Clusters of Galaxies (SWG+OULE3) simulaLon requirements LAURO - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Clusters of Galaxies (SWG+OULE3) simulaLon requirements LAURO MOSCARDINI (on behalf of CG‐SWG and OULE3 Clusters) DIP. FISICA E ASTRONOMIA, UNIBO LAURO.MOSCARDINI@UNIBO.IT Euclid CSWG meeLng, Barcelona, 4 th ‐5 th December 2014

Conclusions The majority of our ac0vi0es, mostly at the level of OU‐LE3 (but also of SWG), will have strong criLcaliLes if we don’t have soon a new ‘good’ set of mock catalogues!

Why do we need simulaLons? OU‐LE3 Clusters of Galaxies ImplementaLon WPs  Galaxy Cluster detecLon  • Purity and completeness of Cluster catalogues • Richness • Mean redshiI • Velocity dispersion • Weak lensing masses • Cluster luminosity func0on • Cluster stellar mass func0on • Radial profile • Similar to 2‐point correlaLon funcLon of clusters • Power spectrum of clusters • what done 3‐point correlaLon funcLon • for Galaxy Bispectrum of clusters • Covariance matrix of the cluster 2‐point corr. funct. • Clustering Covariance matrix of the cluster power spectrum •

Why do we need simulaLons? Clusters of Galaxies SWG WPs Sample selec0on • Mass modelling • Likelihood • StaLsLcs on cluster samples: including CalibraLon of • halo mass and bias: effects of baryons and non‐ standard DM and cosmological models Mass‐observable relaLon • ValidaLon • Astrophysics of Galaxy Clusters • External Data •

Cluster detecLon with Euclid Given the amount and quality of the Euclid data , there are at least three main ways available: from the photometric survey • from the spectroscopic survey • from the cosmic shear survey • (but also from strong lensing features, etc. …) and, of course, from a combinaLon of the previous methods and/or including informa0on from external data in other wavelengths

Cluster idenLficaLon: this is at moment our bo`leneck Cluster idenLficaLon makes quite strong requirements on mocks: we require galaxies to be “painted” in such a way that observed environmental dependence of the galaxy popula0on is decently reproduced (unlike for WL, and, to first approxima0on, for GC). For our immediate needs, we don’t want to study galaxy forma0on  HOD mocks are probably fine for us. BeZer to have a fully phenomenological (but realisLc) and flexible descripLon of how galaxies are distributed, rather than a physically mo0vated descrip0on of galaxy forma0on from “first principles”.

What has been done up to now? 2 different rounds of the Cluster finder challenge (see the internal report EC_CFC1_V1.0.pdf) Seven different cluster finder algorithms were applied to the same set of mock catalogues built to reproduce the forthcoming Euclid photometric survey. The mock used: Durham Extracted by A. Cappi from the 500 degree 2 H‐band light‐ cone limited to H AB ≤24 provided by C. Baugh and A. Merson. A photometric redshie has been assigned from a Gaussian distribu0on with a precision mimicking the expected Euclid performances. Catastrophic failures also included. Matching has been done w.r.t. the catalogue of halos having at least M≤10 13 M sun and 5 members.

Completeness(M,z) Mass Courtesy: S. Farrens et al. RedshiI

Purity vs. Completeness z<0.9 z>0.9 Completeness Completeness Courtesy: A. Iovino et al.

“Problems” with the Durham mocks cluster galaxies are not red enough: the sequence is too • blue and there are small differences w.r.t. to field galaxies galaxy density profiles are not well reproducing real • data unrealis0c tails in the velocity distribuLon inside high‐z • clusters  no way to use them to study velocity dispersion no Halpha emi`ers in clusters (SAM kill star‐forming • galaxies in clusters)  no way to use them to understand the spectroscopic selec0on func0on unclear defini0on of the halo properLes (mass, center, • …)

No red sequence at z>1 Red sequence is necessary to strengthen detecLons! Black Points: a simulated cluster at z=1.4 with M=2 10 14 Blue circles : a real high‐z cluster (XMMU J235‐25587) Bardelli

Galaxy density profiles 100 SDSS profile MICE profile Clusters with: Durham profile mass around galaxy number density (Mpc/h) -2 10 M fof =10 14 M sun 0.2<z<0.3 1 H<18 0.1 Roncarelli/Bellagamba 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 radius (Mpc/h)

Halpha galaxies The Halpha selected sample avoids the cosmic structures delineated by H‐band selected galaxies Orange/Red points : galaxies H‐band selected Blue/Black points : Halpha galaxies in ‘groups’ Cyan Points: Halpha galaxies in the field Iovino/CucciaL

6/27/14 Paris Clusters

Tests on the MICE simulaLons: Counts in H band too shallow: incomplete at H>21 and only up to z=1.4 Contribu0ons from: S. Bardelli, F. Bellagamba, A. Cappi, S. Maurogordato, M. Roncarelli, M. Vannier

Tests on the MICE simulaLons: Red sequence at z=0.5 in the right posi0on CLASH cluster, Mercurio et al.

Tests on the MICE simulaLons: Red sequence at higher redshie Some BCG in the JH plane are too blue and there is a too large spread in J‐H Black Points: a simulated cluster at z=1.2 Red points: galaxies in clusters Green circles: central galaxies Blue circles: a real cluster (XMMU J235‐25587) Magenta star: expected color for a passive galaxy at z=1.4

Our Christmas (?!) wishlist i.e. What we urgently need (I) 1) A mock catalogue (past‐light cone) with all galaxies, selected down to the nominal limi0ng apparent magnitudes of Euclid (and possibly Pan‐STARSS and DES). To be on the safe side, one should include all the galaxies that sa0sfy at least one of the Euclid photometric magnitude limits (preferred H=24 ?) and Halpha limit . For these galaxies, we need the real redshie , the observed redshie , the photometric redshie P(z), the peculiar velocity and the possible membership in dark haloes. Different implementaLons of galaxy formaLon would allow to take into account our ignorance of cluster proper0es at high‐z. The mock must cover a sufficiently large volume (possibly 15000 deg 2 )

What we urgently need (II) 2) A catalogue of all dark ma`er halos above a given limi0ng mass (e.g. 10^13 solar masses) with: ‐ posi0on of the centre (as minimum of the gravita0onal poten0al) ‐ M_delta and r_delta at different delta overdensi0es (e.g. 2500, 500, 200, and delta=virial with respect to cri0cal density at the halo redshiI) ‐ velocity dispersions from DM par0cles along three cartesian axes ‐ mass density profiles ‐ possible galaxy membership 3) The corresponding Euclid shear maps for weak lensing detec0on/mass calibra0on/etc. 4) The corresponding X‐ray and SZ maps to test the possible improvement of detec0ons and mass es0mates with external data (eRosita, Planck, ACT, etc.)  less urgent but important!

Conclusions The majority of our ac0vi0es, mostly at the level of OU‐LE3 (but also of SWG), will have strong criLcaliLes if we don’t have soon a new ‘good’ set of mock catalogues! QuesLon Which SWG or OU is going to address our requirements?