Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Cosmic variance of the galaxy cluster weak lensing signal

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1501.01632 v1 pith:4XYEDCWQ submitted 2015-01-07 astro-ph.CO

classification astro-ph.CO
keywords clusterlensingweakcosmicintrinsicmassvariancevariations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Intrinsic variations of the projected density profiles of clusters of galaxies at fixed mass are a source of uncertainty for cluster weak lensing. We present a semi-analytical model to account for this effect, based on a combination of variations in halo concentration, ellipticity and orientation, and the presence of correlated haloes. We calibrate the parameters of our model at the 10 per cent level to match the empirical cosmic variance of cluster profiles at M_200m=10^14...10^15 h^-1 M_sol, z=0.25...0.5 in a cosmological simulation. We show that weak lensing measurements of clusters significantly underestimate mass uncertainties if intrinsic profile variations are ignored, and that our model can be used to provide correct mass likelihoods. Effects on the achievable accuracy of weak lensing cluster mass measurements are particularly strong for the most massive clusters and deep observations (with ~20 per cent uncertainty from cosmic variance alone at M_200m=10^15 h^-1 M_sol and z=0.25), but significant also under typical ground-based conditions. We show that neglecting intrinsic profile variations leads to biases in the mass-observable relation constrained with weak lensing, both for intrinsic scatter and overall scale (the latter at the 15 per cent level). These biases are in excess of the statistical errors of upcoming surveys and can be avoided if the cosmic variance of cluster profiles is accounted for.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Weak-lensing Shear-Selected Galaxy Clusters from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program: III. A precision cosmological sample enabled by optical confirmation

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    fCAMIRA measures photometric redshifts for 129 shear-selected clusters with mean bias about 0.005 and scatter about 0.008, and forecasts that these systematics have negligible impact on cosmological constraints for HS...

  2. S-PLUS Clusters And Large-scale Environments (SCALE): II. PZWav versus redMaPPer identification of eRosita groups

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A probabilistic Hausdorff-distance matching of PZWav/AME optical systems to eRASS1 X-ray contours yields multi-wavelength group/cluster catalogs with tunable purity and improved low-mass completeness versus redMaPPer.

  3. Weak-lensing mass calibration of \emph{Planck} Sunyaev--Zel'dovich clusters with HSC-SSP Year~3

    astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Weak-lensing calibration of 19 Planck SZ clusters with HSC Year 3 yields 1-b = 0.73^{+0.10}_{-0.11} at z_eff ~0.24 after forward-modeling selection, Eddington bias, and miscentering.

Pith tools