %

602: \begin{equation}

603: P(\br) = P_\bx(\bx(\br))\det (\partial \bx/\partial \br).

604: \end{equation}

605: %

606: Since we have a total of 8 parameters, and only three observables from the $\Lx-M$ relation, 

607: it is obvious that the above likelihood function will result in large degeneracies because

608: the parameters are under-constrained.

609: If one has priors $P_0(\bq)$ in the nuisance parameters, however,

610: the probability distribution $P(\bp)$ in the parameters of interest is given by

611: %

612: \begin{equation}

613: P(\bp) = \int d\bq\ P_0(\bq) P_\bx(\bx(\bp,\bq))\det(\partial\bx/\partial \br).

614: \label{eq:prob}

615: \end{equation}

616: %

617: This equation allows us to compute $P(\bp)$, and therefore place constraints

618: on our parameters of interest.

619: In practice, we will ignore the determinant term in the probability distribution defined

620: in equation \ref{eq:prob}.  This is because the function $\bx(\br)$ is estimated using

621: a Monte Carlo approach, implying that accurate numerical estimates of the 

622: Jacobian $\partial \bx/\partial \br$ would be too computationally intensive to

623: be performed.  Fortunately, the determinant typically introduces only 

624: slight modulations of the likelihood, so we do not expect our results to

625: be adversely affected by this.  

626: 

627: %-----------------------------------------------------

628: %-----------------------------------------------------

629: %-----------------------------------------------------

630: %-----------------------------------------------------

631: %-----------------------------------------------------

632: %-----------------------------------------------------

633: %-----------------------------------------------------

634: 

635: \subsection{Implementation}

636: \label{sec:implementation}

637: 

638: We estimate the probability distribution $P(\bp)$ using a Monte Carlo approach.

639: Ignoring an overall normalization constant and setting 

640: $\det (\partial \bx/\partial \br)=constant$, we have

641: %

642: \begin{equation}

643: \hat P(\bp) = \frac{1}{N_{draws}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{draws}} P_\bx(\bx(\bp,\bq_i))

644: \label{eq:probestimator}

645: \end{equation}

646: %

647: where $\bq_i$ for $i=1$ through $N_{draws}$ are random draws of the

648: nuisance parameters $\bq_i$, drawn from the prior distribution $P_0(\bq_i)$.

649: We set $N_{draws}=3000$ as our default value (see below for further discussion).

650: 

651: The prior distributions for our nuisance parameters are characterized

652: by a statistical and a systematic error.  The former is modeled as 

653: Gaussian and the latter using a top-hat distribution.  Thus, given a prior

654: of the form

655: %

656: \begin{equation}

657: q=\bar q \pm \sigma_q^{stat} \pm \sigma_q^{sys},

658: \end{equation}

659: %

660: a random draw is obtained by setting

661: %

662: \begin{equation}

663: \bq_i = \bar \bq + \Delta \bq_i^{stat} + \Delta \bq_i^{sys}

664: \end{equation}

665: %

666: where $\Delta \bq_i^{stat}$ is drawn from a Gaussian of zero mean with a covariance matrix

667: defined by the statistical errors, and $\Delta \bq_i^{sys}$ is drawn from a top hat distribution

668: that is non-zero only for $|\Delta q^{sys} | \leq \sigma_q^{sys}$.

669: 

670: The probability distribution $P_\bx(\bx(\bp,\bq))$ used in equation 

671: \ref{eq:probestimator} is the product of the likelihoods $P_{x}(x(\bp,\bq))$

672: for each of the $\Lx-M$ parameters $x \in \bx=\{ A_{L|M}, \alpha_{L|M},\sigma_{L|M} \}$.

673: The probability for each $\Lx-M$ parameter is given by 

674: the convolution of the top-hat and Gaussian distributions defined by the statistical and systematic

675: errors of $x$, so that

676: %

677: \begin{equation}

678: P_{x}(x(\bp,\bq)) = \frac{1}{4\sigma_x^{sys}} [ \erf(x_+) - \erf(x_-) ]

679: \end{equation}

680: %

681: where

682: %

683: \begin{equation}

684: x_\pm = \frac{ \pm \sigma_x^{sys} - ( x(\bp,\bq) - \bar x ) }{\sqrt{2}\sigma_x^{stat}}.

685: \end{equation}

686: %

687: Note that the above equations are appropriate only when the various $\Lx-M$

688: parameters are uncorrelated, so it is important to place the priors at the pivot

689: point of the $\Lx-M$ relation ($M_{pivot}=3.9\times10^{14}\ \msun$).  

690: This explains why Table \ref{tab:priors} quotes 

691: a prior on $A_{L|M}+1.361\alpha_{L|M}+1.5(\sigma_{L|M}^2-0.40^2)$ rather than

692: on $A_{L|M}$ alone.

693: 

694: We also need to specify how the function $\bx(\bp,\bq)$ is evaluated.  We do this

695: using a Monte Carlo approach.  Given $\bp$ and $\bq$, we generate $N_{cl}=10^5$ 

696: mock clusters in the richness range

697: $N\in[10,200]$.

698: We then randomly draw mass and X-ray luminosity values for each of these clusters based on 

699: the distribution $P(M,\Lx|N)$, and select a mass limited subsample of clusters using a mass

700: cut $M\geq M_{min}$ with

701: $M_{min}=3\times 10^{14} \msun$ (the reason for this particular value is explained below).

702: Using a least squares fitting routine, we find the best fit line between

703: $\ln \Lx$ and $\ln M$.  This defines both $A_{L|M}(\bp,\bq)$ and 

704: $\alpha_{L|M}(\bp,\bq)$.  The scatter $\sigma_{L|M}(\bp,\bq)$ is defined

705: as the root mean square fluctuation about the best fit line.  

706: 

707: Using equation \ref{eq:probestimator} and the function $\bx(\bp,\bq)$ defined

708: above, we evaluate the probability distribution $P(\bp)$ along a grid of points in 

709: $\sigma_{M|N}\in[0.2,0.85]$ and $r\in[0.75,1.0]$ with $25$ grid points per axis.

710: A full run of our code then requires we perform $25^2$ Monte Carlo integrals with

711: $N_{draws}=3000$ points in each integration.  Each draw also requires us to

712: evaluate the function $\bx(\bp,\bq)$, which in turn requires generating a 

713: mock catalog with $N_{cl}=10^5$ clusters, so the procedure as a whole

714: is computationally expensive.

715: To increase computational efficiency, for each Monte Carlo evaluation of $P(\bp)$

716: we generate a single cluster catalog that is used to estimate the likelihood 

717: at every grid point.  This correlates the values of $\hat P$ along our grid,

718: but does not otherwise adversely affect our results.

719: 

720: Our Monte Carlo approach requires that

721: both the number of clusters in the random catalogs $N_{cl}$ and the

722: number of times the likelihood function is evaluated $N_{draws}$ is 

723: sufficiently large to achieve convergence.   Our default values for $N_{cl}$ and $N_{draws}$

724: were selected to ensure the recovered likelihood is accurate to

725: within a dispersion of $\sim 1-2\%$ inside high likelihood regions.

726: The error in the recovered likelihood increases with decreasing likelihood,

727: but even in the tails of the distributions our estimates are accurate to about $10\%$.

728: This was explicitly tested by running a coarse grid with our default values for $N_{draws}$ 

729: and $N_{cl}$, and by repeating the analysis with both of these parameters increased by a factor 

730: of two.\footnote{It is worth noting that in order to create Figure \ref{fig:contours},

731: one needs to generate cluster catalogs with $N_{cl}\gtrsim 10^7$ clusters in order

732: for the contours to appear smooth by eye.  However, $N_{cl}=10^5$ is a sufficient number of 

733: clusters for our analysis,

734: since we only require that the noise in the likelihood be much smaller

735: than the width of the priors. Since the latter are quite wide, even relatively noisy estimates

736: of the $\Lx-M$ relation are sufficient for constraining the marginalized distribution.}

737: 

738: Finally, we emphasize that it is necessary to explicitly check whether our results are 

739: sensitive to the $N\geq 10$ cut applied to the maxBCG clusters sample.  In particular,

740: when selecting a mass limited subsample of clusters, we need to ensure that the mass

741: limit $M_{min}$ be sufficiently large that the number of clusters with $N\leq 10$ and

742: $M\geq M_{min}$ is insignificant.  We have explicitly checked that for our adopted

743: low mass cut $M_{min}\geq 3\times 10^{14}\ \msun$ our results are robust to the 

744: richness cut $N\geq 10$ by repeating the analysis in a coarse grid using

745: an $N\geq 8$ richness cut instead.  We find that the likelihood

746: estimates in both cases are in agreement to within the expected accuracy

747: of our Monte Carlo approach.

748: 

749: 

750: %-----------------------------------------------------

751: %-----------------------------------------------------

752: %-----------------------------------------------------

753: %-----------------------------------------------------

754: %-----------------------------------------------------

755: %-----------------------------------------------------

756: %-----------------------------------------------------

757: 

758: 

759: \subsection{Priors}

760: \label{sec:priors}

761: 

762: The priors used in our analysis 

763: are summarized in Table \ref{tab:priors}.  We follow the notation

764: %

765: \begin{equation}

766: q = \bar q \pm \sigma_q^{stat}\ (stat) \pm \sigma_q^{sys}\ (sys)

767: \end{equation}

768: %

769: where $\bar q$ is the central value, $\sigma_q^{stat}$ is the 1$\sigma$ statistical error

770: on the parameter $q$ marginalized over all other parameters, and $\sigma_q^{sys}$

771: is the systematic error.  In all cases,

772: we model statistical errors as Gaussian, and we include known covariances between

773: different parameters.  Systematic errors are assumed to follow top-hat distributions, and

774: the final prior distribution is given by the convolution of these two functions.

775: 

776: \begin{deluxetable}{|c|c|}

777: \tablecaption{Scaling Relation and Cluster Abundance Priors}

778: \startdata

779: \hline

780: \hline

781: Parameter & Prior \\

782: \hline

783: $\ln N_*$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $3.66 \pm 0.10\ (stat) \pm 0.01\ (sys)$\hspace{0.0 in} \\

784: \hline

785: $\tau$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $2.61 \pm 0.06\ (stat)\pm 0.05\ (sys) $ \hspace{0.0 in} \\

786: \hline

787: $B_{M|N}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $0.95 \pm 0.07\ (stat) \pm 0.10\ (sys)$  \hspace{0.0 in} \\

788: \hline

789: $\alpha_{M|N}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $1.06 \pm 0.08\ (stat) \pm 0.08\ (sys)$   \hspace{0.0 in} \\

790: \hline

791: $B_{L|N}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $1.91\pm 0.04\ (stat) \pm 0.09\ (sys)$\hspace{0.0 in} \\

792: \hline

793: $\alpha_{L|N}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $1.63\pm 0.06\ (stat) \pm 0.05\ (sys)$  \hspace{0.0 in} \\

794: \hline

795: $\sigma_{L|N}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $0.83\pm 0.03\ (stat) \pm 0.10\ (sys)$ \hspace{0.0 in} \\

796: \hline

797: \hline

798: \hspace{0.05 in} $A_{L|M}+1.361\alpha_{L|M}  +1.5(\sigma_{L|M}^2-0.40^2)  $ \hspace{0.05 in}  

799: 	& \hspace{0.0 in} $2.45 \pm 0.08\ (stat) \pm 0.23\ (sys) $ \hspace{0.0 in} \\

800: \hline

801: $\alpha_{L|M}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $1.61 \pm 0.14\ (stat)$   \hspace{0.0 in} \\

802: \hline

803: $\sigma_{L|M}$ & \hspace{0.0 in} $0.40 \pm 0.04\ (stat)$  \hspace{0.0 in} 

804: \enddata

805: \tablenotetext{}{Priors on the abundance function parameters ($N_*$ and $\tau$), as well as those

806: from the $M-N$ and $\Lx-N$ relations are not taken directly from any single work in the literature,

807: but are discussed in detail in Appendix \ref{app:priors}.  Priors on the $\Lx-M$ relation are taken

808: from \citet{vikhlininetal08}.  Overall, we believe these priors are fair, that is, they are neither

809: overly optimistic nor overly pessimistic.}

810: \label{tab:priors}

811: \end{deluxetable}

812: 

813: We believe that the priors contained in table \ref{tab:priors} are fair, that is, they are neither

814: overly aggressive nor overly conservative.  A detailed discussion of our priors

815: can be found in appendix \ref{app:priors}.

