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

2: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

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

4: \usepackage{apjfonts}

5: 

6: \def\black{\color{black}}

7: \def\white{\color{white}}

8: 

9: \input epsf

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

11: 

12: 

13: %--------------------------------------------------

14: %--------------------------------------------------

15: % Cosmology

16: 

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

18: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega_m}

19: 

20: 

21: %--------------------------------------------------

22: %--------------------------------------------------

23: 

24: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\mbox{Mpc}}

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

26: \newcommand{\hMpc}{h^{-1}\,\mathrm{Mpc}}

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

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

29: 

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

31: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

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

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

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

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

36: 

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

38: 

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

40: 

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

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

43: \newcommand{\ba}{b_a}

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

45: \newcommand{\psia}{\psi_a}

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

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

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

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

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

51: 

52: \newcommand{\Na}{N_a}

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

54: 

55: 

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

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

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

59: 

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

61: 

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

63: \newcommand{\pa}{p_a}

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

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

66: 

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

68: 

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

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

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

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

73: 

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

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

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

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

78: 

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

80: 

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

82: 

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

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

85: \newcommand{\Nobs}{N_{200}}

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

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

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

89: 

90: \newcommand{\om}{\Omega_m}

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

92: \newcommand{\ob}{\Omega_b}

93: 

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

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

96: \newcommand{\aN}{{\alpha_N}}

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

98: 

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

100: 

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

102: 

103: \newcommand{\pnn}{P(\Nobs|\Nt)}

104: \newcommand{\ps}{P_s(\Nobs|\Nt)}

105: \newcommand{\pn}{P_n(\Nobs|\Nt)}

106: 

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

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

109: 

110: \newcommand{\zh}{z_h}

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

112: \newcommand{\zc}{z_c}

113: \newcommand{\bz}{b_z}

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

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

116: \newcommand{\rhob}{\rho_b}

117: 

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

119: 

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

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

122: 

123: \newcommand{\gaa}{g_a}

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

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

126: 

127: \newcommand{\Ns}{N_s}

128: 

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

130: 

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

132: 

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

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

135: 

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

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

138: 

139: \newcommand{\Rc}{R_c}

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

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

142: 

143: %\newcommand{\kpc}{\mbox{kpc}}

144: \newcommand{\kpc}{h^{-1}\,\mathrm{kpc}}

145: 

146: \newcommand{\Lx}{L_X}

147: \newcommand{\lnl}{\ln \Lx}

148: 

149: \newcommand{\erf}{\mbox{erf}}

150: 

151: \citestyle{aa}

152: \shortauthors{ROZO ET AL.}

153: \shorttitle{Improved Richness Estimates}

154: 

155: \begin{document}

156: \title{An Improved Cluster Richness Estimator}

157: \author{Eduardo Rozo\altaffilmark{1}, Eli S. Rykoff\altaffilmark{2}, Benjamin P. Koester\altaffilmark{3,4}, Timothy McKay\altaffilmark{5,6,7}, 

158: Jiangang Hao\altaffilmark{5}, August Evrard\altaffilmark{5,6,7}, Risa H. Wechsler\altaffilmark{8}, Sarah Hansen\altaffilmark{3,4}, 

159: Erin Sheldon\altaffilmark{9}, David Johnston\altaffilmark{10}, Matthew Becker\altaffilmark{3,4}, James Annis\altaffilmark{11}, 

160: Lindsey Bleem\altaffilmark{3}, Ryan Scranton\altaffilmark{12}}

161: 

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

163: \altaffiltext{2}{TABASGO Fellow, Physics Department, University of California

164:   at Santa Barbara, 2233B Broida Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106}

165: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}

166: \altaffiltext{4}{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637} 

167: \altaffiltext{5}{Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

168: \altaffiltext{6}{Astronomy Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

169: \altaffiltext{7}{Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

170: \altaffiltext{8}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics \& Cosmology,

171:   Physics Department, and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,

172:   Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305}

173: \altaffiltext{9}{Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Physics Department, New York University, New York, NY 10003}

174: \altaffiltext{10}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109}

175: \altaffiltext{11}{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510}

176: \altaffiltext{12}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Universityof Pittsburgh, 3941 O'Hara St., Pittsburgh, PA 15260}

177: 

178: 

179: \begin{abstract}

180: Minimizing the scatter between cluster mass and accessible observables

181: is an important goal for cluster cosmology. In this work, we introduce a new matched filter richness estimator,

182: and test its performance using the maxBCG cluster catalog.  Our new estimator

183: significantly reduces the variance in the $\Lx-$richness relation, from $\sigma_{\lnl}^2=(0.86\pm0.02)^2$ to 

184: $\sigma_{\lnl}^2=(0.69\pm0.02)^2$.  Relative to the maxBCG richness estimate, it also removes the strong redshift 

185: dependence of the richness scaling relations, and is significantly more robust to

186: photometric and redshift errors.  These improvements are largely due to our more sophisticated treatment

187: of galaxy color data.  We also demonstrate the scatter in the $\Lx-$richness relation depends on the

188: aperture used to estimate cluster richness, and introduce a novel approach for optimizing said aperture which

189: can be easily generalized to other mass tracers.

190: \end{abstract}

191: 

192:  \keywords{galaxies: clusters -- X-rays: galaxies: clusters}

193: 

194: 

195: \section{Introduction}

196: 

197: The dependence of the halo mass function on cosmology is a problem that is well understood

198: both analytically \citep{pressschechter74,bondetal91,shethtormen02} and numerically 

199: \citep{jenkinsetal01,warrenetal06,tinkeretal08}.  In principle, this detailed understanding allows one

200: to place tight constraints on the amplitude of the primordial power spectrum and on

201: dark energy parameters \citep[e.g.][]{holderetal01,haimanetal01}.  In practice, life is not so simple.

202: Cluster mass is not an observable, and so we must rely on other quantities that

203: trace mass to estimate the halo mass function.  In this context, 

204: observables that are tightly correlated with mass and whose scatter is well understood are highly

205: desirable, as they permit a more accurate measurement of the mass function.

206: 

207: One such mass tracer, and the subject of interest for this work, is the so called cluster richness, 

208: a measure of the galaxy content of a cluster.  Relative to other popular mass 

209: tracers such as X-ray properties, SZ-decrements, and galaxy velocity dispersion, optical richness 

210: has unique advantages and disadvantages. Its unique advantages are:

211: %

212: \begin{enumerate}

213: \item cluster richness can be easily estimated with inexpensive, photometric optical data.

214: \item cluster richness can be estimated for both massive clusters and low mass groups.

215: \end{enumerate}

216: %

217: The first of these two properties is significant because it implies that cluster richness estimates are readily available

218: given any large, photometric optical survey such as the SDSS \citep{yorketal00} , DES\footnote{http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/},

219: or LSST\footnote{http://www.lsst.org/lsst\_home.shtml}.

220: The latter property, on the other hand, is an important advantage for a much more interesting reason.  

221: 

222: Beginning with \citet{whiteetal93},

223: cosmological constraints from galaxy clusters have been presented as a degeneracy relation

224: $\sigma_8\Omega_m^{\gamma}=constant$ where $\gamma\approx 0.5$, $\sigma_8$ is a parameter specifying the amplitude

225: of the primordial power spectrum, and $\Omega_m$ is the matter density of the universe in units of the critical density. 

226: The existence of this degeneracy is easy to explain~\citep[][]{rozoetal04}: suppose that we only measured the abundance

227: of galaxy clusters at a single mass scale.  Since the halo mass function depends on both $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_m$,

228: it is evident that with just one observable there must be a degeneracy between these two parameters.  But what if

229: we measure the halo mass function over a range of scales?  This is roughly equivalent to measuring the

230: amplitude and slope of the halo mass function at the statistical pivot point.  If the mass range probed is small, then the

231: slope of the mass function is not well constrained, and the degeneracy between $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_m$ will

232: remain.  In order to break this degeneracy, a measurement of the halo mass function over a large range of masses 

233: is necessary. Currently, only spectroscopic velocity measurements and optical richness estimates can probe a mass 

234: range wide enough to successfully break this degeneracy, but the former requires considerably more observing resources.

235: 

236: There are, however, important disadvantages to using cluster richness as a mass tracer. For instance, historically, the 

237: fact that the relation between cluster richness and mass cannot be predicted a priori based on simple physical arguments

238: was viewed as a significant drawback.  Nowadays, however, this argument holds little sway, since the level of accuracy required

239: for precision comsology in our a priori knowledge of cluster scaling relations

240: is pushing current research towards a self-calibrating approach, in which both cosmology

241: and cluster scaling relations are simultaneously constrained from the data \citep[][]{limahu04,majumdaretal04,

242: limahu05,hucohn06,wuetal08}.  Thus, in so far as self-calibration is necessary to insure one-self against possible

243: biases in cosmological estimates, the lack of a simple physical model for predicting cluster richness is no longer a serious

244: drawback.

245: 

246: Another reason why optical richness estimates fell out of favor relative to other mass tracers is that, in the past,

247: richness estimates were known to suffer from significant projection effects, which resulted in impure cluster

248: samples as well as large scatter in the mass-richness relation.  

249: Abell made one of the first systematic attempts at measuring richness \citep{abell58,abell89} in defining his richness classes. 

250: He tried to minimize projection by only counting galaxies dimmer than $m_3$, the magnitude of the third brightest

251: cluster galaxy, but brighter than $m_3+2$. The bright cut is aimed at foreground interlopers, while the dim cut

252: reduces the contribution of the galaxy background. Later methods 

253: used similar counting techniques but included a proper account of the background \citep[e.g.][]{bahcall81} . 

254: Since then, more sophisticated algorithms have been developed and applied to CCD-based 

255: imaging \citep[e.g. matched-filter methods][]{postmanetal96,bramel00,yee99,kochaneketal03,dongetal07}.

256: 

257: Projection effects are now a much more benign problem thanks to these more sophisticated richness measurement 

258: techniques, the advent of accurate photometric data enabled by modern CCDs, and most recently, the well-known observations 

259: that ellipticals and cluster E/S0 galaxies in particular tend to form a tight ridgeline 

260: in color-magnitude space \citep{visvanathan77,boweretal92,gladdersyee00,kmawe07a}.  

261: This color clustering has been integral to richness measurements in the SDSS \citep{gotoetal02,milleretal05,kmawe07a} 

262: and the Red Sequence Cluster

263: Survey  \citep[RCS:][]{gladders05}, and such color-based measures have been shown to be effective mass

264: tracers \citep{yee03,muzzin07,sheldonetal07,johnstonetal07,rmbej08,beckeretal07}.

265: 

266: While richness estimates show a strong correlation with other mass proxies \citep[e.g.][]{yee03,daietal07,sheldonetal07,johnstonetal07,beckeretal07,rembj08}, 

267: considerable scatter 

268: in the mass--richness relation still remains. For instance, the richness measure used in the RCS cluster catalog

269: has a logarithmic scatter of $\sigma_{\ln M}\approx 0.8$ \citep{gladdersetal07}, while for maxBCG clusters

270: the number is closer to $\sigma_{\ln M}\approx 0.5$~\citep{rozoetal08a}.

271: This is to be compared to the scatter for X-ray mass tracers,

272: which is expected to be as low as $\approx 8\%$ for $Y_X$ based on simulations \citep{kravtsovetal06}, 

273: or as high as $\approx 25\%$ for non-core

274: extracted soft X-ray band luminosities~\citep[e.g.][]{sebsn06,vbefh08}. Clearly, much improvement is needed to 

275: bring the scatter of richness measures to the level of X-ray mass tracers.

276: 

277: This work is aimed at reducing the variance in the richness-mass relation.  We do this by explicitly constructing a new 

278: richness estimator that significantly reduces the scatter in mass at fixed richness for maxBCG clusters. Relative to $\Nobs$ of maxBCG,

279: we introduce two significant differences.   The first of these involves using a matched filter algorithm

280: to estimate cluster richness.  Matched filters have been used in the literature before \citep{postmanetal96,kochaneketal03}.

281: Unlike those works, however, our matched filter includes a color component, which is of critical importance for reducing

282: projection effects over the redshift range spanned by our cluster sample.\footnote{In

283: \citet{kochaneketal03}, the low redshift of the clusters make single band magnitudes

284: better proxies for distance than colors, so the lack of a color filter in the richness estimator is less important

285: for their work.}

286: In that sense, our filter is closer in spirit to that of \citet{dongetal07}, who include a photometric redshift filter into 

287: their richness estimate.  We also note here that group-scale 

288: studies suggest 

289: that some measure of the average color in the cluster is indicative of mass, particularly below 

290: $ \sim 10^{14} M_{\odot}$ \citep[][]{martinez02,martinez06,weinmann06,hansenetal07} .  

291: 

292: The second difference we introduce is the way in which the aperture used to estimate cluster richness is determined.

293: Generically, cluster richness estimators involve counting the number of galaxies within some specified aperture, which

294: can thus be interpreted as defining the ``size'' of the cluster.  This begs the question, then, of how is one to select the

295: correct size of a cluster a priori?  Theoretically, halo sizes are usually defined

296: in terms of $R_\Delta$, a radius which encompasses a mean density that is $\Delta$ times either the mean or the

297: critical density of the universe (conventions vary from author to author).  Unfortunately, not only is such a definition

298: not applicable observationally, authors vary both on the reference background density (critical versus mean mass density),

299: and on the specific overdensity value.  Thus, even though significant progress has been made \citep{cuestaetal08}, a 

300: definitive definition of halo size remains elusive.  

301: 

302: In this work, we approach this question with observations in mind.  That is, rather than coming with a preconceived

303: notion of what the radius of a cluster is, we let the data tell us what the optimal radii for our clusters is by demanding that optical richness

304: be as tightly correlated as possible with X-ray luminosity.

305: The idea is as follows: first, one posits a scaling relation between cluster

306: richness and cluster radius.  When estimating cluster richness, one then demands that the richness-radius scaling relation be

307: satisfied.  For instance, given a cluster, one can simply make an initial guess for its richness.  Using the richness-radius scaling

308: relation, one can then draw a circle of the appropriate radius, and count the number of galaxies within it.  If the richness was underestimated,

309: one will find too many galaxies, signaling that the richness estimate must be increased.  Proceeding in this way, one can quickly 

310: zero in on the appropriate richness for the object.

311: 

312: This does, however, leave open the question of what the correct richness-radius relation is.  

313: Since we are interested in finding a new richness estimator that is tightly

314: correlated with halo mass, we can use the scatter in the mass--richness relation as our figure of merit to determine the

315: ``correct'' richness-radius relation.  In practice, we use the

316: $\Lx-$richness scatter rather than the mass--richness scatter because the scatter in mass is not directly observable.

317: We emphasize that since the mass scatter at fixed X-ray luminosity \citep[see e.g.][]{vikhlininetal08} is considerably tighter than

318: the corresponding scatter at fixed richness~\citep{rozoetal08a}, the use of X-ray luminosity as a mass tracer for

319: our purposes is well justified.

320: 

321: The layout of the paper is as follows. We describe the data sets used in this work in \S~\ref{sec:data}.  Our

322: matched filter estimator is introduced in \S~\ref{sec:matchfilter}, followed by

323: our method for determining the optimal radius-richness relation in

324: \S~\ref{sec:methods}.  We present our results in section \S~\ref{sec:results}.  In investigating the properties

325: of our new richness measure, we have

326: discovered that the redshift evolution of the richness-mass relation of our new

327: estimator is much more mild than that measured for $N_{200}$.  

328: These results and the corresponding discussion are presented in

329: \S~\ref{sec:zdep}.  We summarize our results

330: and present our conclusions in \S~\ref{sec:conclusions}.  Throughout, whenever needed a flat $\Lambda$CDM

331: cosmology with $\Omega_M=0.3$ and $h=1.0$ was assumed.

