1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \newcommand{\bvec}[1]{\textbf{#1}}
4: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
5: \newcommand{\myemail}{mkjee@physics.ucdavis.edu}
6:
7: \shorttitle{Weak-lensing analysis of Cl1226}
8: \shortauthors{Jee \& Tyson}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{DARK MATTER IN THE GALAXY CLUSTER CL J1226+3332 AT $Z=0.89$}
13:
14: \author{M. JAMES JEE\altaffilmark{1} and J. ANTHONY TYSON\altaffilmark{1} }
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We present a weak-lensing analysis of the galaxy cluster CL J1226+3332 at $z\simeq0.89$
18: using {\it Hubble Space Telescope} Advanced Camera for Surveys images.
19: The cluster is the hottest ($>10~$keV), most X-ray luminous system at $z>0.6$ known to date.
20: The relaxed X-ray morphology, as well as its high temperature, is unusual at such a high redshift.
21: Our mass reconstruction shows that on a large scale the dark matter distribution
22: is consistent with a relaxed system with no significant substructures. However, on a small scale the cluster core
23: is resolved into two mass clumps highly correlated with the cluster galaxy distribution.
24: The dominant mass clump lies close to the brightest cluster galaxy whereas the other less massive clump is located $\sim40\arcsec$ ($\sim310$ kpc)
25: to the southwest.
26: Although this secondary mass clump does not show an excess in the X-ray surface brightness, the gas temperature
27: of the region is much higher ($12\sim18$ keV) than those of the rest. We propose a scenario in which
28: the less massive system has already passed through the main cluster and the X-ray gas has been stripped during this passage.
29: The elongation of the X-ray peak toward the southwestern mass clump is also supportive of this possibility.
30: We measure significant tangential shears out to the field boundary ($\sim1.5$ Mpc), which
31: are well described by an Navarro-Frenk-White profile with a concentration parameter of $c_{200}=2.7\pm0.3$ and
32: a scale length of $r_s=78\arcsec\pm19\arcsec$ ($\sim600$ kpc) with $\chi^2/$d.o.f=1.11.
33: Within the spherical volume $r_{200}=1.6$~Mpc, the total mass of the cluster becomes
34: $M(r<r_{200})=(1.4\pm0.2)\times10^{15}~M_{\sun}$.
35: Our weak-lensing analysis confirms that CL1226+3332 is indeed the most massive cluster known to date at $z>0.6$.
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616}
39:
40: \keywords{gravitational lensing ---
41: dark matter ---
42: cosmology: observations ---
43: X-rays: galaxies: clusters ---
44: galaxies: clusters: individual (\objectname{CL J1226+3332}) ---
45: galaxies: high-redshift}
46:
47: \section{INTRODUCTION \label{section_introduction}}
48: In the hierarchical structure formation paradigm with cold dark matter (CDM),
49: galaxy clusters
50: grow through multiple mergers between groups and smaller clusters of galaxies.
51: Accordingly, on average galaxy clusters found at higher redshifts should be less massive and
52: more irregular. Despite many unresolved issues in detail on how these structures grow over time,
53: because cluster assembly on a large scale is governed by
54: CDM only subject to gravity, it is possible to quantitatively predict a cluster
55: mass function for a given cosmology at a specific epoch through either analytic approaches
56: or numerical simulations.
57: Therefore, comparison of cluster mass functions today and at high redshift
58: has been a powerful tool in constraining cosmological parameters.
59:
60: Although large samples of high-redshift clusters have been compiled in the past decade
61: through extensive surveys, the principal ambiguity yet to be
62: resolved is how to relate the measured cluster properties to the mass of the system
63: in a quantitatively robust way. This issue becomes more important for the most massive clusters
64: at high redshifts ($z\sim1$). The statistics of these rare systems are extremely sensitive
65: to the matter content ($\Omega_M$) of the universe and its fluctuation ($\sigma_8$).
66: A historic example is MS1054-0321 (hereafter MS1054), the hottest cluster in the Einstein
67: Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS) at $z=0.83$. The mere existence of such a massive cluster
68: is thought to be problematic in the $\Omega_M=1$ universe and has been frequently used as an
69: argument for low $\Omega_M<1$ values (Bahcall \& Fan 1998; Donahue et al. 1998; Jeltema et al. 2001). It is interesting to note, however, that
70: the intracluster medium (ICM) temperature of MS1054 has been debated
71: (Donahue et al. 1998; Jeltema et al. 2001; Joy et al. 2001; Vikhlinin et al. 2002; Tozzi et al. 2003; Gioia et al. 2004; Jee et al. 2005b; Branchesi et al. 2007)
72: and this challenges
73: the mass estimate based on X-ray observations alone. Moreover, the complicated substructures
74: of MS1054 ubiquitously present in optical, X-ray, and weak-lensing observations make
75: the validity of the hydrostatic equilibrium assumption (commonly questioned even for a relaxed
76: system) more open to doubts. However, weak-lensing analyses, which
77: do not depend on the dynamical state of the cluster, from {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) (Hoekstra et al. 2000)
78: and Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) (Jee et al. 2005b) show that MS1054 is indeed a massive system at $z=0.83$.
79:
80: Presumably, the galaxy cluster CL J1226.9+3332 (hereafter CL1226) at $z=0.89$ is much more massive than MS1054.
81: The recent measurements of the X-ray temperature $10.4\pm0.6$ keV
82: and the total X-ray luminosity ($L_X = 5.12\pm 0.12~\mbox{erg}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$) of the cluster by Maughan et al. (2007)
83: show that the cluster is the hottest, most luminous system at $z>0.6$ known to date. These X-ray
84: properties suggest that CL1226 might be perhaps the most massive $z>0.6$ structure as well; the detailed
85: 3-dimensional mass structure analysis of Maughan et al. (2007) derives an enclosed mass
86: $M(r<0.88 \mbox{Mpc})=5.2_{-0.8}^{+1.0}\times 10^{14}~M_{\sun}$.
87: The relaxed X-ray morphology of the cluster is also remarkable; the cluster's X-ray surface brightness distribution is symmetric
88: with a single X-ray peak in spatial agreement with the brightest cluster galaxies. This
89: is in stark contrast with the X-ray images of CL0152-0152 (hereafter CL0152; Maughan et al. 2003) and MS1054 (Jeltema et al. 2001).
90: These two high-redshift clusters at a similar
91: redshift of $z\sim0.8$ show multiple peaks in their X-ray images indicative of their active stage of formation.
92: Within the hierarchical structure formation paradigm, a virialized structure like CL1226 with such a high mass
93: is extremely rare at $z=0.89$, when the age of the universe is less than half its current value.
94:
95: In this paper, we present a weak-lensing study of CL1226 with HST/ACS
96: images. By analyzing weak distortions of background galaxies behind the cluster, we aim to address
97: the following issues. First, we will examine how the lensing mass compares the X-ray value. Although the analysis
98: of Maughan et al. (2007) using both $Chandra$ and XMM-$Newton$ data was careful and certainly more sophisticated
99: than the common isothermal $\beta$ model approach, the X-ray method is by nature still dependent on the validity
100: of the hydrostatic equilibrium assumption. Because the relaxed X-ray morphology of the system supports this
101: hypothesis, it provides an interesting opportunity to compare weak-lensing and X-ray estimates on a fair basis.
102: In addition, Maughan et al. (2007) found that their X-ray mass is $\sim30$\% lower than the predicted $M-T$ (Vikhlinin et al. 2006) and
103: $Y_X-T$ (Kravtsov et al. 2006) relation. If the cause of this departure is an on-going merger activity as suggested
104: by Maughan et al. (2007), our weak-lensing mass estimate should improve the cluster's scaling relation.
105: Second, we will investigate if our two-dimensional mass reconstruction uncovers any substructure not observed
106: in X-rays. In Jee et al. (2005a; 2005b), we witnessed that the weak-lensing mass in CL0152 and MS1054 traces the cluster galaxy distribution
107: very closely whereas the X-ray maps often do not always show the same details. Therefore, it is probable that
108: the weak-lensing analysis of CL1226 might reveal some significant substructures that have not been detected by X-rays.
109: In particular, Maughan et al. (2007) noted that the ICM temperature of the region $\sim40\arcsec$ to the
110: southwest of the X-ray peak is much higher ($12-18~$keV) than the average value ($\sim10.4$ keV). Although
111: this hot region is correlated with the cluster galaxy distribution, the structure does not stand out
112: in X-ray surface brightness. Perhaps either the mass associated with this galaxy group is not significant
113: enough to produce X-ray overdensity, or the X-ray gas has been stripped in a previous pass-through.
114: Our weak-lensing measurement of the mass of this substructure will allow us to address this question.
115:
116: Throughout the paper, we use a $(h,\Omega_M,\Omega_{\Lambda})=(0.7,0.3,0.7)$ cosmology. All the quoted uncertainties
117: are at the 1-$\sigma$ (68\%) level.
118:
119: \section{OBSERVATIONS \label{section_obs}}
120:
121: \subsection{Data Reduction and Object Detection}
122: CL1226 was observed with the Wide Field Camera (WFC) of ACS during April 2004 (PROP ID:9033,
123: PI:Harald Ebeling).
124: The cluster was imaged in F606W and F814W (hereafter $v_{606}$ and $i_{814}$, respectively) in a 2$\times$2 mosaic pattern
125: covering $\sim6\arcmin\times6\arcmin$
126: with integrated exposure per pointing of $4000$ s.
127: We used CALACS (Hack et al. 2003) to perform low level CCD processing and APSIS (Blakeslee et al. 2003) to
128: create final mosaic images. A Lanczos3 kernel (windowed sinc function) with a 0.05$\arcsec$ output scale
129: was chosen for drizzling (Fruchter and Hook 2002). This combination of drizzling parameters has been
130: extensively tested in our previous weak-lensing analyses (e.g., Jee et al. 2005a), and provides relatively sharp
131: point spread functions (PSF) with small noise correlations between pixels.
132: The pseudo-color composite of the cluster image is shown in Figure~\ref{fig_cl1226}. We use the $v_{606}$ and
133: $i_{814}$ images to represent the blue and red intensities, respectively, whereas the mean of the two images is used for the green
134: intensity. Figure~\ref{fig_cl1226}a displays the entire $\sim6\arcmin\times6\arcmin$ field of the cluster. Approximately, north is up
135: and east is left. The ``feather-like" feature
136: near the northwestern corner is attributed to the internal reflection of bright stellar light.
137: The central $30\arcsec\times30\arcsec$ region marked with a yellow square is magnified in Figure~\ref{fig_cl1226}b.
138: The cluster red-sequence galaxies are easily identified by their distinct colors. We also observe many blue strongly lensed arc candidates.
139:
140: We created a separate detection image by weight-averaging the two passband images with their inverse variance maps
141: and SExtractor (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996) was run in dual-image mode;
142: objects were detected
143: by searching for at least
144: 5 contiguous pixels above 1.5 times sky rms values in the detection image while photometry is performed on each passband image.
145: We set {\tt CLEAN=Y} with {\tt CLEAN\_PARAM=1.2} to
146: let spurious detections around the brightest objects be automatically removed.
147: By visual inspection we identified additional 736 objects that should not be used for weak-lensing. They
148: include stars, diffraction spikes, merged/fragmented objects, missed cosmic rays, stray light near very bright
149: objects, etc.
150: The final catalog contains a total of 11910 objects.
151:
152:
153: \subsection{Source Galaxy Selection \label{section_source_selection}}
154:
155: We base our source galaxy selection on the objects' $v_{606}-i_{814}$ colors and $i_{814}$ magnitudes, assuming
156: that a significant fraction of background galaxies are faint ($i_{814}>24$) and bluer ($v_{606}-i_{814}<1.2$) than the red-sequence of the cluster.
157: This is a common approach in weak-lensing analyses when limited HST colors are available.
158: Although complementary ground-based observations help us to obtain good photometric redshifts for bright
159: objects [e.g., COSMOS (Scoville et al. 2006) or AEGIS (Davis et al. 2007)],
160: most lensing signals (especially for high-redshift clusters such as CL1226) come
161: from a very faint population, for which it is difficult to obtain reliable, HST PSF-matched colors from the ground.
162:
163: We show the $i_{814}$ versus $v_{606}-i_{814}$ color magnitude diagram of CL1226 in Figure~\ref{fig_cmr};
164: we use SExtractor's MAG\_AUTO and MAG\_ISO values
165: for $i_{814}$ magnitudes and $v_{606}-i_{814}$ colors, respectively.
166: The redshifted 4000~\AA~break of galaxies at $z=0.89$ is nicely straddled by the $v_{606}$ and
167: $i_{814}$ filters. This makes the cluster galaxies clearly visible at $v_{606}-i_{814}\sim1.8$.
168: down to $i_{814}\sim26$.
169: We define our source population as the $24<i_{814}\lesssim28$ and $v_{606}-i_{814}<1.2$
170: galaxies with ellipticity errors less than 0.2 in one of the two filters (see \textsection\ref{section_ellipticity} for
171: details on the ellipticity measurement). The resulting number density is $\sim124$ $\mbox{arcmin}^{-2}$ (a total of 4745 objects).
172: Considering the high-redshift of the cluster, we suspect that a non-negligible
173: fraction of the cluster members might be bluer than the cluster red-sequence (Butcher \& Oemler 1984). Therefore,
174: it is important to estimate how much our source catalog might contain blue cluster members despite the clear
175: presence of the red-sequence. For control fields, we use the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS; Giavalisco et al. 2004)
176: ACS images and the Ultra Deep Field (UDF; Beckwith 2003) ACS images. Because of the large field, the GOODS data
177: serves as a fair comparison sample whereas the UDF data provides good statistics of faint galaxies beyond the
178: detection limit of our cluster observation. The F775W filter (hereafter $i_{775}$) is used in both GOODS and UDF observations
179: instead of the $i_{814}$ filter. Hence, we transformed $v_{606}-i_{775}$ colors to $v_{606}-i_{814}$ colors to maintain
180: the consistency.
181: After selecting galaxies with the same selection criteria ($24<i_{814}\lesssim28$ and $v_{606}-i_{814}<1.2$), we compared
182: the magnitude distribution of these surveys with that of the cluster observation (Figure~\ref{fig_hist}).
183: The comparison shows no indication of excess in the cluster field due to the potential blue cluster member contamination.
184: This result is consistent with our results in Jee et al. (2005a; 2005b), where we also examined the possible impact of the
185: blue cluster member contamination to the source catalogs for weak-lensing analyses of the two $z\sim0.83$ clusters.
186:
187: Ellis et al. (2006) studied the color magnitude relation of CL1226 and reported that
188: a low fraction ($\sim33$\%) of the 27 spectroscopically confirmed members possess E or S0 early-type morphologies while
189: some galaxies with late-type morphology lie on the color-magnitude relation defined by the early-type galaxies
190: (four galaxies within 0.1 mag in the $V-K$ color magnitude relation).
191: Because the study is based on a small number of bright cluster members ($K>19.6$), it is difficult to apply the result
192: to faint magnitudes. Our analysis above shows that the fraction of the blue cluster members is negligibly small
193: at least for the population selected by the ($24<i_{814}\lesssim28$ and $v_{606}-i_{814}<1.2$) criteria.
194:
195: Now with the source catalog at hand, we need to estimate the redshift distribution in order to put our subsequent lensing
196: analyses on the proper scale. We utilize the publicly available photometric redshift catalog of the UDF (Coe et al. 2006).
197: The UDF covers a small area (though twice as large as the Hubble Deep Field), but thanks to the unprecedented depth of HST-based observations in
198: the $B_{435}$, $V_{555}$, $i_{775}$, $z_{850}$, $j_{110}$, and $h_{160}$ filters, it provides
199: high-fidelity photometric redshifts for the galaxies beyond the limiting magnitudes of the CL1226 data.
200: To account for different depth between the cluster field and UDF, we estimate the redshift distribution per each magnitude bin
201: and correct for the difference in the normalized number density. The resulting mean redshift of the source population
202: is determined to be $\bar{z}=1.71$. Of course, this value should not be confused with the {\it effective} redshift
203: of the source population because objects at redshifts smaller than the cluster redshift dilute the signal.
204: In fact, in weak-lensing studies this lensing efficiency is expressed in terms of $\beta$:
205: \begin{equation}
206: \beta = \mbox{max} \left ( 0, \frac{D_{ls}} {D_s} \right ). \label{eqn_beta}
207: \end{equation}
208: \noindent
209: where $D_s$ and $D_{ls}$ are the angular diameter distance from the observer to the source and
210: from the lens to the source, respectively.
211: We obtain $<\beta>=0.265$ for the given cosmology, which corresponds to $z_{eff}=1.373$.
