CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation Theories

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE/ADVANCED CAMERA FOR SURVEYS CONFIRMATION OF THE DARK SUBSTRUCTURE IN A520

Open access
Jee, M. J., Hoekstra, H., Mahdavi, A., Babul, A.·2014·The Astrophysical Journal
DOI 10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/78
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a weak-lensing study of the cluster A520 based on Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) data. The excellent data quality provides a mean source density of ∼109 arcmin −2 , which improves both resolution and significance of the mass reconstruction compared to a previous study based on Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) images. We take care in removing instrumental effects such as the charge trailing due to radiation damage of the detector and the position-dependent point-spread function. This new ACS analysis confirms the previous claims that a substantial amount of dark mass is present between two luminous subclusters where we observe very little light. The centroid of the dark peak in the current ACS analysis is offset to the southwest by ∼1' with respect to the centroid from the WFPC2 analysis. Interestingly, this new centroid is in better agreement with the location where the X-ray emission is strongest, and the mass-to-light ratio estimated with this centroid is much higher (813 ± 78 M ☉ / L R ☉ ) than the previous value; the aperture mass with the WFPC2 centroid provides a consistent mass. Although we cannot provide a definite explanation for the dark peak, we discuss a revised scenario, wherein dark matter with a more conventional range (σ DM / m DM < 1 cm 2 g −1 ) of self-interacting cross-section can lead to the detection of this dark substructure. If supported by detailed numerical simulations, this hypothesis opens up the possibility that the A520 system can be used to establish a lower limit of the self-interacting cross-section of dark matter.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/78

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jee et al. (2014a) and Clowe et al. (2012) broadly agree on the main A520 peaks labeled 1 and 4, and both maps show extensions toward the H15 peak labeled 5.

    “The latter two analyses broadly agree, with clear agreement on the main peaks (labeled 1 and 4 here) and both maps showing extensions toward the H15 peak labeled 5.”

    From The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters (2018) · cites this paper as Jee et al. (2014a)

    Section 6, “Detailed Comparison with C12,” says the two A520 mass maps have similar overall large-scale distributions, supporting broad agreement. It describes an extension from P4 toward the paper’s P3′ location in the Clowe map, but does not establish that both maps show extensions toward the H15 peak labeled 5 or specifically identify agreement on peaks labeled 1 and 4 in the citing document. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The major disagreement between the two detailed lensing analyses of A520 is that Clowe et al. (2012) find a west-central peak near H15 peak 3, while Jee et al. (2014a) do not.

    “For our purposes, the major disagreement between the two detailed lensing analyses of A520 is that Clowe et al. (2012) find a west-central peak, in the rough vicinity of H15 peak 3, while Jee et al. (2014a) do not.”

    From The Mismeasure of Mergers: Revised Limits on Self-interacting Dark Matter in Merging Galaxy Clusters (2018) · cites this paper as Jee et al. (2014a)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Anderson, J., & Bedin, L. R. 2010, PASP, 122, 1035 · DOI
  2. Beckwith, S. V. W., Stiavelli, M., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1729 · DOI
  3. Bernstein, G. M. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2793 · DOI
  4. Bradač, M., Allen, S. W., Treu, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 959 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Clowe, D., Bradač, M., Gonzalez, A. H., et al. 2006, ApJL, 648, L109 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Clowe, D., Luppino, G. A., Kaiser, N., & Gioia, I. M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 540 · DOI
  7. Clowe, D., Markevitch, M., Bradač, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 128 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Coe, D., Benítez, N., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 926 · DOI
  9. Dawson, W. A. 2012, ApJ, 772, 131 · DOI
  10. Dawson, W. A., Wittman, D., Jee, M. J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 747, L42 · DOI
  11. Duffy, A. R., Schaye, J., Kay, S. T., & Dalla Vecchia, C. 2008, MNRAS, 390, L64 · DOI
  12. Fahlman, G., Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Woods, D. 1994, ApJ, 437, 56 · DOI
  13. Fischer, P., & Tyson, J. A. 1997, AJ, 114, 14 · DOI
  14. Giavalisco, M., Ferguson, H. C., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2004, ApJL, 600, L93 · DOI
  15. Hack, W., Busko, I., & Jedrzejewski, R. 2003, in ASP Conf. Ser. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E. Payne, R. I. Jedrzejewski, & R. N. Hook (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 453
  16. Hoekstra, H. 2001, A&A, 370, 743 · DOI
  17. Hoekstra, H. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 1155 · DOI
  18. Hoekstra, H., Donahue, M., Conselice, C. J., McNamara, B. R., & Voit, G. M. 2011, ApJ, 726, 48 · DOI
  19. Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., Kuijken, K., & van Dokkum, P. G. 2002, MNRAS, 333, 911 · DOI
  20. Jee, M. J., Blakeslee, J. P., Sirianni, M., et al. 2007a, PASP, 119, 1403 · DOI
  21. Jee, M. J., Dawson, K. S., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 59 · DOI
  22. Jee, M. J., Ford, H. C., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2007b, ApJ, 661, 728 · DOI
  23. Jee, M. J., Hughes, J. P., Menanteau, F., et al. 2013, arXiv:1309.5097 · arXiv
  24. Jee, M. J., Mahdavi, A., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 96 · DOI
  25. Jee, M. J., Rosati, P., Ford, H. C., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 672 · DOI
  26. Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Benítez, N., et al. 2005a, ApJ, 618, 46 · DOI
  27. Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ford, H. C., et al. 2005b, ApJ, 634, 813 · DOI
  28. Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ford, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 720 · DOI
  29. Kaiser, N., & Squires, G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 441 · DOI
  30. Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Broadhurst, T. 1995, ApJ, 449, 460 (KSB) · DOI
  31. Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 1996, ApJ, 467, 38 · DOI
  32. Koekemoer, A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., & Hack, W. 2002, in The 2002 HST Calibration Workshop, ed. S. Arribas, A. Koekemoer, & B. Whitmore (Baltimore: STScI), 337
  33. Mahdavi, A., Hoekstra, H., Babul, A., Balam, D. D., & Capak, P. L. 2007, ApJ, 668, 806 · DOI
  34. Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., Clowe, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 819 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Markevitch, M., Gonzalez, A. H., David, L., et al. 2002, ApJL, 567, L27 · DOI
  36. Markevitch, M., Govoni, F., Brunetti, G., & Jerius, D. 2005, ApJ, 627, 733 · DOI
  37. Massey, R. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L109 · DOI
  38. Melchior, P., & Viola, M. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2757 · DOI
  39. Merten, J., Coe, D., Dupke, R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 333 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Randall, S. W., Markevitch, M., Clowe, D., Gonzalez, A. H., & Bradač, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1173 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Refregier, A., Kacprzak, T., Amara, A., Bridle, S., & Rowe, B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1951 · DOI
  42. Schrabback, T., Hartlap, J., Joachimi, B., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A63 · DOI
  43. Sheldon, E. S., Johnston, D. E., Masjedi, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 2232 · DOI
  44. Soucail, G. 2012, A&A, 540, A61 · DOI
  45. Springel, V., & Farrar, G. R. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 911 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jee, M. J., Hoekstra, H., Mahdavi, A., & Babul, A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Jee, M. J.
ORCID
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Published
2014-02-19
Volume
783
Issue
2
Pages
78
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
DOI
10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/78
OpenAlex
W1963676207
Cited by
78
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 3
FWCI
7.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (PHY11- 25915, 0551164, 1066293, 25915)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (PHY11-25915)
  • Aspen Center for Physics (1066293, PHYS-1066293)
  • Space Telescope Science Institute
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (639.042.814)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (PHY-11-25915, PHY05-51164)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
dark matter substructure, weak gravitational lensing, cluster mass reconstruction, mass-to-light ratio, self-interacting dark matter, dark matter self-interaction cross section, X-ray emission, point spread function correction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review