816: 

817: 

818: %-----------------------------------------------------

819: %-----------------------------------------------------

820: %-----------------------------------------------------

821: %-----------------------------------------------------

822: %-----------------------------------------------------

823: %-----------------------------------------------------

824: %-----------------------------------------------------

825: 

826: 

827: 

828: \section{Results}

829: \label{sec:results}

830: 

831: Figure \ref{fig:lkhd} shows the $68\%$ and $95\%$ probability contours for the parameters

832: $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{M,L|N}$.   The likelihood peak occurs at

833: $\sigma_{M|N}=0.46$ and $r_{M,L|N}=0.90$.   The marginalized means

834: are $\avg{\sigma_{M|N}}=0.45$ and $\avg{r_{M,L|N}}=0.91$.

835: 

836: We wish to determine whether the breadth of the likelihood region in Figure \ref{fig:lkhd}

837: is limited by uncertainties in the scaling relations

838: of maxBCG clusters, or by uncertainties in the $\Lx-M$ relation.  To do so, we repeat

839: our analysis with two new sets of priors: for the first, we use a tight $0.05$ statistical

840: prior on all nuisance parameters, but let the $\Lx-M$ parameters float.  The second set of priors 

841: uses a tight $0.05$ prior on each of the  

842: $\Lx-M$ parameters, but floats all other nuisance parameters with the original priors.

843: We find that using tight priors on our nuisance parameters has negligible impact on 

844: the likelihood regions recovered from our analysis.  

845: On the other hand, the confidence regions obtained with the tight $\Lx-M$ priors, 

846: shown in Figure \ref{fig:lkhd} as dashed curves,

847: are tighter than those derived from our original analysis.

848: Thus, the dominant source of error in our analysis is the uncertainty in the values of the

849: $\Lx-M$ parameters.  This can be easily understood based on Figure \ref{fig:contours}.

850: We can see from the figure that the uncertainty in $r_{M,L|N}$ is largely due to

851: the prior on the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed $M$, which is already tight and thus does not change

852: between our fiducial prior and our tight priors.   On the other hand, we can see that both

853: the amplitude and slope priors cut-off regions with high scatter.  Tightening

854: these priors excludes a larger section of parameter space, and results in the tighter contours observed

855: in Figure \ref{fig:lkhd}.

856: 

857: 

858: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

859: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

860: 

861: \begin{figure}[t]

862: \epsscale{1.2}

863: \plotone{f2.eps}

864: \caption{$68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence contours for $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{L,M|N}$. 

865: Solid lines show the results of our analysis.   We find that

866: X-ray luminosity and mass are correlated at fixed richness.  The breadth of

867: the degeneracy region shown above is almost exclusively due to uncertainties

868: in the $\Lx-M$ relation parameters.  Dashed contours demonstrate how our

869: results would improve if the $\Lx-M$ amplitude and slope were known to within

870: an accuracy of $\Delta A_{L|M} = \Delta \alpha_{L|M}=0.05$.}

871: \label{fig:lkhd}

872: \end{figure} 

873: 

874: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

875: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

876: 

877: Figure \ref{fig:marg} shows the marginalized probability distributions for 

878: $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{M,L|N}$.

879: The solid curves correspond to our original analysis, while the dashed curves illustrate

880: the results one expects assuming our hypothetical tight priors for the $\Lx-M$ relation parameters.

881: We find that the logarithmic scatter in mass at fixed richness

882: and the correlation coefficient between $\ln M$ and $\ln \Lx$ are

883: %

884: \begin{eqnarray}

885: \sigma_{M|N} & = & 0.45^{+0.20}_{-0.18}\ (95\%\ \mbox{CL}) \\

886: r_{L,M|N} & \geq & 0.85\ (95\%\ \mbox{CL}).

887: \end{eqnarray}

888: %

889: Assuming our hypothetical tight $\Lx-M$ priors, the constraints

890: become $\sigma_{M|N} = 0.42^{+0.07}_{-0.09}$ and 

891: $r_{L,M|N} \geq 0.85\ (95\%\ \mbox{CL})$.

892: We emphasize that these latter constraints are only meant as a guide to 

893: the accuracy one could achieve with this method if the $\Lx-M$

894: relation were known to about $5\%$ accuracy.

895: 

896: It is evident from our results that cluster richness is not as effective a

897: mass tracer as X-ray derived masses. Indeed, even total (i.e. not core-core excluded) 

898: X-ray luminosity is a more faithful mass tracer than

899: the adopted richness measure of the maxBCG catalog, as demonstrated both 

900: by the smaller scatter and the very large correlation

901: coefficient. Note that the latter indicates that, at fixed richness, over-luminous

902: clusters are almost guaranteed to also be more massive than average.  This

903: is an important result which forms the basis for a concurrant paper in which we improve our richness

904: estimates by demanding tighter correlations in the $\Lx-$richness relation~\citep{rozoetal08b}.

905: 

906: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

907: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

908: 

909: \begin{figure}[t]

910: \epsscale{1.2}

911: \plotone{f3a.eps}

912: \plotone{f3b.eps}

913: \caption{Likelihood distributions for $\sigma_{M|N}$ and $r_{M,L|N}$.  The distributions

914: are marginalized over all other parameters.  Solid lines are the results of our analysis,

915: while dashed lines are the results obtained assuming tight priors on the $\Lx-M$ parameters

916: Note the latter set of curves are presented 

917: only to give a sense of how our result would improve with

918: better understanding of the $\Lx-M$ relation.}

919: \label{fig:marg}

920: \end{figure} 

921: 

922: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

923: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

924: 

925: 

926: %-----------------------------------------------------

927: %-----------------------------------------------------

928: %-----------------------------------------------------

929: %-----------------------------------------------------

930: %-----------------------------------------------------

931: %-----------------------------------------------------

932: %-----------------------------------------------------

933: 

934: 

935: \section{Comparison to Other Work}

936: \label{sec:other_work}

937: 

938: There are not many previous results against which our measurements of scatter in mass 

939: at fixed richness may be compared.

940: One possible reference point is the upper limit based on

941: the error bar in the weak lensing mass estimates of \citet{johnstonetal07}.  More specifically,

942: assuming that the error in $\avg{M|N}$ is entirely due to the intrinsic scatter

943: in $M$ at fixed $N$, it follows that the error in the mass is simply 

944: $\Delta M/\avg{M|N} \approx \Delta \ln M = \sigma_{M|N}/\sqrt{n(N)}$ where $\Delta M$ is the observed error

945: and $n(N)$ is the number of clusters with richness $N$.  

946: For the richest bin, which provides the tightest constraint, 

947: \citet{johnstonetal07} find 

948: $\avg{M}=(8.1\pm 1.3)\times 10^{14}\ \msun$.  The bin contains $n=47$

949: clusters, so an upper limit to the scatter in mass at fixed richness is

950: $\sigma_{M|N} \leq \sqrt{n}(\Delta M/\avg{M})=1.10$.  Figure \ref{fig:marg}

951: shows that our results easily satisfy this upper limit on the scatter.

952: 

953: The only other measurement of the scatter in mass at fixed richness for maxBCG clusters

954: is that found in \citet{beckeretal07}.  These scatter estimates

955: are obtained as follows: first, \citet{beckeretal07} select all maxBCG clusters whose

956: central galaxy has a spectroscopic redshift.  They then bin the clusters in richness,

957: and compute the velocity relative

958: to the BCG of every galaxy member with spectroscopic data.  The recovered velocity

959: distribution of galaxies is found to be non-Gaussian.  Assuming that the velocity distribution

960: of galaxies of halos of fixed mass is exactly Gaussian, and that the observed non-Gaussianity

961: is entirely due to mass-mixing within a richness bin, \citet{beckeretal07} estimate the scatter in mass 

962: at fixed richness based on the observed non-Gaussianity of the velocity distribution.

963: 

964: An updated version of the results from \citet{beckeretal07} can be seen in 

965: Figure \ref{fig:compare}.  The only difference between this plot and the corresponding

966: figure in \citet{beckeretal07} is that here we have made used of the additional spectroscopic

967: data from the SDSS Data Release 6 \citep{dr6}, which results in tighter error bars.  

968: Also shown in the figure as a horizontal

969: band is the $95\%$ confidence region from our analysis.  As we can see, our scatter 

970: estimate appears to be systematically lower than that of \citet{beckeretal07}, a discrepancy

971: first noted in \citet[][more on the relation between our work and theirs below]{rykoffetal08b}.

972: 

973: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

974: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

975: 

976: \begin{figure}[t]

977: \epsscale{1.2}

978: \plotone{f4.eps}

979: \caption{Comparison of the scatter in mass at fixed richness estimated

980: in this work (solid band) and that of \citet{beckeretal07} (diamonds with

981: error bars).  The dashed band

982: shows how the scatter we measured is expected to be affected by miscentering,

983: which allows us better compare our results to those of \citet{beckeretal07}.

984: We find that, once 

985: miscentering is properly taken into account, the two results appear to be

986: in reasonable agreement.}

987: \label{fig:compare}

988: \end{figure} 

989: 

990: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

991: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

992: 

993: Such a bias is not entirely unexpected, as we now know that a significant fraction

994: of cluster have their BCGs miss-identified, a problem that was not

995: yet known -- and was therefore unaccounted for -- at the time the 

996: \citet{beckeretal07} results came out.

997: To get a better understanding of how our results and those of \citet{beckeretal07}

998: compare, we can use our results along with the miscentering probability model 

999: from \citet{johnstonetal07} to predict the scatter that \citet{beckeretal07} observed

1000: given this miscentering systematic.  We proceed as follows.  First, we

1001: use our best fit model for the abundance distribution 

1002: to generate a mock catalog with $2\times 10^5$ clusters with $N\geq 10$.

1003: Each of these clusters is assigned a mass by drawing from the $P(M|N)$

1004: distribution defined by the values of $\sigma_{M|N}$ corresponding

1005: to the two $95\%$ confidence limits on $\sigma_{M|N}$.

1006: These assigned masses

1007: are then turned into velocity dispersions using the scaling relation from \citet{evrardetal08}.

1008: 

1009: At this point, we have a cluster catalog where each cluster has a richness and a velocity

1010: dispersion.  If a cluster is miscentered, we expect that in most cases the new center

1011: will be a cluster galaxy.  Assuming this is the case, and that 

1012: BCGs are at rest at the center of a cluster, 

1013: the velocity dispersion of cluster galaxies relative to random satellites will be a

1014: factor of $\sqrt{2}$ high than relative to the BCG.

1015: Using the miscentering model described in \citet{johnstonetal07} for $p(N)$, the probability 

1016: that a cluster of richness $N$ be correctly centered, 

1017: we randomly label clusters as properly centered or miscentered, and boost their 

1018: "observed" velocity dispersion for those clusters labeled as miscentered by the expected amount.

1019: The clusters are assigned a new mass based on their

1020: ``observed'' velocity dispersions, and the corresponding scatter in the 

1021: $M-N$ relation is estimated.  We repeat this procedure $10^3$ times

1022: in order to compute the mean systematic correction due to miscentering.

1023: 

1024: Our predictions for the scatter values observed by \citet{beckeretal07} are

1025: shown in Figure \ref{fig:compare} with dashed lines, and correspond to the $95\%$

1026: confidence interval from our analysis.  

1027: We see that miscentering introduces a richness dependent correction that boosts 

1028: the scatter in the recovered velocity dispersion  and places it in significantly better

1029: agreement with the data from \citet{beckeretal07}.  

1030: 

1031: The agreement with the \citet{beckeretal07} data is an interesting

1032: result.  Perhaps the single most difficult systematic effect that had to be addressed in the

1033: \citet{beckeretal07} analysis is the validity of the assumption that non-Gaussianities in the

1034: velocity distribution of stacked clusters are entirely due to mass-mixing is a valid.  

1035: The reasonable agreement between our results and those of \citet{beckeretal07}

1036: suggests that their assumption is indeed justified, though a robust conclusion will

1037: have to wait until a more detailed analysis is performed, especially given the possibility

1038: of velocity bias of the galaxy population (i.e. if satellite galaxies have a velocity dispersion different

1039: from that of the dark matter).

1040: 

1041: The analysis in this work is also very closely related to that of \citet{rykoffetal08b}.  \citet{rykoffetal08b}

1042: sought to constrain the $\Lx-M$ relation of clusters by fitting the scaling of $\avg{\Lx|N}$ with

1043: $\avg{M|N}$.  However, as recognized in \citet{rykoffetal08b},

1044: in order to fully interpret their result in terms of the traditional definition of the $\Lx-M$ relation, i.e. the mean

1045: X-ray luminosity at fixed mass, one needs to know both the scatter in mass at fixed richness, and the corresponding

1046: correlation coefficient with $\Lx$.  

1047: Given that these two quantities are unknown, but that the $\Lx-M$ relation is already constrained from X-ray surveys, 

1048: it seems reasonable to suggest that a better use of the lensing and X-ray data of maxBCG clusters is to 

1049: use our knowledge of the $\Lx-M$ relation to constrain the scatter in mass at fixed richness and the corresponding

1050: correlation coefficient, as was done in this work.

1051: 

1052: Our work differs from the ideas presented in \citet{rykoffetal08b} in another significant way.   While our analysis

1053: employs only $P(\Lx,M|N)$ and $n(N)$, \citet{rykoffetal08b} used the halo mass function $dn/dM$ and the

1054: probability distribution $P(\Lx,N|M)$ to interpret their measurements.  This has the important drawback that

1055: in doing so, one needs to assume a cosmological model in order to compute the halo mass function, rendering

1056: their interpretation cosmology dependent.  By focusing on the quantities that are directly observable, i.e.

1057: $n(N)$ and $P(\Lx,M|N)$, we are able to avoid this difficulty.   The price we pay for this is that rather than constraining

1058: the scatter in richness at fixed mass, which is the more directly relevant quantity from a cosmological perspective,

1059: we constrain instead the scatter in mass at fixed richness.  While this makes implementing

1060: such a constraint a little more cumbersome in a cosmological analysis, the fact that the constraint itself is cosmology

1061: independent is obviously of paramount importance.  

1062: 

1063: %-----------------------------------------------------

1064: %-----------------------------------------------------

1065: %-----------------------------------------------------

1066: %-----------------------------------------------------

1067: %-----------------------------------------------------

1068: %-----------------------------------------------------

1069: %-----------------------------------------------------

1070: 

1071: \section{Cosmological Consequences}

1072: \label{sec:mf}

1073: 

1074: As mentioned in the introduction, to obtain an unbiased estimate of the halo mass function

1075: based on the observed cluster richness function requires that we understand the scatter between

1076: cluster richness and halo mass.

1077: Given our lognormal assumption, and the fact that the mean

1078: mass--richness relation is already known from weak lensing, our measurement of the scatter in this

1079: scaling relation fully determines the probability distribution $P(M|N)$.  Thus, 

1080: we are now in a position to determine the halo mass function of the local universe 

1081: with the maxBCG cluster catalog.

1082: 

1083: Let us define then

1084: $n_i=n(M_i)$ as the number of halos within a logarithmic mass bin of width

1085: $\Delta \ln M$ centered about $M_i$,

1086: %

1087: \begin{equation}

1088: n_i = \left . \frac{dn}{d\ln M} \right \vert_{M_i} \Delta \ln M.

1089: \end{equation}

1090: %

1091: Given our cluster catalog and $P(M|N)$, we construct an estimator

1092: $\hat n_i$ for $n_i$ by randomly drawing a mass from $P(M|N)$ 

1093: for each halo in the cluster catalog, and then counting the number of halos

1094: within the logarithmic mass bin centered about $M_i$.  

1095: Note that since the mass of each cluster is a random variable, our

1096: mass function estimator $\hat n_i$ is itself a random

1097: variable.  The mean and correlation matrix of $\hat n_i$ can easily be obtained by making multiple

1098: realizations of $\hat n_i$, and averaging the resulting mass functions.

1099: 

1100: In practice, we also need to marginalize our results over uncertainties

1101: in $P(M|N)$ and over uncertainties in the richness function $n(N)$.

1102: To do so, we randomly draw the parameters

1103: $\bx=\{B_{M|N},\alpha_{M|N},\sigma_{M|N}\}$, and then resample of the

1104: cluster richness function to obtain

1105: a new estimate of $n_i$.  The whole procedure is iterated $10^5$ times,

1106: and the mean and covariance matrix of the number counts

1107: in each of our logarithmic mass bins is computed.\footnote{We again checked

1108: explicitly that the mass cut $M_{min}=3\times 10^{14}\ \msun$ is large enough

1109: for our results to be insensitive to the maxBCG richness cut $N\geq 10$.}  

1110: 

1111: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1112: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1113: 

1114: \begin{figure}[t]

1115: \epsscale{1.2}

1116: \plotone{f5.eps}

1117: \caption{The maxBCG mass function.  Cluster counts were converted

1118: to densities assuming $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $h=0.71$, the same cosmology

1119: assumed in the lensing measurements \citep{johnstonetal07}.

1120: The error bars shown are due to

1121: the scatter in the mass--richness relation, and are strongly correlated.

1122: For comparison, we have

1123: also plotted the \citet{tinkeretal08} mass function corresponding to the

1124: WMAP5 $95\%$ confidence region for $\sigma_8$,

1125: $0.724 \leq \sigma_8 \leq 0.868$.  All other parameters are held fixed to 

1126: the central values reported in \citet{wmap08}.  Our data are consistent with

1127: the WMAP5 results, though they might suggest a slightly higher power spectrum

1128: normalization.}

1129: \label{fig:mf}

1130: \end{figure} 

1131: 

1132: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1133: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1134: 

1135: Figure \ref{fig:mf} shows the mass function recovered through our

1136: analysis.  To turn our number counts into a density, we assumed

1137: a WMAP5 cosmology \citep{wmap08}, with $\Omega_m=0.27$

1138: and $h=0.72$, and a photometric redshift error $\Delta z=0.01$ (used for

1139: computing the effective volume of the sample).

1140: The diamonds correspond to our estimated means, and

1141: the error bars are the square root of the diagonal elements of

1142: the correlation matrix.  We emphasize that the error bars are heavily

1143: correlated.  The mean and covariance matrix of the recovered halo mass function

1144: can be found in Appendix \ref{app:mfdata}.

1145: 

1146: Also shown in Figure \ref{fig:mf} with dotted lines are the halo mass functions at

1147: $z=0.23$ predicted by WMAP5 assuming the \citet{tinkeretal08} mass function.

1148: For both curves, we set all cosmological parameters to the central values reported

1149: in \citet{wmap08}, except for $\sigma_8$, which is set to $\sigma_8=0.868$

1150: for the upper curve and $\sigma_8=0.724$ for the lower curve.  These two

1151: values define the $95\%$ confidence interval for $\sigma_8$ in \citet{wmap08}.

1152: As we can see, the mass function recovered from our analysis is fully consistent

1153: with the WMAP5 cosmology, though it seems to push for values of $\sigma_8$ on the

1154: high end of their allowed region.  A detailed cosmological analysis

1155: of our data will be presented in a subsequent paper (Rozo et al, in preparation).

1156: 

1157: 

1158: %-----------------------------------------------------

1159: %-----------------------------------------------------

1160: %-----------------------------------------------------

1161: %-----------------------------------------------------

1162: %-----------------------------------------------------

1163: %-----------------------------------------------------

1164: %-----------------------------------------------------

1165: 

1166: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1167: \label{sec:conclusions}

1168: 

1169: We have shown that by combining the information in the maxBCG

1170: richness function, the mean richness-mass relation, the

1171: mean and scatter of the $\Lx-$richness relation, and the mean and scatter

1172: of the $\Lx-M$ relation, we can constrain both the scatter in mass

1173: at fixed richness for maxBCG clusters, as well as the correlation coefficient

1174: between mass and $\Lx$ at fixed richness.  We find

1175: %

1176: %

1177: \begin{eqnarray}

1178: \sigma_{M|N} & = & 0.45^{+0.20}_{-0.18}\ (95\%\ \mbox{CL}) \\

1179: r_{L,M|N} & \geq & 0.85\ (95\%\ \mbox{CL}).

1180: \end{eqnarray}

1181: %

1182: These constraints are dominated by uncertainties in the $\Lx-M$ relation, and can be significantly

1183: tightened if our understanding of the $\Lx-M$ relation improves.  We also found our

1184: results are consistent with those presented in \citet{beckeretal07} once miscentering

1185: of maxBCG clusters is taken into account.

1186: 

1187: Our lower limit on the correlation between $M$ and $\Lx$ at fixed richness constitutes the first observational

1188: constraint on a correlation coefficient involving two different halo mass tracers.  Note that the large

1189: correlation between $\Lx$ and $M$ implies that $\Lx$ - even without core exclusion - is a significantly

1190: better mass tracer than the maxBCG richness estimator (i.e. at fixed richness, over-luminous cluster

1191: are nearly always more massive).  This is an important result, which we use in

1192: a concurrent paper to help us define new richness estimators that are better correlated with

1193: cluster mass~\citep{rozoetal08b}.

1194: 

1195: Using our results, and assuming $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $h=0.71$,

1196: we have estimated the halo mass function at $z=0.23$, corresponding to the median redshift of the

1197: cluster sample.  We find that our recovered mass function is in good agreement with 

1198: the mass function predicted by \citet{tinkeretal08} for the WMAP5 cosmology \citep{wmap08}. A

1199: detailed cosmological analysis will be presented in a forthcoming

1200: paper (Rozo et al, in preparation).

1201: 

1202: Our work sheds new light on the interrelationship of bulk properties of massive halos.

1203: We have used weak lensing, X-ray luminosities,

1204: and optical richness estimates to constrain the scatter in the richness-mass relation, which can lead

1205: to improved cosmological constraints.  In principle, one could also turn this question around, and, assuming

1206: cosmology, we could constrain the scatter in the richness-mass relation, which would then allow us

1207: to place constraints on the amplitude, slope, and scatter of the $\Lx-M$ relation.   Such an analysis would

1208: be interesting in that, by doing so, one could compare the predicted amplitude of the $\Lx-M$ relation to

1209: that derived from hydrostatic mass estimates, thereby directly probing the amount of non-thermal pressure

1210: support in galaxy clusters. Note that even though this question can also be directly addressed by comparing

1211: weak lensing and X-ray mass estimates of individual clusters, the analysis suggested here would benefit

1212: from having small uncertainties, whereas projection effects result in rather noisy weak lensing

1213: mass estimates for individual systems.  

1214: 

1215: \acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Alexey Vikhlinin for providing them with 

1216: the full covariance of the $\Lx-M$ parameters from their analysis of the 400d cluster sample.  

1217: ER thanks David Weinberg and Chris Kochanek for useful discussions and their careful reading

1218: of the manuscript.  ESR would like to thank the TABASGO foundation.

1219: TM and JH gratefully acknowledge support from NSF grant AST 0807304 and DoE 

1220: Grant DE-FG02-95ER40899.  AE gratefully acknowledges support from NSF grant 

1221: AST-0708150.   RHW was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract

1222: number DE-AC02-76SF00515 and by a Terman Fellowship at Stanford

1223: University.

1224: This project was made possible by workshop support from the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics.

