Miscentring of optical galaxy clusters based on Sunyaev–Zeldovich counterparts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The ‘miscentring effect’, i.e. the offset between a galaxy cluster’s optically defined centre and the centre of its gravitational potential, is a significant systematic effect on brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) studies and cluster lensing analyses. We perform a cross-match between the optical cluster catalogue from the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) Survey S19A Data Release and the Sunyaev–Zeldovich cluster catalogue from Data Release 5 of the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT). We obtain a sample of 186 clusters in common in the redshift range $0.1 \le z \le 1.4$ over an area of 469 deg$^2$. By modelling the distribution of centring offsets in this fiducial sample, we find a miscentred fraction (corresponding to clusters offset by more than 330 kpc) of ∼25 per cent, a value consistent with previous miscentring studies. We examine the image of each miscentred cluster in our sample and identify one of several reasons to explain the miscentring. Some clusters show significant miscentring for astrophysical reasons, i.e. ongoing cluster mergers. Others are miscentred due to non-astrophysical, systematic effects in the HSC data or the cluster-finding algorithm. After removing all clusters with clear, non-astrophysical causes of miscentring from the sample, we find a considerably smaller miscentred fraction, $\sim 10~\,\rm per\,cent$. We show that the gravitational lensing signal within 1 Mpc of miscentred clusters is considerably smaller than that of well-centred clusters, and we suggest that the ACT SZ centres are a better estimate of the true cluster potential centroid.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".