X-ray morphology of cluster-mass haloes in self-interacting dark matter

TL;DR

This study uses cosmological simulations and X-ray observations to compare the shapes of galaxy cluster halos in self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) and cold dark matter (CDM) models, finding SIDM with moderate cross-sections better matches observed X-ray morphologies.

Contribution

It provides the first direct comparison of simulated SIDM and CDM cluster X-ray morphologies with real observations, constraining SIDM cross-sections based on shape analysis.

Findings

SIDM halos are more spherical than CDM halos.

Observed X-ray shapes favor SIDM with cross-section 0.5-1 cm²/g.

CDM and low-cross-section SIDM are statistically disfavored at 68% confidence.

Abstract

We perform cosmological zoom-in simulations of $19$ relaxed cluster-mass haloes with the inclusion of adiabatic gas in the cold dark matter (CDM) and self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) models. These clusters are selected as dynamically relaxed clusters from a parent simulation with $M_{\rm 200} \simeq 1\operatorname{-}3\times 10^{15}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$. Both the dark matter and the intracluster gas distributions in SIDM appear more spherical than their CDM counterparts. Mock X-ray images are generated based on the simulations and are compared to the real X-ray images of $84$ relaxed clusters selected from the Chandra and ROSAT archives. We perform ellipse fitting for the isophotes of mock and real X-ray images and obtain the ellipticities at cluster-centric radii of $r\simeq 0.1\operatorname{-}0.2\,R_{\rm 200}$. The X-ray isophotes in SIDM models with increasing cross-sections are rounder than their CDM counterparts, which manifests as a systematic shift in the distribution function of ellipticities. Unexpectedly, the X-ray morphology of the observed non-cool-core clusters agrees better with SIDM models with cross-section $(\sigma/m)= 0.5\operatorname{-}1~{\rm cm}^2/{\rm g}$ than CDM and SIDM with $(\sigma/m)=0.1\,{\rm cm}^2/{\rm g}$. Our statistical analysis indicates that the latter two models are disfavored at the $68\%$ confidence level (as conservative estimates). This conclusion is not altered by shifting the radial range of measurements or applying temperature selection criterion. However, the primary uncertainty originates from the lack of baryonic physics in the adiabatic model, such as cooling, star formation and feedback effects, which still have the potential to reconcile CDM simulations with observations.