1225: 

1226: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1227: %\bibliography{mybib}

1228: \begin{thebibliography}{53}

1229: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2008){Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},

1232:   {Allam}, {Allende Prieto}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall},

1233:   {Bailer-Jones}, {Baldry}, {Barentine}, {Bassett}, {Becker}, {Beers}, {Bell},

1234:   {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Bochanski}, {Boroski}, {Brinchmann},

1235:   {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carliles}, {Carr}, {Castander},

1236:   {Cinabro}, {Cool}, {Covey}, {Csabai}, {Cunha}, {Davenport}, {Dilday}, {Doi},

1237:   {Eisenstein}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman},

1238:   {Fukugita}, {G{\"a}nsicke}, {Gates}, {Gillespie}, {Glazebrook}, {Gray},

1239:   {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {Hall}, {Harding}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley},

1240:   {Hayes}, {Heckman}, {Hendry}, {Hindsley}, {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Hyde},

1241:   {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Jester}, {Johnson}, {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}},

1242:   {Kent}, {Kessler}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin},

1243:   {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lebedeva}, {Lee}, {Leger}, {L{\'e}pine}, {Lima}, {Lin},

1244:   {Long}, {Loomis}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Malanushenko}, {Malanushenko},

1245:   {Mandelbaum}, {Margon}, {Marriner}, {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Matsubara},

1246:   {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Morrison}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Neilsen},

1247:   {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {Okamura},

1248:   {Owen}, {Oyaizu}, {Padmanabhan}, {Pan}, {Park}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope},

1249:   {Purger}, {Raddick}, {Re Fiorentin}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Riess}, {Rix},

1250:   {Rockosi}, {Sako}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Schreiber}, {Schwope}, {Seljak},

1251:   {Sesar}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Sivarani}, {Smith}, {Snedden}, {Steinmetz},

1252:   {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Suto}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark},

1253:   {Thakar}, {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vandenberg},

1254:   {Vidrih}, {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Wadadekar}, {Weinberg}, {West},

1255:   {White}, {Wilhite}, {Yanny}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, \& {Zucker}}]{dr6}

1256: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2008, \apjs, 175, 297

1257: 

1258: \bibitem[{{Bardeau} {et~al.}(2005){Bardeau}, {Kneib}, {Czoske}, {Soucail},

1259:   {Smail}, {Ebeling}, \& {Smith}}]{bardeauetal05}

1260: {Bardeau}, S., {Kneib}, J.-P., {Czoske}, O., {Soucail}, G., {Smail}, I.,

1261:   {Ebeling}, H., \& {Smith}, G.~P. 2005, \aap, 434, 433

1262: 

1263: \bibitem[{{Bardeau} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Bardeau}, {Soucail}, {Kneib},

1264:   {Czoske}, {Ebeling}, {Hudelot}, {Smail}, \& {Smith}}]{bardeauetal07}

1265: {Bardeau}, S., {Soucail}, G., {Kneib}, J.-P., {Czoske}, O., {Ebeling}, H.,

1266:   {Hudelot}, P., {Smail}, I., \& {Smith}, G.~P. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \aap, 470,

1267:   449

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[{{Bardeau} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Bardeau}, {Soucail}, {Kneib},

1270:   {Czoske}, {Ebeling}, {Hudelot}, {Smail}, \& {Smith}}]{bardeauetal07b}

1271: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \aap, 470, 449

1272: 

1273: \bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2007){Becker}, {McKay}, {Koester}, {Wechsler},

1274:   {Rozo}, {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Annis}, {Lau}, {Nichol}, \&

1275:   {Miller}}]{beckeretal07}

1276: {Becker}, M.~R. {et~al.} 2007, \apj, 669, 905

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{{Burenin} {et~al.}(2007){Burenin}, {Vikhlinin}, {Hornstrup},

1279:   {Ebeling}, {Quintana}, \& {Mescheryakov}}]{bureninetal07}

1280: {Burenin}, R.~A., {Vikhlinin}, A., {Hornstrup}, A., {Ebeling}, H., {Quintana},

1281:   H., \& {Mescheryakov}, A. 2007, \apjs, 172, 561

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[{{Dahle}(2006)}]{dahle07}

1284: {Dahle}, H. 2006, \apj, 653, 954

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[{{Dai} {et~al.}(2007){Dai}, {Kochanek}, \& {Morgan}}]{daietal07}

1287: {Dai}, X., {Kochanek}, C.~S., \& {Morgan}, N.~D. 2007, \apj, 658, 917

1288: 

1289: \bibitem[{{Dunkley} {et~al.}(2008){Dunkley}, {Komatsu}, {Nolta}, {Spergel},

1290:   {Larson}, {Hinshaw}, {Page}, {Bennett}, {Gold}, {Jarosik}, {Weiland},

1291:   {Halpern}, {Hill}, {Kogut}, {Limon}, {Meyer}, {Tucker}, {Wollack}, \&

1292:   {Wright}}]{wmap08}

1293: {Dunkley}, J. {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, astro-ph/0803.0586

1294: 

1295: \bibitem[{{Evrard}(1990)}]{evrard90}

1296: {Evrard}, A.~E. 1990, \apj, 363, 349

1297: 

1298: \bibitem[{{Evrard} {et~al.}(2008){Evrard}, {Bialek}, {Busha}, {White}, {Habib},

1299:   {Heitmann}, {Warren}, {Rasia}, {Tormen}, {Moscardini}, {Power}, {Jenkins},

1300:   {Gao}, {Frenk}, {Springel}, {White}, \& {Diemand}}]{evrardetal08}

1301: {Evrard}, A.~E. {et~al.} 2008, \apj, 672, 122

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[{{Frenk} {et~al.}(1990){Frenk}, {White}, {Efstathiou}, \&

1304:   {Davis}}]{frenketal90}

1305: {Frenk}, C.~S., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Efstathiou}, G., \& {Davis}, M. 1990, \apj,

1306:   351, 10

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[{{Gladders} {et~al.}(2007){Gladders}, {Yee}, {Majumdar}, {Barrientos},

1309:   {Hoekstra}, {Hall}, \& {Infante}}]{gladdersetal07}

1310: {Gladders}, M.~D., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., {Majumdar}, S., {Barrientos}, L.~F.,

1311:   {Hoekstra}, H., {Hall}, P.~B., \& {Infante}, L. 2007, \apj, 655, 128

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[{{Haiman} {et~al.}(2001){Haiman}, {Mohr}, \& {Holder}}]{haimanetal01}

1314: {Haiman}, Z., {Mohr}, J.~J., \& {Holder}, G.~P. 2001, \apj, 553, 545

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[{{Henry}(2004)}]{henry04}

1317: {Henry}, J.~P. 2004, \apj, 609, 603

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[{{Henry} \& {Arnaud}(1991)}]{henry91}

1320: {Henry}, J.~P., \& {Arnaud}, K.~A. 1991, \apj, 372, 410

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[{{Hoekstra}(2007)}]{hoekstra07}

1323: {Hoekstra}, H. 2007, \mnras, 379, 317

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{{Holder} {et~al.}(2001){Holder}, {Haiman}, \& {Mohr}}]{holderetal01}

1326: {Holder}, G., {Haiman}, Z., \& {Mohr}, J.~J. 2001, \apjl, 560, L111

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[{{Hu} \& {Kravtsov}(2003)}]{hukravtsov03}

1329: {Hu}, W., \& {Kravtsov}, A.~V. 2003, \apj, 584, 702

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[{{Johnston} {et~al.}(2007){Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Wechsler}, {Rozo},

1332:   {Koester}, {Frieman}, {McKay}, {Evrard}, {Becker}, \&

1333:   {Annis}}]{johnstonetal07}

1334: {Johnston}, D.~E. {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, astro-ph/0709.1159

1335: 

1336: \bibitem[{{Kelly}(2007)}]{kelly07}

1337: {Kelly}, B.~C. 2007, \apj, 665, 1489

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[{{Koester} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Koester}, {McKay}, {Annis},

1340:   {Wechsler}, {Evrard}, {Bleem}, {Becker}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Nichol},

1341:   {Miller}, {Scranton}, {Bahcall}, {Barentine}, {Brewington}, {Brinkmann},

1342:   {Harvanek}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Nitta}, {Schneider},

1343:   {Sneddin}, {Voges}, \& {York}}]{koesteretal07a}

1344: {Koester}, B.~P. {et~al.} 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 660, 239

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[{{Koester} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Koester}, {McKay}, {Annis},

1347:   {Wechsler}, {Evrard}, {Rozo}, {Bleem}, {Sheldon}, \&

1348:   {Johnston}}]{koesteretal07}

1349: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 660, 221

1350: 

1351: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2006){Kravtsov}, {Vikhlinin}, \&

1352:   {Nagai}}]{kravtsovetal06}

1353: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Vikhlinin}, A., \& {Nagai}, D. 2006, \apj, 650, 128

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[{{Lima} {et~al.}(2008){Lima}, {Cunha}, {Oyaizu}, {Frieman}, {Lin}, \&

1356:   {Sheldon}}]{limaetal08}

1357: {Lima}, M., {Cunha}, C.~E., {Oyaizu}, H., {Frieman}, J., {Lin}, H., \&

1358:   {Sheldon}, E.~S. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, astro-ph/0801.3822

1359: 

1360: \bibitem[{{Lima} \& {Hu}(2004)}]{limahu04}

1361: {Lima}, M., \& {Hu}, W. 2004, \prd, 70, 043504

1362: 

1363: \bibitem[{{Lima} \& {Hu}(2005)}]{limahu05}

1364: ---. 2005, \prd, 72, 043006

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[{{Mahdavi} {et~al.}(2008){Mahdavi}, {Hoekstra}, {Babul}, \&

1367:   {Henry}}]{mahdavietal08}

1368: {Mahdavi}, A., {Hoekstra}, H., {Babul}, A., \& {Henry}, J.~P. 2008, \mnras,

1369:   384, 1567

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[{{Mandelbaum} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Mandelbaum}, {Seljak}, \&

1372:   {Hirata}}]{mandelbaumetal08b}

1373: {Mandelbaum}, R., {Seljak}, U., \& {Hirata}, C.~M. 2008{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv

1374:   e-prints, 805, astro-ph/0805.2552

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[{{Mandelbaum} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Mandelbaum}, {Seljak},

1377:   {Hirata}, {Bardelli}, {Bolzonella}, {Bongiorno}, {Carollo}, {Contini},

1378:   {Cunha}, {Garilli}, {Iovino}, {Kampczyk}, {Kneib}, {Knobel}, {Koo},

1379:   {Lamareille}, {Le F{\`e}vre}, {Leborgne}, {Lilly}, {Maier}, {Mainieri},

1380:   {Mignoli}, {Newman}, {Oesch}, {Perez-Montero}, {Ricciardelli}, {Scodeggio},

1381:   {Silverman}, \& {Tasca}}]{mandelbaumetal08}

1382: {Mandelbaum}, R. {et~al.} 2008{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 386, 781

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[{{Maughan}(2007)}]{maughan07}

1385: {Maughan}, B.~J. 2007, \apj, 668, 772

1386: 

1387: \bibitem[{{Nagai} {et~al.}(2007){Nagai}, {Vikhlinin}, \&

1388:   {Kravtsov}}]{nagaietal07a}

1389: {Nagai}, D., {Vikhlinin}, A., \& {Kravtsov}, A.~V. 2007, \apj, 655, 98

1390: 

1391: \bibitem[{{Oyaizu} {et~al.}(2008){Oyaizu}, {Lima}, {Cunha}, {Lin}, {Frieman},

1392:   \& {Sheldon}}]{oyaizuetal08}

1393: {Oyaizu}, H., {Lima}, M., {Cunha}, C.~E., {Lin}, H., {Frieman}, J., \&

1394:   {Sheldon}, E.~S. 2008, \apj, 674, 768

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[{{Pierpaoli} {et~al.}(2001){Pierpaoli}, {Scott}, \&

1397:   {White}}]{pierpaolietal01}

1398: {Pierpaoli}, E., {Scott}, D., \& {White}, M. 2001, \mnras, 325, 77

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[{{Rasia} {et~al.}(2006){Rasia}, {Ettori}, {Moscardini}, {Mazzotta},

1401:   {Borgani}, {Dolag}, {Tormen}, {Cheng}, \& {Diaferio}}]{rasiaetal06}

1402: {Rasia}, E. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 369, 2013

1403: 

1404: \bibitem[{{Reiprich} \& {B{\"o}hringer}(2002)}]{rb02}

1405: {Reiprich}, T.~H., \& {B{\"o}hringer}, H. 2002, \apj, 567, 716

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2004){Rozo}, {Dodelson}, \& {Frieman}}]{rozoetal04}

1408: {Rozo}, E., {Dodelson}, S., \& {Frieman}, J.~A. 2004, \prd, 70, 083008

1409: 

1410: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Rozo}, {Wechsler}, {Koester},

1411:   {Evrard}, \& {McKay}}]{rozoetal07b}

1412: {Rozo}, E., {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Koester}, B.~P., {Evrard}, A.~E., \& {McKay},

1413:   T.~A. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0703574

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Rozo}, {Wechsler}, {Koester},

1416:   {McKay}, {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Annis}, \&

1417:   {Frieman}}]{rozoetal07a}

1418: {Rozo}, E. {et~al.} 2007{\natexlab{b}}, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints,

1419:   astro-ph/0703571

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2006){Rozo}, {Zentner}, {Bertone}, \&

1422:   {Chen}}]{rozoetal06}

1423: {Rozo}, E., {Zentner}, A.~R., {Bertone}, G., \& {Chen}, J. 2006, \apj, 639, 573

1424: 

1425: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2008)}]{rozoetal08b}

1426: {Rozo}, E., {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 809, astro-ph/0809.2797

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[{{Rykoff} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Rykoff}, {Evrard}, {McKay},

1429:   {Becker}, {Johnston}, {Koester}, {Nord}, {Rozo}, {Sheldon}, {Stanek}, \&

1430:   {Wechsler}}]{rykoffetal08b}

1431: {Rykoff}, E.~S. {et~al.} 2008{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, 387, L28

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[{{Rykoff} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Rykoff}, {McKay}, {Becker},

1434:   {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Koester}, {Rozo}, {Sheldon}, \&

1435:   {Wechsler}}]{rykoffetal08a}

1436: ---. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 675, 1106

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[{{Schuecker} {et~al.}(2003){Schuecker}, {B{\"o}hringer}, {Collins}, \&

1439:   {Guzzo}}]{schueckeretal03}

1440: {Schuecker}, P., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Collins}, C.~A., \& {Guzzo}, L. 2003,

1441:   \aap, 398, 867

1442: 

1443: \bibitem[{{Sheldon} {et~al.}(2007){Sheldon}, {Johnston}, {Scranton}, {Koester},

1444:   {McKay}, {Oyaizu}, {Cunha}, {Lima}, {Lin}, {Frieman}, {Wechsler}, {Annis},

1445:   {Mandelbaum}, {Bahcall}, \& {Fukugita}}]{sheldonetal07}

1446: {Sheldon}, E.~S. {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, astro-ph/0709.1153

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[{{Stanek} {et~al.}(2006){Stanek}, {Evrard}, {B{\"o}hringer},

1449:   {Schuecker}, \& {Nord}}]{staneketal06}

1450: {Stanek}, R., {Evrard}, A.~E., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Schuecker}, P., \& {Nord},

1451:   B. 2006, \apj, 648, 956

1452: 

1453: \bibitem[{{Tinker} {et~al.}(2008){Tinker}, {Kravtsov}, {Klypin}, {Abazajian},

1454:   {Warren}, {Yepes}, {Gottlober}, \& {Holz}}]{tinkeretal08}

1455: {Tinker}, J.~L., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Klypin}, A., {Abazajian}, K., {Warren},

1456:   M.~S., {Yepes}, G., {Gottlober}, S., \& {Holz}, D.~E. 2008, ArXiv e-prints,

1457:   803, astro-ph/0803.2706

1458: 

1459: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin} {et~al.}(2008){Vikhlinin}, {Burenin}, {Ebeling},

1460:   {Forman}, {Hornstrup}, {Jones}, {Kravtsov}, {Murray}, {Nagai}, {Quintana}, \&

1461:   {Voevodkin}}]{vikhlininetal08}

1462: {Vikhlinin}, A. {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 805, astro-ph/0805.2207

1463: 

1464: \bibitem[{{Voges} {et~al.}(1999){Voges}, {Aschenbach}, {Boller},

1465:   {Br{\"a}uninger}, {Briel}, {Burkert}, {Dennerl}, {Englhauser}, {Gruber},

1466:   {Haberl}, {Hartner}, {Hasinger}, {K{\"u}rster}, {Pfeffermann}, {Pietsch},

1467:   {Predehl}, {Rosso}, {Schmitt}, {Tr{\"u}mper}, \& {Zimmermann}}]{vogesetal99}

1468: {Voges}, W. {et~al.} 1999, \aap, 349, 389

1469: 

1470: \bibitem[{{Voges} {et~al.}(2001){Voges}, {Boller}, {Englhauser}, {Freyberg}, \&

1471:   {Supper}}]{vogesetal01}

1472: {Voges}, W., {Boller}, T., {Englhauser}, J., {Freyberg}, M., \& {Supper}, R.

1473:   2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 225,

1474:   Virtual Observatories of the Future, ed. R.~J. {Brunner}, S.~G. {Djorgovski},

1475:   \& A.~S. {Szalay}, 234--+

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000){York}, {Adelman}, {Anderson}, {Anderson},

1478:   {Annis}, \& { the SDSS collaboration}}]{yorketal00}

1479: {York}, D.~G., {Adelman}, J., {Anderson}, J.~E., {Anderson}, S.~F., {Annis},

1480:   J., \& { the SDSS collaboration}. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579

1481: 

1482: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(2007){Zhang}, {Finoguenov}, {B{\"o}hringer},

1483:   {Kneib}, {Smith}, {Czoske}, \& {Soucail}}]{zhangetal07}

1484: {Zhang}, Y.-Y., {Finoguenov}, A., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Kneib}, J.-P., {Smith},

1485:   G.~P., {Czoske}, O., \& {Soucail}, G. 2007, \aap, 467, 437

1486: 

1487: \bibitem[{{Zhang} {et~al.}(2008){Zhang}, {Finoguenov}, {B{\"o}hringer},

1488:   {Kneib}, {Smith}, {Kneissl}, {Okabe}, \& {Dahle}}]{zhangetal08}

1489: {Zhang}, Y.-Y., {Finoguenov}, A., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Kneib}, J.-P., {Smith},

1490:   G.~P., {Kneissl}, R., {Okabe}, N., \& {Dahle}, H. 2008, \aap, 482, 451

1491: 

1492: \end{thebibliography}

1493: 

1494: 

1495: \newcommand\AAA[3]{{A\& A} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1496: \newcommand\PhysRep[3]{{Physics Reports} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1497: \newcommand\ApJ[3]{ {ApJ} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1498: \newcommand\PhysRevD[3]{ {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1499: \newcommand\PhysRevLet[3]{ {Physics Review Letters} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1500: \newcommand\MNRAS[3]{{MNRAS} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1501: \newcommand\PhysLet[3]{{Physics Letters} {\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}

1502: \newcommand\AJ[3]{ {AJ} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1503: \newcommand\aph{astro-ph/}

1504: \newcommand\AREVAA[3]{{Ann. Rev. A.\& A.} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1505: 

1506: \appendix

1507: 

1508: 

1509: %-----------------------------------------------------

1510: %-----------------------------------------------------

1511: %-----------------------------------------------------

1512: %-----------------------------------------------------

1513: %-----------------------------------------------------

1514: %-----------------------------------------------------

1515: %-----------------------------------------------------

1516: 

1517: \section{Priors}

1518: \label{app:priors}

1519: 

1520: \subsection{Abundance Priors}

1521: 

1522: Our estimates of the $\Lx-M$ parameters depend on the abundance function

1523: of maxBCG clusters, which is observationally determined, but not known to 

1524: infinite precision.  Here, we fit the observed abundance function using a Schechter

1525: function, such that the mean number of clusters $\mu$ of richness $N$ is 

1526: %

1527: \begin{equation}

1528: \mu(N) = n_0 (N/40)^{-\tau} \exp( - N/N_* ).

1529: \end{equation}

1530: %

1531: The amplitude $n_0$ is chosen such that the total number of clusters exactly

1532: equals the observed number of clusters.  We set this normalization condition

1533: because we are interested only in the shape of the richness function, and not 

1534: in its amplitude.  

1535: 

1536: The fits are done by maximizing the likelihood of the observed distribution,

1537: binned in bins of width $\Delta N=1$.  We assume that the probability

1538: distribution of observed $n$ clusters in a bin of richness $N$ is Poisson,

1539: with

1540: %

1541: \begin{equation}

1542: P(n) = \frac{ \mu(N)^n\exp(-\mu(N)) }{n!}.

1543: \end{equation}

1544: %

1545: For numerical purposes, we cut the distribution at $N_{max}=300$,

1546: which is sufficiently large to not affect our fits.  We emphasize that we use the

1547: above likelihood only to define estimators for $N_*$ and $\tau$, since, as discussed

1548: below, both goodness of fit and errors in the parameter estimation are obtained through

1549: Monte Carlo simulation.

1550: 

1551: The richness distribution is fit over the range $N\geq 10$ by maximizing the

1552: log-likelihood function using an amoeba routine.  To estimate our

1553: errors, we follow a Monte Carlo approach and resample the observed richness 

1554: function $10^4$ times.  We find that the parameters $N_*$ and $\tau$ are significantly

1555: correlated, with the probability distribution being Gaussian in 

1556: $\tau$ and $\ln N_*$.   The best fit parameters are

1557: %

1558: \begin{eqnarray}

1559: \avg{\ln N_*} & = & 3.66\pm 0.10 \\

1560: \avg{\tau} & = & 2.61 \pm 0.06

1561: \end{eqnarray}

1562: %

1563: with a correlation coefficient 

1564: %

1565: \begin{equation}

1566: r_{N_*,\tau} = 0.94.

1567: \end{equation}

1568: 

1569: To assess goodness of fit, we generate $10^4$ mock catalogs

1570: with as many clusters as the real data from the probability distribution specified by

1571: $\avg{\ln N_*}$ and $\avg{\tau}$.  We compute the likelihood for each of these mock catalogs,

1572: and compare the corresponding likelihood distribution to that observed in the real data.

1573: We find that our fit is statistically acceptable.

1574: 

1575: The most significant systematic error affecting our measurements of the shape

1576: of the richness function are completeness and purity variations in the cluster catalog.  

1577: \citet{rozoetal07b} have shown that the maxBCG catalog

1578: is over $90\%$ pure and complete for $N\geq 10$.  Here, we take a conservative approach,

1579: and consider the change in

1580: the best fit parameters assuming the observed counts are rescaled by a completeness/purity

1581: correction factor $\lambda$ given by

1582: %

1583: \begin{equation}

1584: \lambda=\min \{ 0.9+0.1\ln(N/10.0)/\ln(10.0)\}.

1585: \end{equation}

1586: %

1587: This corresponds to a $10\%$ decrease in the observed counts at $N=10$ while

1588: holding the counts at $N=100$ constant.  

1589: Upon refitting the data after this correction we find systematic offsets

1590: %

1591: \begin{eqnarray}

1592: (\Delta \ln N_*)_{sys} & = & 0.01 \\

1593: (\Delta \tau)_{sys} & = & 0.05

1594: \end{eqnarray}

1595: %

1596: which we adopt as our systematic error.  Note the systematic offsets are allowed

1597: to be both positive and negative, since the correction multiplier $\lambda$ above

1598: could easily be larger than unity rather than smaller than unity.

1599: 

1600: 

1601: %-----------------------------------------------------

1602: %-----------------------------------------------------

1603: %-----------------------------------------------------

1604: %-----------------------------------------------------

1605: %-----------------------------------------------------

1606: %-----------------------------------------------------

1607: %-----------------------------------------------------

1608: 

1609: \subsection{$M-N$ Priors}

1610: \label{sec:m-n_priors}

1611: 

1612: Our priors on the $M-N$ relation are based on the results presented in \citet{johnstonetal07},

1613: \citet{mandelbaumetal08}, and \citet{mandelbaumetal08b}.  To assign our priors, we first 

1614: compare the results of these two works as a means of assessing systematic uncertainties

1615: in the mass parameters.  We then focus exclusively on the \citet{johnstonetal07} results

1616: to place our final priors on the $M-N$ relation.  The latter choice reflects the fact that

1617: \citet{johnstonetal07} report weak lensing mass estimates for several mass definitions, among

1618: them $M_{500c}$, the relevant quantity in the $\Lx-M$ relation of \citet{vikhlininetal08}.

