English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article is the second in a series in which we perform an extensivecomparison of various galaxy-based cluster mass estimation techniques thatutilise the positions, velocities and colours of galaxies. Our aim is toquantify the scatter, systematic bias and completeness of cluster massesderived from a diverse set of 25 galaxy-based methods using two contrastingmock galaxy catalogues based on a sophisticated halo occupation model and asemi-analytic model. Analysing 968 clusters, we find a wide range in the RMSerrors in log M200c delivered by the different methods (0.18 to 1.08 dex, i.e.,a factor of ~1.5 to 12), with abundance matching and richness methods providingthe best results, irrespective of the input model assumptions. In addition,certain methods produce a significant number of catastrophic cases where themass is under- or over-estimated by a factor greater than 10. Given the steeplyfalling high-mass end of the cluster mass function, we recommend that richnessor abundance matching-based methods are used in conjunction with these methodsas a sanity check for studies selecting high mass clusters. We see a strongercorrelation of the recovered to input number of galaxies for both catalogues incomparison with the group/cluster mass, however, this does not guarantee thatthe correct member galaxies are being selected. We do not observe significantlyhigher scatter for either mock galaxy catalogues. Our results have implicationsfor cosmological analyses that utilise the masses, richnesses, or abundances ofclusters, which have different uncertainties when different methods are used.

Galaxy Cluster Mass Reconstruction Project: II. Quantifying scatter and bias using contrasting mock catalogues