Cluster mass calibration at high redshift: HST weak lensing analysis of 13 distant galaxy clusters from the South Pole Telescope Sunyaev–Zel'dovich Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an HST/Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) weak gravitational lensing analysis of 13 massive high-redshift (zmedian = 0.88) galaxy clusters discovered in the South Pole Telescope (SPT) Sunyaev–Zel'dovich Survey. This study is part of a larger campaign that aims to robustly calibrate mass–observable scaling relations over a wide range in redshift to enable improved cosmological constraints from the SPT cluster sample. We introduce new strategies to ensure that systematics in the lensing analysis do not degrade constraints on cluster scaling relations significantly. First, we efficiently remove cluster members from the source sample by selecting very blue galaxies in V − I colour. Our estimate of the source redshift distribution is based on Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS) data, where we carefully mimic the source selection criteria of the cluster fields. We apply a statistical correction for systematic photometric redshift errors as derived from Hubble Ultra Deep Field data and verified through spatial cross-correlations. We account for the impact of lensing magnification on the source redshift distribution, finding that this is particularly relevant for shallower surveys. Finally, we account for biases in the mass modelling caused by miscentring and uncertainties in the concentration–mass relation using simulations. In combination with temperature estimates from Chandra we constrain the normalization of the mass–temperature scaling relation ln (E(z)M500c/1014 M⊙) = A + 1.5ln (kT/7.2 keV) to \nA=1.81+0.24−0.14(stat.)±0.09(sys.) \nA=1.81−0.14+0.24(stat.)±0.09(sys.) \n \n, consistent with self-similar redshift evolution when compared to lower redshift samples. Additionally, the lensing data constrain the average concentration of the clusters to \nc200c=5.6+3.7−1.8 \nc200c=5.6−1.8+3.7.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".