1619: 

1620: Let us then begin by discussing the \citet{johnstonetal07} results first.  

1621: While \citet{johnstonetal07} quote a power-law

1622: fit for the mean mass at fixed $\avg{M|N}$, this fit is based a non-public version of the

1623: maxBCG catalog that extends 

1624: to a richness of $N=3$ (the catalog for clusters with $N<10$ is not public).   Since the maxBCG

1625: catalog is only known to be highly complete and pure in the range $N\geq 10$, we have refit

1626: the \citet{johnstonetal07} masses restricting ourselves to the range $N\geq 9$.  This slightly

1627: lower cut is necessary due to the richness binning in \citet{johnstonetal07}.    We find that the

1628: mass $M_{180b}$ within a 180 overdensity threshold relative to mean matter density is 

1629: %

1630: \begin{equation}

1631: \frac{\avg{M_{180b}|N}}{10^{14}\ h^{-1}\msun} = \exp(0.25\pm0.07)(N/20)^{1.18\pm0.09}

1632: \end{equation}

1633: %

1634: with a correlation coefficient $r=-0.43$ between the amplitude and slope parameters.  

1635: 

1636: \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} preformed a similar but independent weak lensing analysis of the

1637: maxBCG clusters, though using $M_{200b}$ as their mass variable.  They find

1638: %

1639: \begin{equation}

1640: \frac{\avg{M_{200b}|N}}{10^{14}\ h^{-1} \msun} = \exp(0.45\pm 0.08)(N/20)^{1.15\pm 0.14}

1641: \end{equation}

1642: %

1643: To compare against the \citet{johnstonetal07} values, we use the \citet{hukravtsov03} mass 

1644: conversion formulae to find an approximate power law relation between $M_{200b}$ and $M_{180b}$

1645: over the range $5\times 10^{14}\ \msun \leq M_{200b} \leq 10^{15}\ \msun$.  We find

1646: $M_{180b} = 1.022 M_{200b}$, which is only a $2\%$ correction.  Applying this correction,

1647: we find that the corresponding $M-N$ parameters from \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} are

1648: %

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: \frac{\avg{M_{180b}|N}}{10^{14}\ h^{-1}\msun} = \exp(0.47\pm0.07)(N/20)^{1.15\pm0.14}

1651: \end{equation}

1652: 

1653: We find that the slopes of the \citet{johnstonetal07} and \cite{mandelbaumetal08b} results are 

1654: nearly identical, but that the masses of \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} are

1655: systematically higher by $\approx 25\%$.  This difference can be traced back to how

1656: the lensing critical surface density for each of the two works is estimated. 

1657: 

1658: In general, lensing masses are proportional to the quantity

1659: $1/\avg{ \Sigma_{crit}^{-1} }$, where $\Sigma_{crit}$ is the lensing critical

1660: surface density, and the average is to be computed over the source redshift

1661: distribution. Given multi-band photometric data $\bm{m}$ for each

1662: galaxy, one way to compute $\avg{\Sigma_{crit}^{-1}}$ is to use a photometric

1663: redshift estimator $z_{photo}(\bm{m})$, and then assume that the true

1664: source redshift distribution is identical to the photometric redshift distribution.

1665: \citet{mandelbaumetal08} have shown that such a simple

1666: approach typically results in biased lensing mass estimates, but they also

1667: demonstrate that it is possible to achieve unbiased results using the probability

1668: distribution $P(z|\bm{m})$.

1669: 

1670: The weak lensing analysis in \citet{sheldonetal07}, on which the results from \citet{johnstonetal07}

1671: are based, falls somewhere in between these two approaches.  While \citet{sheldonetal07} 

1672: does in fact make use of photometric redshifts, they do not simply assume that the source

1673: redshift distribution is identical to the photometric redshift distribution.  Rather, they construct

1674: a probability distribution $P(z|z_{photo})$, and use this probability to 

1675: estimate $\avg{\Sigma_{crit}^{-1}}$.

1676: As it turns out, evaluating $\avg{\Sigma_{crit}^{-1}}$ in this way

1677: leads to results that are nearly identical to those obtained by simply setting $z=z_{photo}$.

1678: Thus, even though the approach used in

1679: \citet{sheldonetal07} is more sophisticated than the simple case considered

1680: in \citet{mandelbaumetal08}, we expect the \citet{sheldonetal07} results to be biased but correctable

1681: as prescribed in \citet{mandelbaumetal08}.

1682: This correction amounts to a boost of the lensing masses by a factor of $1.18\pm 0.02\ (stat) \pm 0.02\ (sys)$.

1683: The statistical error bar in the correction is added in quadrature to the statistical error

1684: bar from our fit, which results in

1685: %

1686: \begin{equation}

1687: \frac{\avg{M_{180b}|N}}{10^{14}\ h^{-1}\msun} = \exp[0.42 \pm 0.07\ (stat) \pm 0.02\ (sys)]\times (N/20)^{1.18\pm 0.09}

1688: \label{eq:johnston_mass}

1689: \end{equation}

1690: %

1691: These new values for the \citet{johnstonetal07} data are in considerably better agreement with those

1692: of \citet{mandelbaumetal08b}.  There remains, however, a systematic $5\%$ difference between the

1693: two amplitudes, as well as a small difference $\Delta \alpha_{M|N}=0.028$ between the two slopes.

1694: 

1695: A possible culprit for this systematic $5\%$ offset is the difference in how miscentering is accounted for

1696: in the data models.

1697: The word miscentering refers to the fact that when finding clusters, one will inevitably find clusters that are

1698: improperly centered, either due to failures of the cluster finding algorithm, or simply because there is

1699: no obvious center of the cluster based on its optical image.  Such offsets between the true and assigned

1700: centers are problematic because if a cluster is miscentered, the corresponding lensing

1701: signal is weakened, resulting in systematically low mass estimates.  

1702: 

1703: To determine whether the remaining offset between \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} and \citet{johnstonetal07}

1704: is consistent with differences in the miscentering model, we refit our data assuming no errors

1705: on the miscentering corrections.  We find

1706: %

1707: \begin{equation}

1708: \avg{M_{180b}|N} = \exp(0.42\pm 0.04)(N/20)^{1.17\pm 0.07}.

1709: \end{equation}

1710: %

1711: with a correlation coefficient $r=-0.15$. Note that these errors are smaller than the errors

1712: quoted before, as they should be, given that this new fit does not marginalize over a wide range

1713: of miscentering models.  By subtracting the two sets of errors in quadrature, we find

1714: that the miscentering priors adopted in \citet{johnstonetal07} correspond to an error

1715: $0.043$ in the amplitude and $0.05$ in the slope.  Thus, the \citet{mandelbaumetal08b}

1716: mass measurements are well within the centering error included in the analysis 

1717: of \citet{johnstonetal07}.

1718: 

1719: Nevertheless, it is unclear whether miscentering can in fact account for the difference between

1720: the \citet{johnstonetal07} and \citet{mandelbaumetal08} results.  More specifically, 

1721: \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} also performed their analysis including the \citet{johnstonetal07}

1722: model for miscentering, and find after applying the centering correction their best fit

1723: $M_{180b}-N$ relation becomes

1724: %

1725: \begin{equation}

1726: \avg{M_{180b}|N} = \exp(0.53\pm 0.07)(N/20)^{1.08\pm 0.14}.

1727: \end{equation}

1728: %

1729: Comparing this to equation \ref{eq:johnston_mass}, we find including a miscentering correction in

1730: the \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} analysis increases the tension between the two results.  Moreover,

1731: it suggests that the difference between the two results is due to some other form of systematic

1732: difference between the two analysis pipelines.  

1733: In light of this, we opt for introducing a systematic correction to the \citet{johnstonetal07}

1734: results of  $+0.06$ and $-0.05$ for the amplitude and slope respectively.  We also introduce 

1735: systematic errors of the same magnitude as this systematic correction, so that our final result is

1736: %

1737: \begin{equation}

1738: \avg{M_{180b}|N} = [\exp(0.48\pm 0.07\ (stat) \pm 0.06\ (sys))](N/20)^{1.13\pm 0.09\ (stat) \pm 0.05\ (sys)}.

1739: \end{equation}

1740: %

1741: Note the central values of the original \citet{johnstonetal07} analysis (corrected for photometric redshift bias)

1742: as well as the \citet{mandelbaumetal08b} results both with and without miscentering corrections are all encompassed

1743: by our systematic error.  

1744: 

1745: Now, in this work we are interested more in the $M_{500c}-N$ (henceforth simply $M-N$) relation than in the 

1746: $M_{200c}-N$ relation, since it is the former mass which is accessible to X-ray studies.  To constrain 

1747: the $M-N$ relation we use the quoted $M_{500c}$ mass measurements from \citet{johnstonetal07}, re-scaling their

1748: $M_{200c}$ errors to $M_{500c}$ by assuming the relative errors are constant.  A fit to the data results in

1749: %

1750: \begin{equation}

1751: \frac{\avg{M|N}}{10^{14} \msun} = \exp[ 0.68 \pm 0.07 ] (N/40)^{1.11 \pm 0.08}

1752: \end{equation}

1753: %

1754: with a correlation coefficient $r=0.45$.  

1755: 

1756: We now boost this expression by factor $1.18$ due to the photometric redshift bias correction, and add the systematic

1757: corrections $+0.06$ and $-0.05$ to the amplitude and slope respectively as per our discussion of the $M_{180b}-N$ relation.

1758: We also include a systematic error on the amplitudes and slopes of this same magnitude.  We obtain

1759: %

1760: \begin{eqnarray}

1761: B_{M|N} & = & 0.91 \pm 0.07\ (stat)\ \pm 0.06\ (sys) \\

1762: \alpha_{M|N} & = & 1.06 \pm 0.08\ (stat) \pm 0.05\ (sys).

1763: \end{eqnarray}

1764: 

1765: The final systematics we consider here are the purity and completeness of the sample.   Now,

1766: as long as the completeness is not correlated with mass, completeness should not in any

1767: way bias the recovered parameters of the $M-N$ relation, though it obviously affects the

1768: error bars due to lower statistics.  

1769: 

1770: The same cannot be said of purity.   If only a fraction $p$ of the clusters are actually

1771: good matches to real halos in the universe, then a fraction $1-p$ of the clusters will have a lensing

1772: signal that is significantly different from the mean signal.  As an extreme case, we can consider

1773: what happens if a fraction $1-p$ of the clusters had no mass associated with them.  In that case,

1774: the observed mean mass is simply $M_{obs}=M_{true}/p$ where $M_{true}$ is the true mean, 

1775: so one should boost the observed masses

1776: by a factor of $1/p$ to obtain an unbiased estimate. For $p=0.9$, this amounts to an 

1777: increase in $B_{M|N}$ of magnitude  $\Delta B_{M|N}= 0.1$. 

1778: Now, \citet{rozoetal06} showed that the purity of the maxBCG cluster sample

1779: is expected to be above $90\%$ over the range or richnesses considered here,

1780: and the increase in $B_{M|N}$ quoted above is undoubtedly an overestimate of the

1781: necessary correction since even false cluster detections will have excess mass

1782: associated with them.  In light of this, we have adopted a one-sided systematic error bar 

1783: $\Delta B_{M|N}=0.08$ to take into account the impact of purity in the recovered $M-N$

1784: relation.   The error bar is one sided since we expect impurities will tend to decrease

1785: the observed mean mass.  We can, however, turn this prior into a normal double-sided

1786: prior by including a systematic correction $\Delta B_{M|N}=0.04$ to the central

1787: value, and setting the systematic error bar to the same magnitude as the

1788: central value shift.

1789: We can also get a rough estimate for the systematic error on the purity 

1790: by assuming that the quoted systematic error in the amplitude should be made only

1791: in the limit of high or low richness.  If that were the case, using the fact the slope is measured

1792: over a decade of richness values, the corresponding slope

1793: would be

1794: %

1795: \begin{equation}

1796: \alpha = \frac{ 1.06\ln(10)+0.08}{\ln(10)} = 1.09

1797: \end{equation}

1798: %

1799: which amounts to a systematic offset $\Delta\alpha=0.03$.  

1800: These systematic error bars are added linearly to our previous systematic error.

1801: Our final set of priors for the $M-N$ relation is

1802: %

1803: \begin{eqnarray}

1804: B_{M|N} & = & 0.95 \pm 0.07\ (stat) \pm 0.10\ (sys) \\

1805: \alpha_{M|N} & = & 1.06 \pm 0.08\ (stat) \pm 0.08\ (sys)

1806: \end{eqnarray}

1807: %

1808: with a correlation coefficient $r=0.45$ between the two statistical errors.

1809: 

1810: 

1811: %-----------------------------------------------------

1812: %-----------------------------------------------------

1813: %-----------------------------------------------------

1814: %-----------------------------------------------------

1815: %-----------------------------------------------------

1816: %-----------------------------------------------------

1817: %-----------------------------------------------------

1818: 

1819: \subsection{$\Lx-N$ Priors}

1820: \label{app:lx-n_priors}

1821: 

1822: The priors in the $\Lx-N$ relation come from repeating the analysis described

1823: in \citet{rykoffetal08a}, but with $\Lx$ defined as the X-ray luminosity in the

1824: 0.5-2.0 keV band, and corrected for aperture effects.  As in

1825: \citet{rykoffetal08a}, we restrict this analysis to clusters with $N \geq

1826: 30$.  We begin by measuring the stacked mean $\Lx-N$ relation and scatter on a

1827: fixed $1\,\hMpc$ scale

1828: %

1829: \begin{eqnarray}

1830: \label{eqn:lxnmean}

1831: B_{L|N} & = & 1.69\pm0.04\,(stat)\\

1832: \alpha_{L|N} & = & 1.63 \pm 0.06\,(stat)\\

1833: \sigma_{L|N} & = & 0.84 \pm 0.03\,(stat)

1834: \end{eqnarray}

1835: %

1836: where we have measured $\Lx$ in units of

1837: $10^{43}\ \mathrm{ergs}\times \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, with a pivot point of

1838: $N = 40$.  We emphasize that the scatter determined above is the total

1839: scatter in the observed $\Lx-N$ relation that cannot be attributed to Poisson

1840: uncertainties in the ROSAT photon counts.  In particular, the quoted scatter is

1841: affected by possible point source contamination, AGN activity, cool cores,

1842: cluster mergers, etc.

1843: 

1844: There are multiple systematic errors that can affect the derived parameters for

1845: the $\Lx-N$ relation.  These include photometric redshift errors,

1846: evolution of the richness parameter $N$, uncorrelated point sources,

1847: cluster mis-centering, and cluster AGN and cool cores.  In addition, we need to

1848: account for the fraction of cluster flux lost due to our finite aperture and

1849: the RASS PSF, in order to compare our results with the luminosity measurements

1850: of \citet{vikhlininetal08}.  We shall now discuss each of these possible

1851: systematic effects.

1852: 

1853: \citet{rykoffetal08a} find that the accuracy of the maxBCG photo-z estimates is

1854: high enough such that any biases are insignificant relative to the statistical

1855: uncertainty of the parameter determinations, and can thus be safely ignored.

1856: However, \citet{rykoffetal08a} did find significant redshift evolution in the

1857: $\Lx-N$ relation, well above the expected self-similar evolution.

1858: Similar redshift evolution is found in \citet{beckeretal07}; the reason for the

1859: systematic undercounting of cluster members at high redshift is explained in \citet{rozoetal08b}.  We have estimated the effect of this redshift evolution on

1860: our derived scatter parameter via a simple Monte Carlo, and confirm that

1861: although the apparent evolution is strong, it is insignificant relative to the

1862: intrinsic scatter.  Therefore, we may also safely ignore this possible

1863: systematic effect.

1864: 

1865: We now take a combined approach to the systematic effects due to cluster

1866: mis-centering, a finite aperture, the RASS PSF and uncorrelated point sources.

1867: The first three effects are strongly related, in that they all tend to scatter

1868: cluster photons out of our initial fixed $1\,\hMpc$ aperture, and these may

1869: affect the normalization, slope, and scatter in the $\Lx-N$ relation.

1870: Uncorrelated point sources should not affect the mean relation because the

1871: large number of stacked sources smooths out the foreground and background.

1872: However, when uncorrelated point sources are aligned with individual clusters

1873: they may increase the measured scatter by boosting the apparent $\Lx$.

1874: 

1875: We have estimated the effects of these systematics by running a Monte Carlo

1876: with simulated RASS data on top of random backgrounds selected from the area of

1877: the RASS photon map that overlaps with the maxBCG mask. 

1878: We first resample the maxBCG richness function 100 times.  Each 

1879: cluster is given a redshift drawn from the maxBCG redshift distribution, as well as a random 

1880: postion on the sky selected from the area of the RASS survey that overlaps with the maxBCG mask.  

1881: After we select the richest 1000 clusters in each realization, each cluster is given a luminosity based 

1882: on the mean relation from Eqn.~\ref{eqn:lxnmean} and an input intrinsic scatter,  

1883: $\sigma_{in} =\{0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0\}$.  Each cluster luminosity is then converted

1884: to a number of photon counts according to the RASS exposure at the given

1885: point, and scattered by Poisson uncertainties.  Then, each cluster is given a

1886: position offset according to the maxBCG miscentering distribution described in

1887: \citet[][see \S~4.3]{johnstonetal07}.  The cluster profiles are assumed to

1888: follow a $\beta$ model, $S(R) = S_0(1+R^2/R_C^2)^{-3\beta+1/2}$.  To ensure we

1889: are on similar footing as \citet{vikhlininetal08}, we randomly assign each

1890: cluster $\beta$ model parameters uniformly in the range $0.6<\beta<0.7$ and

1891: $0.05<R_C<0.15\,\hMpc$.  Finally, the photons are scattered according to the

1892: RASS PSF, following the method of \citet[][see \S~3.3.1]{rykoffetal08a}.  We

1893: then calculate the stacked mean relation and scatter as described in

1894: \citet{rykoffetal08a}.

1895: 

1896: Figure~\ref{fig:lnsystematics} summarizes the results from our systematic

1897: tests.  The x-axis shows the input intrinsic scatter, $\sigma_{in}$.  The

1898: y-axis shows the ratio of the input parameter to output parameter for the

1899: normalization $B_{L|N}$ (circles), slope $\alpha_{L|N}$ (diamonds), and scatter

1900: $\sigma_{L|N}$ (squares).  We note that when $\sigma_{in}=0.0$ then

1901: $\sigma_{out}=0.31\pm 0.04$, which cannot be displayed on the plot.  This is

1902: consistent with our expectation that uncorrelated sources may boost the observed

1903: scatter, especially with low intrinsic scatter.  Overall, we find that (a) the

1904: slope $\alpha_{L|N}$ is not significantly biased; (b) at moderate to large

1905: scatter ($\sigma_{in} \gtrsim 0.5$) the intrinsic scatter $\sigma_{L|N}$ is not

1906: significantly biased; and (c) the output normalization $B_{L|N}$ must be

1907: boosted by a factor of $1.20\pm0.05$ to account for the flux lost to

1908: miscentering, the finite aperture, and RASS PSF effects.  Our priors become 

1909: then

1910: %

1911: \begin{eqnarray}

1912: B_{L|N} & = & 1.87 \pm 0.04\,(stat) \pm 0.05 \,(sys)\\

1913: \alpha_{L|N} & = & 1.63 \pm 0.06\,(stat) \\

1914: \sigma_{L|N} & = & 0.84 \pm 0.03\,(stat).

1915: \end{eqnarray}

1916: %

1917: 

1918: In addition to these corrections, we also need to take into account systematic uncertainties

1919: due to purity and completeness in the sample.  Just as with the weak lensing mass estimates,

1920: completeness should not affect the measured $\Lx-N$ relation, whereas purity will tend to

1921: suppress the X-ray luminosity at fixed richness.  Following the same procedure as in 

1922: appendix \ref{sec:m-n_priors}, we derive systematic errors $\Delta B_{L|N}=0.04$ and

1923: $\Delta \alpha_{L|N}=0.05$, which we add linearly to our previous systematic error estimates.

1924: Finally, we have repeated our scatter analysis using not just the 1000 richest clusters,

1925: but also the 2000 richest clusters, in which case we find $\sigma_{L|N}=0.95$.  To 

1926: take into account this variation in our analysis, we also introduce a systematic error 

1927: $\Delta \sigma_{L|N}=0.10$.

1928: Our final set of priors is

1929: %

1930: \begin{eqnarray}

1931: B_{L|N} & = & 1.91 \pm 0.04\,(stat) \pm 0.09 \,(sys)\\

1932: \alpha_{L|N} & = & 1.63 \pm 0.06\,(stat)\pm 0.05\,(sys)\\

1933: \sigma_{L|N} & = & 0.84 \pm 0.03\,(stat)\pm 0.10\,(sys).

1934: \end{eqnarray}

1935: %

1936: 

1937: \begin{figure}

1938: \begin{center}

1939: \rotatebox{270}{\scalebox{0.5}{\plotone{f6.eps}}}

1940: \caption{\label{fig:lnsystematics}Results from systematic error Monte Carlo

1941:   tests.  The x-axis shows the input intrinsic scatter, $\sigma_{in}$.  The

1942:   y-axis shows the ratio of the given input parameter to output parameter for

1943:   the normalization $B_{L|N}$ (circles), slope $\alpha_{L|N}$ (diamonds), and

1944:   scatter $\sigma_{L|N}$ (squares).  We note that when $\sigma_{in}=0.0$ then

1945:   $\sigma_{out}=0.31\pm 0.04$, which cannot be displayed on the plot.

1946: }

1947: \end{center}

1948: \end{figure}

1949: 

1950: %-----------------------------------------------------

1951: %-----------------------------------------------------

1952: %-----------------------------------------------------

1953: %-----------------------------------------------------

1954: %-----------------------------------------------------

1955: %-----------------------------------------------------

1956: %-----------------------------------------------------

1957: 

1958: 

1959: \subsection{$\Lx-M$ Priors}

1960: \label{app:lx-m_priors}

1961: 

1962: As discussed in section \ref{sec:rough}, our analysis hinges on the fact

1963: that we can use prior knowledge about the $\Lx-M$ relation 

1964: to constrain the $M-N$ relation.   Here, we use the results of \citet{vikhlininetal08}

1965: to put priors on the $\Lx-M$ relation, which may be summarized as\footnote{We have

1966: included the appropriate evolution correction for a median redshift $z=0.23$, as

1967: appropriate for the maxBCG sample.}

1968: %

1969: \begin{eqnarray}

1970: A_{L|M} + 1.361\alpha_{L|M} +1.5(\sigma_{L|M}^2-0.40^2) & = & 2.59\pm 0.08 \\

1971: \alpha_{L|M} & = & 1.61\pm 0.14 \\

1972: \sigma_{L|M} & = & 0.40 \pm 0.04.

1973: \end{eqnarray}

1974: %

1975: We report a prior on $A_{L|M}+1.361\alpha_{L|M}+1.5(\sigma_{L|M}^2-0.40^2)$ 

1976: because at $M=10^{14}\ \msun$ the $\Lx-M$ parameters derived from the

1977: \citet{bureninetal07} sample are correlated.  To decouple them, one

1978: needs to shift to the statistical pivot point $M=3.9\times 10^{14}\ \msun$ and

1979: introduce the scatter dependence quoted above (Vikhlinin, private communication).

1980: These constraints are derived from Chandra observations of clusters in the

1981: 400d cluster catalog \citep{bureninetal07}, which allowed \citet{vikhlininetal08}

1982: to measure $Y_X$ and thereby infer cluster mass using the $M-Y_X$ relation. 

1983: This relation was itself calibrated on a cluster subsample for which masses were

1984: derived using the standard hydrostatic equilibrium argument.

1985: This last point is very important, since

1986: simulations suggest that hydrostatic mass estimates of clusters may be biased low

1987: by $\approx 10\%-30\%$ \citep[see e.g.][]{evrard90,rasiaetal06,nagaietal07a}.  

1988: One way to calibrate such uncertainties is to

1989: compare weak lensing mass estimates to hydrostatic mass estimates.   There are several

1990: examples of this type of approach.  For instance, 

1991: \citet{vikhlininetal08} have

1992: performed such an analysis using the weak lensing mass estimates of \citet{hoekstra07}, and

1993: find $M_{wl}= ( 1.09 \pm 0.11) M_X.$

1994: A similar analysis has been carried out by \citet{mahdavietal08}, who used the weak lensing

1995: mass estimates of \citet{hoekstra07} and their own analysis of Chandra public data to obtain

1996: $M_{wl}=( 1.28 \pm 0.15) M_X$.  Finally, using XMM X-ray observations

1997: and the weak lensing data of \citet{bardeauetal05}, \citet{bardeauetal07}, and \citet{dahle07},

1998: \citet{zhangetal08} find $M_{wl} = ( 1.21 \pm 0.13 )M_X$.

1999: \citet{zhangetal08} also note, however, that a histogram of $M_{wl}/M_{X}$ peaks

2000: at a ratio of $1.00\pm 0.05$, and that clusters in the tails of the distribution tend to have tight

2001: error bars, possibly biasing the error weighted ratio.

2002: In light of this, we have opted for a ``middle of the road'' approach, and introduce a correction 

2003: factor $1.15\pm 0.15$.  Our corresponding prior is

2004: %

2005: \begin{eqnarray}

2006: A_{L|M} + 1.361\alpha_{L|M}  +1.5(\sigma_{L|M}^2-0.40^2)  & = & 2.45 \pm 0.08\ (stat) \pm 0.23\ (sys) \\

2007: \alpha_{L|M} & = & 1.61\pm 0.14\ (stat) \\

2008: \sigma_{L|M} & = & 0.40 \pm 0.04\ (stat).

2009: \end{eqnarray}

2010: %

2011: 

2012: Estimating systematic errors in $\alpha_{L|M}$ and $\sigma_{L|M}$ is difficult.  For instance,

2013: comparisons with weak lensing masses are not an effective way of assessing systematics 

2014: because weak lensing mass estimates are so noisy: trying to fit a power law relation between

2015: $M_{wl}$ and $M_X$ results in very large errors for the slope of the relation.

2016: 

2017: One alternative is to consider multiple studies of the $\Lx-M$ relation in order to asses how

2018: sensitive the recovered parameters are to the analysis pipeline.  Unfortunately, such an excercise

2019: is far from trivial.  One difficulty is the fact that there is very little agreement on the meaning of

2020: $\Lx$, with many works focusing on core-excised and/or core-corrected bolometric X-ray

2021: lumunisoties \citep[e.g.][]{bardeauetal07b,zhangetal07,zhangetal08}.  Even among those works

2022: that also explore the $\Lx-M$ relation when $\Lx$ is a soft X-ray band luminosity

2023: \citep[e.g.][]{rb02,maughan07}, there are still important differences in the aperture used

2024: to estimate $\Lx$.  In principle, we could attempt to convert between the various definitions

2025: of $\Lx$ to try to compare the works against each other, but many of these $\Lx-M$ measurements

2026: are affected by Malmquist bias, making comparisons to the \citet[][]{vikhlininetal08} results

2027: difficult.

2028: 

2029: One work that does constrain the the soft X-ray band,

2030: non-core excised, Malmquist bias corrected $\Lx-M$ relation is \citet{staneketal06}.

2031: Unfortunately, the energy band they use is slightly different from that of of \citet{vikhlininetal08}, so

2032: even here comparison is not trivial.  We expect, however, that at least the scatter and slopes 

2033: of the $\Lx-M$ relation will not be strongly affected by the minor differences between the two 

2034: $\Lx$ definitions.  Given our purposes, the interesting thing about the \citet{staneketal06}

2035: results is that they use a very different methodology for constraining the $\Lx-M$ relation.

2036: In particular, they assume knowledge of cosmological parameters, and then use the observed

2037: cluster X-ray luminosity function to constrain $P(\Lx|M)$.  Assuming their ``compromise cosmology'',

2038: which they argue gives the best results, they find

2039: $\alpha_{X|M}=1.60\pm0.05$ and $\sigma_{L|M}=0.34\pm0.10$.  These values are in

2040: excellent agreement with those of \citet{vikhlininetal08}, and suggest that placing additional

2041: systematic errors in the $\Lx-M$ parameters is not really necessary at this point.

2042: 

2043: 

2044: 

2045: 

2046: %-----------------------------------------------------

2047: %-----------------------------------------------------

2048: %-----------------------------------------------------

2049: %-----------------------------------------------------

2050: %-----------------------------------------------------

2051: %-----------------------------------------------------

2052: %-----------------------------------------------------

2053: 

2054: \section{Mass Function Data}

2055: \label{app:mfdata}

2056: 

2057: 

2058: Table \ref{tab:mfdata} presents the mean and covariance matrix of the mass function data derived from our

2059: analysis.  These results represent the state of the art mass function measurements at low redshift

2060: from optically derived cluster catalogs.  We emphasize we assumed

2061: $\Omega_m=0.27$ and $h=0.71$, so appropriate rescaling must be applied if the results

2062: are to be compared against significantly different cosmologies.  

2063: Note that the covariance matrix data in table \ref{tab:mfdata} is 

2064: normalized such that the diagonal entries are the fractional error $\sqrt{C_{i,i}}/\avg{n_i}$, while

2065: the off diagonal entries are the correlation coefficients $r_{i,j}=C_{i,j}/\sqrt{C_{i,i}C_{j,j}}$.  We present

2066: the data in this way since it is easier to understand when expressed this way.   The 

2067: actual values for the covariance matrix are easily reconstructed from the data in the table.

2068: 

2069: \begin{deluxetable}{|c|c|lllllllllllllllll|}

2070: \tablewidth{0pt}

2071: \tablecaption{\label{tab:mfdata}maxBCG Mass Function Data}

2072: \startdata

2073: \hline

2074: $M_{500c}$ & $\avg{dn/d\ln M}$ & 3.22 & 3.70 & 4.26 & 4.91 & 5.65 & 6.50 & 7.49 & 8.62 & 9.92 & 11.42 & 13.14 & 15.12 & 17.41 & 20.04 & 23.07 & 26.55 & 30.56 \\

2075: \hline

2076: \hline

2077: 3.22 & 7.90e-7 & 0.22 & 0.82 & 0.77 & 0.72 & 0.66 & 0.61 & 0.55 & 0.50 & 0.44 & 0.39 & 0.35 & 0.30 & 0.25 & 0.21 & 0.18 & 0.15 & 0.12 \\ 

2078: 3.70 & 5.61e-7 & 0.82 & 0.24 & 0.79 & 0.76 & 0.71 & 0.67 & 0.62 & 0.57 & 0.52 & 0.46 & 0.41 & 0.36 & 0.31 & 0.27 & 0.23 & 0.19 & 0.16 \\ 

2079: 4.26 & 3.92e-7 & 0.77 & 0.79 & 0.27 & 0.77 & 0.74 & 0.70 & 0.66 & 0.61 & 0.57 & 0.52 & 0.46 & 0.41 & 0.36 & 0.31 & 0.26 & 0.22 & 0.18 \\ 

2080: 4.91 & 2.70e-7 & 0.72 & 0.76 & 0.77 & 0.30 & 0.75 & 0.72 & 0.68 & 0.64 & 0.59 & 0.55 & 0.50 & 0.44 & 0.38 & 0.34 & 0.29 & 0.24 & 0.20 \\ 

2081: 5.65 & 1.82e-7 & 0.66 & 0.71 & 0.74 & 0.75 & 0.35 & 0.72 & 0.69 & 0.65 & 0.61 & 0.57 & 0.52 & 0.46 & 0.41 & 0.36 & 0.30 & 0.26 & 0.22 \\ 

2082: 6.50 & 1.21e-7 & 0.61 & 0.67 & 0.70 & 0.72 & 0.72 & 0.41 & 0.68 & 0.65 & 0.62 & 0.57 & 0.52 & 0.47 & 0.42 & 0.37 & 0.32 & 0.27 & 0.22 \\ 

2083: 7.49 & 7.93e-8 & 0.55 & 0.62 & 0.66 & 0.68 & 0.69 & 0.68 & 0.47 & 0.64 & 0.60 & 0.57 & 0.52 & 0.47 & 0.42 & 0.37 & 0.32 & 0.27 & 0.23 \\ 

2084: 8.62 & 5.11e-8 & 0.50 & 0.57 & 0.61 & 0.64 & 0.65 & 0.65 & 0.64 & 0.55 & 0.59 & 0.55 & 0.51 & 0.47 & 0.41 & 0.37 & 0.32 & 0.27 & 0.23 \\ 

2085: 9.92 & 3.24e-8 & 0.44 & 0.52 & 0.57 & 0.59 & 0.61 & 0.62 & 0.60 & 0.59 & 0.65 & 0.53 & 0.49 & 0.45 & 0.40 & 0.36 & 0.31 & 0.26 & 0.22 \\ 

2086: 11.42 & 2.03e-8 & 0.39 & 0.46 & 0.52 & 0.55 & 0.57 & 0.57 & 0.57 & 0.55 & 0.53 & 0.76 & 0.47 & 0.43 & 0.38 & 0.34 & 0.30 & 0.25 & 0.21 \\ 

2087: 13.14 & 1.25e-8 & 0.35 & 0.41 & 0.46 & 0.50 & 0.52 & 0.52 & 0.52 & 0.51 & 0.49 & 0.47 & 0.92 & 0.40 & 0.36 & 0.32 & 0.28 & 0.24 & 0.20 \\ 

2088: 15.12 & 7.61e-9 & 0.30 & 0.36 & 0.41 & 0.44 & 0.46 & 0.47 & 0.47 & 0.47 & 0.45 & 0.43 & 0.40 & 1.11 & 0.33 & 0.30 & 0.26 & 0.22 & 0.19 \\ 

2089: 17.41 & 4.53e-9 & 0.25 & 0.31 & 0.36 & 0.38 & 0.41 & 0.42 & 0.42 & 0.41 & 0.40 & 0.38 & 0.36 & 0.33 & 1.36 & 0.26 & 0.24 & 0.20 & 0.17 \\ 

2090: 20.04 & 2.63e-9 & 0.21 & 0.27 & 0.31 & 0.34 & 0.36 & 0.37 & 0.37 & 0.37 & 0.36 & 0.34 & 0.32 & 0.30 & 0.26 & 1.74 & 0.21 & 0.19 & 0.16 \\ 

2091: 23.07 & 1.48e-9 & 0.18 & 0.23 & 0.26 & 0.29 & 0.30 & 0.32 & 0.32 & 0.32 & 0.31 & 0.30 & 0.28 & 0.26 & 0.24 & 0.21 & 2.22 & 0.17 & 0.14 \\ 

2092: 26.55 & 8.29e-10 & 0.15 & 0.19 & 0.22 & 0.24 & 0.26 & 0.27 & 0.27 & 0.27 & 0.26 & 0.25 & 0.24 & 0.22 & 0.20 & 0.19 & 0.17 & 2.88 & 0.12 \\ 

2093: 30.56 & 4.41e-10 & 0.12 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.20 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.22 & 0.21 & 0.20 & 0.19 & 0.17 & 0.16 & 0.14 & 0.12 & 3.88 

2094: \enddata

2095: \tablenotetext{}{Mean and covariance matrix of the maxBCG mass function.   Masses are defined using an overdensity

2096: of 500 relative to critical, and are measured in units of $10^{14}\ \msun$.  Space densities are measured in

2097: units of $\Mpc^{-3}$.  Diagonal terms in the covariance matrix above are set to $\sqrt{C_{i,i}}/\avg{n_i}$, and thus represent

2098: the fractional uncertainty in the halo space density.   Off diagonal terms contain the correlation coefficient $r_{i,j}=C_{i,j}/\sqrt{C_{i,i}C_{j,j}}$

2099: between the various bins.  The median redshift of the sample is $z=0.23$.}

2100: \end{deluxetable}

2101: 

2102: 

2103: \end{document}

2104: 

2105: