Why are we still using 3D masses for cluster cosmology?
Stijn N.B. Debackere, Henk Hoekstra, Joop Schaye, Katrin Heitmann,, Salman Habib

TL;DR
This paper advocates for using aperture masses measured via weak lensing instead of traditional 3D masses for cluster cosmology, as they are more directly observable and less biased, leading to improved cosmological constraints.
Contribution
The study demonstrates that aperture masses correlate well with 3D masses and can be measured more precisely, offering a robust alternative for cluster-based cosmological analyses.
Findings
Aperture masses correlate strongly with 3D halo masses despite scatter.
Aperture masses can be measured 2-3 times more precisely than 3D masses.
Aperture mass function sensitivity to cosmological parameters is comparable or superior to 3D mass functions.
Abstract
The abundance of clusters of galaxies is highly sensitive to the late-time evolution of the matter distribution, since clusters form at the highest density peaks. However, the 3D cluster mass cannot be inferred without deprojecting the observations, introducing model-dependent biases and uncertainties due to the mismatch between the assumed and the true cluster density profile and the neglected matter along the sightline. Since projected aperture masses can be measured directly in simulations and observationally through weak lensing, we argue that they are better suited for cluster cosmology. Using the Mira-Titan suite of gravity-only simulations, we show that aperture masses correlate strongly with 3D halo masses, albeit with large intrinsic scatter due to the varying matter distribution along the sightline. Nonetheless, aperture masses can be measured times more…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