332: 

333: 

334: %-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

341: 

342: 

343: \section{Data}

344: \label{sec:data}

345: 

346: The data for the analysis presented in this work comes from two large area

347: surveys, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey~\citep[SDSS: ][]{york00} and the ROSAT

348: All-Sky Survey~\citep[RASS: ][]{vogesetal99}.  SDSS imaging data are used to

349: select clusters and to measure their matched filter richness; RASS data provide

350: 0.1-2.4 keV X-ray fluxes, which we convert into estimates of the X-ray luminosity

351: of the clusters.

352: 

353: \subsection{SDSS}

354: 

355: The imaging and spectroscopic surveys that comprise the SDSS are currently in

356: the sixth Data Release \citep{adelman08}. This release includes nearly 8500

357: square degrees of drift-scan imaging in the the Northern Galactic Cap, and

358: another 7500 square degrees of spectroscopic observations of stars, galaxies,

359: and quasars.

360: 

361: The camera design \citep{gunn06} and drift-scan imaging strategy of the SDSS

362: enable acquisition of nearly simultaneous observations in the $u,g,r,i,z$

363: filter system \citep{fukugita96}. Calibration \citep{hogg01,smith02,tucker06},

364: astrometric \citep{pier03}, and photometric \citep{lupton01} pipelines reduce

365: the data into object catalogs containing a host of measured parameters for each

366: object.

367: 

368: The maxBCG cluster sample and the galaxy catalogs used to remeasure cluster

369: richness in this paper are derived from the SDSS.  The galaxy

370: catalogs are drawn from an area approximately coincident with DR4

371: \citep{adelman06}. Galaxies are selected from SDSS object catalogs as described

372: in \citep{sheldon07}. In this work we use $\tt{CMODEL\_COUNTS}$ as our total

373: magnitudes, and $\tt{MODEL\_COUNTS}$ when computing colors. Bright stars, survey edges 

374: and regions of poor seeing are masked as previously described \citep{kmawe07b,sheldon07}.

375: 

376: \subsection{Cluster Sample}

377: 

378: We obtain sky locations, redshift estimates, and initial richness values from

379: the maxBCG cluster catalog.  Details of the selection algorithm and catalog

380: properties are published elsewhere~\citep{kmawe07b,kmawe07a}.  In brief, maxBCG

381: selection relies on the observation that the galaxy population of rich clusters

382: is dominated by luminous, red galaxies clustered tightly in color (the E/S0

383: ridgeline).  Since these galaxies have old, passively evolving stellar

384: populations, their $g-r$ color closely reflects their redshift.  The brightest

385: such red galaxy, typically located at the peak of the galaxy density, defines the

386: cluster center.

387: 

388: The maxBCG catalog is approximately volume limited in the redshift range $0.1

389: \le z \le 0.3$, with very accurate photometric redshifts ($\delta{}z \sim

390: 0.01$).  Studies of the maxBCG algorithm applied to mock SDSS catalogs indicate

391: that the completeness and purity are very high, above $90\%$~\citep{kmawe07b,

392: rwkme07a}.  The maxBCG catalog has been used to investigate the scaling of

393: galaxy velocity dispersion with cluster richness~\citep{bmkwr07} and to derive

394: constraints on the power spectrum normalization, $\sigma_8$, from cluster

395: number counts~\citep{rwkme07a}.

396: 

397: The primary richness estimator used in the maxBCG catalog is $N_{200}$, defined

398: as the number of galaxies with $g-r$ colors within $2\sigma$ of the E/S0

399: ridgeline as defined by the BCG color, brighter than $0.4\,L_{*}$ (in

400: $i$-band), and found within $r_{200}^{gal}$ of the cluster center. 

401: $r_{200}^{gal}$ is a cluster radius that depends upon the number of galaxies

402: within a fixed aperture $1\ h^{-1}\ \Mpc$ of the BCG, labeled $N_{gals}$,

403: with the relation $r_{200}^{gal}(N_{gals})$ being calibrated so that, on average,

404: the galaxy overdensity within $r_{200}^{gal}$ is

405: $200\Omega_m^{-1}$ assuming $\Omega_m=0.3$ \citep{hmwas05}.

406: The full catalog comprises $13,823$ objects with a richness threshold

407: $\Nobs\geq 10$, corresponding to $M\gtrsim 5\cdot 10^{13}\ h^{-1}\ \msun$ \citep{johnstonetal07}.

408: 

409: As mentioned in the introduction, we re-estimate the cluster richness for every object

410: in the maxBCG catalog, and measure the corresponding scatter in the $\Lx-$richness relation.

411: When doing so, we always limit ourself to the 2000 richest clusters, ranked according to

412: the new richness estimate.   This cut is made to ensure that our results are insensitive

413: to the $N_{200}\geq 10$ cut of the maxBCG catalog.  That is, the number of clusters

414: with $N_{200}\geq 10$ that fall within the 2000 richest clusters for any of the new richness

415: measures considered has no impact on the recovered scatter.  We also note that

416: our choice of always selecting the 2000 richest clusters also implies that the

417: specific cluster sample used to estimate the scatter in the $\Lx-$richness relation varies

418: somewhat as we vary the richness estimator.

419: 

420: \subsection{X-ray Measurements}

421: \label{sec:xray}

422: 

423: The scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed richness is estimated using a slight variant of

424: the method presented in \citet{rmbej08}.  Briefly, we use the RASS photon maps

425: to estimate the 0.5-2.0~keV X-ray flux at the location of each cluster, which

426: is used to derive $\Lx$~[0.1-2.4 keV] using the cluster photometric redshift

427: \citep[the conversion factors are similar to those used in][]{bsgcv04}.  We

428: then perform a Bayesian linear least squares fit to $\ln L_x$ as a function of

429: $\ln N$, where $N$ is the richness parameter to be tested.  The variance in

430: $\ln \Lx$ is included as a free parameter.  The fit is done following the

431: algorithm presented in \citet{k07}, and correctly takes into account upper

432: limits for $\Lx$ for those clusters with upper limits on X-ray emission.

433: 

434: It is important to note here that the estimated X-ray luminosity of a cluster

435: depends on the aperture used to measure $\Lx$.  \citet{rmbej08} used a fixed

436: $750\ \kpc$ aperture as a compromise between needing a large aperture to avoid

437: losing X-ray photons due to the ROSAT PSF and cluster miscentering, and the

438: need for a small aperture in order to increase the signal to noise of the

439: cluster emission.  Further work has shown that the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed

440: $N_{200}$ is minimized when using an aperture of $1\ \hMpc$.  The corresponding

441: scatter for the top 2000 maxBCG clusters is $\sigma_{\lnl|\Nobs}=0.96\pm

442: 0.03$.\footnote{The attentive reader will note that the quoted scatter in $\Lx$

443: at fixed richness is significantly larger than the scatter in mass at fixed

444: richness quoted in the introduction, which was closer to $0.5$.  Given a slope

445: of $\approx 1.6$ in the $\Lx-M$ relation, a scatter of $0.96$ in $\Lx$

446: corresponds to $\approx 0.96/1.6 \approx 0.6$ scatter in mass.  The remaining

447: $10\%$ difference is because the scatter in \citet{rozoetal08a} uses

448: the scatter of the 1000 richest clusters, which is smaller than that of the

449: 2000 richest clusters by 0.1.}

450: 

451: The nature of the present exercise has the benefit of assigning a cluster

452: radius $R_c$, to each individual cluster, so it is natural to measure $\Lx$ in

453: the same scale as the optical richness.  Thus, in this work, we estimate $\Lx$

454: using a variable aperture which depends upon the cluster's richness.  Using 

455: a fixed $1\,\hMpc$ aperture to estimate $\Lx$  does not have a large

456: effect on our results, for reasons that will be discussed below.  Finally, we

457: note that very small physical apertures are impractical for the most distant

458: clusters due to the large size of the RASS PSF, which corresponds to a physical

459: scale of $300\,\kpc$ (FWHM) at $z=0.23$, the median redshift of the maxBCG

460: catalog.  Therefore, we place a fixed minimum aperture of $500\,\kpc$ for each

461: cluster.  We discuss the small effect of this aperture cutoff in

462: \S~\ref{sec:methods}.  

463: 

464: \subsection{\label{sec:cleaning}Cleaning the Sample}

465: 

466: Our analysis depends on a combination of optical and X-ray measurements of

467: maxBCG clusters using SDSS and RASS data.  As discussed in detail in \citet[see

468: \S~5.6]{rmbej08}, there is clear evidence that cool core clusters

469: increase the scatter in X-ray cluster properties.  High resolution X-ray

470: imaging of clusters allows the exclusion of cluster cores, reducing the scatter

471: in observed X-ray properties~\citep[e.g.][]{ombe06,crbiz07,m07}.

472: Unfortunately, the broad PSF of RASS means that it is impossible to exclude the

473: cores of clusters in this work.  In order to asses how robust our results are

474: to the presence or absence of cooling flow clusters in the cluster sample, we

475: have created a ``clean'' sample of maxBCG clusters by removing all known cool

476: core clusters that might have boosted global X-ray luminosity and may

477: significantly bias our results.  In addition, we have removed apparently X-ray

478: bright maxBCG clusters that were determined via inspection to have their X-ray

479: flux significantly contaminated by foreground objects such as stars, low

480: redshift galaxy clusters, and AGN.

481: 

482: There does not exist a complete, unbiased catalog of cool core X-ray clusters.

483: The presently described cleaning procedure is not intended to be complete, and

484: is intended only to give some sense of the robustness of our results to the presence

485: of cooling flow clusters.  Following \citet{rmbej08}, we have

486: assembled all the known cool core clusters from the literature.  This includes:

487: A750, A1835, Z2701, Z3146, Z7160, RXC~2129.6+0005~\citep{bfsaj05},

488: A1413~\citep{crbiz07}, A2244~\citep{pfeaj98}, and

489: RXC~J1504.1$-$0248~\citep{bbzsn05}.  From here on, the maxBCG catalog presented

490: in \citet{kmawe07a} is referred to as the ``full'' cluster sample, and

491: the subsample described above is referred to as the ``clean'' cluster sample.

492: 

493: 

494: 

495: %-----------------------------------------------------

496: %-----------------------------------------------------

497: %-----------------------------------------------------

498: %-----------------------------------------------------

499: %-----------------------------------------------------

500: %-----------------------------------------------------

501: %-----------------------------------------------------

502: 

503: 

504: \section{Matched Filter Richness Estimators}

505: \label{sec:matchfilter}

506: 

507: \subsection{Derivation of the Matched Filter Richness Estimator}

508: 

509: Let $\bm{x}$ be a vector characterizing the observable properties of a galaxy (e.g. galaxy color

510: and magnitude). We model

511: the projected galaxy distribution around clusters as a sum $S(\bx)=\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)+b(\bx)$

512: where $\lambda$ is the number of cluster galaxies,

513: $u(\bx|\lambda)$ is the cluster's galaxy density profile normalized

514: to unity, and $b(\bx)$ is density of background (i.e. non-member) galaxies.

515: The probability that a galaxy found near a cluster is actually a cluster member is given by

516: %

517: \begin{equation}

518: p(\bx) = \frac{\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)}{\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)+b(\bx)}.

519: \end{equation}

520: %

521: Consequently, the total number of cluster galaxies $\lambda$ must satisfy the constraint equation

522: %

523: \begin{equation}

524: \lambda  = \sum p(\bx|\lambda) = \sum \frac{\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)}{\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)+b(\bx)}

525: \label{eq:mfrichness}

526: \end{equation}

527: %

528: where the sum is over all galaxies in the cluster field.  If the filters $u(\bx|\lambda)$ and $b(\bx)$

529: are known, then given an observed galaxy distribution

530: $\{\bx_1, ..., \bx_N\}$ around a cluster we can define a richness estimator $\hat\lambda$ as the

531: solution to equation \ref{eq:mfrichness}.  As it turns out, one can also derive this expression

532: using a maximum likelihood approach.  Interested readers are referred to appendix

533: \ref{app:maxlkhd} for details.  From now on, the letter $\lambda$ shall always refer to a matched

534: filter richness estimate obtained with equation \ref{eq:mfrichness}.

535: 

536: 

537: %-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

544: 

545: 

546: \subsection{Cluster Radii and Matched Filter Richness Estimates}

547: 

548: Consider again Eqn.~\ref{eq:mfrichness}.  As mentioned before, the sum used in Eqn.~\ref{eq:mfrichness} needs to extend over

549: all galaxies.  In practice, of course, one needs to add over all galaxies within some cutoff radius $R_c$.  Operationally,

550: this is equivalent to setting $u=0$ for all galaxies with radii $R>R_c$, so it is natural to interpret the cutoff radius $\Rc$ as a cluster radius.

551: In this light, it seems obvious that considerable care must be taken to choose the correct cluster radius when estimating

552: richness, but how to go about doing just that is a less straightforward question.

553: 

554: In this work, we propose that cluster radii be selected on the basis of a model radius-richness relation.  Specifically, we assume

555: that the size of a cluster of richness $\lambda$ scales as a power law of $\lambda$,

556: %

557: \begin{equation}

558: \Rc(\lambda) = R_0(\lambda/100.0)^\alpha.

559: \label{eq:radius}

560: \end{equation}

561: %

562: Naively, we expect $R_0\approx 1\ \Mpc$, as that is the characteristic size of clusters, and $\alpha\approx 1/3$ assuming

563: that $R\propto M^{1/3} \propto \lambda^{1/3}$.   We postpone the discussion of how we go about selecting $R_0$

564: and $\alpha$ to section \ref{sec:methods}.  For the time being, we shall simply assume that $R_0$ and $\alpha$

565: are known. In that case, equation \ref{eq:mfrichness} becomes

566: %

567: \begin{equation}

568: \lambda  = \sum p(\bx|\lambda) = \sum_{R<\Rc(\lambda)} \frac{\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)}{\lambda u(\bx|\lambda)+b(\bx)}.

569: \label{eq:richness1}

570: \end{equation}

571: %

572: Note that we have explicitly included the cutoff radius $\Rc$ in the sum above, and that this cutoff radius now depends

573: on $\lambda$.  Moreover, one can see that in the above equation, {\it the cluster richness $\lambda$ is the only 

574: unknown}, so we can numerically solve for $\lambda$.   In other words, by positing a richness-radius relation we are

575: able to simultaneously estimate both a cluster radius and the corresponding cluster richness.\footnote{Note 

576: that since we are explicitly setting $u=0$ for $R>R_c$, the fact that $u$ must be 

577: normalized to unity necessarily introduces a dependence of $u$ on $\lambda$.  That is, changing $\lambda$

578: will not only change the range of the sum in equation \ref{eq:richness1}, it will also change

579: the value of the summands.}

580: 

581: %-----------------------------------------------------

582: %-----------------------------------------------------

583: %-----------------------------------------------------

584: %-----------------------------------------------------

585: %-----------------------------------------------------

586: %-----------------------------------------------------

587: %-----------------------------------------------------

588: 

589: 

590: \subsection{The Filters}

591: \label{sec:filters}

592: 

593: In this work we consider three observable properties of galaxies:

594: $R$, the projected distance from a galaxy to the assigned cluster center,

595: $m$, the galaxy magnitude, and $c$, the galaxies' $g-r$ color.  We adopt

596: a separable filter function

597: %

598: \begin{equation}

599: u(\bx) = [2\pi R \Sigma(R)]\phi(m)G(c)

600: \end{equation}

601: %

602: where $\Sigma(R)$ is the two dimensional cluster galaxy density profile, $\phi(m)$ is the cluster luminosity function (expressed

603: in apparent magnitudes), and $G(c)$ 

604: is color distribution of cluster galaxies.  The prefactor $2\pi R$ in front of $\Sigma(R)$ accounts for the fact that given $\Sigma(R)$,

605: the radial probability density distribution is given by $2\pi R \Sigma(R)$.  Also, note

606: the separability condition makes the implicit assumption that these

607: three quantities are fully independent of each other, which is not true in 

608: detail \cite[for a discussion of the galaxy population of maxBCG clusters see][]{hansenetal07}.  

