Search

We use Dark Energy Survey Year 3 (DES Y3) clusters with archival XMM–Newton and Chandra X-ray data to assess the centring performance of the redMaPPer cluster finder and to measure key richness observable scaling relations. We find that 10–20 per cent of redMaPPer clusters are miscentred, both when comparing to the X-ray peak position and to the visually identified central cluster galaxy. We find no significant difference in miscentring in bins of low versus high richness or redshift. The dominant reasons for miscentring include masked or missing data and the presence of other bright galaxies in the cluster. For half of the miscentred clusters, the correct central was one of the possible centrals identified by redMaPPer, while for ∼40 per cent of miscentred clusters, the correct central is not a redMaPPer member mostly due to masking. Additionally, we fit scaling relations of X-ray temperature and luminosity with richness. We find a T X–λ scatter of |$0.21\pm 0.01$|⁠. While the scatter in T X–λ is consistent in redshift bins, we find modestly different slopes, with high-redshift clusters displaying a somewhat shallower relation. Splitting based on richness, we find a marginally larger scatter for our lowest richness bin, 20 < λ < 40. We note that the robustness of the scaling relations at lower richnesses is limited by the unknown selection function, but at λ > 75, we detect nearly all of the clusters falling within existing X-ray pointings. The X-ray properties of detected, serendipitous clusters are generally consistent with those of targeted clusters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We cross-match and compare characteristics of galaxy clusters identified in observations from two sky surveys using two completely different techniques. One sample is optically selected from the analysis of 3 years of Dark Energy Survey observations using the redMaPPer cluster detection algorithm. The second is X-ray selected from XMM observations analysed by the XMM Cluster Survey. The samples comprise a total area of 57.4 deg2, bounded by the area of four contiguous XMM survey regions that overlap the DES footprint. We find that the X-ray-selected sample is fully matched with entries in the redMaPPer catalogue, above λ > 20 and within 0.1 < |$z$| <0.9. Conversely, only 38 per cent of the redMaPPer catalogue is matched to an X-ray extended source. Next, using 120 optically clusters and 184 X-ray-selected clusters, we investigate the form of the X-ray luminosity–temperature (LX – TX), luminosity–richness (LX –λ), and temperature–richness (TX –λ) scaling relations. We find that the fitted forms of the LX – TX relations are consistent between the two selection methods and also with other studies in the literature. However, we find tentative evidence for a steepening of the slope of the relation for low richness systems in the X-ray-selected sample. When considering the scaling of richness with X-ray properties, we again find consistency in the relations (i.e. LX –λ and TX –λ) between the optical and X-ray-selected samples. This is contrary to previous similar works that find a significant increase in the scatter of the luminosity scaling relation for X-ray-selected samples compared to optically selected samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present the first comparison between properties of clusters of galaxies detected by the eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS) and the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS). We have compared, in an ensemble fashion, properties from the eFEDS X-ray cluster catalogue with those from the Ultimate X MM e X traga L actic (XXL) survey project (XXL-100-GC). We find the redshift and temperature (T X) distributions to be similar, with a larger proportion of clusters above 4 keV in the XXL-100-GC sample; fractional temperature uncertainties are significantly larger in eFEDS compared to XXL. We find 62 eFEDS cluster candidates with XMM data (eFEDS- XMM sample); 10 do not have good enough XMM data to confirm or deny, 11 are classed as sample contaminants, and 4 have their X-ray flux contaminated by another source. The majority of eFEDS- XMM sources have longer XMM exposures than eFEDS, and most eFEDS positions are within 100 kpc of XCS positions. Our eFEDS-XCS sample of 37 clusters is used to calculate minimum sample contamination fractions of ∼18 and ∼9 per cent in the eFEDS X-ray and optically confirmed samples, respectively, in general agreement with eFEDS findings. We directly compare 29 X-ray luminosities (L X) measured by eFEDS and XCS, finding excellent agreement. Eight clusters have a T X measured by XCS and eFEDS, and we find that XMM temperatures are 25 ± 9 per cent larger than their eROSITA counterparts. Finally, we construct L X– T X scaling relations based on eFEDS and XCS measurements, which are in tension; the tension is decreased when we measure a third scaling relation with calibrated XCS temperatures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present the X-ray analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR8 redMaPPer (SDSSRM) clusters using data products from the XMM Cluster Survey (XCS). In total, 1189 SDSSRM clusters fall within the XMM – Newton footprint. This has yielded 456 confirmed detections accompanied by X-ray luminosity (LX) measurements. Of these clusters, 381 have an associated X-ray temperature measurement (TX). This represents one of the largest samples of coherently derived cluster TX values to date. Our analysis of the X-ray observable to richness scaling relations has demonstrated that scatter in the TX –λ relation is roughly a third of that in the LX –λ relation, and that the LX –λ scatter is intrinsic, i.e. will not be significantly reduced with larger sample sizes. Analysis of the scaling relation between LX and TX has shown that the fits are sensitive to the selection method of the sample, i.e. whether the sample is made up of clusters detected 'serendipitously' compared to those deliberately targeted by XMM. These differences are also seen in the LX –λ relation and, to a lesser extent, in the TX –λ relation. Exclusion of the emission from the cluster core does not make a significant impact on the findings. A combination of selection biases is a likely, but yet unproven, reason for these differences. Finally, we have also used our data to probe recent claims of anisotropy in the LX – TX relation across the sky. We find no evidence of anistropy, but stress this may be masked in our analysis by the incomplete declination coverage of the SDSS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]