Euclid preparation. LXV. Determining the weak lensing mass accuracy and precision for galaxy clusters
Loading...
Access rights
openAccess
CC BY
CC BY
publishedVersion
URL
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
This publication is imported from Aalto University research portal.
View publication in the Research portal (opens in new window)
View/Open full text file from the Research portal (opens in new window)
View publication in the Research portal (opens in new window)
View/Open full text file from the Research portal (opens in new window)
Unless otherwise stated, all rights belong to the author. You may download, display and print this publication for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Date
Department
Major/Subject
Mcode
Degree programme
Language
en
Pages
24
Series
Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 695, pp. 1-24
Abstract
The ability to measure unbiased weak-lensing (WL) masses is a key ingredient to exploit galaxy clusters as a competitive cosmological probe with the ESA Euclid survey or future missions. We investigate the level of accuracy and precision of cluster masses measured with the Euclid data processing pipeline. We use the DEMNUni-Cov N-body simulations to assess how well the WL mass probes the true halo mass, and, then, how well WL masses can be recovered in the presence of measurement uncertainties. We consider different halo mass density models, priors, and mass point estimates, that is the biweight, mean, and median of the marginalised posterior distribution and the maximum likelihood parameter. WL mass differs from true mass due to, for example, the intrinsic ellipticity of sources, correlated or uncorrelated matter and large-scale structure, halo triaxiality and orientation, and merging or irregular morphology. In an ideal scenario without observational or measurement errors, the maximum likelihood estimator is the most accurate, with WL masses biased low by {bM} =a-14.6-±-1.7% on average over the full range M200c > 5×1013 M⊙ and z < 1. Due to the stabilising effect of the prior, the biweight, mean, and median estimates are more precise, that is with smaller intrinsic scatter. The scatter decreases with increasing mass and informative priors can significantly reduce the scatter. Halo mass density profiles with a truncation provide better fits to the lensing signal, while the accuracy and precision are not significantly affected. We further investigate the impact of various additional sources of systematic uncertainty on the WL mass estimates, namely the impact of photometric redshift uncertainties and source selection, the expected performance of Euclid cluster detection algorithms, and the presence of masks. Taken in isolation, we find that the largest effect is induced by non-conservative source selection with {bM} =a-33.4-±-1.6%. This effect can be mostly removed with a robust selection. As a final Euclid-like test, we combine systematic effects in a realistic observational setting and find {bM} =a-15.5-±-2.4% under a robust selection. This is very similar to the ideal case, though with a slightly larger scatter mostly due to cluster redshift uncertainty and miscentering.Description
Publisher Copyright: © The Authors 2025.
Other note
Citation
Ingoglia, L, Sereno, M, Farrens, S, Giocoli, C, Baumont, L, Lesci, G F, Moscardini, L, Murray, C, Vannier, M, Biviano, A, Carbone, C, Covone, G, Despali, G, Maturi, M, Maurogordato, S, Meneghetti, M, Radovich, M, Altieri, B, Amara, A, Andreon, S, Auricchio, N, Baccigalupi, C, Baldi, M, Bardelli, S, Bellagamba, F, Bender, R, Bernardeau, F, Bonino, D, Branchini, E, Brescia, M, Brinchmann, J, Camera, S, Capobianco, V, Carretero, J, Casas, S, Castellano, M, Castignani, G, Cavuoti, S, Cimatti, A, Colodro-Conde, C, Congedo, G, Conselice, C J, Niemi, S M, Sánchez, A G, Schneider, P, Wang, Y, Calabrese, M, Gozaliasl, G, Hall, A, Hjorth, J & Euclid Collaboration 2025, 'Euclid preparation. LXV. Determining the weak lensing mass accuracy and precision for galaxy clusters', Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 695, A280, pp. 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202452122