609: For instance, the tilt of the ridgeline implies that the mean color of a red sequence cluster galaxy varies slightly

610: as a function of magnitude.

611: We postpone an investigation of how including the correlation between these various observables affects our conclusions

612: to future work (Koester et al, in preparation).

613: We now describe each of our three filters in detail.  We note that defining said filters requires us to specify 

614: parameters governing the shape of the filters (e.g. $R_s$ for the radial filter, $\alpha$ for the luminosity

615: filter, etc.).  A detailed study on the dependence of our matched filter richness estimates on the shape of our filters

616: will be presented in future work.  

617: 

618: \subsubsection{The Radial Filter}

619: 

620: N-body simulations show that the matter distribution of massive halos can be well described by the 

621: so called NFW profile \citep[see e.g.][]{navarro_etal95,NFW},

622: %

623: \begin{equation}

624: \rho(r) \propto \frac{1}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}

625: \end{equation}

626: %

627: where $r_s$ is characteristic scale radius at which the logarithmic slope of the density profile is equal

628: to $-2$.  The corresponding two dimensional surface density profile \citep{bartelmann96} is 

629: %

630: \begin{equation}

631: \Sigma(R) \propto \frac{1}{(R/R_s)^2-1}f(R/R_s)

632: \end{equation}

633: %

634: where $R_s=r_s$ and

635: %

636: \begin{equation}

637: f(x) = 1-\frac{2}{\sqrt{x^2-1}}\tan^{-1}\sqrt{ \frac{x-1}{x+1} }.

638: \end{equation}

639: %

640: This formula assumes $x>1$. For $x<1$, one uses the identity $\tan^{-1}(ix) = i \tanh(x)$.  

641: 

642: Here, we assume that the NFW profile can also reasonably describe the density distribution

643: of galaxies in clusters \citep{linmohr04,hmwas05,popessoetal07}, and follow \citet{kmawe07b} in setting $R_s=150\ \kpc$.

644: In principle, one could optimize the value of this parameter, but we do not expect our final results

645: to be overly sensitive to our chosen value \citep[see e.g.][]{dongetal07}.

646: Also, in order to avoid the singularity at $R=0$ in the above expression, we set $\Sigma$ to a constant for 

647: $R\leq R_{core} =100\ \kpc$.

648: This core density is chosen so that the mass distribution $\Sigma(R)$ is continuous.  Our results are insensitive to

649: the particular choice of core radius for $R_{core} \leq 200\ \kpc$.

650: Finally, the profile $\Sigma(R)$ is truncated at the cluster radius $\Rc(\lambda)$, and is normalized

651: such that

652: %

653: \begin{equation}

654: 1 = \int_0^{\Rc(\lambda)} dR\ 2\pi R\Sigma(R).

655: \end{equation}

656: %

657: We emphasize that this condition implies that the normalization constant for the density

658: profile is richness dependent, and must be recomputed for each $\lambda$ value when solving

659: for $\lambda$ in equation \ref{eq:richness1}.

660: 

661: %-----------------------------------------------------

662: %-----------------------------------------------------

663: %-----------------------------------------------------

664: %-----------------------------------------------------

665: %-----------------------------------------------------

666: %-----------------------------------------------------

667: %-----------------------------------------------------

668: 

669: \subsubsection{The Luminosity Filter}

670: At $z \lesssim 0.3$, the luminosity distribution of satellite cluster galaxies is well-represented by a 

671: Schechter function \citep[e.g][]{hansenetal07} which we write as

672: \begin{equation}

673: \phi(m) = 0.4 \ln(10)\phi_*10^{-0.4(m-m_*)(\alpha+1)}\exp\left(-10^{-0.4(m-m_*)}\right)

674: \end{equation}

675: We take $\alpha = 0.8$ independent of redshift.

676: The characteristic magnitude, $m_*$, is corrected

677: for the distance modulus, k-corrected, and passively-evolved using stellar population

678: synthesis models described in \citet{kmawe07a}. When applying the luminosity filter, 

679: $m_*$ is chosen from these models, appropriate to the

680: redshift of the cluster under consideration, and the filter is normalized by integrating down to a 

681: magnitude corresponding to $0.4L_*$ at the cluster redshift, or an absolute magnitude $M_i=-20.25$.  The latter is simply a luminosity cut

682: bright enough to make the maxBCG sample volume limited.

683: 

684: %-----------------------------------------------------

685: %-----------------------------------------------------

686: %-----------------------------------------------------

687: %-----------------------------------------------------

688: %-----------------------------------------------------

689: %-----------------------------------------------------

690: %-----------------------------------------------------

691: 

692: 

693: \subsubsection{The Color Filter}

694: 

695: Early type galaxies are known to dominate the inner regions of low redshift

696: galaxy clusters \citep[see e.g.][]{dressler84,kormendy89,hansenetal07}.  The

697: rest-frame spectra of these galaxies typically exhibit a significant drop at about 4000~\AA, that gives early type galaxies at the same redshift nearly uniformly red colors when observed through filters

698: that encompass this break.  In the SDSS survey, the corresponding filters for galaxies at $z\lesssim 0.35$ are $g$ and $r$, and 

699: we find that the $g-r$ colors of early type galaxies are found to be gaussianly distributed with a small intrinsic dispersion of about $0.05$ magnitudes.  Consequently, we take the color filter $G(c)$ to be

700: %

701: \begin{equation}

702: \label{eqn:color}

703: G(c|z) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\exp \left[ \frac{(c-\avg{c|z})^2}{2\sigma^2} \right]

704: \end{equation}

705: %

706: where $c=g-r$ is the color of interest, $\avg{c|z}$ is the mean of the Gaussian color distribution of early type

707: galaxies at redshift $z$, and $\sigma$ is the width of the distribution.  The mean color $\avg{c|z}=0.625+3.149z$ was 

708: determined by matching maxBCG cluster members to the SDSS 

709: LRG \citep{eisensteinetal01} and MAIN \citep{straussetal02} spectroscopic galaxy samples.

710: The net dispersion $\sigma$ is taken to be the sum in quadrature of the intrinsic color dispersion $\sigma_{int}$,

711: set to $\sigma_{int}=0.05$,

712: and the estimated photometric error $\sigma_m$.  

713: In $g-r$, the typical photometric error on the red-sequence cluster galaxies brighter than $0.4L_*$ 

714: is $\sigma_m\approx 0.01 $ magnitudes for $z=0.1$, but can be as as large as

715: $\sigma_m\approx 0.05$ magnitudes for $z=0.3$.

716: 

717: %-----------------------------------------------------

718: %-----------------------------------------------------

719: %-----------------------------------------------------

720: %-----------------------------------------------------

721: %-----------------------------------------------------

722: %-----------------------------------------------------

723: %-----------------------------------------------------

724: 

725: \subsubsection{Background Estimation}

726: 

727: To fully specify our filters, we also need to describe our background model.  We assume the background

728: galaxy density is constant in space, so that $b(\bx)=2\pi R \bar \Sigma_g(m_i,c)$ where $\bar\Sigma_g(m_i,c)$

729: is the galaxy density as a function of galaxy $i-$band magnitude and $g-r$ color.   $\bar\Sigma_g(m_i,c)$

730: is estimated by distributing $10^6$ random points throughout the same SDSS photometric survey footprint that

731: defines our galaxy sample. All galaxies within an angular separation of $0.05$ degrees of the random points

732: (about $1\hMpc$ at $z=0.25$) are used to empirically determine the mean galaxy density $\bar \Sigma_g(m_i,c)$

733: using a top hat  cloud-in-cells (CIC) algorithm \citep[e.g.][]{hockney81}.  For our cells, we used

734: 60 evenly-spaced bins 

735: in $g-r \in [0,2]$ and 40 bins in $i \in [14,20]$. In each 2 dimensional bin, the number density of galaxies

736: is normalized by the total number of random points, the width of each color and magnitude 

737: bin (0.05 mags and 0.1 mags, respectively), and area searched ($0.05^2 \pi$ degrees). 

738: 

739: This process creates an estimate of the global background, i.e. the number density of galaxies as a function 

740: of color and magnitude in the full SDSS survey. Not surprisingly, a similar result is obtained by binning

741: the whole galaxy catalog in color and magnitude with CIC and dividing by the survey area. However, the 

742: procedure we employ above can readily be adapted to returning alternative background estimates, e.g the local 

743: cluster density as a function of redshift, by replacing random points with clusters. 

744: 

745: 

746: %-----------------------------------------------------

747: %-----------------------------------------------------

748: %-----------------------------------------------------

749: %-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

753: 

754: 

755: \section{Methods}

756: \label{sec:methods}

757: 

758: We have now fully specified our richness estimators, except for the values

759: $R_0$ and $\alpha$ that govern the radius-richness scaling relation.  We now

760: discuss how we go about selecting optimal values for these parameters.

761: 

762: As we mentioned earlier, we wish to find the cluster richness estimator that

763: minimizes the scatter in the richness-mass relation.  Cluster mass, however, is

764: not an observable, and thus we must rely on other mass tracers.  Here, we 

765: use X-ray luminosity ($L_X$) as our mass proxy, primarily because it is a well

766: known mass tracer~\cite[e.g.][]{rb02,sebsn06,rembj08} that is readily

767: accessible to us and for which we can quickly estimate the scatter for multiple

768: richness measures \citep[see][]{rmbej08}. 

769: 

770: We proceed as follows: we begin by defining a coarse grid in $R_0$ and $\alpha$,

771: given by

772: %

773: \begin{eqnarray}

774: R_0 & = & \{0.5,0.75,1.0,1.25,1.5\}\, \\

775: \alpha & = & \{-0.05,0.05,0.15,0.25,0.35,0.45\}

776: \end{eqnarray}

777: %

778: where $R_0$ is measured in units of $\hMpc$.

779: Each of these grid points defines a distinct richness estimator through

780: equation \ref{eq:richness1}.  For each grid point, we estimate the

781: corresponding richness for every cluster in the maxBCG catalog.  We then select

782: the 2000 richest clusters and calculate the scatter in $L_X$ at fixed richness

783: of those top 2000 clusters.  Note that, because the rank ordering of the clusters changes

784: as we vary our richness estimate, the clusters used to estimate the scatter in $\Lx$

785: varies slightly across the grid.  We limit ourselves to the richest 2000 clusters to

786: ensure our results are insensitive to the $N_{200}\geq 10$ cut in the maxBCG catalog. 

787: 

788: From our measurements of the scatter

789: $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}(R_0,\alpha)$ at each grid point, we can

790: directly read which parameter combination minimizes the scatter.  We emphasize

791: that because the scatter in mass at fixed $\Lx$ is much lower than the

792: corresponding scatter at fixed richness~\citep{rozoetal08a}, for our

793: purposes $\Lx$ is a nearly perfect mass tracer.  We note that the X-ray

794: measurements described in \ref{sec:xray} require a minimum aperture of

795: $500\,\kpc$.  For the 2000 richest clusters, this cutoff is only employed when

796: $R_0 = 0.5\,\hMpc$ and $\alpha \ge 0.15$, which is a region of parameter space

797: that already does not appear to have a strong correlation between $L_X$ and

798: richness.  Therefore, we conclude that the aperture cutoff does not have a

799: significant effect on our results.

800: 

801: To determine the uncertainty in the recovered parameters $R_0$ and $\alpha$, we need to understand the errors 

802: in our measurement of the Lx-richness scatter. We estimate these errors using bootstrap resampling.

803: We proceed as follows:

804: let $\mu$ be an index that runs over all grid points $(R_0,\alpha)$, and $\sigma_\mu$

805: be the scatter at the $\mu^{th}$ grid point.

806: We resample (with replacement) the full maxBCG catalog, and measure the scatter 

807: $\sigma_\mu$ at every grid point.  The procedure is iterated 100 times, and the

808: measurements are used to estimate the mean and covariance matrix 

809: of $\sigma_\mu$.\footnote{The

810: measurement of the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed richness is very time consuming,

811: and needs to be done independently for every point in the grid.  This explains

812: why we restrict ourselves to only 100 bootstrap resamplings.}  Assuming

813: that the probability distribution $P(\sigma_\mu)$ is a multi-variate Gaussian characterized

814: by the observed mean and covariance matrix, we generate

815: $10^5$ Monte Carlo realizations of the scatter, and estimate the

816: fraction of times that each grid point is observed to have the lowest scatter among all

817: grid points.

818: 

819: To use the grid to zero in on a particular value for $R_0$ and $\alpha$, and to

820: estimate errors in these values, we fit each of the $10^5$

821: realizations of the scatter $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}(R_0,\alpha)$ with a 2D parabola.  From the

822: fits, we can read off the values of $R_0$ and $\alpha$ at which the minimum 

823: occurs, giving us $10^5$ samplings of the probability distribution of the

824: location of the minimum in parameter space.  The probability distribution of the

825: resulting $10^5$ minima is exactly what we desired.

826: 

827: As it turns out, and as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:results}, the coarse grid

828: defined above is too broad for a parabolic fit to adequately describe 

829: the function $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}(R_0,\alpha)$.  However, if we restrict

830: ourselves to a smaller region of parameter space near the minimum

831: determined from the coarse grid, a quadratic fit becomes adequate. Therefore, we have defined a narrower fine grid,

832: %

833: \begin{eqnarray}

834: R_0 & = & \{1.0,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4\}\\

835: \alpha & = & \{0.22,0.26,0.30,0.34,0.38,0.42\}

836: \end{eqnarray}  

837: %

838: with $R_0$ measured in units of $\hMpc$.

839: It is this grid that we use to report our final results and to select the

840: optimal parameters $R_0$ and $\alpha$.

841: 

842: To summarize, we first do a rough exploration of the parameter space 

843: $R_0$ and $\alpha$ using a coarse grid, and then use a smaller but

844: finer grid to statistically constrain the location of the scatter minimum.

845: 

846: 

847: 

848: %-----------------------------------------------------

849: %-----------------------------------------------------

850: %-----------------------------------------------------

851: %-----------------------------------------------------

852: %-----------------------------------------------------

853: %-----------------------------------------------------

854: %-----------------------------------------------------

855: 

856: 

857: \section{Results}

858: \label{sec:results}

859: 

860: \subsection{The Full Sample}

861: 

862: Figure~\ref{fig:coarsegray} illustrates the probability that each coarse grid

863: point is found to minimize the scatter of the 2000 richest clusters when

864: resampling our data as described in \S~\ref{sec:methods}.  For this plot, we

865: have used the full cluster sample, though a similar result holds when using the

866: clean cluster sample.  Each square is shaded in gray on a log scale according

867: to the fraction of trials that point is found to have the minimum scatter.  The

868: primary feature of this plot is a broad degeneracy region from

869: $(R_0,\alpha)\approx (0.8,0.0)$ to $(R_0,\alpha)\approx (1.4,0.5)$,

870: corresponding to a scatter $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda} \approx 0.78$.  Note

871: this scatter is a significant improvement relative to the $\Lx-$richness

872: scatter measured for $\Nobs$, $\sigma_{\lnl|N_{200}}=0.96$.

873: The scatter in $\Lx$ increases as we move away from the degeneracy

874: region, ranging from $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda} \sim 0.86$ in the lower-right corner 

875: of Figure \ref{fig:coarsegray} to

876: $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda} > 1.0$ in the upper-left corner.  Further discussion

877: of why our new richness estimator results in significantly reduced scatter

878: is presented in \S~\ref{sec:zdep}.

879: 

880: %-----------------------------------------------------

881: %-----------------------------------------------------

882: 

883: \begin{figure}

884: \begin{center}

885: \scalebox{0.7}{\rotatebox{270}{\plotone{f1.eps}}}

886: \caption{Probability that a given point in the grid minimizes the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed

887: richness in the coarse grid.  The gray scale varies logarithmically with the probability,

888: which is explicitly quoted in the Figure.  Note the broad

889:   degeneracy region from $(R_0,\alpha)\approx (0.8,0.0)$ to

890:   $(R_0,\alpha)\approx (1.4,0.5)$, where the scatter $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}

891:   \sim 0.78$.  }

892: \label{fig:coarsegray}

893: \end{center}

894: \end{figure}

895: 

896: %-----------------------------------------------------

897: %-----------------------------------------------------

898: 

899: Figure~\ref{fig:finecombo} shows the probability density of the points in

900: $R_0-\alpha$ space that minimize the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed richness for the

901: fine grid, as estimated through the parabolic fits to the function

902: $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}(R_0,\alpha)$ described in section \S~\ref{sec:methods}.

903: The solid contours are for the full cluster sample and the dashed contours are

904: for the clean cluster sample.  The diagonal degeneracy suggested in the

905: previous plot is now very obvious, especially in the $2\sigma$

906: contour. Importantly, both the full and clean sample produce very similar

907: results, although the contours are noticeably smoother for the clean sample.

908: We note that the closing of the $1\sigma$ contours in the upper-right and

909: lower-left is likely an artifact of the grid boundaries.  As demonstrated in

910: the coarse grid in Figure~\ref{fig:coarsegray}, the degeneracy region extends

911: at least to $\alpha\sim0$ and $\alpha\sim0.5$.

912: 

913: The existence of the degeneracy region is relatively simple to explain.

914: Consider the problem we are trying to address: what is the correct size of a

915: cluster?  Roughly speaking, this involves two parts: one, determining the

916: correct cluster size of the average cluster, and two, determining how the

917: cluster size scales with richness as one moves away from the average cluster.

918: The former is much better determined than the latter, so in the $(R_0,\alpha)$

919: plane, one typically expects a sharp constraint on the mean cluster radius, and a

920: considerably weaker constraint on the orthogonal direction, corresponding to

921: the scaling of the radius with richness around the statistical pivot point.

922: Thus, we expect the observed degeneracy between $R_0$ and $\alpha$ to pick out

923: parameter combinations that hold the median cluster radius of the sample fixed.

924: 

925: Figure \ref{fig:finecombo} clearly illustrates that this is the case.

926: In the figure, the diagonal dotted line corresponds to a contour of fixed

927: median cluster radius $\tilde R(R_0,\alpha)=900\,\kpc$, where the function 

928: $\tilde R(R_0,\alpha)$ is defined as the median cluster radius of the 2000

929: richest clusters.   The fact that this contour falls almost exactly along the observed

930: degeneracy between $R_0$ and $\alpha$ strongly supports our interpretation.

931: 

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

933: %-----------------------------------------------------

934: 

935: \begin{figure}

936: \begin{center}

937: \scalebox{0.7}{\rotatebox{270}{\plotone{f2.eps}}}

938: \caption{\label{fig:finecombo}Contour plot of the probability density of the

939:   points in $R_0-\alpha$ space that minimize the scatter $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}(R_0,\alpha)$.

940:   The solid contours show the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$

941:   contours for the full sample, and the dashed lines show the same contours for

942:   the ``cleaned'' sample (see \S~\ref{sec:cleaning}).  The closing of the

943:   $1\sigma$ contours in the upper-right and lower-left are likely an

944:   artifact of the grid.  The dotted line shows the contour of fixed mean

945:   cluster radius $R_c=900\,\kpc$.  All the richness estimators along this line result

946:   in the same mean cluster radius, and have therefore very similar richness values.}

947: \end{center}

948: \end{figure}

949: 

950: %-----------------------------------------------------

951: %-----------------------------------------------------

952: 

953: Our argument suggests a way to break the degeneracy between $R_0$ and

954: $\alpha$.  If we can measure the scatter in $\Lx$ at fixed richness at two

955: very different richness scales, then the mean radius picked out by each

956: of the samples will be substantially different.   This, in turn, rotates the

957: degeneracy lines relative to each other, so that the intersection defined

958: by the two samples would cleanly pick out a single value for $R_0$

959: and $\alpha$.

960: 

961: We have repeated our analysis on the top 500 and 1000 clusters, but these

962: thresholds are much too close to our reported 2000 clusters to be able to

963: successfully break the observed degeneracy.  Ideally, we would repeat our study

964: using the 10000 or 20000 richest clusters, thereby guaranteeing a degeneracy

965: region that is significantly rotated relative to that of Figure

966: \ref{fig:finecombo}.  Unfortunately, performing our scatter analysis on the top

967: 10000 clusters is not presently possible since the vast majority of this larger

968: cluster sample does not emit sufficiently in X-rays to allow for individual

969: luminosity estimates of the clusters.  Furthermore, when choosing more than the

970: top $\sim3000$ clusters we begin to run into threshold effects due to the

971: initial selection of maxBCG clusters with $N_{200}\ge 10$.  One might hope

972: instead to repeat our analysis using not the top 10000 clusters, but rather the

973: top 100 clusters, that is, by limiting ourselves to the very richest systems.

974: Unfortunately, this suffers from a different problem: when looking at the top

975: 100 clusters only, the range of richnesses being sampled is much too narrow to

976: allow a simultaneous estimate of the amplitude, slope, and scatter of the

977: $L_X$-richness relation, so performing our analysis using the top 100 clusters

978: only is also not feasible. Thus, at the time being, we must simply accept the

979: existence of a large degeneracy between $R_0$ and $\alpha$.

980: 

981: %-----------------------------------------------------

982: %-----------------------------------------------------

983: %-----------------------------------------------------

984: %-----------------------------------------------------

985: %-----------------------------------------------------

986: %-----------------------------------------------------

987: %-----------------------------------------------------

988: 

989: \subsection{Selecting an Optimal $\alpha$}

990: 

991: Due to the large degeneracy between $R_0$ and $\alpha$, it is difficult to

992: select any single point in $R_0-\alpha$ space as optimal.  We note, however,

993: that the degeneracy region goes through $\alpha=1/3$, which is loosely

994: theoretically motivated based on the naive expectation $R^3\propto M \propto

995: \lambda$.  Since our goal is to define a unique richness measure, we have opted

996: for setting $\alpha=1/3$.  Given that the degeneracy region goes through

997: $\alpha=1/3$, our choice does not adversely affect the properties of our

998: richness estimator.  That is, the scatter for $\alpha=1/3$ is indistinguishable

999: from that of the best possible value for $\alpha$ to within observational

1000: uncertainties.

1001: 

1002: Using a principal component analysis on the best-fit minima that describe the

1003: contours in Figure~\ref{fig:finecombo}, we have calculated the 

1004: degeneracy axis for each of the full and clean cluster samples.  

1005: For the full cluster sample we obtain

1006: %

1007: \begin{equation}

1008: \ln (R_0/1\ h^{-1}\ \Mpc) - 1.342(\alpha-0.33) = 0.25 \pm 0.04,

1009: \end{equation}

1010: %

1011: while for the clean cluster sample we find

1012: %

1013: \begin{equation}

1014: \ln (R_0/1\ h^{-1}\ \Mpc) - 1.277(\alpha-0.33) = 0.24 \pm 0.03

1015: \end{equation}

1016: %

1017: We have confirmed that the residuals are Gaussian along most of the degeneracy

1018: axis.  We quote the degeneracy line in terms of $\ln R_0$ and $\alpha$ rather than

1019: $R_0$ and $\alpha$ themselves simply because the former results in more accurate

1020: extrapolations for $\alpha$ values that are very different form $\alpha=1/3$.

1021: 

1022: We are

1023: encouraged by the fact that the clean and full samples give fully consistent

1024: results, thus showing that the known cool core clusters and obvious foreground

1025: contamination are not significantly biasing the best combination of $R_0$ and

1026: $\alpha$.  Our final choice for $R_0$ and $\alpha$ is therefore

1027: $R_0=1.27\ h^{-1}\ \Mpc$ and $\alpha=1/3$.  

1028: 

1029: 

1030: %-----------------------------------------------------

1031: %-----------------------------------------------------

1032: %-----------------------------------------------------

1033: %-----------------------------------------------------

1034: %-----------------------------------------------------

1035: %-----------------------------------------------------

1036: %-----------------------------------------------------

1037: 

1038: 

1039: \subsection{Improvement in the Scatter}

1040: 

1041: Now that we have a fully specified $R_0 = 1.27\ \hMpc$ and $\alpha=1/3$, we

1042: have measured the matched filter richness of every cluster in the

1043: \citet{kmawe07a} sample. Figure~\ref{fig:lxvslam} shows $L_X$ vs. $N_{200}$

1044: (top panel) and $L_X$ vs. $\lambda$ (bottom panel) for the top 3000 richest

1045: clusters.  Following \citet{rmbej08}, the solid points represent detections at

1046: the $>1\sigma$ level, and the empty points represent $1\sigma$ upper limits.

1047: The vertical dotted line represents the cutoff for the top 2000 richest

1048: clusters used in this analysis.  Though not obviously visible in this plot, the scatter in

1049: $\lambda$ is significantly decreased.  We note that there are still some

1050: significant outliers in the $\Lx-\lambda$ relation, especially at high $\Lx$.

1051: The red diamonds and blue squares represent clusters that are removed from the

1052: clean cluster sample.  The red diamonds are clusters whose measured X-ray flux

1053: is known to be contaminated by foreground emission from stars, nearby galaxy

1054: clusters, or AGN.  The blue squares represent the known cool core clusters.

1055: These are, for the most part, significantly brighter than typical maxBCG

1056: clusters at similar richness, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the

1057: X-ray luminosity of these clusters is boosted by emission from the core.

1058: 

1059: \begin{figure}

1060: \begin{center}

1061: \scalebox{1.2}{\rotatebox{0}{\plotone{f3.eps}}}

1062: \caption{\emph{Top panel:} $L_X$ vs. $N_{200}$ for the 3000 richest clusters.

1063:   Following \citet{rmbej08}, the solid points represent $>1\sigma$ detections,

1064:   and the empty circles represent $1\sigma$ upper limits.  The vertical dotted

1065:   line represents the cutoff for the top 2000 clusters used in the analysis.

1066:   The dashed lines represent the $\pm2\sigma_{\ln L|N_{200}}$ scatter

1067:   constraints. The fictitious data point in the lower-right corner shows the

1068:   typical $\Lx$ error.  The red diamonds represent clusters that are excluded

1069:   from the clean sample because they are obviously contaminated by foreground

1070:   X-ray emission.  The blue squares represent clusters that are excluded from

1071:   the clean sample because they are known cool core clusters.

1072:   \emph{Bottom panel:} $L_X$ vs. $\lambda$ for $R_0 =

1073:   1.27$, $\alpha=1/3$ for the 3000 richest clusters; the symbols are the same

1074:   as for the top panel. Our optimized matched filter richness estimate $\lambda$ is significantly more tightly

1075:   correlated with $\Lx$ than $N_{200}$.}

1076: \label{fig:lxvslam}

1077: \end{center}

1078: \end{figure}

1079: 

1080: Table~\ref{tab:sigmas} summarizes how the scatter of the 2000 richest clusters

1081: varies as we change our richness measure.  Here, we consider three richness

1082: measures only: $N_{200}$, which is the original richness estimate for maxBCG

1083: clusters presented in \citet{kmawe07b}; $N_{200}L_{BCG}^{0.79}$, which was

1084: suggested by \citet{reyesetal08} as an improvement over $N_{200}$ by making use

1085: of $L_{BCG}$, the luminosity of the cluster BCG; and our optimized matched

1086: filter richness estimator $\lambda$.  We see that for both the full and clean

1087: sample, our optimized matched filter estimator significantly outperforms both

1088: $N_{200}$ and $N_{200}L_{BCG}^{0.79}$.  To quantify the significance of the

1089: improvement, we must take into account the fact that the errors are correlated.

1090: Following \S~\ref{sec:methods}, we have performed bootstrap resampling on the

1091: full catalog and clean catalog, calculating the scatter in the top 2000

1092: clusters for both $\lambda$ and $N_{200}$.  For each bootstrap resampling we

1093: calculate $r=\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}/\sigma_{\lnl|N_{200}}$.  The deviation from

1094: $r=1.0$ can be used to quantify the significance of the improvement.  The

1095: improvement in the scatter relative to $\Nobs$ is significant at $9\sigma$ for

1096: the full cluster sample, and at $11\sigma$ for the clean sample.

1097:   

1098: 

1099: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}

1100: \tablewidth{0pt}

1101: \tablecaption{\label{tab:sigmas}Scatter in $L_X$ at fixed richness, top 2000

1102:   clusters}

1103: \tablehead{

1104: \colhead{Richness} & \colhead{Full Sample} & \colhead{Clean Sample}

1105: }

1106: \startdata

1107: $N_{200}$ & $0.95\pm0.03$& $0.86\pm0.02$\\

1108: $N_{200}L_{BCG}^{0.79}$ & $0.84\pm0.02$ & $0.78\pm0.02$\\

1109: $\lambda$ & $0.79\pm0.02$ & $0.70\pm0.02$\\

1110: %\hline

1111: $\lambda$ & $0.78\pm0.02$ & $0.69\pm0.02$ \\

1112: \enddata

1113: \tablenotetext{}{Except for the last row, $\Lx$ was measured within a fixed $1\ \hMpc$ aperture.

1114: The scatter in $\Lx$ quoted in the last row is different only in that it measured $\Lx$ within the assigned optical  cluster radius 

1115: $R_c(\lambda)$.

1116: The combination $\Nobs L_{BCG}^{0.79}$ was suggested by \citet{reyesetal08} as an improvement

1117: over $\Nobs$.  The error bars define $68\%$ confidence intervals.}

1118: \end{deluxetable}

1119: 

1120: %-----------------------------------------------------

1121: %-----------------------------------------------------

1122: %-----------------------------------------------------

1123: %-----------------------------------------------------

1124: %-----------------------------------------------------

1125: %-----------------------------------------------------

1126: %-----------------------------------------------------

1127: 

1128: \section{Redshift Dependence}

1129: \label{sec:zdep}

1130: 

1131: \citet{rmbej08} showed that there is strong redshift evolution in the

1132: $\avg{\Lx|\Nobs}$ relation of maxBCG clusters.  Similar redshift dependence

1133: is observed in the velocity dispersion-optical richness relation measured in

1134: \citet{beckeretal07}.  This is best understood as a variation of $\Nobs$ at

1135: fixed mass, with an observed fractional decrease in $\Nobs$ of $30\%-40\%$

1136: over the redshift range of the maxBCG catalog.  In our previous work, the

1137: origin of this redshift dependence was unclear.  Here, we demonstrate how the

1138: matched-filter richness removes this redshift dependence, and show the pitfalls

1139: of a simple richness estimator such as $\Nobs$.

1140: 

1141: Figure~\ref{fig:evol} shows the $\avg{\Lx|\Nobs}$ relation for maxBCG

1142: clusters split into three different redshift bins (solid symbols).  Also shown

1143: is the mean relation $\avg{\Lx|\lambda}$ for the same three redshift bins

1144: (empty symbols).  It is obvious from the figure that the redshift evolution in

1145: the $\Lx-$richness relation is significantly weaker for $\lambda$ than it is

1146: for $\Nobs$.  We have fit the data with a power-law evolution in redshift,

1147: following \citet[][\S 5.3]{rmbej08}:

1148: %

1149: \begin{equation}

1150: \avg{\Lx|N} = A \left( \frac{N}{40} \right)^\alpha \left( \frac{1+z}{1+\tilde z} \right)^\gamma

1151: \end{equation}

1152: %

1153: where $\tilde z$ is the median redshift of the cluster sample and $N$ is the

1154: richness measure of interest.  We find that $\gamma=6.0\pm0.8$ for $\Nobs$

1155: while $\gamma=0.7\pm0.8$ for $\lambda$, consistent with no evolution.

1156: 

1157: Note, however, that even if the relation between $\lambda$ and cluster mass is

1158: redshift independent, we expect to see evolution in the $\Lx-\lambda$ relation

1159: due to evolution in the $\Lx-M$ relation.

1160: The expectation for self-similar evolution in $\Lx$ at fixed mass is

1161: that $\Lx \propto \rho_c(z)^{7/6}$ for bolometric luminosities, but closer to

1162: $\bar \rho_c^{1.0}$ for soft-band X-ray luminosities \citep{k86}.  Here, $\rho_c$

1163: is the critical density of the universe at redshift $z$.

1164: In a ${\Lambda}$CDM universe with

1165: $\Omega_m = 0.25$, the expected soft X-ray band evolution is thus $\gamma \approx 1.05$,

1166: so our results are also consistent with self-similar evolution.

1167: 

1168: The striking difference in the evolution in the $\Lx-$richness relation between

1169: $\lambda$ and $N_{200}$ is due to the differences in how $\Nobs$ and $\lambda$

1170: employ galaxy colors when estimating cluster richness.

1171: For $\Nobs$, a galaxy contributes to the richness

1172: if and only if its color differs from the BCG color by no more than

1173: twice the intrinsic width of the ridgeline color width plus the galaxy's

1174: photometric error, added in quadrature.  That is, 

1175: $\Nobs$ weighs galaxies according to the probability distribution $p_{top-hat}(c)$

1176: given by:

1177: %

1178: \begin{equation}

1179: p_{top-hat}(c) = \left \{ \begin{array}{cl} 

1180: 	1 & \mbox{if}\  |c-c_{BCG}| \leq \sqrt{(2\sigma_{int})^2+\sigma_{obs}^2} \\

1181: 	0 & \mbox{otherwise}

1182: 	\end{array} \right .

1183: \end{equation}

1184: %

1185: where $\sigma_{int}=0.05$ is the intrinsic width of the ridgeline.

1186: This is a top-hat distribution in observed color, but the width of the top-hat

1187: depends on the photometric error of the galaxy under consideration. 

1188: Also, note that the center of the color box is not the model $\avg{c|z}$

1189: quoted earlier, but rather the color of the BCG, which, as we show below,

1190: is a very significant difference.

1191: 

1192: \begin{figure}

1193: \begin{center}

1194: \scalebox{0.7}{\rotatebox{270}{\plotone{f4.eps}}}

1195: \caption{$\avg{\Lx}$ vs. richness in three different richness bins.  The empty

1196:   points denote the matched filter richness $\lambda$, and the solid points

1197:   denote the original maxBCG richness $N_{200}$.  The three richness bins are:

1198:   $0.10<z<0.18$ (blue circles); $0.18<z<0.26$ (green squares); $0.26<z<0.30$

1199:   (red diamonds).  The normalization of $\avg{\Lx}-N_{200}$ has been multiplied

1200:   by 5 for clarity.  It is readily apparent that $N_{200}$ has a strong

1201:   redshift dependence~\citep{rmbej08, beckeretal07}, while $\lambda$ does not.

1202:   }

1203: \label{fig:evol}

1204: \end{center}

1205: \end{figure}

1206: 

1207: To illustrate how these differences in the color filter results in differences

1208: in the evolution and scatter of $\lambda$ and $\Nobs$, we have defined three

1209: additional richness measures with key properties bridging those of $\lambda$

1210: and $\Nobs$.  Including $\lambda$ and $\Nobs$, the five richness measures

1211: considered here are

1212: %

1213: \begin{enumerate}

1214: \item{$\lambda$: the matched filter richness with a variable aperture, as

1215:   described above, with a gaussian color filter centered on $\avg{c|z}$.}

1216: \item{$\lambda_{BCG}$: the matched filter richness using the same aperture as

1217:   with $\lambda$, but with the Gaussian model centered on $c_{BCG}$.}

1218: \item{$N_{top-hat,model}$, a top-hat richness using the $p_{top-hat}$ formulation

1219:   above, centered around $\avg{c|z}$ as in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:color}, measured on a

1220:   fixed $1\,\hMpc$ scale.}

1221: \item{$N_{top-hat,BCG}$, a top-hat richness using the $p_{top-hat}$ formulation

1222:   above, centered around $c_{BCG}$, measured on a fixed $1\,\hMpc$ scale.  This

1223:   is similar to the maxBCG $N_{gals}$ richness, without the additional cut on

1224:   the $r-i$ color of the member galaxies.}

1225: \item{$\Nobs$, the original maxBCG richness estimator, measured in a scaled

1226:   radius $r_{200}^{gals}$, with the color filter centered on $c_{BCG}$.}

1227: \end{enumerate}

1228: 

1229: Table~\ref{tab:evol} shows the scatter (in the top 2000 clusters) and evolution

1230: parameters for these various richness estimators.  There are two key

1231: observations that we can make here.  First, when using the top-hat richness,

1232: centering around the model color is significantly better than centering on the

1233: BCG color, in terms of decreasing both the scatter and evolution of the

1234: richness measure.  Second, the smooth Gaussian filter centered on the BCG color

1235: works almost as well as the Gaussian filter centered on the model color.  This

1236: is a significant result, because it implies that not only are the resulting

1237: richnesses more robust to moderate changes in the color filter parameters, but

1238: also the richness measure itself is also robust to photometric redshift errors.

1239: The reason for this robustness is simple: when using a color top-hat selection,

1240: using the correct color model is of paramount of importance since miscentering

1241: of the top-hat will lead to underestimates of the richness.  In the matched

1242: filter framework, what is important is the relative galaxy density of the

1243: cluster and field components, which can remain high even if the centering of

1244: the ridgeline color is slightly displaced.  Thus, matched-filter richness

1245: estimates are much more robust to small changes in the parameters of the color

1246: filter than estimates based on simple color cuts.

1247: 

1248: As an illustration of this effect, Figure~\ref{fig:clust983colors} shows the color distribution

1249: of all galaxies brighter than $0.4\,L_*$ within

1250: $1\,\hMpc$ (solid black line) of the galaxy cluster SDSS~J082026.8+073650.1 at

1251: a redshift $z_{spec}=0.22$.  This cluster was selected because of the large

1252: discrepancy between $N_{200}$ and $\lambda$.  The color of the cluster BCG

1253: (solid red line) is significantly redder than the red sequence.  The dotted

1254: vertical lines show the $\pm2\sigma_{int}$ color cut, which does not include

1255: the peak of the red sequence.  As a result, $N_{200}$ is significantly

1256: underestimated in this system.   The blue curve shows the same galaxy distribution,

1257: but weighing each galaxy by its membership probability as estimated using the

1258: matched filter approach.

1259: As we can see, the matched filter effectively selects galaxies in the red sequence.

1260: 

1261: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}

1262: \tablewidth{0pt}

1263: \tablecaption{\label{tab:evol}Scatter ($\sigma_{\lnl|N}$) and redshift

1264:   evolution ($\gamma$)}

1265: \tablehead{

1266: \colhead{Richness} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\lnl|N}$}\tablenotemark{a} &

1267: \colhead{$\gamma$}

1268: }

1269: \startdata

1270: $\lambda$ & $0.78\pm0.02$ & $0.7\pm0.8$\\

1271: $\lambda_{BCG}$ & $0.82\pm0.02$ & $1.1\pm0.8$ \\

1272: $N_{top-hat,model}$ & $0.80\pm0.02$  & $0.5\pm0.8$\\

1273: $N_{top-hat,BCG}$ & $0.99\pm0.02$ & $4.2\pm0.7$\\

1274: $\Nobs$ & $0.95\pm0.02$ & $6.0\pm0.8$\\

1275: \enddata

1276: \tablenotetext{a}{For the top 2000 clusters}

1277: \end{deluxetable}

1278: 

1279: \begin{figure}

1280: \begin{center}

1281: \scalebox{0.7}{\rotatebox{270}{\plotone{f5.eps}}}

1282: \caption{\label{fig:clust983colors}Color distribution of all the galaxies

1283:   brighter than $0.4\,L_*$ within $1\,\hMpc$ (solid black line) of the galaxy

1284:   cluster SDSS~J082026.8+073650.1 at a redshift of $z_{spec}=0.22$.  

1285:   The distribution is estimated using a Gaussian Kernel Density Estimator (KDE), with the

1286:   size of the kernel selected to adequately sample the peak due to ridgeline galaxies.  

1287:   The cluster BCG color (solid red line) is significantly redder than the red

1288:   sequence (peak of the black distribution).  The dotted vertical lines show the

1289:   $\pm2\sigma_{int}$ color cut, which does not include the bulk of the red

1290:   sequence, and therefore $N_{200}$ is significantly underestimated.  The

1291:   blue curve  is the KDE estimate of the galaxy distribution,  except  every galaxy 

1292:   has been weighted by its membership probability as estimated

1293:   using the matched filter approach.  We can see the match filter richness estimate

1294:   selects principally ridgeline galaxies.

1295: }

1296: \end{center}

1297: \end{figure}

1298: 

1299: We have demonstrated that the redshift evolution observed in the $\Lx-\Nobs$

1300: relation is primarily caused by using a top-hat filter centered on the color of the BCG.

1301: Why such a choice of color filter results in the strong evolution we observe for 

1302: $N_{200}$ is a complicated question, with at least two physical mechanisms

1303: contributing to the problem at comparable levels.  First, there is the fact that

1304: even for a correctly centered top-hat filter, a ridgeline galaxy can fall outside

1305: the color cuts due to photometric errors.  Since photometric errors increase

1306: with increasing redshift, a color cut such as that of $\Nobs$ will progressively

1307: lose more galaxies as one moves the cluster to higher redshift.

1308: Second, the E/S0 ridgeline is not flat, but

1309: has a slight tilt ($\sim -0.04$ mags/mag in $g-r$ vs. $i$), such that brighter

1310: galaxies tend to be redder \citep[e.g.][]{visvanathan77, renzini06}.  By

1311: centering the color filter on the BCG -- by definition the brightest and

1312: usually reddest cluster member -- a small richness bias is introduced: clusters

1313: with brighter BCGs have a color filter centered redward of the average BCG

1314: color.  Moreover, recent work by

1315: Hao et al. (in preparation) shows that with a proper account for photometric

1316: errors, the ridgeline tilt evolves with redshift, such that the ridgeline is

1317: \emph{steeper} at $z=0.3$ than at $z=0.1$.  Consequently, a BCG centered color

1318: cut becomes increasingly offset from the true mean ridgeline color as we increase

1319: redshift.  Both of these systematics effects occur with similar magnitude, and act

1320: in concert to produce the observed evolution in $\Nobs$.   We emphasize,

1321: however, that our matched filter richness estimator does {\it not} suffer from

1322: these systematic effects.

1323: 

1324: Finally, we can now also explain why $N_{200}$ exhibits stronger evolution than

1325: $N_{top-hat,BCG}$.  Recall that the aperture used to estimate $\Nobs$ is itself

1326: based on the richness measure $N_{gals}$, which is very similar to

1327: $N_{top-hat,BCG}$.  Since $N_{top-hat,BCG}$ systematically underestimates the

1328: richness for high redshift clusters due to the increasing tilt of the

1329: ridgeline, the aperture $r_{200}^{gals}$, which scales with $N_{top-hat,BCG}$,

1330: is also underestimated.  This compounds the effect of incorrect centering of the color

1331: box and results in stronger redshift evolution.

1332: 

1333: %-----------------------------------------------------

1334: %-----------------------------------------------------

1335: %-----------------------------------------------------

1336: %-----------------------------------------------------

1337: %-----------------------------------------------------

1338: %-----------------------------------------------------

1339: 

1340: 

1341: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1342: \label{sec:conclusions}

1343: 

1344: We have introduced a new matched filter richness estimator $\lambda$ whose correlation with

1345: mass is significantly tighter than that of $\Nobs$, the original maxBCG richness estimator.

1346: Relative to other matched filter estimates, our estimator has two significant differences:

1347: %

1348: \begin{enumerate}

1349: \item The richness is measured on a scale that is optimized in the sense that it minimizes the scatter in $\Lx$ at

1350: fixed richness.  

1351: \item In addition to a radial and magnitude filters, we include a color filter.  This is of crucial importance

1352: for differentiating between member and non-member (projected) galaxies.

1353: 

1354: \end{enumerate}

1355: %

1356: The first these points is important since we have demonstrated

1357: that a poor choice of aperture increases the scatter in mass at

1358: fixed richness, while the latter minimizes the impact of

1359: projection effects in richness estimates.  Of the two, however, the improved treatment of

1360: galaxy color is the principal reason for the marked reduction of the scatter in the

1361: $\Lx-$richness relation.

1362: 

1363: Our procedure for aperture optimization can be easily generalized to any mass tracer for

1364: which one can construct a calibrating data set.  In our particular case, we minimize the

1365: scatter in the $\Lx-\lambda$ relation by measuring both $\Lx$ and $\lambda$ within an aperture 

1366: $R_c(\lambda)=R_0(\lambda/100)^\alpha$, and varying the model parameters $R_0$

1367: and $\lambda$.  Given the small richness range probed by our sample,

1368: we have not been able to isolate unique values for $R_0$ and $\alpha$, finding instead

1369: a degeneracy region corresponding to a fixed mean cluster radius for the clusters in

1370: the sample.   Based on \emph{a priori} assumptions about the

1371: radius--richness scaling, we have fixed $\alpha=1/3$, which yields a

1372: normalization of $R_0 = 1.27\pm0.03$.  We note, however, that

1373: the degeneracy region intersects $\alpha=0$ at $R_0\approx 850\ \kpc$.

1374: Although we expect that this fixed scaling will not be

1375: ideal at the rich group/poor cluster scale, it does work as a ``first guess''

1376: richness and may be applicable to future cluster finding techniques.

1377: At this point, it is unclear whether the cluster radii selected by our technique

1378: reflects a true physical property of the maxBCG clusters, or whether it is driven

1379: primarily by a compromise between the the increase signal one expects at larger

1380: aperture, and the smaller noise one expects for smaller apertures.

1381: Regardless of the source, it is likely that similar aperture dependences exist for other 

1382: mass tracers.  

1383: 

1384: We have also found our new richness estimator has scaling relations whose

1385: redshift evolution is much more mild than those exhibited by $\Nobs$.  This

1386: difference arises due to two effects: first, $\Nobs$ uses a top-hat filter to

1387: select cluster galaxies, where as our matched filter estimator $\lambda$ uses

1388: gaussian color filters.  Second, $\Nobs$ centered its color filter at the color of

1389: the BCG, whereas $\lambda$ centered its color using an observationally

1390: calibrated color--redshift relation.  The fact that the color of the BCG does

1391: not always agree with the observationally calibrated redshift-color relation

1392: leads to a systematic difference between the two richness measures.  Moreover,

1393: we also found that the sharp edges of the top-hat filter result in a richness

1394: estimator that is very sensitive to the details of the color model, whereas our

1395: gaussian filter is much more robust to moderate changes in the model parameters.

1396: 

1397: Restricting ourselves to the clean cluster sample, which excludes cooling flow clusters and

1398: clusters with obvious foreground contamination in their X-ray luminosities, we have found that

1399: the scatter in the $\Lx-$richness relation of the 2000 richest clusters is

1400: is $\sigma_{\lnl|\lambda}=0.69$ for $\lambda$, compared to $\sigma_{\lnl|\Nobs}=0.86$ for $\Nobs$.  

1401: Assuming a slope of $\approx 1.6$ for the $\Lx-M$ relation~\citep{sebsn06,rembj08,vbefh08}, 

1402: these amount to a logarithmic scatter in the mass--richness relation of $\approx 0.43$ and $0.54$ respectively.

1403: While this is a very significant improvement, we expect that further tightening

1404: of the scatter in mass at fixed richness must be possible.

1405: For instance, assuming the intrinsic scatter in the richness-mass relation

1406: is Poisson, the logarithmic scatter possible for clusters with 20 galaxies or so should be 

1407: roughly $\approx 0.2$.  

1408: 

1409: Fortunately, there

1410: are still many options left for us to explore in our quest to define optical mass proxies that can

1411: be competitive with other mass tracers in terms of the tightness of the correlation with mass. As we have

1412: defined it here, our richness estimates only makes use of the number of galaxies in the cluster.

1413: One could, for instance, weigh our cluster richness by other optical mass tracers such as

1414: the luminosity of 

1415: the brightest cluster galaxy \citep{reyesetal08}, the abundance of baryons 

1416: contained in the intracluster light \citep[e.g.][]{gonzales07}, or other aspects of the cluster galaxy

1417: morphology \citep[e.g. Bautz-Morgan Type, ][]{bautz70}.  In addition, one could weigh each galaxy's contribution

1418: to the richness by physical observables such as galaxy luminosity.  Such a luminosity weighted richness

1419: estimate would be a measure of the optical luminosity of the cluster as a whole, and might be 

1420: better correlated with mass than richness itself \citep[see

1421: also][]{lin03,milleretal05, pbbrv05}.

1422: It is also likely that

1423: further improvements in richness estimates can arise with more accurate filters, a possibility we intend

1424: to explore in future work.  Finally, we know that even with today's filters, part of the scatter we observe 

1425: must be due to systematics effects such as failures of the cluster finding algorithm in identifying the correct

1426: center of a cluster, a problem which we have not addressed in this work.

1427: For the time being,

1428: the fact that naive theoretical expectations result in a scatter much lower than previously observed,

1429: and the fact that on our first attempt at defining a better richness estimator resulted in a highly

1430: significant ($\approx 11\sigma$) improvement over $\Nobs$, suggest that the future is rife with opportunities

1431: for this kind of work.

1432: 

1433: \acknowledgements

1434: 

1435:  ER would like to thank David Weinberg and Christopher Kochanek for interesting

1436: discussions and their careful reading of the manuscript. ESR would like to thank the TABASGO foundation.

1437: RHW was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract

1438: number DE-AC02-76SF00515 and by a Terman Fellowship at Stanford

1439: University.  TM and JH gratefully acknowledge support from NSF grant AST 0807304 and DoE Grant DE-FG02-95ER40899.

1440: This project was made possible by workshop support from the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics. AE thanks

1441: NSF grant AST-0708150.

1442: 

1443: Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan 

1444: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 

1445: Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. 

1446: The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/.

1447: 

1448: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating Institutions. 

1449: The Participating Institutions are The University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the 

1450: Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Korean Scientist Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 

1451: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico 

1452: State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States 

1453: Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington. 

1454: 

1455: 

1456: %-----------------------------------------------------

1457: %-----------------------------------------------------

1458: %-----------------------------------------------------

1459: %-----------------------------------------------------

1460: %-----------------------------------------------------

1461: %-----------------------------------------------------

1462: 

1463: 

1464: 

1465: 

1466: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

1467: %\bibliography{mybib}

1468: 

1469: \begin{thebibliography}{92}

1470: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1471: 

1472: \bibitem[{{Abell}(1958)}]{abell58}

1473: {Abell}, G.~O. 1958, \apjs, 3, 211

1474: 

1475: \bibitem[{{Abell} {et~al.}(1989){Abell}, {Corwin}, \& {Olowin}}]{abell89}

1476: {Abell}, G.~O., {Corwin}, Jr., H.~G., \& {Olowin}, R.~P. 1989, \apjs, 70, 1

1477: 

1478: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2008){Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},

1479:   {Allam}, {Allende Prieto}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall},

1480:   {Bailer-Jones}, {Baldry}, {Barentine}, {Bassett}, {Becker}, {Beers}, {Bell},

1481:   {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Bochanski}, {Boroski}, {Brinchmann},

1482:   {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carliles}, {Carr}, {Castander},

1483:   {Cinabro}, {Cool}, {Covey}, {Csabai}, {Cunha}, {Davenport}, {Dilday}, {Doi},

1484:   {Eisenstein}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman},

1485:   {Fukugita}, {G{\"a}nsicke}, {Gates}, {Gillespie}, {Glazebrook}, {Gray},

1486:   {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {Hall}, {Harding}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley},

1487:   {Hayes}, {Heckman}, {Hendry}, {Hindsley}, {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Hyde},

1488:   {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Jester}, {Johnson}, {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}},

1489:   {Kent}, {Kessler}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin},

1490:   {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lebedeva}, {Lee}, {Leger}, {L{\'e}pine}, {Lima}, {Lin},

1491:   {Long}, {Loomis}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Malanushenko}, {Malanushenko},

1492:   {Mandelbaum}, {Margon}, {Marriner}, {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Matsubara},

1493:   {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Morrison}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Neilsen},

1494:   {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {Okamura},

1495:   {Owen}, {Oyaizu}, {Padmanabhan}, {Pan}, {Park}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope},

1496:   {Purger}, {Raddick}, {Re Fiorentin}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Riess}, {Rix},

1497:   {Rockosi}, {Sako}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Schreiber}, {Schwope}, {Seljak},

1498:   {Sesar}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Sivarani}, {Smith}, {Snedden}, {Steinmetz},

1499:   {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Suto}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark},

1500:   {Thakar}, {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vandenberg},

1501:   {Vidrih}, {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Wadadekar}, {Weinberg}, {West},

1502:   {White}, {Wilhite}, {Yanny}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, \&

1503:   {Zucker}}]{adelman08}

1504: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2008, \apjs, 175, 297

1505: 

1506: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2006){Adelman-McCarthy}, {Ag{\"u}eros},

1507:   {Allam}, {Anderson}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Baldry}, {Barentine},

1508:   {Berlind}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Boroski}, {Brewington}, {Brinchmann},

1509:   {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Budav{\'a}ri}, {Carey}, {Carr}, {Castander},

1510:   {Connolly}, {Csabai}, {Czarapata}, {Dalcanton}, {Doi}, {Dong}, {Eisenstein},

1511:   {Evans}, {Fan}, {Finkbeiner}, {Friedman}, {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Gillespie},

1512:   {Glazebrook}, {Gray}, {Grebel}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {de Haas}, {Hall},

1513:   {Harris}, {Harvanek}, {Hawley}, {Hayes}, {Hendry}, {Hennessy}, {Hindsley},

1514:   {Hirata}, {Hogan}, {Hogg}, {Holmgren}, {Holtzman}, {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}},

1515:   {Jester}, {Johnston}, {Jorgensen}, {Juri{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp},

1516:   {Kniazev}, {Kron}, {Krzesinski}, {Kuropatkin}, {Lamb}, {Lampeitl}, {Lee},

1517:   {Leger}, {Lin}, {Long}, {Loveday}, {Lupton}, {Margon},

1518:   {Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado}, {Mandelbaum}, {Matsubara}, {McGehee}, {McKay},

1519:   {Meiksin}, {Munn}, {Nakajima}, {Nash}, {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Newman},

1520:   {Nichol}, {Nicinski}, {Nieto-Santisteban}, {Nitta}, {O'Mullane}, {Okamura},

1521:   {Owen}, {Padmanabhan}, {Pauls}, {Peoples}, {Pier}, {Pope}, {Pourbaix},

1522:   {Quinn}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Rockosi}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider},

1523:   {Schroeder}, {Scranton}, {Seljak}, {Sheldon}, {Shimasaku}, {Smith}, {Smol{\v

1524:   c}i{\'c}}, {Snedden}, {Stoughton}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay},

1525:   {Szapudi}, {Szkody}, {Tegmark}, {Thakar}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk},

1526:   {Vandenberg}, {Vogeley}, {Voges}, {Vogt}, {Walkowicz}, {Weinberg}, {West},

1527:   {White}, {Xu}, {Yanny}, {Yocum}, {York}, {Zehavi}, {Zibetti}, \&

1528:   {Zucker}}]{adelman06}

1529: ---. 2006, \apjs, 162, 38

1530: 

1531: \bibitem[{{Bahcall}(1981)}]{bahcall81}

1532: {Bahcall}, N.~A. 1981, \apj, 247, 787

1533: 

1534: \bibitem[{{Bartelmann}(1996)}]{bartelmann96}

1535: {Bartelmann}, M. 1996, \aap, 313, 697

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[{{Bauer} {et~al.}(2005){Bauer}, {Fabian}, {Sanders}, {Allen}, \&

1538:   {Johnstone}}]{bfsaj05}

1539: {Bauer}, F.~E., {Fabian}, A.~C., {Sanders}, J.~S., {Allen}, S.~W., \&

1540:   {Johnstone}, R.~M. 2005, \mnras, 359, 1481

1541: 

1542: \bibitem[{{Bautz} \& {Morgan}(1970)}]{bautz70}

1543: {Bautz}, L.~P., \& {Morgan}, W.~W. 1970, \apjl, 162, L149+

1544: 

1545: \bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Becker}, {McKay}, {Koester},

1546:   {Wechsler}, {Rozo}, {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Annis}, {Lau},

1547:   {Nichol}, \& {Miller}}]{bmkwr07}

1548: {Becker}, M.~R. {et~al.} 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 669, 905

1549: 

1550: \bibitem[{{Becker} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Becker}, {McKay}, {Koester},

1551:   {Wechsler}, {Rozo}, {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Annis}, {Lau},

1552:   {Nichol}, \& {Miller}}]{beckeretal07}

1553: ---. 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 669, 905

1554: 

1555: \bibitem[{{B{\"o}hringer} {et~al.}(2005){B{\"o}hringer}, {Burwitz}, {Zhang},

1556:   {Schuecker}, \& {Nowak}}]{bbzsn05}

1557: {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Burwitz}, V., {Zhang}, Y.-Y., {Schuecker}, P., \&

1558:   {Nowak}, N. 2005, \apj, 633, 148

1559: 

1560: \bibitem[{{B{\"o}hringer} {et~al.}(2004){B{\"o}hringer}, {Schuecker}, {Guzzo},

1561:   {Collins}, {Voges}, {Cruddace}, {Ortiz-Gil}, {Chincarini}, {De Grandi},

1562:   {Edge}, {MacGillivray}, {Neumann}, {Schindler}, \& {Shaver}}]{bsgcv04}

1563: {B{\"o}hringer}, H. {et~al.} 2004, \aap, 425, 367

1564: 

1565: \bibitem[{{Bond} {et~al.}(1991){Bond}, {Cole}, {Efstathiou}, \&

1566:   {Kaiser}}]{bondetal91}

1567: {Bond}, J.~R., {Cole}, S., {Efstathiou}, G., \& {Kaiser}, N. 1991, \apj, 379,

1568:   440

1569: 

1570: \bibitem[{{Bower} {et~al.}(1992){Bower}, {Lucey}, \& {Ellis}}]{boweretal92}

1571: {Bower}, R.~G., {Lucey}, J.~R., \& {Ellis}, R.~S. 1992, \mnras, 254, 601

1572: 

1573: \bibitem[{{Bramel} {et~al.}(2000){Bramel}, {Nichol}, \& {Pope}}]{bramel00}

1574: {Bramel}, D.~A., {Nichol}, R.~C., \& {Pope}, A.~C. 2000, \apj, 533, 601

1575: 

1576: \bibitem[{{Chen} {et~al.}(2007){Chen}, {Reiprich}, {B{\"o}hringer}, {Ikebe}, \&

1577:   {Zhang}}]{crbiz07}

1578: {Chen}, Y., {Reiprich}, T.~H., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Ikebe}, Y., \& {Zhang},

1579:   Y.-Y. 2007, \aap, 466, 805

1580: 

1581: \bibitem[{{Cuesta} {et~al.}(2008){Cuesta}, {Prada}, {Klypin}, \&

1582:   {Moles}}]{cuestaetal08}

1583: {Cuesta}, A.~J., {Prada}, F., {Klypin}, A., \& {Moles}, M. 2008, \mnras, 846

1584: 

1585: \bibitem[{{Dai} {et~al.}(2007){Dai}, {Kochanek}, \& {Morgan}}]{daietal07}

1586: {Dai}, X., {Kochanek}, C.~S., \& {Morgan}, N.~D. 2007, \apj, 658, 917

1587: 

1588: \bibitem[{{Dong} {et~al.}(2008){Dong}, {Pierpaoli}, {Gunn}, \&

1589:   {Wechsler}}]{dongetal07}

1590: {Dong}, F., {Pierpaoli}, E., {Gunn}, J.~E., \& {Wechsler}, R.~H. 2008, \apj,

1591:   676, 868

1592: 

1593: \bibitem[{{Dressler}(1984)}]{dressler84}

1594: {Dressler}, A. 1984, \araa, 22, 185

1595: 

1596: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} {et~al.}(2001){Eisenstein}, {Annis}, {Gunn}, {Szalay},

1597:   {Connolly}, {Nichol}, {Bahcall}, {Bernardi}, {Burles}, {Castander},

1598:   {Fukugita}, {Hogg}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Lupton}, {Narayanan}, {Postman},

1599:   {Reichart}, {Richmond}, {Schneider}, {Schlegel}, {Strauss}, {SubbaRao},

1600:   {Tucker}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vogeley}, {Weinberg}, \&

1601:   {Yanny}}]{eisensteinetal01}

1602: {Eisenstein}, D.~J. {et~al.} 2001, \aj, 122, 2267

1603: 

1604: \bibitem[{{Fukugita} {et~al.}(1996){Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Gunn}, {Doi},

1605:   {Shimasaku}, \& {Schneider}}]{fukugita96}

1606: {Fukugita}, M., {Ichikawa}, T., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Doi}, M., {Shimasaku}, K., \&

1607:   {Schneider}, D.~P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748

1608: 

1609: \bibitem[{{Gladders} \& {Yee}(2000)}]{gladdersyee00}

1610: {Gladders}, M.~D., \& {Yee}, H.~K.~C. 2000, \aj, 120, 2148

1611: 

1612: \bibitem[{{Gladders} \& {Yee}(2005)}]{gladders05}

1613: ---. 2005, \apjs, 157, 1

1614: 

1615: \bibitem[{{Gladders} {et~al.}(2007){Gladders}, {Yee}, {Majumdar}, {Barrientos},

1616:   {Hoekstra}, {Hall}, \& {Infante}}]{gladdersetal07}

1617: {Gladders}, M.~D., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., {Majumdar}, S., {Barrientos}, L.~F.,

1618:   {Hoekstra}, H., {Hall}, P.~B., \& {Infante}, L. 2007, \apj, 655, 128

1619: 

1620: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez} {et~al.}(2007){Gonzalez}, {Zaritsky}, \&

1621:   {Zabludoff}}]{gonzales07}

1622: {Gonzalez}, A.~H., {Zaritsky}, D., \& {Zabludoff}, A.~I. 2007, \apj, 666, 147

