The XXL survey. Jon Willis, Marguerite Pierre, Florian Pacaud, Ben Maughan, Maggie Lieu, Sebastien Lavoie, Adam Mantz et al.

Transcription

1 The XXL survey Jon Willis, Marguerite Pierre, Florian Pacaud, Ben Maughan, Maggie Lieu, Sebastien Lavoie, Adam Mantz et al.

2 The XXL survey Survey outline The 100 brightest cluster sample Early results on scaling relations BCG evolution & distant clusters

3 XMM-XXL project 10 ks XMM survey / 2 25 deg 2 fields Expect > 500 clusters, 20,000 AGN XMM VLP (3 Ms over AO10/11) Collaboration of >100 scientists worldwide Goals: Understand cluster scaling relations Goals: Competitive calculation of dark energy equation of state.

4 CFHTLS ugriz & DECam iz Spitzer IRAC 1/2 ESO LP spectroscopic program

5 The X-ray pipeline Pacaud et al. 2006

6 The cluster sample

7 Cluster detection efficiency

8 Cluster detection efficiency

9 The 100 brightest cluster sample Growth curve analysis for 200 brightest C1+C2 Retain 100 brightest: quote 1 arcmin aperture flux Apparent flux cut of cts/s or 3e-14 cgs Explicit selection function N(z) identical to full XXL Redshift distribution Full XXL = 267 clusters with spectro-z (so far) Comparable north/south distribution 96/100 spectroscopic redshifts

10 The XXL brightest C1/C2 1 arcmin aperture flux Median z=0.3, T=3 kev T(<300 kpc), L(<R500) R500 from internal MT relation 38 clusters with MWL from CFHTLenS data. Slope mildly inconsistent with self similar. M. Lieu

11 The XXL brightest C1/C2 1 arcmin aperture flux Median z=0.3, T=3 kev T(<300 kpc), L(<R500) R500 from internal MT relation 38 clusters with MWL from CFHTLenS data. Slope mildly inconsistent with self similar. M. Lieu

12 Cluster LT likelihood Calculate P(data model) via a Bayesian analysis How to generate a realistic model? 1. Sample a population from TF (really use a MF piped through M-T). 2. Assign L from reference LT 3. Add intrinsic and statistical scatter 4. Apply selection function P. Giles and B. Maughan

13 Cluster LT likelihood Correct model must describe both number and properties of observed clusters (Mantz et al. 2010). Fix Tinker MF (WMAP9), use MF to create TF. Fit LT relation: slope, normalisation, scatter. Selection function P(inc FX,rc) assumes B=2/3 and rc=0.15r500. P. Giles and B. Maughan

14 XXL-100 LT relation Compare BCES orthogonal fit to full likelihood analysis. XXL-100 is not highly biased: normalisation from BCES is 30% too high at 3 kev. Slope B=2.5 ± 0.1 using soft band LT Bolometric slope = 3.0 ± 0.1 Scatter is 50 ± 10 % Evolution: γ = 1.9±0.7, stronger than self-similar is preferred.

15 XXL-100: BCG evolution Compare BCG stellar mass and cluster MWL. Compare to measures of cluster relaxation. All XXL-100 BCGs are red and dead. Cluster masses too low to generate strong CCs. Cluster mass (M ) set > 0.1 r r500 < O set < 0.1 r500 O set < 0.05 r500 BCGs grow via dry, minor mergers BCG mass (M ) S. Lavoie

16 XXL-100: BCG evolution Compare BCG stellar mass and cluster MWL. Compare to measures of cluster relaxation. All XXL-100 BCGs are red and dead. Cluster masses too low to generate strong CCs. Cluster mass (M ) set > 0.1 r r500 < O set < 0.1 r500 O set < 0.05 r500 BCGs grow via dry, minor mergers BCG mass (M ) S. Lavoie

17 XXL-100: BCG evolution Compare BCG stellar mass and cluster MWL. Compare to measures of cluster relaxation. All XXL-100 BCGs are red and dead. Cluster masses too low to generate strong CCs. Cluster mass (M ) set > 0.1 r r500 < O set < 0.1 r500 O set < 0.05 r500 BCGs grow via dry, minor mergers BCG mass (M ) S. Lavoie

18 XXL-100: BCG evolution Compare BCG stellar mass and cluster MWL. Compare to measures of cluster relaxation. All XXL-100 BCGs are red and dead. Cluster masses too low to generate strong CCs. Cluster mass (M ) set > 0.1 r r500 < O set < 0.1 r500 O set < 0.05 r500 BCGs grow via dry, minor mergers BCG mass (M ) S. Lavoie

19 Merger Pos. merger No merger Merger Pos. merger No merger csb m BCG o set (r500) BCG o set (r500)

20 Distant clusters in XXL <z<2.2 clusters selected from 9 deg 2 XMM-LSS subarea (Willis et al. 2013). Stand out candidate is a zphot=1.9 X+SZ cluster (Mantz et al. 2015). Compared sample to SpARCS IRAC selected clusters in same field. Distant X-ray selected clusters are a dynamically relaxed subset of the massive cluster population

21 Blue = X-ray Black = IRAC w/ Adam Muzzin

22 Blue = X-ray Black = IRAC w/ Adam Muzzin

23 X-ray selected clusters are more compact than IRAC selected clusters. Blue = X-ray Black = IRAC w/ Adam Muzzin

24 X-ray selected clusters are more compact than IRAC selected clusters. Preferentially relaxed systems - dynamical friction rules Blue = X-ray Black = IRAC w/ Adam Muzzin

25 X-ray selected clusters are more compact than IRAC selected clusters. Preferentially relaxed systems - dynamical friction rules X-ray faint / bright IRAC clusters are suspiciously devoid of central starlight. Blue = X-ray Black = IRAC w/ Adam Muzzin

26 X-ray selected clusters are more compact than IRAC selected clusters. Preferentially relaxed systems - dynamical friction rules X-ray faint / bright IRAC clusters are suspiciously devoid of central starlight. Absent in deep X-ray stacks - Projections Blue = X-ray Black = IRAC w/ Adam Muzzin

27 Summary XXL observations (near) complete. Spectroscopic and imaging follow-up also at an advanced stage. First results papers soon: XXL-100 sample (Pacaud), LT relation (Giles) and MT relation (Lieu).

28 Additional slides

29 Selection Aperture flux estimate for the 200 brightest C2 clusters (according to pipeline total flux) Measurements by N. Clerc # Keep the 100 brightest in 1 aperture for early release Final flux cut of cts/s or 3x10-14 erg/s/cm 2 All sources prioritized for spectroscopic redshift follow-up (still 4 missing)

30 Redshift distribution Full XXL = 267 clusters with spectro-z (so far) Comparable north/south distribution

31 Selection function of the bright sample C2 selection ( t exp, background, off-axis ) Flux cut P(CR 60 ) = 1 ( " 2 1+ erf CR 60 CR % + $ cut ' * ) # $ 2 CR60 &' -, = 1 pointing Independent detection process over two pointings X 1 and X 2 P X1 X 2 =1" ( 1" P )( X1 1" P ) X2 r c = 20 CR = 0.05 cts/s

32 Final selection function Geometric area North: 24.8 deg2 South: 22.4 deg2 Total : 47.2 deg2

33 XXL-100 LT Evolution We find = 0.6 +/- 0.6 Consistent with SS or null evolution Reichert+ (2011) - partial selection function Hilton+ (2012) - no bias modelling Clerc+ (2014) - partial bias modelling z L obs /L model

34 XXL-100 LT Relation Cool core status defined by surface brightness concentration Includes PSF modelling SCC clusters high on average, as expected (erg s 1 ) L X E(z) " 2 /h SCC WCC NCC kt (kev)

35 Selection Function A&A proofs: manuscript no. XXL-II-b-FP Simple flux limits not realistic for XMM n (2003), and allow for a variable particle backy applying a rescaling factor b to the instrumenlevel. The complete selection function was eso axis angle bins for several values of the exkground values in the range 3 ks< texp <40 ks 4. For each value of b and texp, the C1+2 detecis estimated for total XMM count-rates spanning 0.5 ct/s and core radii in the range 10< Rc < bins of o axis angle: 0-4, 4-7, 7-10 and 10- Surface brightness determines cluster detection - analytical a given observed pointing, approximation the average exposure forward to evaluate, this is not the case for the b using β profile clusters his purpose, we use a least square matching proin XXLestimated fields by the pipeline mpares the background t the position of the detected sources, to the same include AGN ed from the simulations. We thenfrom interpolate our ons to the proper b and texp. logn-logs - the flux cut P(inc rc, Fx) count-rate limit on the aperture flux would be ent, the flux estimates based on the GCA are af- Fig. 8. Combined selection function of the bright XXL cluster sample, displayed as probability contours in the CR Rc plane.