Papers › The Canadian Cluster Comparison Project: detailed study of systematics and updated...
The Canadian Cluster Comparison Project: detailed study of systematics and updated weak lensing masses
Henk Hoekstra, Ricardo Herbonnet, Adam Muzzin, Arif Babul, Andisheh Mahdavi, Massimo Viola, Marcello Cacciato
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Masses of clusters of galaxies from weak gravitational lensing analyses of ever larger samples are increasingly used as the reference to which baryonic scaling relations are compared. In this paper we revisit the analysis of a sample of 50 clusters studied as part of the Canadian Cluster Comparison Project. We examine the key sources of systematic error in cluster masses. We quantify the robustness of our shape measurements and calibrate our algorithm empirically using extensive image simulations. The source redshift distribution is revised using the latest state-of-the-art photometric redshift catalogs that include new deep near-infrared observations. Nonetheless we find that the uncertainty in the determination of photometric redshifts is the largest source of systematic error for our mass estimates. We use our updated masses to determine b, the bias in the hydrostatic mass, for the clusters detected by Planck. Our results suggest 1-b=0.76+-0.05(stat)}+-0.06(syst)}, which does not resolve the tension with the measurements from the primary cosmic microwave background.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections