Search

The primary difficulty in measuring dynamical masses of galaxy clusters from galaxy data lies in the separation between true cluster members from interloping galaxies along the line of sight. We study the impact of membership contamination and incompleteness on cluster mass estimates obtained with 25 commonly used techniques applied to nearly 1000 mock clusters. We show that all methods overestimate or underestimate cluster masses when applied to contaminated or incomplete galaxy samples respectively. This appears to be the main source of the intrinsic scatter in the mass scaling relation. Applying corrections based on a prior knowledge of contamination and incompleteness can reduce the scatter to the level of shot noise expected for poorly sampled clusters. We establish an empirical model quantifying the effect of imperfect membership on cluster mass estimation and discuss its universal and method-dependent features. We find that both imperfect membership and the response of the mass estimators depend on cluster mass, effectively causing a flattening of the estimated - true mass relation. Imperfect membership thus alters cluster counts determined from spectroscopic surveys, hence the cosmological parameters that depend on such counts., Comment: 18 pages, 11 figures, 3tables; accepted for publication in MNRAS

This article is the second in a series in which we perform an extensive comparison of various galaxy-based cluster mass estimation techniques that utilise the positions, velocities and colours of galaxies. Our aim is to quantify the scatter, systematic bias and completeness of cluster masses derived from a diverse set of 25 galaxy-based methods using two contrasting mock galaxy catalogues based on a sophisticated halo occupation model and a semi-analytic model. Analysing 968 clusters, we find a wide range in the RMS errors in log M200c delivered by the different methods (0.18 to 1.08 dex, i.e., a factor of ~1.5 to 12), with abundance matching and richness methods providing the best results, irrespective of the input model assumptions. In addition, certain methods produce a significant number of catastrophic cases where the mass is under- or over-estimated by a factor greater than 10. Given the steeply falling high-mass end of the cluster mass function, we recommend that richness or abundance matching-based methods are used in conjunction with these methods as a sanity check for studies selecting high mass clusters. We see a stronger correlation of the recovered to input number of galaxies for both catalogues in comparison with the group/cluster mass, however, this does not guarantee that the correct member galaxies are being selected. We do not observe significantly higher scatter for either mock galaxy catalogues. Our results have implications for cosmological analyses that utilise the masses, richnesses, or abundances of clusters, which have different uncertainties when different methods are used., 25 pages, 19 figures, 7 tables. Accepted for publication in MNRAS