Hydrostatic Mass Profiles of Galaxy Clusters in the eROSITA Survey

TL;DR

This study evaluates the accuracy of hydrostatic mass estimates of galaxy clusters using eROSITA-like data, finding good agreement in ideal conditions but overestimation in realistic, high-redshift scenarios.

Contribution

It introduces a method to test hydrostatic mass modeling with simulated eROSITA data, assessing biases and limitations in mass profile reconstructions.

Findings

Hydrostatic masses at true radii are accurate within 7% in ideal simulations.

Mass profile steepness increases in outskirts, especially at high redshift.

Hydrostatic mass estimates from true profiles align well with expectations.

Abstract

To assume hydrostatic equilibrium between the intracluster medium and the gravitational potential of galaxy clusters is an extensively used method to investigate their total masses. We want to test hydrostatic masses obtained with an observational code in the context of the SRG/eROSITA survey. We use the hydrostatic modeling code MBProj2 to fit surface-brightness profiles to simulated clusters with idealized properties as well as to a sample of 93 clusters taken from the Magneticum Pathfinder simulations. We investigate the latter under the assumption of idealized observational conditions and also for realistic eROSITA data quality. The comparison of the fitted cumulative total mass profiles and the true mass profiles provided by the simulations allows to gain knowledge about the reliability of our approach. Furthermore, we use the true profiles for gas density and pressure to compute hydrostatic mass profiles based on theory for every cluster. For an idealized cluster that was simulated to fulfill perfect hydrostatic equilibrium, we find that the cumulative total mass at the true $r_{500}$ and $r_{200}$ can be reproduced with deviations of less than 7%. For the clusters from the Magneticum Pathfinder simulations under idealized observational conditions, the median values of the fitted cumulative total masses at the true $r_{500}$ and $r_{200}$ are in agreement with our expectations, taking into account the hydrostatic mass bias. Nevertheless, we find a tendency towards a too high steepness of the cumulative total mass profiles in the outskirts. For realistic eROSITA data quality, this steepness problem intensifies for clusters with high redshifts and thus leads to too high cumulative total masses at $r_{200}$. For the hydrostatic masses based on the true profiles known from the simulations, we find a good agreement with our expectations concerning the hydrostatic mass.