Comparison of hydrostatic and dynamical masses of distant X-ray luminous galaxy clusters

TL;DR

This study compares three dynamical mass estimation methods with X-ray hydrostatic masses for distant galaxy clusters, revealing biases due to substructures and galaxy populations, and demonstrating improved agreement after correction.

Contribution

It provides a detailed comparison of dynamical mass estimators and highlights the impact of substructures and galaxy selection on mass measurements in galaxy clusters.

Findings

Jeans and caustic methods yield consistent results.

Virial theorem overestimates masses by ~15%.

Accounting for substructures aligns dynamical and hydrostatic masses.

Abstract

The main goal of this work is to compare the results of three dynamical mass estimators to the X-ray hydrostatic values, focussing on massive galaxy clusters at intermediate redshifts $z\sim0.3$. We estimated dynamical masses with the virial theorem, the Jeans equation, and the caustic method using wide-field VIMOS spectroscopy. We investigated the role of colour selection and the impact of substructures on the dynamical estimators. The Jeans and caustic methods give consistent results, whereas the virial theorem leads to masses $\sim15\%$ larger. The Jeans, caustic, and virial masses are respectively $\sim20\%$, $\sim30\%$, and $\sim50\%$ larger than the hydrostatic values. Large scatters of $\gtrsim50\%$ are mainly due to the two outliers RXCJ0014 and RXCJ1347; excluding the latter increases the mass ratios by $\sim10\%$, giving a fractional mass bias significant at $\gtrsim2\sigma$. We found a correlation between the dynamical-to-hydrostatic mass ratio and two substructure indicators, suggesting a bias in the dynamical measurements. The velocity dispersions of blue galaxies are $\sim15\%$ ($\sim25\%$ after removing the substructures) larger than that of the red-sequence galaxies; using the latter leads to dynamical masses $\sim10\%-15\%$ smaller. Discarding the galaxies part of substructures reduces the masses by $\sim15\%$; the effect is larger for the more massive clusters, owing to a higher level of substructures. After the substructure analysis, the dynamical masses are in perfect agreement with the hydrostatic values and the scatters around the mean ratios are divided by $\sim2$.