sort results by

Use logical operators AND, OR, NOT and round brackets to construct complex queries. Whitespace-separated words are treated as ANDed.

Show articles per page in mode

Bermeo, A.

Normalized to: Bermeo, A.

9 article(s) in total. 210 co-authors, from 1 to 9 common article(s). Median position in authors list is 10,0.

[1]  oai:arXiv.org:2002.11124  [pdf] - 2055421
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cosmological Constraints from Cluster Abundances and Weak Lensing
DES Collaboration; Abbott, Tim; Aguena, Michel; Alarcon, Alex; Allam, Sahar; Allen, Steve; Annis, James; Avila, Santiago; Bacon, David; Bermeo, Alberto; Bernstein, Gary; Bertin, Emmanuel; Bhargava, Sunayana; Bocquet, Sebastian; Brooks, David; Brout, Dillon; Buckley-Geer, Elizabeth; Burke, David; Rosell, Aurelio Carnero; Kind, Matias Carrasco; Carretero, Jorge; Castander, Francisco Javier; Cawthon, Ross; Chang, Chihway; Chen, Xinyi; Choi, Ami; Costanzi, Matteo; Crocce, Martin; da Costa, Luiz; Davis, Tamara; De Vicente, Juan; DeRose, Joseph; Desai, Shantanu; Diehl, H. Thomas; Dietrich, Jörg; Dodelson, Scott; Doel, Peter; Drlica-Wagner, Alex; Eckert, Kathleen; Eifler, Tim; Elvin-Poole, Jack; Estrada, Juan; Everett, Spencer; Evrard, August; Farahi, Arya; Ferrero, Ismael; Flaugher, Brenna; Fosalba, Pablo; Frieman, Josh; Garcia-Bellido, Juan; Gatti, Marco; Gaztanaga, Enrique; Gerdes, David; Giannantonio, Tommaso; Giles, Paul; Grandis, Sebastian; Gruen, Daniel; Gruendl, Robert; Gschwend, Julia; Gutierrez, Gaston; Hartley, Will; Hinton, Samuel; Hollowood, Devon L.; Honscheid, Klaus; Hoyle, Ben; Huterer, Dragan; James, David; Jarvis, Mike; Jeltema, Tesla; Johnson, Margaret; Kent, Stephen; Krause, Elisabeth; Kron, Richard; Kuehn, Kyler; Kuropatkin, Nikolay; Lahav, Ofer; Li, Ting; Lidman, Christopher; Lima, Marcos; Lin, Huan; MacCrann, Niall; Maia, Marcio; Mantz, Adam; Marshall, Jennifer; Martini, Paul; Mayers, Julian; Melchior, Peter; Mena, Juan; Menanteau, Felipe; Miquel, Ramon; Mohr, Joe; Nichol, Robert; Nord, Brian; Ogando, Ricardo; Palmese, Antonella; Paz-Chinchon, Francisco; Malagón, Andrés Plazas; Prat, Judit; Rau, Markus Michael; Romer, Kathy; Roodman, Aaron; Rooney, Philip; Rozo, Eduardo; Rykoff, Eli; Sako, Masao; Samuroff, Simon; Sanchez, Carles; Saro, Alexandro; Scarpine, Vic; Schubnell, Michael; Scolnic, Daniel; Serrano, Santiago; Sevilla, Ignacio; Sheldon, Erin; Smith, J. Allyn; Suchyta, Eric; Swanson, Molly; Tarle, Gregory; Thomas, Daniel; To, Chun-Hao; Troxel, Michael A.; Tucker, Douglas; Varga, Tamas Norbert; von der Linden, Anja; Walker, Alistair; Wechsler, Risa; Weller, Jochen; Wilkinson, Reese; Wu, Hao-Yi; Yanny, Brian; Zhang, Zhuowen; Zuntz, Joe
Comments: 35 pages, 20 figures, submitted to Physical Review D
Submitted: 2020-02-25
We perform a joint analysis of the counts and weak lensing signal of redMaPPer clusters selected from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 dataset. Our analysis uses the same shear and source photometric redshifts estimates as were used in the DES combined probes analysis. Our analysis results in surprisingly low values for $S_8 =\sigma_8(\Omega_{\rm m}/0.3)^{0.5}= 0.65\pm 0.04$, driven by a low matter density parameter, $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.179^{+0.031}_{-0.038}$, with $\sigma_8-\Omega_{\rm m}$ posteriors in $2.4\sigma$ tension with the DES Y1 3x2pt results, and in $5.6\sigma$ with the Planck CMB analysis. These results include the impact of post-unblinding changes to the analysis, which did not improve the level of consistency with other data sets compared to the results obtained at the unblinding. The fact that multiple cosmological probes (supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic shear, galaxy clustering and CMB anisotropies), and other galaxy cluster analyses all favor significantly higher matter densities suggests the presence of systematic errors in the data or an incomplete modeling of the relevant physics. Cross checks with X-ray and microwave data, as well as independent constraints on the observable--mass relation from SZ selected clusters, suggest that the discrepancy resides in our modeling of the weak lensing signal rather than the cluster abundance. Repeating our analysis using a higher richness threshold ($\lambda \ge 30$) significantly reduces the tension with other probes, and points to one or more richness-dependent effects not captured by our model.
[2]  oai:arXiv.org:1903.08813  [pdf] - 2057676
Stellar mass as a galaxy cluster mass proxy: application to the Dark Energy Survey redMaPPer clusters
Comments: 14 pages, 7 figures, addressing MNRAS referee comments
Submitted: 2019-03-20, last modified: 2019-11-18
We introduce a galaxy cluster mass observable, $\mu_\star$, based on the stellar masses of cluster members, and we present results for the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 1 observations. Stellar masses are computed using a Bayesian Model Averaging method, and are validated for DES data using simulations and COSMOS data. We show that $\mu_\star$ works as a promising mass proxy by comparing our predictions to X-ray measurements. We measure the X-ray temperature-$\mu_\star$ relation for a total of 150 clusters matched between the wide-field DES Year 1 redMaPPer catalogue, and Chandra and XMM archival observations, spanning the redshift range $0.1<z<0.7$. For a scaling relation which is linear in logarithmic space, we find a slope of $\alpha = 0.488\pm0.043$ and a scatter in the X-ray temperature at fixed $\mu_\star$ of $\sigma_{{\rm ln} T_X|\mu_\star}=0.266^{+0.019}_{-0.020}$ for the joint sample. By using the halo mass scaling relations of the X-ray temperature from the Weighing the Giants program, we further derive the $\mu_\star$-conditioned scatter in mass, finding $\sigma_{{\rm ln} M|\mu_\star}=0.26^{+ 0.15}_{- 0.10}$. These results are competitive with well-established cluster mass proxies used for cosmological analyses, showing that $\mu_\star$ can be used as a reliable and physically motivated mass proxy to derive cosmological constraints.
[3]  oai:arXiv.org:1808.06637  [pdf] - 1971149
Chandra Follow-Up of the SDSS DR8 redMaPPer Catalog Using the MATCha Pipeline
Comments: 36 pages, 17 figures, 7 tables. Accepted to ApJS
Submitted: 2018-08-20, last modified: 2019-08-13
In order to place constraints on cosmology through optical surveys of galaxy clusters, one must first understand the properties of those clusters. To this end, we introduce the Mass Analysis Tool for Chandra (MATCha), a pipeline which uses a parallellized algorithm to analyze archival Chandra data. MATCha simultaneously calculates X-ray temperatures and luminosities and performs centering measurements for hundreds of potential galaxy clusters using archival X-ray exposures. We run MATCha on the redMaPPer SDSS DR8 cluster catalog and use MATCha's output X-ray temperatures and luminosities to analyze the galaxy cluster temperature-richness, luminosity-richness, luminosity-temperature, and temperature-luminosity scaling relations. We detect 447 clusters and determine 246 r2500 temperatures across all redshifts. Within 0.1 < z < 0.35 we find that r2500 Tx scales with optical richness as ln(kB Tx / 1.0 keV) = (0.52 \pm 0.05) ln({\lambda}/70) + (1.85 \pm 0.03) with intrinsic scatter of 0.27 \pm 0.02 (1 {\sigma}). We investigate the distribution of offsets between the X-ray center and redMaPPer center within 0.1 < z < 0.35, finding that 68.3 \pm 6.5% of clusters are well-centered. However, we find a broad tail of large offsets in this distribution, and we explore some of the causes of redMaPPer miscentering.
[4]  oai:arXiv.org:1710.05908  [pdf] - 1908558
Galaxies in X-ray Selected Clusters and Groups in Dark Energy Survey Data II: Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling of the Red-Sequence Galaxy Luminosity Function
Comments: Updated to match the accepted version
Submitted: 2017-10-16, last modified: 2019-06-29
Using $\sim 100$ X-ray selected clusters in the Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data, we constrain the luminosity function (LF) of cluster red sequence galaxies as a function of redshift. This is the first homogeneous optical/X-ray sample large enough to constrain the evolution of the luminosity function simultaneously in redshift ($0.1<z<1.05$) and cluster mass ($13.5 \le \rm{log_{10}}(M_{200crit}) \sim< 15.0$). We pay particular attention to completeness issues and the detection limit of the galaxy sample. We then apply a hierarchical Bayesian model to fit the cluster galaxy LFs via a Schecter function, including its characteristic break ($m^*$) to a faint end power-law slope ($\alpha$). Our method enables us to avoid known issues in similar analyses based on stacking or binning the clusters. We find weak and statistically insignificant ($\sim 1.9 \sigma$) evolution in the faint end slope $\alpha$ versus redshift. We also find no dependence in $\alpha$ or $m^*$ with the X-ray inferred cluster masses. However, the amplitude of the LF as a function of cluster mass is constrained to $\sim 20\%$ precision. As a by-product of our algorithm, we utilize the correlation between the LF and cluster mass to provide an improved estimate of the individual cluster masses as well as the scatter in true mass given the X-ray inferred masses. This technique can be applied to a larger sample of X-ray or optically selected clusters from the Dark Energy Survey, significantly improving the sensitivity of the analysis.
[5]  oai:arXiv.org:1901.07119  [pdf] - 1893322
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Calibration of Cluster Mis-centering in the redMaPPer Catalogs
Comments: Code used in this analysis is available from https://github.com/yyzhang/center_modeling_y1
Submitted: 2019-01-21, last modified: 2019-06-01
The center determination of a galaxy cluster from an optical cluster finding algorithm can be offset from theoretical prescriptions or $N$-body definitions of its host halo center. These offsets impact the recovered cluster statistics, affecting both richness measurements and the weak lensing shear profile around the clusters. This paper models the centering performance of the \RM~cluster finding algorithm using archival X-ray observations of \RM-selected clusters. Assuming the X-ray emission peaks as the fiducial halo centers, and through analyzing their offsets to the \RM~centers, we find that $\sim 75\pm 8 \%$ of the \RM~clusters are well centered and the mis-centered offset follows a Gamma distribution in normalized, projected distance. These mis-centering offsets cause a systematic underestimation of cluster richness relative to the well-centered clusters, for which we propose a descriptive model. Our results enable the DES Y1 cluster cosmology analysis by characterizing the necessary corrections to both the weak lensing and richness abundance functions of the DES Y1 redMaPPer cluster catalog.
[6]  oai:arXiv.org:1903.08042  [pdf] - 1971206
Mass Variance from Archival X-ray Properties of Dark Energy Survey Year-1 Galaxy Clusters
Comments: 14 pages. Main results are Figure 3, 5, and 6, Table 2, and Equation 9. Submitted to MNRAS. Comments welcome
Submitted: 2019-03-19
Using archival X-ray observations and a log-normal population model, we estimate constraints on the intrinsic scatter in halo mass at fixed optical richness for a galaxy cluster sample identified in Dark Energy Survey Year-One (DES-Y1) data with the redMaPPer algorithm. We examine the scaling behavior of X-ray temperatures, $T_X$, with optical richness, $\lambda_{RM}$, for clusters in the redshift range $0.2<z<0.7$. X-ray temperatures are obtained from Chandra and XMM observations for 58 and 110 redMaPPer systems, respectively. Despite non-uniform sky coverage, the $T_X$ measurements are $> 50\%$ complete for clusters with $\lambda_{RM} > 130$. Regression analysis on the two samples produces consistent posterior scaling parameters, from which we derive a combined constraint on the residual scatter, $\sigma_{\ln Tx | \lambda} = 0.275 \pm 0.019$. Joined with constraints for $T_X$ scaling with halo mass from the Weighing the Giants program and richness--temperature covariance estimates from the LoCuSS sample, we derive the richness-conditioned scatter in mass, $\sigma_{\ln M | \lambda} = 0.30 \pm 0.04\, _{({\rm stat})} \pm 0.09\, _{({\rm sys})}$, at an optical richness of approximately 70. Uncertainties in external parameters, particularly the slope and variance of the $T_X$--mass relation and the covariance of $T_X$ and $\lambda_{RM}$ at fixed mass, dominate the systematic error. The $95\%$ confidence region from joint sample analysis is relatively broad, $\sigma_{\ln M | \lambda} \in [0.14, \, 0.55]$, or a factor ten in variance.
[7]  oai:arXiv.org:1805.00039  [pdf] - 1767415
Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Weak Lensing Mass Calibration of redMaPPer Galaxy Clusters
Comments: 28 pages, 15 figures; matches MNRAS referee response version
Submitted: 2018-04-30, last modified: 2018-09-12
We constrain the mass--richness scaling relation of redMaPPer galaxy clusters identified in the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 data using weak gravitational lensing. We split clusters into $4\times3$ bins of richness $\lambda$ and redshift $z$ for $\lambda\geq20$ and $0.2 \leq z \leq 0.65$ and measure the mean masses of these bins using their stacked weak lensing signal. By modeling the scaling relation as $\langle M_{\rm 200m}|\lambda,z\rangle = M_0 (\lambda/40)^F ((1+z)/1.35)^G$, we constrain the normalization of the scaling relation at the 5.0 per cent level as $M_0 = [3.081 \pm 0.075 ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.133 ({\rm sys})] \cdot 10^{14}\ {\rm M}_\odot$ at $\lambda=40$ and $z=0.35$. The richness scaling index is constrained to be $F=1.356 \pm 0.051\ ({\rm stat})\pm 0.008\ ({\rm sys})$ and the redshift scaling index $G=-0.30\pm 0.30\ ({\rm stat})\pm 0.06\ ({\rm sys})$. These are the tightest measurements of the normalization and richness scaling index made to date. We use a semi-analytic covariance matrix to characterize the statistical errors in the recovered weak lensing profiles. Our analysis accounts for the following sources of systematic error: shear and photometric redshift errors, cluster miscentering, cluster member dilution of the source sample, systematic uncertainties in the modeling of the halo--mass correlation function, halo triaxiality, and projection effects. We discuss prospects for reducing this systematic error budget, which dominates the uncertainty on $M_0$. Our result is in excellent agreement with, but has significantly smaller uncertainties than, previous measurements in the literature, and augurs well for the power of the DES cluster survey as a tool for precision cosmology and upcoming galaxy surveys such as LSST, Euclid and WFIRST.
[8]  oai:arXiv.org:1610.06890  [pdf] - 1580445
Weak-lensing mass calibration of redMaPPer galaxy clusters in Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data
Comments: 22 pages, 14 figures, accepted by MNRAS
Submitted: 2016-10-21, last modified: 2017-04-28
We use weak-lensing shear measurements to determine the mean mass of optically selected galaxy clusters in Dark Energy Survey Science Verification data. In a blinded analysis, we split the sample of more than 8,000 redMaPPer clusters into 15 subsets, spanning ranges in the richness parameter $5 \leq \lambda \leq 180$ and redshift $0.2 \leq z \leq 0.8$, and fit the averaged mass density contrast profiles with a model that accounts for seven distinct sources of systematic uncertainty: shear measurement and photometric redshift errors; cluster-member contamination; miscentering; deviations from the NFW halo profile; halo triaxiality; and line-of-sight projections. We combine the inferred cluster masses to estimate the joint scaling relation between mass, richness and redshift, $\mathcal{M}(\lambda,z) \varpropto M_0 \lambda^{F} (1+z)^{G}$. We find $M_0 \equiv \langle M_{200\mathrm{m}}\,|\,\lambda=30,z=0.5\rangle=\left[ 2.35 \pm 0.22\ \rm{(stat)} \pm 0.12\ \rm{(sys)} \right] \cdot 10^{14}\ M_\odot$, with $F = 1.12\,\pm\,0.20\ \rm{(stat)}\, \pm\, 0.06\ \rm{(sys)}$ and $G = 0.18\,\pm\, 0.75\ \rm{(stat)}\, \pm\, 0.24\ \rm{(sys)}$. The amplitude of the mass-richness relation is in excellent agreement with the weak-lensing calibration of redMaPPer clusters in SDSS by Simet et al. (2016) and with the Saro et al. (2015) calibration based on abundance matching of SPT-detected clusters. Our results extend the redshift range over which the mass-richness relation of redMaPPer clusters has been calibrated with weak lensing from $z\leq 0.3$ to $z\leq0.8$. Calibration uncertainties of shear measurements and photometric redshift estimates dominate our systematic error budget and require substantial improvements for forthcoming studies.
[9]  oai:arXiv.org:1504.02983  [pdf] - 1347443
Galaxies in X-ray Selected Clusters and Groups in Dark Energy Survey Data I: Stellar Mass Growth of Bright Central Galaxies Since z~1.2
Comments: Accepted to ApJ
Submitted: 2015-04-12, last modified: 2015-12-02
Using the science verification data of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) for a new sample of 106 X-Ray selected clusters and groups, we study the stellar mass growth of Bright Central Galaxies (BCGs) since redshift 1.2. Compared with the expectation in a semi-analytical model applied to the Millennium Simulation, the observed BCGs become under-massive/under-luminous with decreasing redshift. We incorporate the uncertainties associated with cluster mass, redshift, and BCG stellar mass measurements into analysis of a redshift-dependent BCG-cluster mass relation, $m_{*}\propto(\frac{M_{200}}{1.5\times 10^{14}M_{\odot}})^{0.24\pm 0.08}(1+z)^{-0.19\pm0.34}$, and compare the observed relation to the model prediction. We estimate the average growth rate since $z = 1.0$ for BCGs hosted by clusters of $M_{200, z}=10^{13.8}M_{\odot}$, at $z=1.0$: $m_{*, BCG}$ appears to have grown by $0.13\pm0.11$ dex, in tension at $\sim 2.5 \sigma$ significance level with the $0.40$ dex growth rate expected from the semi-analytic model. We show that the buildup of extended intra-cluster light after $z=1.0$ may alleviate this tension in BCG growth rates.