1623: 

1624: \bibitem[{{Goto} {et~al.}(2002){Goto}, {Sekiguchi}, {Nichol}, {Bahcall}, {Kim},

1625:   {Annis}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Brinkmann}, {Hennessy}, {Szokoly}, \&

1626:   {Tucker}}]{gotoetal02}

1627: {Goto}, T. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 1807

1628: 

1629: \bibitem[{{Gunn} {et~al.}(2006){Gunn}, {Siegmund}, {Mannery}, {Owen}, {Hull},

1630:   {Leger}, {Carey}, {Knapp}, {York}, {Boroski}, {Kent}, {Lupton}, {Rockosi},

1631:   {Evans}, {Waddell}, {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Barentine}, {Bartoszek}, {Bastian},

1632:   {Bracker}, {Brewington}, {Briegel}, {Brinkmann}, {Brown}, {Carr},

1633:   {Czarapata}, {Drennan}, {Dombeck}, {Federwitz}, {Gillespie}, {Gonzales},

1634:   {Hansen}, {Harvanek}, {Hayes}, {Jordan}, {Kinney}, {Klaene}, {Kleinman},

1635:   {Kron}, {Kresinski}, {Lee}, {Limmongkol}, {Lindenmeyer}, {Long}, {Loomis},

1636:   {McGehee}, {Mantsch}, {Neilsen}, {Neswold}, {Newman}, {Nitta}, {Peoples},

1637:   {Pier}, {Prieto}, {Prosapio}, {Rivetta}, {Schneider}, {Snedden}, \&

1638:   {Wang}}]{gunn06}

1639: {Gunn}, J.~E. {et~al.} 2006, \aj, 131, 2332

1640: 

1641: \bibitem[{{Haiman} {et~al.}(2001){Haiman}, {Mohr}, \& {Holder}}]{haimanetal01}

1642: {Haiman}, Z., {Mohr}, J.~J., \& {Holder}, G.~P. 2001, \apj, 553, 545

1643: 

1644: \bibitem[{{Hansen} {et~al.}(2005){Hansen}, {McKay}, {Wechsler}, {Annis},

1645:   {Sheldon}, \& {Kimball}}]{hmwas05}

1646: {Hansen}, S.~M., {McKay}, T.~A., {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Annis}, J., {Sheldon},

1647:   E.~S., \& {Kimball}, A. 2005, \apj, 633, 122

1648: 

1649: \bibitem[{{Hansen} {et~al.}(2007){Hansen}, {Sheldon}, {Wechsler}, \&

1650:   {Koester}}]{hansenetal07}

1651: {Hansen}, S.~M., {Sheldon}, E.~S., {Wechsler}, R.~H., \& {Koester}, B.~P. 2007,

1652:   ArXiv e-prints, 710, astro-ph/0710.3780

1653: 

1654: \bibitem[{{Hockney} \& {Eastwood}(1981)}]{hockney81}

1655: {Hockney}, R.~W., \& {Eastwood}, J.~W. 1981, {Computer Simulation Using

1656:   Particles} (Computer Simulation Using Particles, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981)

1657: 

1658: \bibitem[{{Hogg} {et~al.}(2001){Hogg}, {Finkbeiner}, {Schlegel}, \&

1659:   {Gunn}}]{hogg01}

1660: {Hogg}, D.~W., {Finkbeiner}, D.~P., {Schlegel}, D.~J., \& {Gunn}, J.~E. 2001,

1661:   \aj, 122, 2129

1662: 

1663: \bibitem[{{Holder} {et~al.}(2001){Holder}, {Haiman}, \& {Mohr}}]{holderetal01}

1664: {Holder}, G., {Haiman}, Z., \& {Mohr}, J.~J. 2001, \apjl, 560, L111

1665: 

1666: \bibitem[{{Hu} \& {Cohn}(2006)}]{hucohn06}

1667: {Hu}, W., \& {Cohn}, J.~D. 2006, \prd, 73, 067301

1668: 

1669: \bibitem[{{Jenkins} {et~al.}(2001){Jenkins}, {Frenk}, {White}, {Colberg},

1670:   {Cole}, {Evrard}, {Couchman}, \& {Yoshida}}]{jenkinsetal01}

1671: {Jenkins}, A., {Frenk}, C.~S., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Colberg}, J.~M., {Cole}, S.,

1672:   {Evrard}, A.~E., {Couchman}, H.~M.~P., \& {Yoshida}, N. 2001, \mnras, 321,

1673:   372

1674: 

1675: \bibitem[{{Johnston} {et~al.}(2007){Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Wechsler}, {Rozo},

1676:   {Koester}, {Frieman}, {McKay}, {Evrard}, {Becker}, \&

1677:   {Annis}}]{johnstonetal07}

1678: {Johnston}, D.~E. {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, astro-ph/0709.1159

1679: 

1680: \bibitem[{{Kaiser}(1986)}]{k86}

1681: {Kaiser}, N. 1986, \mnras, 222, 323

1682: 

1683: \bibitem[{{Kelly}(2007)}]{k07}

1684: {Kelly}, B.~C. 2007, \apj, 665, 1489

1685: 

1686: \bibitem[{{Kochanek} {et~al.}(2003){Kochanek}, {White}, {Huchra}, {Macri},

1687:   {Jarrett}, {Schneider}, \& {Mader}}]{kochaneketal03}

1688: {Kochanek}, C.~S., {White}, M., {Huchra}, J., {Macri}, L., {Jarrett}, T.~H.,

1689:   {Schneider}, S.~E., \& {Mader}, J. 2003, \apj, 585, 161

1690: 

1691: \bibitem[{{Koester} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Koester}, {McKay}, {Annis},

1692:   {Wechsler}, {Evrard}, {Bleem}, {Becker}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Nichol},

1693:   {Miller}, {Scranton}, {Bahcall}, {Barentine}, {Brewington}, {Brinkmann},

1694:   {Harvanek}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Nitta}, {Schneider},

1695:   {Sneddin}, {Voges}, \& {York}}]{kmawe07b}

1696: {Koester}, B.~P. {et~al.} 2007{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 660, 239

1697: 

1698: \bibitem[{{Koester} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Koester}, {McKay}, {Annis},

1699:   {Wechsler}, {Evrard}, {Rozo}, {Bleem}, {Sheldon}, \& {Johnston}}]{kmawe07a}

1700: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 660, 221

1701: 

1702: \bibitem[{{Kormendy} \& {Djorgovski}(1989)}]{kormendy89}

1703: {Kormendy}, J., \& {Djorgovski}, S. 1989, \araa, 27, 235

1704: 

1705: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2006){Kravtsov}, {Vikhlinin}, \&

1706:   {Nagai}}]{kravtsovetal06}

1707: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Vikhlinin}, A., \& {Nagai}, D. 2006, \apj, 650, 128

1708: 

1709: \bibitem[{{Lima} \& {Hu}(2004)}]{limahu04}

1710: {Lima}, M., \& {Hu}, W. 2004, \prd, 70, 043504

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[{{Lima} \& {Hu}(2005)}]{limahu05}

1713: ---. 2005, \prd, 72, 043006

1714: 

1715: \bibitem[{{Lin} \& {Mohr}(2004)}]{linmohr04}

1716: {Lin}, Y.-T., \& {Mohr}, J.~J. 2004, \apj, 617, 879

1717: 

1718: \bibitem[{{Lin} {et~al.}(2003){Lin}, {Mohr}, \& {Stanford}}]{lin03}

1719: {Lin}, Y.-T., {Mohr}, J.~J., \& {Stanford}, S.~A. 2003, \apj, 591, 749

1720: 

1721: \bibitem[{{Lupton} {et~al.}(2001){Lupton}, {Gunn}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, \&

1722:   {Kent}}]{lupton01}

1723: {Lupton}, R., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Ivezi{\'c}}, Z., {Knapp}, G.~R., \& {Kent}, S.

1724:   2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 238,

1725:   Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, ed. F.~R. {Harnden}, Jr.,

1726:   F.~A. {Primini}, \& H.~E. {Payne}, 269--+

1727: 

1728: \bibitem[{{Majumdar} \& {Mohr}(2004)}]{majumdaretal04}

1729: {Majumdar}, S., \& {Mohr}, J.~J. 2004, \apj, 613, 41

1730: 

1731: \bibitem[{{Mart{\'{\i}}nez} \& {Muriel}(2006)}]{martinez06}

1732: {Mart{\'{\i}}nez}, H.~J., \& {Muriel}, H. 2006, \mnras, 370, 1003

1733: 

1734: \bibitem[{{Mart{\'{\i}}nez} {et~al.}(2002){Mart{\'{\i}}nez}, {Zandivarez},

1735:   {Dom{\'{\i}}nguez}, {Merch{\'a}n}, \& {Lambas}}]{martinez02}

1736: {Mart{\'{\i}}nez}, H.~J., {Zandivarez}, A., {Dom{\'{\i}}nguez}, M.,

1737:   {Merch{\'a}n}, M.~E., \& {Lambas}, D.~G. 2002, \mnras, 333, L31

1738: 

1739: \bibitem[{{Maughan}(2007)}]{m07}

1740: {Maughan}, B.~J. 2007, \apj, 668, 772

1741: 

1742: \bibitem[{{Miller} {et~al.}(2005){Miller}, {Nichol}, {Reichart}, {Wechsler},

1743:   {Evrard}, {Annis}, {McKay}, {Bahcall}, {Bernardi}, {Boehringer}, {Connolly},

1744:   {Goto}, {Kniazev}, {Lamb}, {Postman}, {Schneider}, {Sheth}, \&

1745:   {Voges}}]{milleretal05}

1746: {Miller}, C.~J. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 130, 968

1747: 

1748: \bibitem[{{Muzzin} {et~al.}(2007){Muzzin}, {Yee}, {Hall}, \& {Lin}}]{muzzin07}

1749: {Muzzin}, A., {Yee}, H.~K.~C., {Hall}, P.~B., \& {Lin}, H. 2007, \apj, 663, 150

1750: 

1751: \bibitem[{{Navarro} {et~al.}(1995){Navarro}, {Frenk}, \&

1752:   {White}}]{navarro_etal95}

1753: {Navarro}, J.~F., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 1995, \mnras, 275, 56

1754: 

1755: \bibitem[{{Navarro} {et~al.}(1997){Navarro}, {Frenk}, \& {White}}]{NFW}

1756: ---. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 (NFW)

1757: 

1758: \bibitem[{{O'Hara} {et~al.}(2006){O'Hara}, {Mohr}, {Bialek}, \&

1759:   {Evrard}}]{ombe06}

1760: {O'Hara}, T.~B., {Mohr}, J.~J., {Bialek}, J.~J., \& {Evrard}, A.~E. 2006, \apj,

1761:   639, 64

1762: 

1763: \bibitem[{{Peres} {et~al.}(1998){Peres}, {Fabian}, {Edge}, {Allen},

1764:   {Johnstone}, \& {White}}]{pfeaj98}

1765: {Peres}, C.~B., {Fabian}, A.~C., {Edge}, A.~C., {Allen}, S.~W., {Johnstone},

1766:   R.~M., \& {White}, D.~A. 1998, \mnras, 298, 416

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[{{Pier} {et~al.}(2003){Pier}, {Munn}, {Hindsley}, {Hennessy}, {Kent},

1769:   {Lupton}, \& {Ivezi{\'c}}}]{pier03}

1770: {Pier}, J.~R., {Munn}, J.~A., {Hindsley}, R.~B., {Hennessy}, G.~S., {Kent},

1771:   S.~M., {Lupton}, R.~H., \& {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}. 2003, \aj, 125, 1559

1772: 

1773: \bibitem[{{Popesso} {et~al.}(2007){Popesso}, {Biviano}, {B{\"o}hringer}, \&

1774:   {Romaniello}}]{popessoetal07}

1775: {Popesso}, P., {Biviano}, A., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., \& {Romaniello}, M. 2007,

1776:   \aap, 464, 451

1777: 

1778: \bibitem[{{Popesso} {et~al.}(2005){Popesso}, {Biviano}, {B{\"o}hringer},

1779:   {Romaniello}, \& {Voges}}]{pbbrv05}

1780: {Popesso}, P., {Biviano}, A., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Romaniello}, M., \&

1781:   {Voges}, W. 2005, \aap, 433, 431

1782: 

1783: \bibitem[{{Postman} {et~al.}(1996){Postman}, {Lubin}, {Gunn}, {Oke}, {Hoessel},

1784:   {Schneider}, \& {Christensen}}]{postmanetal96}

1785: {Postman}, M., {Lubin}, L.~M., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Oke}, J.~B., {Hoessel}, J.~G.,

1786:   {Schneider}, D.~P., \& {Christensen}, J.~A. 1996, \aj, 111, 615

1787: 

1788: \bibitem[{{Press} \& {Schechter}(1974)}]{pressschechter74}

1789: {Press}, W.~H., \& {Schechter}, P. 1974, \apj, 187, 425

1790: 

1791: \bibitem[{{Reiprich} \& {B{\"o}hringer}(2002)}]{rb02}

1792: {Reiprich}, T.~H., \& {B{\"o}hringer}, H. 2002, \apj, 567, 716

1793: 

1794: \bibitem[{{Renzini}(2006)}]{renzini06}

1795: {Renzini}, A. 2006, \araa, 44, 141

1796: 

1797: \bibitem[{{Reyes} {et~al.}(2008){Reyes}, {Mandelbaum}, {Hirata}, {Bahcall}, \&

1798:   {Seljak}}]{reyesetal08}

1799: {Reyes}, R., {Mandelbaum}, R., {Hirata}, C.~M., {Bahcall}, N., \& {Seljak}, U.

1800:   2008, ArXiv e-prints, 802, astro-ph/0802.2365

1801: 

1802: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2004){Rozo}, {Dodelson}, \& {Frieman}}]{rozoetal04}

1803: {Rozo}, E., {Dodelson}, S., \& {Frieman}, J.~A. 2004, \prd, 70, 083008

1804: 

1805: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2007){Rozo}, {Wechsler}, {Koester}, {McKay},

1806:   {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Sheldon}, {Annis}, \& {Frieman}}]{rwkme07a}

1807: {Rozo}, E. {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/0703571

1808: 

1809: \bibitem[{{Rozo} {et~al.}(2008)}]{rozoetal08a}

1810: {Rozo}, E., {et~al.} 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 809, astro-ph/0809.2794

1811: 

1812: \bibitem[{{Rykoff} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Rykoff}, {Evrard}, {McKay},

1813:   {Becker}, {Johnston}, {Koester}, {Nord}, {Rozo}, {Sheldon}, {Stanek}, \&

1814:   {Wechsler}}]{rembj08}

1815: {Rykoff}, E.~S. {et~al.} 2008{\natexlab{a}}, \mnras, L58+

1816: 

1817: \bibitem[{{Rykoff} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Rykoff}, {McKay}, {Becker},

1818:   {Evrard}, {Johnston}, {Koester}, {Rozo}, {Sheldon}, \& {Wechsler}}]{rmbej08}

1819: ---. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 675, 1106

1820: 

1821: \bibitem[{{Sheldon} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}}){Sheldon}, {Johnston},

1822:   {Scranton}, {Koester}, {McKay}, {Oyaizu}, {Cunha}, {Lima}, {Lin}, {Frieman},

1823:   {Wechsler}, {Annis}, {Mandelbaum}, {Bahcall}, \& {Fukugita}}]{sheldonetal07}

1824: {Sheldon}, E.~S. {et~al.} 2007{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv e-prints, 709

1825: 

1826: \bibitem[{{Sheldon} {et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}}){Sheldon}, {Johnston},

1827:   {Scranton}, {Koester}, {McKay}, {Oyaizu}, {Cunha}, {Lima}, {Lin}, {Frieman},

1828:   {Wechsler}, {Annis}, {Mandelbaum}, {Bahcall}, \& {Fukugita}}]{sheldon07}

1829: ---. 2007{\natexlab{b}}, ArXiv e-prints, 709, astro-ph/0709.1153

1830: 

1831: \bibitem[{{Sheth} \& {Tormen}(2002)}]{shethtormen02}

1832: {Sheth}, R.~K., \& {Tormen}, G. 2002, \mnras, 329, 61

1833: 

1834: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2002){Smith}, {Tucker}, {Kent}, {Richmond},

1835:   {Fukugita}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Jorgensen}, {Uomoto}, {Gunn}, {Hamabe},

1836:   {Watanabe}, {Tolea}, {Henden}, {Annis}, {Pier}, {McKay}, {Brinkmann}, {Chen},

1837:   {Holtzman}, {Shimasaku}, \& {York}}]{smith02}

1838: {Smith}, J.~A. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 123, 2121

1839: 

1840: \bibitem[{{Stanek} {et~al.}(2006){Stanek}, {Evrard}, {B{\"o}hringer},

1841:   {Schuecker}, \& {Nord}}]{sebsn06}

1842: {Stanek}, R., {Evrard}, A.~E., {B{\"o}hringer}, H., {Schuecker}, P., \& {Nord},

1843:   B. 2006, \apj, 648, 956

1844: 

1845: \bibitem[{{Strauss} {et~al.}(2002){Strauss}, {Weinberg}, {Lupton}, {Narayanan},

1846:   {Annis}, {Bernardi}, {Blanton}, {Burles}, {Connolly}, {Dalcanton}, {Doi},

1847:   {Eisenstein}, {Frieman}, {Fukugita}, {Gunn}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Kim},

1848:   {Knapp}, {Kron}, {Munn}, {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Okamura}, {Quinn}, {Richmond},

1849:   {Schlegel}, {Shimasaku}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vogeley},

1850:   {Yanny}, {Yasuda}, {York}, \& {Zehavi}}]{straussetal02}

1851: {Strauss}, M.~A. {et~al.} 2002, \aj, 124, 1810

1852: 

1853: \bibitem[{{Tinker} {et~al.}(2008){Tinker}, {Kravtsov}, {Klypin}, {Abazajian},

1854:   {Warren}, {Yepes}, {Gottlober}, \& {Holz}}]{tinkeretal08}

1855: {Tinker}, J.~L., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Klypin}, A., {Abazajian}, K., {Warren},

1856:   M.~S., {Yepes}, G., {Gottlober}, S., \& {Holz}, D.~E. 2008, ArXiv e-prints,

1857:   803, astro-ph/0803.2706

1858: 

1859: \bibitem[{{Tucker} {et~al.}(2006){Tucker}, {Kent}, {Richmond}, {Annis},

1860:   {Smith}, {Allam}, {Rodgers}, {Stute}, {Adelman-McCarthy}, {Brinkmann}, {Doi},

1861:   {Finkbeiner}, {Fukugita}, {Goldston}, {Greenway}, {Gunn}, {Hendry}, {Hogg},

1862:   {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Knapp}, {Lampeitl}, {Lee}, {Lin}, {McKay},

1863:   {Merrelli}, {Munn}, {Neilsen}, {Newberg}, {Richards}, {Schlegel},

1864:   {Stoughton}, {Uomoto}, \& {Yanny}}]{tucker06}

1865: {Tucker}, D.~L. {et~al.} 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 821

1866: 

1867: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{a}}){Vikhlinin}, {Burenin},

1868:   {Ebeling}, {Forman}, {Hornstrup}, {Jones}, {Kravtsov}, {Murray}, {Nagai},

1869:   {Quintana}, \& {Voevodkin}}]{vbefh08}

1870: {Vikhlinin}, A. {et~al.} 2008{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv e-prints, 805,

1871:   astro-ph/0805.2207

1872: 

1873: \bibitem[{{Vikhlinin} {et~al.}(2008{\natexlab{b}}){Vikhlinin}, {Burenin},

1874:   {Ebeling}, {Forman}, {Hornstrup}, {Jones}, {Kravtsov}, {Murray}, {Nagai},

1875:   {Quintana}, \& {Voevodkin}}]{vikhlininetal08}

1876: ---. 2008{\natexlab{b}}, ArXiv e-prints, 805, astro-ph/0805.2207

1877: 

1878: \bibitem[{{Visvanathan} \& {Sandage}(1977)}]{visvanathan77}

1879: {Visvanathan}, N., \& {Sandage}, A. 1977, \apj, 216, 214

1880: 

1881: \bibitem[{{Voges} {et~al.}(1999){Voges}, {Aschenbach}, {Boller},

1882:   {Br{\"a}uninger}, {Briel}, {Burkert}, {Dennerl}, {Englhauser}, {Gruber},

1883:   {Haberl}, {Hartner}, {Hasinger}, {K{\"u}rster}, {Pfeffermann}, {Pietsch},

1884:   {Predehl}, {Rosso}, {Schmitt}, {Tr{\"u}mper}, \& {Zimmermann}}]{vogesetal99}

1885: {Voges}, W. {et~al.} 1999, \aap, 349, 389

1886: 

1887: \bibitem[{{Warren} {et~al.}(2006){Warren}, {Abazajian}, {Holz}, \&

1888:   {Teodoro}}]{warrenetal06}

1889: {Warren}, M.~S., {Abazajian}, K., {Holz}, D.~E., \& {Teodoro}, L. 2006, \apj,

1890:   646, 881

1891: 

1892: \bibitem[{{Weinmann} {et~al.}(2006){Weinmann}, {van den Bosch}, {Yang}, \&

1893:   {Mo}}]{weinmann06}

1894: {Weinmann}, S.~M., {van den Bosch}, F.~C., {Yang}, X., \& {Mo}, H.~J. 2006,

1895:   \mnras, 366, 2

1896: 

1897: \bibitem[{{White} {et~al.}(1993){White}, {Efstathiou}, \&

1898:   {Frenk}}]{whiteetal93}

1899: {White}, S.~D.~M., {Efstathiou}, G., \& {Frenk}, C.~S. 1993, \mnras, 262, 1023

1900: 

1901: \bibitem[{{Wu} {et~al.}(2008){Wu}, {Rozo}, \& {Wechsler}}]{wuetal08}

1902: {Wu}, H.-Y., {Rozo}, E., \& {Wechsler}, R.~H. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803,

1903:   astro-ph/0803.1491

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[{{Yee} \& {Ellingson}(2003)}]{yee03}

1906: {Yee}, H.~K.~C., \& {Ellingson}, E. 2003, \apj, 585, 215

1907: 

1908: \bibitem[{{Yee} \& {L{\'o}pez-Cruz}(1999)}]{yee99}

1909: {Yee}, H.~K.~C., \& {L{\'o}pez-Cruz}, O. 1999, \aj, 117, 1985

1910: 

1911: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}}){York}, {Adelman}, {Anderson},

1912:   {Anderson}, {Annis}, \& { the SDSS collaboration}}]{yorketal00}

1913: {York}, D.~G., {Adelman}, J., {Anderson}, J.~E., {Anderson}, S.~F., {Annis},

1914:   J., \& { the SDSS collaboration}. 2000{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 120, 1579

1915: 

1916: \bibitem[{{York} {et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}}){York}, {Adelman}, {Anderson},

1917:   {Anderson}, {Annis}, {Bahcall}, {Bakken}, {Barkhouser}, {Bastian}, {Berman},

1918:   {Boroski}, {Bracker}, {Briegel}, {Briggs}, {Brinkmann}, {Brunner}, {Burles},

1919:   {Carey}, {Carr}, {Castander}, {Chen}, {Colestock}, {Connolly}, {Crocker},

1920:   {Csabai}, {Czarapata}, {Davis}, {Doi}, {Dombeck}, {Eisenstein}, {Ellman},

1921:   {Elms}, {Evans}, {Fan}, {Federwitz}, {Fiscelli}, {Friedman}, {Frieman},

1922:   {Fukugita}, {Gillespie}, {Gunn}, {Gurbani}, {de Haas}, {Haldeman}, {Harris},

1923:   {Hayes}, {Heckman}, {Hennessy}, {Hindsley}, {Holm}, {Holmgren}, {Huang},

1924:   {Hull}, {Husby}, {Ichikawa}, {Ichikawa}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Kent}, {Kim},

1925:   {Kinney}, {Klaene}, {Kleinman}, {Kleinman}, {Knapp}, {Korienek}, {Kron},

1926:   {Kunszt}, {Lamb}, {Lee}, {Leger}, {Limmongkol}, {Lindenmeyer}, {Long},

1927:   {Loomis}, {Loveday}, {Lucinio}, {Lupton}, {MacKinnon}, {Mannery}, {Mantsch},

1928:   {Margon}, {McGehee}, {McKay}, {Meiksin}, {Merelli}, {Monet}, {Munn},

1929:   {Narayanan}, {Nash}, {Neilsen}, {Neswold}, {Newberg}, {Nichol}, {Nicinski},

1930:   {Nonino}, {Okada}, {Okamura}, {Ostriker}, {Owen}, {Pauls}, {Peoples},

1931:   {Peterson}, {Petravick}, {Pier}, {Pope}, {Pordes}, {Prosapio},

1932:   {Rechenmacher}, {Quinn}, {Richards}, {Richmond}, {Rivetta}, {Rockosi},

1933:   {Ruthmansdorfer}, {Sandford}, {Schlegel}, {Schneider}, {Sekiguchi}, {Sergey},

1934:   {Shimasaku}, {Siegmund}, {Smee}, {Smith}, {Snedden}, {Stone}, {Stoughton},

1935:   {Strauss}, {Stubbs}, {SubbaRao}, {Szalay}, {Szapudi}, {Szokoly}, {Thakar},

1936:   {Tremonti}, {Tucker}, {Uomoto}, {Vanden Berk}, {Vogeley}, {Waddell}, {Wang},

1937:   {Watanabe}, {Weinberg}, {Yanny}, \& {Yasuda}}]{york00}

1938: {York}, D.~G. {et~al.} 2000{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 120, 1579

1939: 

1940: \end{thebibliography}

1941: 

1942: 

1943: 

1944: \newcommand\AAA[3]{{A\& A} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1945: \newcommand\PhysRep[3]{{Physics Reports} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1946: \newcommand\ApJ[3]{ {ApJ} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1947: \newcommand\PhysRevD[3]{ {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1948: \newcommand\PhysRevLet[3]{ {Physics Review Letters} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1949: \newcommand\MNRAS[3]{{MNRAS} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1950: \newcommand\PhysLet[3]{{Physics Letters} {\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}

1951: \newcommand\AJ[3]{ {AJ} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1952: \newcommand\aph{astro-ph/}

1953: \newcommand\AREVAA[3]{{Ann. Rev. A.\& A.} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1954: 

1955: \appendix

1956: 

1957: 

1958: \section{A Maximum Likelihood Derivation of Matched Filter Richness Estimators}

1959: \label{app:maxlkhd}

1960: 

1961: Here, we derive equation \ref{eq:mfrichness} using a maximum likelihood approach, focusing

1962: first in the case where the filters $u(\bx|\lambda)$ are richness independent.

1963: The derivation is as follows: we 

1964: pixelize the observable space $\bx$ into infinitesimal pixels of ``volume'' $\Delta \bx$ such that every pixel contains

1965: at most one galaxy.  The likelihood that a given galaxy realization occurs is simply

1966: %

1967: \begin{equation}

1968: \lk \propto \prod_{occupied} (\lambda u+b)\Delta\bx \prod_{empty} (1-(\lambda u+b)\Delta\bx)

1969: \label{eq:lkhd}

1970: \end{equation}

1971: %

1972: where the first product is over all occupied pixels, while the second product is over all empty pixels.  We have neglected

1973: terms that do not depend on $\lambda$ as they will not contribute to the maximum likelihood richness estimator.

1974: Setting $\partial \ln \lk/\partial \lambda = 0$, and taking the limit $\Delta \bx \rightarrow 0$ we find that the maximum 

1975: likelihood richness estimator $\hat \lambda_{ML}$ is given by the solution to

1976: %

1977: \begin{equation}

1978: 1 = \sum \frac{u}{\lambda u+b}

1979: \end{equation}

1980: %

1981: where the sum is over all galaxies in the cluster field.  This expression is identical to our naive richness estimator 

1982: from equation \ref{eq:mfrichness}.  

1983: 

1984: We wish to briefly consider how richness dependent filters $u(\bx|\lambda)$ affect the maximum 

1985: likelihood richness estimator.  To do this, we go back to equation \ref{eq:lkhd}. Taking the derivative of the 

1986: log-likelihood with respect to $\lambda$ and setting it to zero we find that the generalization of equation 

1987: \ref{eq:mfrichness} is given by

1988: %

1989: \begin{equation}

1990: 1+ \int d\bx\ \lambda \frac{\partial u}{\partial \lambda} = \sum \frac{ u+\lambda(\partial u/\partial \lambda) }{\lambda u +b}.

1991: \end{equation}

1992: %

1993: We emphasize that the integral over $\bx$ and the derivative $\partial/\partial\lambda$ do {\it not} always commute.  Indeed,

1994: consider the approach taken in this paper, in which $u$ is taken to have a finite spatial extent of radius $R_c$, which is itself

1995: linked to richness via equation \ref{eq:radius}.  The fact that $u$ is zero for $R>R_c(\lambda)$ implies that the integration region

1996: for $u$ is $\lambda$ dependent, and thus the integral and derivative signs do not commute.

1997: 

1998: To assess the impact of a richness dependent profile, we consider here a simple isothermal filter

1999: $u(R|\lambda)=1/R_c$, where $R_c(\lambda)$ is given by equation \ref{eq:radius}.\footnote{The two dimensional

2000: density profile is, of course, $\Sigma(R)\propto 1/R$, but the radial probability density is $u(R)=2\pi R\Sigma(R) = 1/R_c$.}

2001: For this filter, we have then

2002: %

2003: \begin{equation}

2004: \lambda \frac{\partial u}{\partial \lambda} = \lambda\frac{\partial u}{\partial R_c} \frac{\partial R_c}{\partial \lambda} = - \alpha u

2005: \end{equation}

2006: %

2007: where $\alpha$ is the slope of the radius-richness relation in equation \ref{eq:radius}.   Our expression for the maximum

2008: likelihood richness estimator becomes

2009: %

2010: \begin{equation}

2011: (1-\alpha) = \sum_{R<R_c(\lambda)}  \frac{ (1-\alpha)u }{\lambda u+b}.

2012: \end{equation}

2013: %

2014: We see that the $1-\alpha$ prefactors cancel on both side of the equation, and thus our final expression for the maximum

2015: likelihood richness estimator for $\lambda$ is still given by equation \ref{eq:richness1}, even though $u$ is explicitly

2016: richness dependent.  This suggests that our naive estimator is in general very close to the true maximum likelihood 

2017: estimator.  We defer a detailed study of whether the more complicated structure of the true maximum likelihood richness estimator

2018: for more elaborate cluster profiles can lead to a significant improvement over the naive richness estimator from equation \ref{eq:richness1}

2019: to future work.

2020: 

2021: %-----------------------------------------------------

2022: %-----------------------------------------------------

2023: %-----------------------------------------------------

2024: %-----------------------------------------------------

2025: %-----------------------------------------------------

2026: %-----------------------------------------------------

2027: 

2028: 

2029: 

2030: 

2031: 

2032: \end{document}

2033: 

2034: 

2035: