The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Self-calibration of cluster dark energy studies: Observable-mass distribution
Open accessAbstract
The exponential sensitivity of cluster number counts to the properties of the dark energy implies a comparable sensitivity to not only the mean but also the actual distribution of an observable-mass proxy given the true cluster mass. For example a 25% scatter in mass can provide a $\ensuremath{\sim}50%$ change in the number counts at $z\ensuremath{\sim}2$ for the upcoming SPT survey. Uncertainty in the scatter of this amount would degrade dark energy constraints to uninteresting levels. Given the shape of the actual mass function, the properties of the distribution may be internally monitored by the shape of the observable mass function. As a proof of principle, for a simple mass-independent Gaussian distribution the scatter may be self-calibrated to allow a measurement of the dark energy equation of state of $\ensuremath{\sigma}(w)\ensuremath{\sim}0.1$. External constraints on the mass variance of the distribution that are more accurate than $\ensuremath{\Delta}{\ensuremath{\sigma}}_{\mathrm{ln}M}^{2}<0.01$ at $z\ensuremath{\sim}1$ can further improve constraints by up to a factor of 2. More generally, cluster counts and their sample variance measured as a function of the observable provide internal consistency checks on the assumed form of the observable-mass distribution that will protect against misinterpretation of the dark energy constraints.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R., Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Kogut, A., et al. (2003) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1086/377226 · Cited by 10,976
Cited by
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT III: COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETER CONSTRAINTS
Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Burenin, R. A., Ebeling, H., Forman, W. R., Hornstrup, A., Jones, C., Murray, S. S., Nagai, D., Quintana, H., et al. (2009) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1060 · Cited by 1,080
THE LARGE-SCALE BIAS OF DARK MATTER HALOS: NUMERICAL CALIBRATION AND MODEL TESTS
Tinker, J. L., Robertson, B. E., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., Warren, M. S., Yepes, G., & Gottlöber, S. (2010) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/878 · Cited by 989
Dalal, N., Doré, O., Huterer, D., & Shirokov, A. (2008) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.123514 · Cited by 830
CHANDRA CLUSTER COSMOLOGY PROJECT. II. SAMPLES AND X-RAY DATA REDUCTION
Vikhlinin, A., Burenin, R. A., Ebeling, H., Forman, W. R., Hornstrup, A., Jones, C., Kravtsov, A. V., Murray, S. S., Nagai, D., Quintana, H., et al. (2009) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/2/1033 · Cited by 722
The Dependence of Halo Clustering on Halo Formation History, Concentration, and Occupation
Wechsler, R. H., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Allgood, B. (2006) · The Astrophysical Journal · doi:10.1086/507120 · Cited by 567
Metadata
- Authors
- Lima, M., & Hu, W.
- Venue
- Physical Review D
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2005-08-23
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-7998
- 1550-2368
- OpenAlex
- W1990220651
- Cited by
- 204
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Self-calibration of cluster dark energy studies: Observable-mass distribution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.72.043006
- The paper
- Lima, M., & Hu, W. (2005). Self-calibration of cluster dark energy studies: Observable-mass distribution. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.72.043006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.