212: Another important quantity that affects our subsequent lensing analysis is the width of the redshift
213: distribution, which is often expressed in terms of $<\beta^2>$. Seitz \& Schneider (1997) found that
214: under a single redshift source plane assumption the measured shear $g\prime$ is
215: overestimated by
216: \begin{equation}
217: g\prime = \left[1 + (\frac{<\beta^2>}{<\beta>^2}-1) \kappa \right]g
218: \end{equation}
219: \noindent
220: For the current source population, we obtain $<\beta^2>=0.12$ and therefore the measured shear
221: is overestimated by $(1+0.71\kappa)$. This correction becomes increasingly important with
222: lens redshift and should be included in high-redshift cluster lensing analyses.
223:
224: \subsection{PSF Modeling and Ellipticity Measurements \label{section_ellipticity}}
225:
226: Weak-lensing measures a subtle distortion of background galaxy images and therefore it is
227: important to remove any instrumental effect, which can mimic gravitational lensing signals.
228: When geometric distortion and image registration are done carefully, the most
229: important remaining task is PSF modeling. Because anisotropic PSF can induce
230: a false lensing signal and the impact becomes greater for fainter galaxies,
231: which contain more signal, a great amount of efforts and time is
232: invested on studying the PSF of any instrument before a signal is extracted.
233:
234: Although the ACS PSF is far smaller than what one can achieve from the ground,
235: it still measurably affects the shapes of objects whose sizes at the surface brightness limit are comparable
236: to the PSF. This places great importance on deep imaging (larger size at low surface brightness)
237: and good understanding of the PSF variations.
238: It has been known that ACS PSFs vary in a complex way with time and
239: position (Krist 2003; Jee et al. 2005a; Sirianni et al. 2005). In Jee et al. (2007b),
240: we presented a principal component analysis of the ACS PSF
241: and made
242: the ACS PSF library publicly available based on archival ACS images of stellar fields.
243: In this work, we use the PSF library of Jee et al. (2007b) to model the PSF variation
244: in the CL1226 field. Those who are interested in the method in detail are referred
245: to the paper. Below we briefly describe the procedure and the result specific
246: for our cluster analysis.
247:
248: We first derive a PSF model for an individual exposure and then shift/rotate the model PSFs
249: with respect to the final mosaic image in a similar way to our
250: image registration procedure. In each exposure, there are typically 8-15 high S/N stars available,
251: which can be used to find the best-matching template from the library.
252: The final PSFs are the results of stacking all the contributing PSFs.
253: In Figure~\ref{fig_psf} we show the comparison of the observed $i_{814}$ PSFs with the modeled ones
254: (similar results are obtained for the $v_{606}$ PSFs).
255: The PSF model ($middle$) obtained in this way closely resembles the
256: observed pattern ($left$). The $e_{+}$ versus $e_{\times}$ plot (right) shows that both the centroid $<\bvec{e}>\simeq(-7\times10^{-3},8\times10^{-3})$
257: and the dispersion $<|\bvec{e}|^2>^{0.5}\simeq0.02$
258: of the observed points (diamond) are significantly improved in the residuals (`+' symbol).
259: The centroid and dispersion of the residuals are $<\delta \bvec{e}>\simeq(-5\times10^{-3},1\times10^{-3})$ and
260: $<|\delta \bvec{e}|^2>^{0.5}\simeq0.01$, respectively.
261:
262:
263: We determine object ellipticities by fitting a PSF-convolved elliptical Gaussian
264: to the images.
265: In theory, this is equivalent to the method proposed by Bernstein \& Jarvis (2002)
266: although the implementation is different. Instead of fitting an elliptical Gaussian
267: to an object, they shear the object progressively until it fits a $circular$ Gaussian.
268: This scheme is conveniently implemented by first decomposing galaxy shapes with shapelets (Bernstein \& Jarvis 2002; Refregier 2003)
269: and then by applying shear operators to the shapelet coefficients until the object's quadrupole moments disappear.
270: We adopt the method in our previous analysis
271: (Jee et al. 2005a; 2005b; 2006). We noted in Jee et al. (2007a) however that
272: directly fitting an elliptical Gaussian to the pixelized object reduces aliasing compared
273: to the shapelet formalism, particularly when the object has extended features. The issue
274: was important in Jee et al. (2007a) because the lens was a low-redshift strong-lensing
275: cluster. The ellipticities of the strongly lensed arc(let)s were substantially
276: underestimated if the shapelet formalism is employed.
277: Although the CL1226 cluster images do not show such a large number of
278: arc(let)s, we use the same pipeline of Jee et al. (2007a) in the current analysis.
279: Fitting a PSF-convolved elliptical Gaussian to pixelated images
280: is more numerically stable for faint objects, and also provides straight-forward error estimates
281: in the results.
282: Because we have two passband images available, the finalcombined ellipticities of objects are
283: given as weighted averages.
284:
285: Figure~\ref{fig_e_distribution} displays the ellipticity distribution
286: of non-stellar objects in the cluster field. We only include the objects with a S/N$\sim5$ or greater
287: at least in one passband. The ellipticity distribution of the $r_h$\footnote{$r_h$ represents a half light radius.} $> 0.15\arcsec$ objects is slightly affected after
288: PSF correction (Figure~\ref{fig_e_distribution}a) whereas the change is significant for smaller ($0.1\arcsec<r_h < 0.15\arcsec$) objects (Figure~\ref{fig_e_distribution}b).
289: Note that much of the useful lensing signal comes from this ``small'' galaxy population (only slightly larger than the instrument PSFs
290: $r_h\sim0.06\arcsec$)
291: for high-redshift clusters.
292: This illustrates that
293: that, even if ACS PSFs are small, one must carefully account for their effects to maximize the full resolving power of ACS.
294:
295: A potentially important factor in determining object shapes in addition to the PSF correction discussed above is
296: the charge transfer efficiency (CTE) degradation of ACS. Riess and Mack (2004) reported strong evidence
297: for photometric losses in the parallel direction for ACS.
298: Rhodes et al. (2007) studied the CTE-induced charge elongation in the context of weak-lensing studies and established
299: an empirical prescription, where the strength of the elongation is proportional to 1) the distance from the read-out register,
300: 2) the observation time, and 3) the inverse of the S/N of objects. When we assume that equation 10 of Rhodes et al. (2007) is
301: also applicable to the current data, we obtain
302: $\delta e_{+}\sim0.01$ for the faintest object that is also farthest from the read-out register; on average however for all sources
303: throughout the entire field
304: the required correction is $\delta e_{+}\sim0.003$. Hence, the CTE-induced elongation is much smaller than
305: the weak-lensing signal of the cluster and the statistical noise (object ellipticity dispersion)
306: to the extent that the effect can be safely ignored in our subsequent analysis. Heymans et al. (2008)
307: obtained a similar result in their weak-lensing study of the Abell 901/902 supercluster whose ACS data were taken about 1 year
308: after CL1226 was observed.
309: We are also investigating the CTE-induced elongation issue independently by analyzing
310: cosmic-rays. Because cosmic-rays are not affected by the instrument PSF, their study
311: enables us to nicely separate the PSF effect from the CTE degradation effect. Our preliminary
312: result is consistent with that of Rhodes et al. (2007) in the sense that the required correction
313: is negligibly small for the current observation.
314: We will present our result of the CTE-induced elongation study elsewhere
315: along with our future publication of the weak-lensing analysis of the $z\sim1.4$ cluster XMMU J2235.3-2557 (M. Jee et al. in preparation), whose
316: ACS data were taken in the 2005-2006 years and thus are potentially subject to greater bias due to the CTE degradation.
317:
318:
319: \section{WEAK-LENSING ANALYSIS}
320: \subsection{Two-Dimensional Mass Reconstruction \label{section_mass_map}}
321:
322: One of the easiest ways to visually identify the presence of a lensing signal is to plot a smoothed two-dimensional distribution
323: of the source galaxies' ellipticity. Massive clusters shear shapes of background galaxies in such a way that they appear on average tangentially
324: aligned toward the center of the clusters. In Figure~\ref{fig_whisker} we present this so-called ``whisker'' plot obtained by smoothing
325: the source galaxy ellipticity map with a FWHM=$20\arcsec$ Gaussian kernel. As in the case of Figure~\ref{fig_psf}, the length and the orientation
326: of the sticks represent the magnitude and the direction of the weighted mean ellipticity, respectively. An ellipticity with a magnitude of
327: $g=0.1$ is shown at the top with a circle for comparison. The tangential alignment around the center of the cluster (the location
328: of the BCG) is clear.
329:
330: Many algorithms exist for the conversion of this ellipticity map to the mass density map of the cluster. Due to its simplicity, the classic method of
331: Kaiser \& Squires (1993; hereafter KS93) or the real-space version (Fischer \& Tyson 1997)
332: still is widely used. The KS93
333: method is based on the notion that the measured shear $\gamma$ is related to the dimensionless mass density $\kappa$ by the
334: following convolution:
335: \begin{equation}
336: \kappa (\bvec{x}) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int D^*(\bvec{x}-\bvec{x}^\prime) \gamma (\bvec{x}^\prime) d^2 \bvec{x} \label{k_of_gamma}.
337: \end{equation}
338: \noindent
339: where $D^*(\bvec{x} )$ is the complex conjugate of the convolution kernel $D(\bvec{x} ) = - 1/ (x_1 - i x_2 )^2$. The method assumes that the shear $\gamma$ is
340: directly measurable whereas in fact it is the reduced shear $g=\gamma/(1-\kappa)$ that we can measure directly. Obviously, in the region where
341: $\kappa$ is small, the assumption is valid. However, near cluster centers, $g$ is often much greater than $\gamma$, and this leads
342: to overestimation of $\kappa$. In addition, it is not straightforward to incorporate measurement errors
343: (i.e., ellipticity errors and shear uncertainties) or priors
344: in the KS93 scheme. Because measured shears in cluster outskirts have much lower significance, the algorithm
345: frequently produces various noise peaks when the smoothing scheme is optimized to reveal significant structures in the cluster center.
346:
347: These pitfalls are overcome in the new methods such as Marshall et al. (2002) and Seitz et al. (1998), where individual galaxy shapes (not averaged shears)
348: are used and the resulting mass map is regularized.
349: In the current paper, we used the mass reconstruction code of Jee et al. (2007a), who modified
350: the method of Seitz et al. (1998) so that strong-lensing constraints are incorporated. For the current mass reconstruction of CL1226, however, we turned off the
351: strong-lensing capability of the software and utilized only the weak-lensing data.
352:
353: We present our maximum-entropy mass reconstruction of CL1226 in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig_mass_reconstruction}. For comparison, we also
354: display the result obtained by the conventional KS93 algorithm in the right panel. For the KS93 method we choose
355: a smoothing scale of FWHM$\sim24\arcsec$. The regularization parameter of Jee et al. (2007a) was adjusted in such a way that the result
356: matches the resolution of the KS93 version at $r\lesssim50\arcsec$.
357: Both mass reconstructions clearly reveal
358: the strong dark matter concentration in the cluster center. However, in the relatively low $\kappa$ region the KS93 algorithm produces many
359: spurious substructures, most of which do not stand out in the maximum-entropy reconstruction.
360: It is certain that both the inadequate (too small kernel) smoothing and the $g\sim\gamma$ approximation of the KS93 algorithm are the causes
361: of the artifacts. Therefore, our interpretation hereafter is based on the result from our maximum-entropy reconstruction.
362:
363: On a large scale the $\kappa$ field shows that the cluster does not possess any significant substructure.
364: This relaxed appearance is also indicated by the X-ray emission
365: from the cluster (Maughan et al. 2007). However, this symmetric mass distribution is somewhat unusual for a cluster at such a high redshift.
366: In our current hierarchical structure formation paradigm, relaxed clusters are thought to be rare at $z=0.89$, when the universe is at
367: less than half its current age. Our previous weak-lensing analysis of CL0152 and MS1054 (both at $z\sim0.83$)
368: revealed significant substructures composed of several mass clumps suggestive of the active formation of the systems.
369:
370: On a small scale, however, our mass reconstruction resolves the core into two mass clumps, which are separated by $\sim40\arcsec$
371: (Figure~\ref{fig_massxraynum}a).
372: Comparing the projected masses within $r<20\arcsec$,
373: we estimate that the mass ratio of the two substructures
374: is approximately 3:2. The more massive mass clump [$M(r<20\arcsec)=(1.3\pm0.1)\times10^{14}~M_{\sun}$] is located near the brightest cluster galaxy, which is also close to the
375: center of the X-ray peak (Figure~\ref{fig_massxraynum}b). The less massive structure [$M(r<20\arcsec)=(8.5\pm0.6)\times10^{13}~M_{\sun}$] $\sim40\arcsec$ to the southwest is however not
376: detected in the X-ray surface brightness although we note that the contours near the X-ray peak are slightly elongated toward this secondary mass clump.
377: Because the mass of this structure is significant and comparable to that of the western mass peak (the most massive among the three) of MS1054,
378: the apparent absence of the gas overdensity associated with the structure is counter-intuitive.
379: The weak-lensing mass structure is nevertheless highly consistent with the cluster red-sequence distribution.
380: We display the number density contours of the cluster red-sequence in Figure~\ref{fig_massxraynum}c. The secondary mass clump
381: is in good spatial agreement with the cluster red-sequence. Interestingly, Maughan et al. (2007) found that the gas temperature
382: of the region is much higher ($12-18$ keV) than those of the rest [see Figure~\ref{fig_massxraynum}d where we overplot
383: the mass contours on top of the temperature map of Maughan et al. (2007)]. They suggested that this temperature structure might relate
384: to the possible on-going merger indicated by the cluster galaxy distribution and we agree. Our detailed discussion on the comparison
385: between the mass, X-ray intensity, gas temperature, and galaxy distributions is deferred to \textsection\ref{section_merger}.
386:
387: \subsection{Tangential Shear, Cosmic Shear Effect and Mass Estimation \label{section_mass_estimation} }
388:
389: In addition to the two-dimensional mass reconstruction discussed previously,
390: tangential shear is also a useful measure of total lensing mass.
391: By taking azimuthal averages, one can lower the effect of shot noise
392: and more easily determine the presence of the lensing than in the two-dimensional analysis particularly when the
393: signal is weak. Therefore, many authors prefer to use tangential shear profiles in the estimation of cluster masses
394: assuming an azimuthal symmetry. In the current paper, we present the tangential shear profile of CL1226 first, and
395: then estimate the mass based on the profile. Finally, we also compute the mass using the two-dimensional mass map and
396: compare the results.
397:
398: Tangential shear is defined as
399: \begin{equation}
400: g_T = < - g_1 \cos 2\phi - g_2 \sin 2\phi > \label{tan_shear},
401: \end{equation}
402: \noindent
403: where $\phi$ is the position angle of the object with respect to the lens center, and $g_{1(2)}$ is
404: a reduced shear $g_{1(2)}=\gamma_{1(2)} /( 1- \kappa )$; true shears $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$
405: are related to the lensing potential $\psi$ by $\gamma_1=0.5 (\psi_{11} -\psi_{22})$
406: and $\gamma_2=\psi_{12} =\psi_{21}$.
407: If no lensing is present, the reduced tangential
408: shear $g_T$ must be consistent with zero. The filled circles in Figure~\ref{fig_tan_shear}
409: show the reduced tangential shears of CL1226 centered on the BCG. The lensing signal from the cluster
410: is clear out to the field limit; we note that at $r>180\arcsec$ we
411: cannot complete a circle. The observed reduced shears at $r>50\arcsec$ decrease monotonically with radius.
412: This is in accordance with the mass map of the cluster discussed in \textsection~\ref{section_mass_map}, which
413: shows no major asymmetric substructures outside the main clump.
414: The diamond symbols represent our measurement of tangential shear when the background galaxies are rotated by 45$\degr$.
415: This test shows that the B-mode signal is consistent with zero as expected.
416:
417: The error bars in Figure~\ref{fig_tan_shear} include only the statistical uncertainties determined by
418: the finite number of source galaxies in each radial bin. Hoekstra (2003) demonstrated that background
419: structures (cosmic shear effects) are important sources of uncertainties and need to be considered
420: in cluster mass estimation. Following the formalism of Hoekstra (2003), we evaluated the
421: background structure effect on the uncertainties in the tangential shear measurements. The solid
422: line in Figure~\ref{fig_cs_effect} displays the predicted errors $\sigma_{\gamma}$ for the redshift
423: distribution of the source population in the current cosmology. For comparison, we approximately reproduce here the prediction of Hoekstra (2003)
424: for their $20<R<26$ sample ($\bar{z}=1.08$, dashed).
425: Note that the cosmic shear effect is substantially ($\sim50$\%) higher in our sample because the mean redshift of
426: our source population is also significantly higher ($\bar{z}=1.71$). However, in the $r\lesssim200\arcsec$ region, where
427: we measure our tangential shears for CL1226, the errors induced by the cosmic shear are still lower than the
428: statistical errors (`+' symbol) and thus the effect is minor in our cluster mass estimation
429: Nevertheless, in the following analysis, we include this
430: cosmic shear effect in the quoted errors.
431:
432: We characterize the reduced tangential shears with three parametric models: singular isothermal sphere (SIS),
433: Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW; Navarro et al. 1997), and non-singular isothermal sphere (NIS).
434: In these parametric fits, we use all the data points in Figure~\ref{fig_tan_shear}
435: unlike the cases of Jee et al. (2005a; 2005b), where we excluded a few tangential shear values near the cluster core
436: to avoid the possible effects of the apparent substructure and blue cluster galaxy contamination.
437: In the current cluster, however, both
438: effects appear to be minor and smaller than the statistical uncertainties.
439: The SIS fit results in the Einstein radius of the cluster $\theta_E=11.7\arcsec\pm0.4\arcsec$ ($\chi^2/$d.o.f=3.61)
440: With $\beta=0.265$ (\textsection\ref{section_source_selection}), the implied velocity dispersion
441: is $\sigma_v=(1237\pm22)~\mbox{km}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$. Assuming energy equi-partition between gas and dark matter, we
442: can also convert this velocity dispersion to the {\it lower} limit of the gas temperature $T_X=(9.4\pm0.3)$ keV.
443: Although the SIS model is in general a good description of cluster mass profiles at small radii, numerical
444: simulations show that the mass density of relaxed clusters at large radii should drop faster than $\propto r^{-2}$.
445: Also, near the cluster core it is believed that the density profile is less steep than $\propto r^{-2}$.
446: Therefore,
447: modified density profiles such as an NFW model are a preferred choice over the traditional SIS in the description
448: of cluster mass profiles.
449: For the NFW fit, we obtain $r_s=78\arcsec\pm19\arcsec$ ($\sim604$ kpc) and $c=2.7\pm0.3$ ($\chi^2/$d.o.f=1.11).
450: The comparison of the reduced $\chi^2$ values and the best-fit results in Figure~\ref{fig_tan_shear}
451: show that the cluster's reduced tangential shear is better described by this NFW model.
452: The large reduced $\chi^2$ value of the SIS fitting is mainly due to the fact that the observed tangential shear
453: does not rise as steeply as the SIS prediction at $r\lesssim50\arcsec$. If we assume a non-singular core instead
454: [NIS; i.e., $\kappa=\kappa_0/(r^2+r_c^2)^{1/2}$],
455: the discrepancy is substantially reduced, and
456: we obtain $r_c=9.5\arcsec\pm1.2\arcsec$ ($\sim74$ kpc) and $\kappa_0=7.4\pm0.7$ with $\chi^2$/d.o.f=0.77.
457: %%Nevertheless, the $\propto r^{-2}$ behavior of the NIS model at large radii is unrealistic, and thus we
458: %%\rely on the NFW
459:
460: We compare the projected mass profiles estimated from these results in Figure~\ref{fig_mass_comparison}. Also plotted is
461: the result based on the two-dimensional mass map of the cluster, for which
462: we lifted the mass-sheet degeneracy $\kappa \rightarrow \lambda \kappa + 1-\lambda$ by constraining $\bar{\kappa}(150\arcsec<r<200\arcsec)$
463: to be the same as the value given by the NFW result.
464: The discrepancy from difference approaches is small over the entire range of the radii shown here except for
465: the NIS model, which, although similar to the other results at
466: small radii ($r\lesssim70\arcsec$), gives substantially higher masses at large radii (e.g., $\sim15\%$ higher at $r\sim150\arcsec$).
467: Because the $\propto r^{-2}$ behavior of the NIS model at large radii is unrealistic (despite its smallest goodness-of-fit value),
468: we do not consider the result as representative of the overall cluster mass profile.
469: Error bars are omitted to
470: avoid clutter in Figure~\ref{fig_mass_comparison}. For the SIS result, the mass uncertainties are $\sim6.5$\% (after we
471: rescale with the reduced $\chi^2$ value) over the entire range. The uncertainty in the NFW mass non-uniformly increases with radii:
472: approximately 5\%, 10\%, and 15\% of the total mass at $r=50\arcsec, 100\arcsec$, and $200\arcsec$.
473:
474:
475: \section{DISCUSSION}
476: \subsection{Comparison with Other Studies}
477: The X-ray temperature of CL1226 was first measured by Cagnoni et al. (2001) based on short exposure ($\sim10$~ks) $Chandra$ data.
478: They obtained an X-ray temperature of $10_{-3}^{+4}$ keV, a $\beta$ index of $0.770\pm0.025$, and a core radius of $r_c=18\arcsec.1\pm0\arcsec.9$.
479: With an isothermal $\beta$ model assumption, their measurement gives a projected (within a cylindrical volume) mass of $M(r<1~\mbox{Mpc})=(1.4_{-0.4}^{+0.6})\times10^{15} M_{\sun}$, which
480: is consistent with our result. Joy et al. (2001) used Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (SZE) observations and determined the mass of the cluster to be
481: $M(r<65\arcsec)=(3.9\pm0.5)\times10^{14}~M_{\sun}$
482: with a SZE temperature of $9.8_{-1.9}^{+4.7}$ keV. This SZE result is also in accordance with our lensing estimate.
483: With XMM-Newton observations, Maughan et al. (2004) derived a virial mass of $(1.4\pm0.5)\times10^{15}~M_{\sun}$ within $r_{200}=1.66\pm0.34~$Mpc. Our
484: NFW fitting results gives $r_{200}=1.64\pm0.10~$Mpc and $M(r<r_{200})=(1.38\pm0.20)\times10^{15}~M_{\sun}$, which are in excellent
485: agreement with the result of Maughan et al. (2004).
486: Maughan et al. (2007) refined their early study of CL1226 by using both deep XMM-Newton and Chandra observations. From the comprehensive
487: analysis of the cluster's three-dimensional gas and temperature structure, they obtained $r_{500}=(0.88\pm0.05)~$Mpc and
488: $M_{500}=5.2_{-0.8}^{+1.0}\times 10^{14}~M_{\sun}$. The new mass is, however, $\sim30$\% lower than
489: our lensing estimate $M(r<0.88~\mbox{Mpc})=(7.34\pm0.71)\times10^{14}~M_{\sun}$.
490: This mass discrepancy is interesting because Maughan et al. (2007) noted that their
491: mass is $\sim30$\% below the $M-T$ relation (Vikhlinin et al. 2006) and also
492: the $M-Y_X$ relation (Kravtsov et al. 2006).
493: They suggested the possibility that the on-going merger indicated by their temperature map
494: may lead to the underestimation of the total mass with X-ray methods.
495: Our mass reconstruction resolves the cluster core substructure and
496: supports the merger scenario. If the merger is indeed responsible for the
497: underestimation from the X-ray analysis, the apparent improvement in the $M-T$ relation with the lensing estimate
498: highlights the merits of gravitational lensing for mass estimation, which does not depend on the dynamical state of the system.
499:
500:
501: \subsection{Stage of the Merger in the Core of CL1226 \label{section_merger}}
502: Galaxy cluster cores frequently possess merging signatures despite their relaxed morphology on a large scale.
503: Even the Coma Cluster, long regarded as the archetype of relaxed clusters, has been found to be
504: composed of many interesting substructures by X-ray and optical observations (e.g., Biviano et al. 1996).
505: Several lines of evidence strongly suggest that the cluster CL1226 is also undergoing an active merger in the cluster core.
506: First, the cluster galaxy distribution is bimodal in the core; the dominant number density peak is close to the X-ray center and
507: the other overdensity is seen to the southwest. Second, the X-ray temperature map
508: shows that the ICM near this southwestern number density peak is significantly higher ($14\sim18$ keV) than in the neighboring region.
509: Although this high-temperature region does not stand out in the X-ray surface brightness map, which reveals only a single peak
510: in spatial agreement with the dominant galaxy number density peak, a scrutiny of both the $Chandra$ and the $XMM-Newton$
511: images shows that the contours near the X-ray peak is slightly elongated toward the high-temperature region.
512: Third, our weak-lensing analysis confirms that a substantial mass is associated with this southwestern galaxy number density peak.
513: Therefore, it is plausible that the hydrodynamic interaction between the two substructures
514: is responsible for the high temperature ($14\sim18$ keV) feature.
515:
516: It is puzzling that the southwestern weak-lensing mass clump is not detected in the X-ray surface brightness.
517: As mentioned in \textsection\ref{section_mass_map}, the mass of this substructure is comparable to that of the western
518: weak-lensing mass peak of MS1054, which is the most massive of the three dominant peaks of the cluster and has
519: its own distinct X-ray peak.
520: As a possible cause, we suggest the possibility that the substructure has passed through the other more massive structure
521: from the eastern side.
522: If it is a slow encounter, the gas of the system could be severely stripped during this penetration.
523: A shock, on the other hand, can propagate ahead of the gas core and leave
524: trails of hot temperature as observed in the current case.
525: Of course, the collisionless galaxies and dark matter of the system are expected to survive the core passthrough as observed unlike
526: the gas system. A famous example is the ``bullet'' cluster 1E0657-56 at $z\simeq0.3$ (Clowe et al. 2006; Bradac et al. 2006).
527:
528: We noticed a very similar case
529: in our weak-lensing and X-ray study of MS1054 (Jee et al. 2005b). The eastern substructure of
530: MS1054, whose presence is clear both in the cluster galaxy and dark matter distribution,
531: is conspicuously absent in the X-ray observations. Moreover, the MS1054 temperature map of Jee et al. (2005b) shows that
532: the gas in the region of the eastern halo is notably higher ($\gtrsim10$ keV) than the average temperature ($\sim8.9$ keV).
533: Hence in Jee et al. (2005b) we proposed that the cluster galaxies now observed in the eastern mass clumps might have
534: passed through the central mass clump from the southwest. Intriguingly, a significant fraction of the star forming galaxies
535: (four out of the five brightest IR galaxies) are found to exist near the eastern mass clump of MS1054 (Bai et al. 2007).
536: The result can be interpreted as indicating a recent star formation triggered by this hypothesized merger.
537: Although we have not performed a parallel study for the star-formation properties of the CL1226 galaxies yet, the existing
538: features in the X-ray surface brightness, gas temperature, mass, and galaxy distribution is suggestive of
539: the similar merger scenario.
540:
541: Is the above post-merger picture the unique scenario that explains the observed features?
542: If the peculiar temperature structure of CL1226 were absent or we can attribute it to something else,
543: one can also consider the possibility that the secondary mass clump might not be massive enough to produce X-ray emission, but
544: still detected in weak-lensing simply because it forms a line-of-sight superposition with the already massive dark matter
545: halo of the primary cluster.
546: Obviously, in this hypothesized configuration the background density can boost the lensing signal even if
547: the mass of the southwestern clump by itself is not significant. To explore this possibility quantitatively, we
548: estimated the expected X-ray temperature of the secondary clump for this scenario in the following way.
549: First, we created
550: a new radial density profile of the main cluster from the mass map by excluding the azimuthal range that contains the southewestern substructure.
551: Second, we subtracted this new radial density profile from the original mass map.
552: Finally, we measured
553: the mass of the secondary clump from this subtracted mass map. Of course, this procedure
554: overestimates the contribution (i.e., boosting effect) of the primary cluster because, even if we avoided the southwestern region in the
555: creation of the new radial profile, the $\kappa$ value in the other azimuthal range is still the sum of the two subclusters.
556: Hence, here we assume an extreme case, where the primary cluster is dominant in mass.
557: Then, within $r=30\arcsec$ ($\sim232$ kpc), the total projected mass of the secondary cluster would be $\sim5\times10^{13} M_{\sun}$.
558: Assuming isothermality with $\beta_X=0.7$, this mass is translated into $T_X \sim 2.6$ keV.
559: Given the depth ($\sim72$ ks for each detector) of the observation, a subcluster with this cool core
560: would have been easily identified in the $XMM-Newton$ image of CL1226 (Maughan et al. 2007).
561: Even for the relatively shallow $Chandra$ data ($\sim50$ ks when the two datasets ObsID 3180 and 5014 are combined),
562: we predict $\sim200$ counts within a $r=10\arcsec$ aperture, which would give a significance of $\sim8~\sigma$.
563: Therefore, even if we disregard the temperature structure, we are not likely to be observing a very low mass
564: cluster whose lensing efficiency is enhanced due to the primary cluster halo.
565:
566:
567: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
568:
569: We have presented a weak-lensing study of the galaxy cluster CL1226 at $z=0.89$. The cluster
570: is a very interesting, rare system because, despite its high redshift, it has a relaxed morphology in X-ray surface brightness
571: and an unusually high gas temperature. Our HST/ACS-based weak-lensing analysis of the cluster provides
572: the dark matter distribution in unprecedented detail and allows us to measure the mass profiles out to the virial radius
573: of the cluster.
574:
575: Our two-dimensional mass reconstruction shows that on large scales the dark matter distribution
576: is consistent with a relaxed system with no significant substructures. However, viewed in detail, the cluster core
577: is resolved into two mass clumps.
578: This bimodality of the core mass structure is also seen in the cluster galaxy distribution.
579: The dominant mass clump lies close to the BCG whereas the other less massive one is located $\sim40\arcsec$ to the southwest.
580: This secondary mass clump does not stand out in the X-ray surface brightness although the temperature
581: of the region is much higher than in the rest of the cluster. When the significant mass associated with
582: the substructure is considered, the absence of the corresponding X-ray excess in the region is puzzling.
583: Therefore, we propose that
584: we may be observing the system after the less massive subcluster passed through the main cluster.
585: It is possible that the X-ray gas of the less massive system might have been stripped due to the ram pressure.
586: The slight elongation of the X-ray peak toward the southwestern mass clump is also supportive of this scenario.
587: These features are similar to
588: the ones that we observed in MS1054, another massive galaxy cluster at $z=0.83$, where we proposed a
589: similar possibility.
590:
591: We measure significant shear signals out to the field boundary ($\sim200\arcsec$), which indicates
592: that the cluster is indeed massive as already implied by its high X-ray temperature.
593: Fitting an NFW profile to the reduced tangential shears gives $r_{200}=1.64\pm0.10~$Mpc and $M(r<r_{200})=(1.38\pm0.20)\times10^{15}~M_{\sun}$, where
594: the error bars include both statistical and cosmic-shear induced systematic uncertainties.
595: Although the predicted velocity dispersion and X-ray temperature from the lensing result are
596: consistent with previous work, our cluster mass is $\sim30$\% higher than the recent XMM-$Newton$ and $CHANDRA$
597: analysis of Maughan et al. (2007), who interestingly pointed out that their mass estimate is
598: $\sim30$\% below the $M-T$ and $Y_X-T$ scaling relations.
599: If the on-going merger is indeed the cause of the underestimation of the total mass with the X-ray method (Maughan et al. 2007),
600: the apparent improvement in the $M-T$ relation with the lensing estimate
601: highlights the advantages of gravitational lensing for mass estimation, which does not depend on the dynamical state of the system.
602:
603: Our weak-lensing study confirms that CL1226 is indeed the most massive cluster at $z>0.6$ known to date. In the
604: hierarchical structure formation paradigm, a CL1226-like cluster is extremely rare at $z=0.89$.
605: Because the abundance of such a massive system is sensitive to the matter density ($\Omega_M$) and its
606: fluctuation ($\sigma_8$), the current result and future lensing measurements of other high-redshift
607: massive clusters [e.g., XMMU J2235.3-2557 at $z=1.39$ (Mullis et al. 2005) and XCS J2215.9-1738 at $z=1.45$
608: (Stanford et al. 2006; Hilton et al. 2007) ] will provide useful constraints on the normalization of the power spectrum.
609:
610: M. James Jee acknowledges support for the current research from the TABASGO foundation presented in the form of
611: the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Cosmology Fellowship.
612: We thank Ben Maughan for allowing us to use his X-ray temperature map of CL1226.
613:
614: \begin{thebibliography}{}
615: \bibitem[Bahcall \& Fan(1998)]{bf} Bahcall, N.~A.~\& Fan, X.\ 1998, \apj, 504, 1
616: \bibitem[Bai et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...664..181B} Bai, L., et al.\ 2007,
617: \apj, 664, 181
618: \bibitem[Beckwith, Somerville, \& Stiavelli(2003)]{beckwith03} Beckwith, S., Somerville, R., Stiavelli M., 2003, STScI Newsletter vol 20 issue 04
619: \bibitem[Blakeslee et al.(2003)]{blakeslee03} Blakeslee, J.~P., Anderson, K.~R., Meurer, G.~R., Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N., \& Magee, D.\ 2003, ASP Conf.~Ser.~295: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, 12, 257
620: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Jarvis(2002)]{bj02} Bernstein, G.~M.~\& Jarvis, M.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 583
621: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{1996A&AS..117..393B} Bertin, E., \&
622: Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
623: \bibitem[Biviano et
624: al.(1996)]{1996A&A...311...95B} Biviano, A., Durret, F., Gerbal, D., Le Fevre, O., Lobo, C., Mazure, A., \& Slezak, E.\ 1996, \aap, 311, 95
625: \bibitem[Brada{\v c} et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...652..937B} Brada{\v c}, M., et
626: al.\ 2006, \apj, 652, 937
627: \bibitem[Branchesi et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...472..727B} Branchesi, M., Gioia, I.~M., Fanti, C., \& Fanti, R.\ 2007, \aap, 472, 727
628: \bibitem[Butcher \& Oemler(1984)]{1984ApJ...285..426B} Butcher, H., \& Oemler, A., Jr.\ 1984, \apj, 285, 426
629: \bibitem[Cagnoni et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...560...86C} Cagnoni, I., Elvis, M.,
630: Kim, D.-W., Mazzotta, P., Huang, J.-S., \& Celotti, A.\ 2001, \apj, 560, 86
631: \bibitem[Clowe et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...648L.109C} Clowe, D., Brada{\v c},
632: M., Gonzalez, A.~H., Markevitch, M., Randall, S.~W., Jones, C.,
633: \& Zaritsky, D.\ 2006, \apjl, 648, L109
634: \bibitem[Coe et al.(2006)]{2006AJ....132..926C} Coe, D., Ben{\'{\i}}tez,
635: N., S{\'a}nchez, S.~F., Jee, M., Bouwens, R., \& Ford, H.\ 2006, \aj, 132,
636: 926
637: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...660L...1D} Davis, M., et al.\ 2007,
638: \apjl, 660, L1
639: \bibitem[Donahue et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...502..550D} Donahue, M., Voit,
640: G.~M., Gioia, I., Lupino, G., Hughes, J.~P.,
641: \& Stocke, J.~T.\ 1998, \apj, 502, 550
642: \bibitem[Ellis et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.368..769E} Ellis, S.~C., Jones,
643: L.~R., Donovan, D., Ebeling, H.,
644: \& Khosroshahi, H.~G.\ 2006, \mnras, 368, 769
645: \bibitem[Fischer \& Tyson(1997)]{1997AJ....114...14F} Fischer, P., \& Tyson, J.~A.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 14
646: \bibitem[Fruchter \& Hook(2002)]{2002PASP..114..144F} Fruchter, A.~S., \&
647: Hook, R.~N.\ 2002, \pasp, 114, 144
648: \bibitem[Gao et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0711.0746G} Gao, L., Navarro, J.~F.,
649: Cole, S., Frenk, C., White, S.~D.~M., Springel, V., Jenkins, A.,
650: \& Neto, A.~F.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711, arXiv:0711.0746
651: \bibitem[Giavalisco et al.(2004)]{giavalisco04} Giavalisco, M., et al.\ 2004, \apjl, 600, L93
652: \bibitem[Gioia et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...419..517G} Gioia, I.~M., Braito, V.,
653: Branchesi, M., Della Ceca, R., Maccacaro, T., \& Tran, K.-V.\ 2004, \aap,
654: 419, 517
655: \bibitem[Hack et al.(2003)]{2003ASPC..295..453H} Hack, W., Busko, I., \&
656: Jedrzejewski, R.\ 2003, ASP Conf.~Ser.~295: Astronomical Data Analysis
657: Software and Systems XII, 295, 453
658: \bibitem[Hoekstra, Franx, \& Kuijken(2000)]{hfk00} Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., \& Kuijken, K. 2000,\apj, 532, 88
659: \bibitem[Hoekstra(2003)]{2003MNRAS.339.1155H} Hoekstra, H.\ 2003, \mnras,
660: 339, 1155
661: \bibitem[Jee et al.(2005a)]{2005ApJ...618...46J} Jee, M.~J., White, R.~L.,
662: Ben{\'{\i}}tez, N., Ford, H.~C., Blakeslee, J.~P., Rosati, P., Demarco, R.,
663: \& Illingworth, G.~D.\ 2005a, \apj, 618, 46
664: \bibitem[Jee et al.(2005b)]{2005ApJ...634..813J} Jee, M.~J., White, R.~L.,
665: Ford, H.~C., Blakeslee, J.~P., Illingworth, G.~D., Coe, D.~A., \& Tran,
666: K.-V.~H.\ 2005b, \apj, 634, 813
667: \bibitem[Jee et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...642..720J} Jee, M.~J., White, R.~L.,
668: Ford, H.~C., Illingworth, G.~D., Blakeslee, J.~P., Holden, B., \& Mei, S.\
669: 2006, \apj, 642, 720
670: \bibitem[Jee et al.(2007a)]{2007ApJ...661..728J} Jee, M.~J., et al.\ 2007a,
671: \apj, 661, 728
672: \bibitem[Jee et al.(2007b)]{2007PASP...119:1403} Jee, M.~J., Blakeslee,
673: J.~P., Sirianni, M., Martel, A.~R., White, R.~L., \& Ford, H.~C.\ 2007b,
674: \pasp, 119, 1403
675: \bibitem[Jeltema et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...562..124J} Jeltema, T.~E.,
676: Canizares, C.~R., Bautz, M.~W., Malm, M.~R., Donahue, M.,
677: \& Garmire, G.~P.\ 2001, \apj, 562, 124
678: \bibitem[Joy et al.(2001)]{joy01} Joy, M., et al.\ 2001, \apjl, 551, L1
679: \bibitem[Kaiser\& Squires(1993)]{1993ApJ...404..441K} Kaiser, N., \& Squires, G.\ 1993, \apj, 404, 441
680: \bibitem[Kravtsov et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...650..128K} Kravtsov, A.~V.,
681: Vikhlinin, A., \& Nagai, D.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 128
682: \bibitem[Krist(2003)]{krist03} Krist, J.\ 2003, $Instrument$ $Science$ $Report$ $ACS$ 2003-06
683: \bibitem[Marshall et al.(2002)]{2002MNRAS.335.1037M} Marshall, P.~J.,
684: Hobson, M.~P., Gull, S.~F., \& Bridle, S.~L.\ 2002, \mnras, 335, 1037
685: \bibitem[Maughan et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...587..589M} Maughan, B.~J., Jones,
686: L.~R., Ebeling, H., Perlman, E., Rosati, P., Frye, C.,
687: \& Mullis, C.~R.\ 2003, \apj, 587, 589
688: \bibitem[Maughan et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.351.1193M} Maughan, B.~J., Jones,
689: L.~R., Ebeling, H., \& Scharf, C.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 1193
690: \bibitem[Maughan et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659.1125M} Maughan, B.~J., Jones,
691: C., Jones, L.~R., \& Van Speybroeck, L.\ 2007, \apj, 659, 1125
692: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk, \& White(1997)]{nfw97} Navarro, J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1997, \apj, 490, 493
693: \bibitem[Refregier(2003)]{refregier03} Refregier, A.\ 2003, \mnras, 338, 35
694: \bibitem[Rhodes et al.(2007)]{2007ApJS..172..203R} Rhodes, J.~D., et al.\
695: 2007, \apjs, 172, 203
696: \bibitem[Riess(2004)]{riess04} Riss, A. \& Mack, J. \ 2004, $Instrument$ $Science$ $Report$ $ACS$ 2004-006
697: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(1998)]{1998MNRAS.296..873S} Schneider, P., van
698: Waerbeke, L., Jain, B., \& Kruse, G.\ 1998, \mnras, 296, 873
699: \bibitem[Scoville(2006)]{2006AAS...20922502S} Scoville, N.\ 2006, Bulletin
700: of the American Astronomical Society, 38, 1211
701: \bibitem[Seitz \& Schneider(1997)]{1997A&A...318..687S} Seitz, C., \& Schneider, P.\ 1997, \aap, 318, 687
702: \bibitem[Seitz et al.(1998)]{1998A&A...337..325S} Seitz, S., Schneider, P., \& Bartelmann, M.\ 1998, \aap, 337, 325
703: \bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{2005PASP..117.1049S} Sirianni, M., et al.\
704: 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
705: \bibitem[Tozzi et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...593..705T} Tozzi, P., Rosati, P.,
706: Ettori, S., Borgani, S., Mainieri, V., \& Norman, C.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 705
707: \bibitem[Vikhlinin et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...578L.107V} Vikhlinin, A.,
708: VanSpeybroeck, L., Markevitch, M., Forman, W.~R., \& Grego, L.\ 2002,
709: \apjl, 578, L107
710: \bibitem[Vikhlinin et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...640..691V} Vikhlinin, A.,
711: Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., Jones, C., Markevitch, M., Murray, S.~S.,
712: \& Van Speybroeck, L.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 691
713: \end{thebibliography}
714:
715: \begin{figure}
716: \plotone{f1.eps}
717: \caption{Pseudo-color image of CL1226 created from the ACS F606W and F814W images. The entire $\sim6\arcmin\times6\arcmin$ field of
718: the cluster dithered in a $2\times2$ tiling is displayed. Approximately, north is up and east is left. The ``feather-like" feature
719: near the northwestern corner is attributed to the internal reflection of the bright star.
720: The yellow square denotes the central $30\arcsec\times30\arcsec$ region.
721: \label{fig_cl1226}}
722: \end{figure}
723:
724:
725: \begin{figure}
726: \plotone{f2.eps}
727: \caption{The central $30\arcsec\times30\arcsec$
728: region, which is marked with a yellow square in Figure~\ref{fig_cl1226}, is blown up to show details. The cluster red-sequence can be easily identified
729: by their distinct colors (yellow in this rendition). Also, many strong-lensing features (i.e., blue arcs) are observed.
730: \label{fig_cl1226_center}}
731: \end{figure}
732:
733: \begin{figure}
734: \plotone{f3.eps}
735: \caption{Color-magnitude diagram of CL1226. The so-called 4000~\AA~break at $z=0.89$ is redshifted to $\sim7560$~\AA~ and
736: is nicely bracketed by $v_{606}$ and $i_{814}$ filters. The red-sequence of the cluster is well defined at $v_{606}-i_{814}\sim1.8$
737: for galaxies brighter than $i_{814}\sim26$.
738: \label{fig_cmr}}
739: \end{figure}
740:
741: \begin{figure}
742: \plotone{f4.eps}
743: \caption{Magnitude distribution of source galaxies. We compare the normalized histogram of the source population
744: in the cluster field with
745: those created from the GOODS and UDF data. The comparison shows no indication of excess in the cluster field due to the potential
746: blue cluster member contamination.
747: \label{fig_hist}}
748: \end{figure}
749:
750: \begin{figure}
751: \plotone{f5.eps}
752: \caption{Comparison of ellipticity between the observed and the modeled PSFs in the mosaic $i_{814}$ image of the cluster.
753: The outlines of the ACS pointings are displayed in the observed orientation (north is down and east is right).
754: We represent
755: the magnitude and the direction of ellipticity with the length and the orientation of the sticks, respectively.
756: The encircled stick in the lower left corner shows the size of the $(a-b)/(a+b)=0.05$ ellipticity.
757: We first determined a matching template from the PSF Library for each exposure and then applied the same shift and rotation
758: to align the template to the final mosaic image as that used in our image registration. The final PSFs are the results of stacking all the contributing PSFs.
759: The PSF models (middle) obtained in this way closely resemble the
760: observed pattern (left). The $e_{+}$ versus $e_{\times}$ plot (right) shows that both the centroid and the dispersion
761: of the observed points (diamond) are significantly improved in the residuals (`+' symbol).
762: \label{fig_psf}}
763: \end{figure}
764:
765: \begin{figure}
766: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
767: \caption{Ellipticity distribution of non-stellar objects in the CL1226 field. We only include the objects with a S/N$\sim5$ or greater
768: at least in one passband. The ellipticity distribution of $r_h > 0.15\arcsec$ objects is slightly affected after
769: PSF correction (a) whereas the change is significant for smaller ($0.1\arcsec<r_h < 0.15\arcsec$) objects (b).
770: \label{fig_e_distribution}}
771: \end{figure}
772:
773: \begin{figure}
774: \plotone{f7.eps}
775: \caption{Ellipticity distribution of source galaxies. We smooth the source galaxy ellipticity with a FWHM=$20\arcsec$ Gaussian kernel.
776: The encircled stick above the plot shows the size of the $g=0.1$ shear. The tangential alignment around the center of the cluster is clear.
777: \label{fig_whisker}}
778: \end{figure}
779:
780: \begin{figure}
781: \plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
782: \caption{Mass reconstruction of CL1226. We used the maximum entropy method to obtain the convergence $\kappa$ of the field ($left$).
783: The mass-sheet degeneracy ($\kappa \rightarrow \lambda \kappa + 1 -\lambda$) is lifted by constraining $\bar{\kappa}(150\arcsec<r<200\arcsec)$
784: to be the same as the value given by the NFW fitting (\textsection\ref{section_mass_estimation}).
785: For comparison, we also show the result created by the KS93 method ($right$). Both maps clearly show the dark matter
786: concentration near the cluster center. However, in the relatively low $\kappa$ region the KS93 algorithm generates many spurious substructures, which
787: are the results from both the inadequate (too small kernel) smoothing and the $g\sim\gamma$ approximation.
788: \label{fig_mass_reconstruction}}
789: \end{figure}
790:
791: \begin{figure}
792: \begin{center}
793: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f9.eps}
794: \caption{Mass, X-ray, and galaxy number density contours in the central $150\arcsec\times150\arcsec$ region of CL1226.
795: (a) Our weak-lensing mass reconstruction resolves the core substructure, which consists of the dominant clump near the BCG and
796: the less massive, but distinct, clump to the southwest. (b) The presence of this secondary mass peak is hard to identify
797: in the adaptively smoothed (Ebeling 2005) $CHANDRA$ X-ray contours although the slight elongation of the X-ray peak toward the secondary
798: mass peak is marginally suggestive of this feature. (c) The number density contours of the red-sequence candidates (smoothed with a FWHM$=20\arcsec$ Gaussian) show
799: that the galaxy distribution is similar to the mass distribution.
800: (d) Mass contours overlaid on the temperature map of Maughan et al. (2007). The alignment is approximate.
801: The gas temperature in the region where the southwestern mass clump is detected is unusually high ($12\sim18$ keV).
802: \label{fig_massxraynum}}
803: \end{center}
804: \end{figure}
805:
806: \begin{figure}
807: \plotone{f10.eps}
808: \caption{Tangential shear measured around CL1226. The filled circles represent the tangential shears. Overplotted are
809: the fitting results with different parametrized models. Open diamond symbols show the 45$\degr$ rotation test result (also often referred to as a B-mode test).
810: \label{fig_tan_shear}}
811: \end{figure}
812:
813:
814: \begin{figure}
815: \plotone{f11.eps}
816: \caption{Background structure effects on tangential shear measurements.
817: We followed the method of Hoekstra (2003) to evaluate the effect of the cosmic shear
818: on our tangential shear measurements for the current source population (solid). For comparison, we reproduce here the prediction of Hoekstra (2003)
819: for their $20<R<26$ ($\bar{z}=1.08$) sample (dashed). Note that the effect is substantially ($\sim50$\%) higher in our sample because the mean redshift of
820: the source population is also higher ($\bar{z}=1.71$). However, in the $r\lesssim200\arcsec$ region, where
821: we measure our tangential shears for CL1226, the errors induced by the cosmic shear are still lower than the
822: statistical errors (`+' symbols).
823: \label{fig_cs_effect}}
824: \end{figure}
825:
826:
827:
828: \begin{figure}
829: \begin{center}
830: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{f12.eps}
831: \caption{Projected mass profile of CL1226. We compare the results from the various methods discussed in \textsection\ref{section_mass_estimation}.
832: The discrepancy is small over the entire range of the radii shown here except for the NIS model, which, although similar to the other results at
833: small radii ($r\lesssim70\arcsec$), gives substantially higher masses at large radii (e.g., $\sim15\%$ higher at $r\sim150\arcsec$).
834: Note that for the parameter-free
835: method the azimuthal average is estimated from a complete circle only at $r\lesssim180\arcsec$ (blue dashed). Error bars are omitted to
836: avoid clutter. For the SIS result, the mass uncertainties are $\sim6.5$\% (after we
837: rescale with the reduced $\chi^2$ value) over the entire range. The uncertainty in the NFW mass non-uniformly increases with radii:
838: approximately 5\%, 10\%, and 15\% of the total mass at $r=50\arcsec, 100\arcsec$, and $200\arcsec$.
839: \label{fig_mass_comparison}}
840: \end{center}
841: \end{figure}
842:
843:
844:
845: \end{document}
846:
847: %%
848: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
849: '.
850: