from the thermal SZ power spectrum - arXiv · the future CMB/SZ experiments (e.g., CCAT and SPT-3G) to predict their ability to breakthe parameterdegeneraciesand con-strain cluster

arX

iv:1

412.

6023

v2 [

astr

o-ph

.CO

] 25

Aug

201

5Astronomy& Astrophysicsmanuscript no. tSZps_paper_edited_arXiv c©ESO 2018August 13, 2018

Constraining the intracluster pressure profilefrom the thermal SZ power spectrum

M. E. Ramos-Ceja⋆, K. Basu, F. Pacaud, and F. Bertoldi

Argelander-Institut für Astronomie, University of Bonn, Auf dem Hügel 71, 53121 Bonn, Germanye-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]

Received ... ; accepted ...

ABSTRACT

The angular power spectrum of the thermal Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (tSZ) effect is highly sensitive to cosmological parameters such asσ8 andΩm, but its use as a precision cosmological probe is hindered bythe astrophysical uncertainties in modeling the gas pressureprofile in galaxy groups and clusters. In this paper we assumethat the relevant cosmological parameters are accurately known andexplore the ability of current and future tSZ power spectrummeasurements to constrain the intracluster gas pressure orthe evolutionof the gas mass fraction,fgas. We use the CMB bandpower measurements from the South Pole Telescope and a Bayesian MarkovChain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to quantify deviations fromthe standard, universal gas pressure model. We explore analyticalmodel extensions that bring the predictions for the tSZ power into agreement with experimental data. We find that a steeper pressureprofile in the cluster outskirts or an evolvingfgas have mild-to-severe conflicts with experimental data or simulations. Varying morethan one parameter in the pressure model leads to strong degeneracies that cannot be broken with current observational constraints.We use simulated bandpowers from future tSZ survey experiments, in particular a possible 2000 deg2 CCAT survey, to show thatfuture observations can provide almost an order of magnitude better precision on the same model parameters. This will allow us tobreak the current parameter degeneracies and place simultaneous constraints on the gas pressure profile and its redshift evolution, forexample.

Key words. galaxies: clusters: general - galaxies: clusters: intracluster medium

1. Introduction

The scattering imprint of the cosmic microwave background(CMB) radiation from the hot, thermalized electrons in the intra-cluster medium (ICM) is known as the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ)effect (Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1972, 1980), which is playing anincreasingly important role in the cosmological and astrophysi-cal research using galaxy clusters. The SZ effect is generally di-vided into two distinct processes: the kinetic SZ (kSZ) effect de-scribes the anisotropic scattering due to the cluster bulk motion,while the thermal SZ (tSZ) effect describes the inverse Comptonscattering of the CMB photons by the thermal distribution ofhotelectrons in the ICM, which is proportional to the line-of-sightintegral of the electron pressure. For the tSZ effect, the energygain by the CMB photons gives rise to a specific spectral de-pendence of the tSZ signal, such that below roughly 217 GHz,clusters appear as a decrement and above as an increment in theCMB surface brightness. Because the tSZ surface brightnessisindependent of the redshift of the scattering source, it providesa powerful means to study the structure and dynamics of the hotintracluster gas throughout cosmic history.

Apart from observing individual clusters, the tSZ effectcan also be detected in a statistical sense through the excesspower over the primordial CMB anisotropies, coming from allthe resolved and unresolved galaxy groups and clusters in aCMB map. Unlike the optical and X-ray observables, the red-shift independence of the tSZ signal makes this “confusion

⋆ Member of the International Max Planck Research School (IM-PRS) for Astronomy and Astrophysics at the Universities of Bonn andCologne.

noise” a significant source of temperature anisotropies at mil-limeter/submillimeter wavelengths in the arcmin scale regime,where the primordial CMB anisotropies are damped exponen-tially. Similar to the cluster number counts, the tSZ anisotropysignal is sensitive to the same set of cosmological parameters be-cause its contribution comes primarily from the hot (& 1 keV),ionized ICM bound to groups and clusters (e.g.,Hernández-Monteagudo et al. 2006). The amplitude of the tSZ power spec-trum depends roughly on the eighth power ofσ8, the rms am-plitude of the matter density fluctuations and on the third powerof Ωm (Komatsu & Seljak 2002; Trac et al. 2011). However, thetSZ power receives significant contribution from the low mass,high redshifts objects. This seriously hinders its use as a pre-cision cosmological probe, since the thermodynamic propertiesof these systems are not well constrained from direct observa-tions. Thus, the astrophysical uncertainties in modeling the tSZpower spectrum are too large to place significant constraints oncosmological parameters. Consequently, attention has moved tomeasuring the higher order statistics of the correlation function,such as the tSZ bispectrum, which arises mostly from massivesystems at intermediate redshifts and is therefore less prone toastrophysical systematics (e.g.,Rubiño-Martín & Sunyaev 2003;Bhattacharya et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2012).

As the measurement precision of the cosmological parame-ters improves from other methods, the use of the tSZ power spec-trum in cosmology can be reversed. The tSZ power can then beused as a probe for measuring the distribution and evolutionofthe intracluster gas, down to low cluster masses and up to highredshifts, where direct observations are difficult. Similar argu-ments have been presented by several authors (e.g.,Shaw et al.

Article number, page 1 of15

http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6023v2

A&A proofs:manuscript no. tSZps_paper_edited_arXiv

2010; Battaglia et al. 2012a), although a quantitative comparisonbetween the results of analytical cluster pressure models and theobservations of the tSZ power spectrum has been lacking. It isalso of great interest to know how the future ground-based SZsurveys may constrain the intracluster gas models because theirresolutions are better suited to constraining the shape of the tSZpower spectrum.

The amplitude of the tSZ power spectrum was predicted an-alytically by Komatsu & Seljak(2002), with an expected valueof 8 − 10 µK2 aroundℓ = 3000. Later semi-analytic modelingpredicted similar values (Sehgal et al. 2010), but experimentalresults have confirmed these early predictions to be too high. Thefirst conclusive measurement of the combined tSZ+kSZ powerspectrum came from the South Pole Telescope (SPT;Luekeret al. 2010). Successive data releases from the SPT and ACT (At-acama Cosmology Telescope) have provided increasingly sensi-tive and consistent measurements of the tSZ power on arcminutescales (ℓ ∼ few × 1000) where the contributions from galaxygroups and clusters are expected to peak (Shirokoff et al. 2011;Dunkley et al. 2011; Reichardt et al. 2012; Sievers et al. 2013;George et al. 2015). Recent results from thePlanck spacecraftare also consistent with the SPT value within 2σ (Planck Col-laboration et al. 2014b), although thePlanck resolution cannotresolve the position of the peak of the tSZ power, and is moresensitive on roughly degree angular scales. At these low multi-poles, the two-halo correlation term might be important, orthecontribution from the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM)might dominate (e.g.,Suárez-Velásquez et al. 2013).

In this work we adopt the SPT measurement of CMB band-powers fromReichardt et al.(2012), which constrained the peakamplitude of the tSZ power spectrum at 150 GHz at 3.65 ±0.69 µK2. This value is less than half of what was predictedfrom early semi-analytic cluster models. The source of thisdis-crepancy has been investigated in several works, followingana-lytic and semi-analytic modeling (Shaw et al. 2010; Trac et al.2011), as well as full hydrodynamical simulations (Battagliaet al. 2012a; McCarthy et al. 2014). These authors identify sev-eral physical processes that can produce a lower amplitude of thetSZ power, namely the turbulent bulk motions of the intraclus-ter gas, feedback from supernovae and AGN – plus the redshiftevolution of these quantities – that cause cluster properties to de-viate from a simple self-similar scaling. The uncertainties in theimplementation of various astrophysical processes in these semi-analytical or numerical models remain sufficiently high (∼ 30%,e.g.,Shaw et al. 2010), such that cosmological constraints usingtemplate models for the tSZ power spectrum are generally notthe most competitive.

We aim to make a detailed comparison between analyticalmodels for the intracluster pressure and the latest tSZ powerspectrum data, such that errors on the model parameters canbe derived directly from observations. This contrasts withear-lier analytic or semi-analytic works that were compared againstsimulation predictions. We set up a Markov Chain Monte Carlo(MCMC) based method to explore the range of possible valuesin the selected pressure model from a set of CMB bandpowermeasurements, obtaining the full covariance between thesepa-rameters. This also allows us to use simulated bandpowers fromthe future CMB/SZ experiments (e.g., CCAT and SPT-3G) topredict their ability to break the parameter degeneracies and con-strain cluster physics.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section2 we de-scribe the “halo model” for computing the tSZ power spectrum,followed-by its measurement technique, and outline our proce-dure to constrain cluster model parameters from the SPT data.

Section3 summarizes the current knowledge on the cluster pres-sure structure which will provide the baseline of our work. Sec-tion 4 presents our attempts to reconcile the tSZ power spec-trum model predictions and available measurements, using al-tered pressure models. In Section5 we extend our analysis tofuture SZ cluster survey experiments, and discuss the impact ofcosmological parameter uncertainties on the results. We summa-rize our work in Section6 and present conclusions. Through-out this work we assume aΛCDM cosmology withh = 0.71,Ωm = 0.264,Ωb = 0.044,ΩΛ = 0.736,ns = 0.96, andσ8 = 0.81(Komatsu et al. 2011).

2. Method

In this Section we describe the halo formalism for computingthe tSZ power spectrum, and the observation and modeling ofthe microwave sky that we use in a Bayesian MCMC formalismto constrain cluster pressure model parameters.

2.1. Analytical estimate of the tSZ power spectrum

2.1.1. From the halo model to the power spectrum

The tSZ power spectrum consists of one-halo and two-halo con-tributions. The one-halo term results from the Comptonizationprofile of individual halos in a Poisson distributed population,while the two-halo term accounts for the two-point correlationfunction between individual halos. For intermediate to small an-gular scales (ℓ & 1000), which correspond to the angular sizeof individual galaxy clusters (θ . 10′), Komatsu & Kitayama(1999) showed that the one-halo Poisson term is by far the domi-nant contribution. Following their prescription, the analytical ex-pression of the tSZ power reduces to the formula

Cℓ = f 2ν (x)∫ zmax

0dz

dVdz

∫ Mmax

Mmin

dMdn(M, z)

dM|yℓ(M, z)|2. (1)

HeredV/dz is the co-moving volume of the Universe per unitredshift z, yℓ is the spherical harmonics decomposition of thesky-projected Comptony−parameter,dn(M, z)/dM is the darkmatter halo mass function,fν(x) is the spectral function of thetSZ effect given by

fν(x) =(

xex + 1ex − 1

− 4)

[1 + δSZ(x)], (2)

wherex ≡ 2π~ν/kBTCMB, andδSZ(x) is the relativistic correctionto the frequency dependence. The reduced Planck constant is~,kB is the Boltzmann constant, andTCMB is the CMB temperature.We do not include relativistic corrections tofν(x) as they havea negligible effect at the temperatures of groups and low-massclusters which dominate the tSZ power spectrum.

The integral in Eq.1 is insensitive toz & 4 due to the ab-sence of sufficiently massive halos. In our calculations, we thusset the upper redshift boundary tozmax = 6. Similarly, to cover amaximum critical mass range for galaxy groups and clusters,wesetMmin = 1012 h−1 M⊙ andMmax = 1016 h−1 M⊙. We use themass function obtained byTinker et al.(2008).

From Komatsu & Seljak(2002), the spherical harmonicscontribution of a given Comptony−parameter profile on angularscaleℓ is given by

yℓ(M, z) =4πr500

l2c

∫

dr′r′ 2y3D(M, z, r′)sin(ℓr′/lc)ℓr′/lc

, (3)


M. E. Ramos-Ceja et al.: ICM constraints from the tSZ power spectrum

where r′ ≡ r/r500 is a scaled, non-dimensional radius,lc ≡DA/r500 is the corresponding angular wavenumber, andy3D isthe 3D radial profile of the Comptony−parameter. This last pa-rameter is given by a thermal gas pressure profile,Pgas, through

y3D(M, z, r′) ≡σT

mec2Pe(M, z, r′) =

σT

mec2

(2+ 2X3+ 5X

)

Pgas(M, z, r′)

= 1.04× 104 Mpc−1[Pgas(M, z, r′)

50 eV cm−3

]

, (4)

wherePe is an electron-pressure profile,X = 0.76 is the Hydro-gen mass fraction,σT is the Thomson cross-section,me is theelectron mass, andc is the speed of light.

2.1.2. Effect of the intrinsic pressure scatter

Despite the tight correlation between the tSZ signal and clustermass, several works have shown that the dispersion of individ-ual cluster pressure profilesPe(r′) at a given mass is far fromnegligible (∼30% according toPlanck Collaboration et al. 2013andSayers et al. 2013). So far the contribution of this scatter hasnot been considered in analytical treatments of the tSZ powerspectrum. Modeling this effect would indeed require a detailedknowledge of the diversity of cluster Comptonization morpholo-gies. Observationally this is not yet well-constrained as tSZ ex-periments still aim at improving our estimate of the averageclus-ter pressure profiles.

In our modeling of the tSZ power, we try to capture the bulkcontribution of the intrinsic scatter. To do so, we make the as-sumption that the dispersion in the pressure structure can be en-capsulated in a simple scatter on the normalization of the pres-sure profile, leaving the shape unchanged. In this case, marginal-izing over the distribution of profile normalization results in astraightforward scaling of the tSZ power spectrum amplitude asfollows:

Csℓ = (1+ σ2

s)Cℓ, (5)

whereσs is the intrinsic scatter on thePe(r′) normalization. Withthis approximation, the 30% intrinsic scatter on the pressureamplitude increases the tSZ power amplitude by roughly 10%.We include this additional contribution in all subsequent results.More details on the adopted pressure profile and the measure-ment of intrinsic scatter are given in Section3.

2.2. Microwave sky model

Our analysis relies on the microwave extragalactic power spectrapublished byReichardt et al.(2012, hereafter R12) for three dif-ferent frequency bands. Those observations were extractedfrom800 deg2 maps obtained within the SPT survey and cover angularscales of 2000< ℓ < 10000.

Such observations are a combination of signals from primaryCMB anisotropy, foregrounds, and secondary SZ anisotropies.The power spectrum from each of these components has differ-ent frequency dependence, so detailed multifrequency observa-tions can in principle distinguish their relative contributions inthe maps (see e.g.,Planck Collaboration et al. 2014a). Unfortu-nately, three frequencies are not sufficient to perform this kind ofanalysis. Instead, we have to rely on a model for the microwavesky power, calibrated using external information whereverpos-sible. The problem then reduces to a decomposition of the ob-served signal into a set of templates, for which mostly the nor-malization has to be quantified.

In this purpose, we use the same model as inR12where thetotal microwave sky power,Dmod

ℓ, breaks down into the follow-

ing components:

Dmodℓ = DCMB

ℓ + DtSZℓ + DkSZ

ℓ + DPℓ + DC

ℓ + DRℓ + Dcir

ℓ . (6)

Here,DCMBℓ

is the lensed primary CMB anisotropy power at mul-tipole ℓ. On scalesℓ > 3000, DCMB

ℓis strongly damped, and

other components start to dominate. The population of dustystar-forming galaxies (DSFGs) have a significant microwaveemission (specially at high frequencies), which contributes withPoisson (DP

ℓ) and clustered (DC

ℓ) power components. Likewise,

mainly at low frequencies, the population of radio sources con-tributes prominently with a Poisson term,DR

ℓ. A small contri-

bution from the Galactic cirrus emission,Dcirℓ

, is also taken intoaccount. Finally, the power of the tSZ and kSZ signals are givenby DtSZ

ℓandDkSZ

ℓ, respectively.

Our work can therefore be considered as an astrophysicalextension of the analysis presented byR12, where we allow formore freedom in the tSZ power spectrum by tieing it to a rangeof empirical models of the ICM. The other components of ourbaseline model are treated as nuisance parameters and describedin detail in AppendixA.

2.3. Parameter estimation

The SPT measurements as described inR12 comprise threeauto-spectra (95×95, 150×150, 220×220 GHz), and three cross-spectra (95×150, 95×220, 150×220 GHz), in 15 spectral bandsbℓ, each covering a narrow range inℓ. In our work, we seek tomatch the parameters of intracluster pressure models with thoseobservations. This is achieved by minimization of theχ2 statis-tic,

χ2 =∑

bℓ

∑

ν1,ν2

(Dobsbℓ ,ν1,ν2

−Dmodbℓ ,ν1,ν2

) N−1bℓ ,ν1,ν2

(Dobsbℓ ,ν1,ν2

−Dmodbℓ ,ν1,ν2

)T, (7)

where Dobsbℓ ,ν1,ν2

and Dmodbℓ ,ν1,ν2

are respectively the observed andmodeled powers in bandbℓ, andN−1

bℓ ,ν1,ν2is the bandpower noise

covariance matrix (obtained fromR12), for the cross-spectra atfrequenciesν1 andν2.

The modeled bandpowers are estimated from the full-resolution power spectra of Eq.6 and the band window functionswℓ,bℓ (also obtained fromR12) as:

Dmodbℓ=∑

ℓ

wℓ,bℓ × Dmodℓ . (8)

The best fit parameters and their errors are obtained by samplingthe likelihood function over the whole parameter space using aMCMC Metropolis algorithm.

In order to validate our modeling of the SPT data and our fit-ting procedure, we first replaced our analytical tSZ model withthe template provided byShaw et al.(2010) - as done inR12- and jointly fitted the amplitudes of the tSZ template (DtSZ

3000),Poisson (DP

3000) and clustered (DC3000) CIB components, fixing

all other parameters to theR12values. The results of this three-parameter samplings are displayed in Table1 and Fig.1, andare in agreement withR12. As expected, the errors in our re-sult are smaller, since we held fixed the cosmological parametersand several of the foreground components. However, the differ-ence is not large, reflecting the fact that the three fitted compo-nents are the leading contributors to the microwave backgroundanisotropies on the considered wavelengths and angular scales.



Fig. 1. 2D likelihoods for the power spectra amplitudes atℓ = 3000 us-ing our MCMC algorithm, compared to the results fromR12. The plotshows the tSZ power spectrum (DtSZ

3000) using the template ofShaw et al.(2010), and the two CIB components, its Poisson contribution (DP

3000)and the clustered component (DC

3000). The filled colored contours showthe 1, 2, and 3σ constraints from the SPT analysis. The black solid con-tours show the constraints from our MCMC sampling, where theotherforegrounds are held fixed together with the cosmological parameters.

In the following, we always fit the amplitudes of the Poissonand clustered CIB components together with our cluster pressuremodel parameters. Given the small impact they have on the finalmeasurements, the additional components (lensed CMB, kSZ ef-fect, radio and Galactic cirrus) are kept fixed for simplicity, andso are the cosmological parameters. The cosmological constraintis discussed in more detail in Section5.3.

3. Pressure model

In this Section we introduce briefly the self-similar theorythatdescribes the properties of galaxy groups and clusters. We alsoexplain in detail the latest measurements of the pressure profilein galaxy clusters, and show the inconsistency between the SPTmeasurements and the theoretical predictions for the tSZ band-powers based on such pressure profiles.

3.1. Self-similar models

In a hierarchical structure formation scenario on a CDM cosmol-ogy, groups and clusters are the end products of gravitationalcollapse of a small population of highly over-dense regionsinthe early universe. The term “self-similar” points to the scale-free nature of gravitational collapse in such a universe (Kaiser1986). This implies that if clusters were strictly self-similar,we would expect the same evolution of their global propertieson any scale and time. In the context of self-similar evolution,the redshift dependence of cluster observables can be expressedas a combination of different powers ofE(z) and∆(z), where

Table 1. Comparison between the tSZ and CIB power amplitudes forour MCMC modeling andR12results.

Amplitude SPT This work CCATDtSZ

3000 3.65± 0.69 3.61± 0.46 3.65± 0.09DP

3000 7.54± 0.38 7.66± 0.25 7.54± 0.02DC

3000 6.25± 0.52 6.35± 0.51 6.24± 0.05

E(z) =√

Ωm(1+ z)3 + ΩΛ is the Hubble ratio in flatΛCDMuniverse, and∆(z) is the density ratio between the mean (or criti-cal) density of the universe at redshiftz and that inside a fiducialradius of the cluster.

Furthermore, a self-similar formation model implies thatgravitational collapse is the only source of energy input intothe ICM. Since we assume cluster formation process is gov-erned by gravity alone, we can derive simple scaling relations forthe global observables properties as a function of cluster mass.These relations have been extensively studied in the literature(seeBöhringer et al. 2012, and references therein). Particularlyin the nearby Universe, they have been studied and determinedwith high precision. In the following subsection we describe thecurrent state of knowledge on the self-similar redshift evolutionand mass scaling of the ICM pressure profile.

3.2. The “universal” pressure profile

One of the most successful application of the self-similar modelis the dark matter halo mass profile measured from N-body sim-ulations byNavarro, Frenk, & White(1995), known as the NFWprofile. Following this model a more generalized version wasproposed byNagai et al.(2007) to describe the gas distribu-tion in galaxy clusters, which contains additional shape parame-ters besides the normalization and the scale radius (generalizedNFW, or GNFW profile).Arnaud et al.(2010, hereafter A10)measured these parameters for the GNFW model, as well as themass scaling of the overall normalization, combining X-raydataand numerical simulations. This was the first demonstrationofa scale-free, universal shape of the cluster pressure profile witha mass scaling very close to self-similar. The parametrizationof the GNFW pressure model found byA10 is now commonlyknown as the “universal” pressure profile, and forms the basis ofour analytical modeling.

A10 measured the GNFW profile parameters from a sampleof 33 local clusters (z < 0.2), selected from the REFLEX cat-alogue and observed withXMM-Newton. The sample covers amass range 7× 1013

. M500h/M⊙ . 6 × 1014, whereM500 isthe mass enclosed withinr500, in which the mean density is 500times the critical density of the Universe. The pressure profile isgiven by

Pe(r′) = 1.65( h0.7

)2

eV cm−3 E83 (z)[ M500

3× 1014(0.7/h) M⊙

]23+αp

p(r′).

(9)

The function p(r′) describes the scale-invariant shape of thepressure profile,

p(r′) ≡P0(0.7/h)

32

(c500r′)γ[1 + (c500r′)α](β−γ)/α, (10)

where P0 = 8.403, c500 = 1.177 is a gas concentration pa-rameter, the parameterγ = 0.3081 represents the central slope(r′ << 1), α = 1.051 is the intermediate slope (r′ ∼ 1), andβ = 5.4905 is the outer slope (r′ >> 1) of the pressure profile.



TheA10 profile was constrained from X-ray observations out toradii r ∼ r500. Beyond this radius, an extrapolation was madeto fit the results from numerical simulations of clusters (Borganiet al. 2004; Nagai et al. 2007; Piffaretti & Valdarnini 2008). Asmall deviation from the self-similar scaling with clustermassis given byαp = 0.12. We incorporate this additional mass de-pendence in all our calculations, which has a small effect on theamplitude of the tSZ power (∼ 9% at ℓ = 3000). We ignorethe extra smaller shape-dependent term of the mass scaling,de-scribed by theα′p(x) term (see Eq. 10 inA10), because it has anegligible contribution (∼ 2% atℓ = 3000). Finally, the derivedaverageA10 pressure profile has a dispersion around it, whichis less than 30% beyond the core (r > 0.2r500), and increases to-wards the center. This deviation around the mean is mainly dueto the dynamical state of the clusters. Following2.1.2 we as-sume this scatter only affects the pressure shape normalization(P0), and incorporate its contribution into our power spectrumcalculations accordingly.

The nearly self-similar mass scaling of the universal pres-sure profile has been verified down to the low mass end (galaxygroups) in the local universe.Sun et al.(2011) extended the mea-surements ofA10 to lower masses, from a study of 43 galaxygroups atz = 0.01 − 0.12, within a mass range of roughlyM500 = 1013−1014 h M⊙. All the ICM properties of these groupswere derived at least out tor2500 from observations made withChandra, and 23 galaxy groups have in addition masses mea-sured up to∼ r500. As with the original data set used byA10, theX-ray comparison bySun et al.(2011) does not reveal the stateof the gas pressure in groups at higher redshift, or at radii be-yondr500. Nevertheless, this rules out the possibility of a highlynon-self-similar mass scaling for the ICM pressure, at least inthe low redshifts, in a mass range spanning nearly two decades.Recent results by McDonald et al. (2014), using X-ray follow-upobservation of SZ selected clusters, also confirm the validity ofthe universal pressure profile in a wide redshift range, downtoa mass limitM500 ∼ 3 × 1014 M⊙. These are strong constraintswhile finding modifications for the universal pressure modeltomatch the tSZ power spectrum observation.

Direct tSZ observations of individual clusters have now veri-fied the validity of the universal pressure model at the high massend, even though measurement errors remain high. In contrast tothe X-ray measurement of the GNFW profile, tSZ observationsare more sensitive to the cluster outskirts (r > r500). Planck Col-laboration et al.(2013) measured the pressure profile of a sam-ple of high mass and low redshift galaxy clusters. Their meanprofile shows a slightly lower pressure in the inner parts whencompared with theA10 profile, although there are strong degen-eracies between the derived model parameters. It is possible thatthe lower pressure in the core region detected byPlanck is a con-sequence of detecting more morphologically disturbed clustersthan other samples. Outside the core region thePlanck-derivedpressure profile show good agreement with the extrapolatedA10pressure model, out to a radius∼ 3r500. It should be noted thatthe poor angular resolution ofPlanck restricts its sensitivity forthe pressure profile shape measurement mostly to a handful ofnearby, massive clusters detected with high S/N.

A higher-resolution tSZ observation of individual clusterpressure profiles became available from theBolocam experiment(Sayers et al. 2013), which has 1 arcminute resolution at 150GHz. TheBolocam team observed 45 massive galaxy clusters,with a median mass ofM500 = 9×1014 M⊙, and spanning a largerange in redshift: 0.15 < z < 0.89. They fitted a GNFW profilebetween 0.07r500 and 3.5r500. Despite the strong covariance be-tween the model parameters, the overall shape is fairly wellcon-

2

4

6

8

10

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at

15

0G

Hz

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

1000 10000

χ

ℓ

SPTA10PlanckBolocam

Fig. 2. Discrepancy between the semi-analytic model predictions forthe tSZ power and the SPT measurements. The red solid line is thetSZ power spectrum given by theA10 pressure profile (Eq.9). Theshaded gray region represent the 1σ constraints from the SPT, whichis restricted by the shape of the Shaw model (see text for details). Thepurple dot-dashed line gives the result for the mean GNFW profile asmeasured byPlanck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2013). The green bandmarks the correspondingBolocam measurement (Sayers et al. 2013)with the 68% confidence interval on their model fit parameters. Thebottom panel shows the value ofχ at each point for these models withrespect to the SPT bandpower measurements, in units of the measure-ment errors in eachℓ-band.

strained. The mean profile shows good agreement with theA10model, although there is an indication of a shallower pressureouter slope (r & r500). Furthermore, bothPlanck andBolocamteams have measured the intrinsic scatter for the pressure profilein their samples, finding it to be roughly 30% as was also notedby A10. In the absence of more accurate measurements, we useσs = 0.3 (see Eq.5) as a fiducial value in the rest of the paper.

An important point to note here is that neither thePlancknot theBolocam analysis is based on a representative sample ofgalaxy clusters. Therefore, although these two data sets serve toconstrain the alterations to theA10 pressure model in Section4,none can yet be considered compelling.

3.3. Discrepancy between theoretical prediction andobservation of the SZ power spectrum

The discrepancy between the theoretical model predictionsforthe tSZ power spectrum and its experimental measurement wereshown early on, following pure analytical modeling (Komatsu &Seljak 2002; Bode et al. 2009) and simulations (Sehgal et al.2010). The tSZ power based on theA10 universal pressuremodel is not the exception, as is shown in Fig.2. The red solidcurve is the prediction based on theA10 model, using Equations1 and9, which has a factor of∼ 2 higher amplitude than theSPT measurement (marked by the gray-shaded region). Similarresults were also shown byEfstathiou & Migliaccio(2012).

We point up that despite its high sensitivity, the SPT data isunable to constrain simultaneously both the amplitude and shapeof the tSZ power spectrum. For this reasonR12 used theShawet al. (2010) tSZ template to quote the amplitude atℓ = 3000,which is 3.65±0.69µK2. In Fig.2and subsequent plots, we show



the SPT 68% confidence region derived from theShaw et al.(2010) model in gray bands, to provide a visual comparison withour best fit results. The plots are in terms ofDℓ = ℓ(ℓ + 1)Cs

ℓ/2π

with units of [µK]2 at 150 GHz. For quantifying the goodnessof fit between a model prediction and the SPT data, we computethe probability to exceed (PTE, or thep-value) for the modelusing the actual CMB bandpower measurements from SPT, andnot with theShaw et al.(2010) model template. The PTE for theA10 model prediction is 0.0006, suggesting a very poor fit.

It is now possible to check the compatibility of thePlanck andBolocam measurements of the pressure profile withthe SPT result following the procedure outlined in Section2.These are shown in Fig.2 with the dotted and dashed lines, re-spectively. The prediction based on the meanPlanck profile isvery similar to theA10 model, whereas the meanBolocam pro-file predicts higher amplitude for the tSZ power and returns fur-ther lower PTE value. This is primarily because of the shallowerouter slope of the pressure profile as reported in theBolocampaper, giving excess power alℓ . 3000. We take note of thefact that making a comparison with only the mean pressure pro-file, using the maximum likelihood values of the GNFW modelparameters, is not correct since there is a large covariancebe-tween these parameters which will produce a range of equallylikely pressure profiles. ThePlanck parameter covariance is notpublished, but we obtained the parameter chains for the GNFWmodel fit forBolocam (J. Sayers, priv. comm.), which allow us todraw a 68% credibility region of the tSZ power spectrum basedon theBolocam result. This is shown by the green shaded re-gion in Fig. 2, which is small compared to the roughly 5µK2

difference between the predicted power and the SPT measuredvalue. Based on similar parameter errors on the GNFW modelfit by Planck Collaboration et al.(2013), it can be assumed thatthe measured errors on the meanPlanck profile cannot explainthe mismatch with data either.

It can be argued that the source of the discrepancy betweenthe predicted amplitude of the tSZ power spectrum and its mea-surement comes from the assumed cosmological model. The tSZpower spectrum relies on the correct modeling of the halo massfunction, but it has been proven that the halo mass function isknown to an accuracy of about 5% (Tinker et al. 2008; Bhat-tacharya et al. 2011). However, the values of the key cosmolog-ical parameters differ significantly between the measurementsmade by different probes, like WMAP andPlanck , which willresult in large systematic changes in the tSZ power spectrum. InSection5.3we address this issue in more detail, and show if weignore the large systematic difference between the WMAP andPlanck cosmology, then the measurement uncertainties in any ofthe adopted set of parameters is not an issue. Moreover, use ofthePlanck cosmology increases the predicted tSZ power ampli-tude by roughly factor 2, thereby making the tension betweentheory and observation more severe. Since we observe a reducedamplitude of the tSZ power, the most likely explanation for thatlower amplitude must be astrophysical, and our use of WMAPcosmology amounts to a more conservative modification of theICM pressure distribution to match theory and observation.

3.4. Radial, mass and redshift contribution to the powerspectrum

We split the tSZ power into mass, redshift and radial bins toidentify where the main contributions to the tSZ power comefrom. The results in this Section are similar to those already pre-sented inKomatsu & Seljak(2002), Battaglia et al.(2012b) and

0.3

0.5

1

1000 10000

ℓ

Mass bins log[M500h/M⊙]

[12.5− 13.5][13.5− 14.0]

[14.0− 14.5][14.5− 15.5]

0.2

0.5

1

2

4

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at1

50

GH

z

Redshift bins[0.0− 0.2]

[0.2− 0.5]

[0.5− 1.0]

[1.0− 1.5]

0.05

0.1

0.5

1

5

10

20Radial bins [r/r500]

[0− 1][1− 2][2− 4]

z > 0z > 0.5

Fig. 3. Contribution of the tSZ power spectrum in different cluster ra-dial, mass and redshift bins. The plot is in terms ofDℓ = ℓ(ℓ + 1)C s

ℓ/2π

with units of [µK] 2 at 150 GHz. For these illustrative plots we haveused theA10 pressure profile without modifications, and factored in thecontribution from intrinsic scatter. The numbers in the square bracketsmark the radial, redshift and mass bins for the individual curves. In theupper panel, the dashed lines only show the contribution from high-redshift (z > 0.5) clusters. The anisotropy power from cluster outskirts(r > r500) becomes increasingly important atℓ . 3000.

McCarthy et al.(2014), although we use the universal pressuremodel ofA10 for our analysis.

First, we radially truncate the pressure profile to investigatewhich regions of the galaxy clusters contribute more to the totaltSZ power spectrum. The differential contributions from threeradial bins are shown in Fig.3 (top panel). Earlier works haveshown the results for radial contributions in cumulative plots,which automatically include the cross-correlation of the tSZpower between different bins. We make a differential plot for



ease of comparison and take the cross-correlation terms into ac-count. When considering all clusters at all redshifts, mostof thepower (∼ 85%) on small angular scales (ℓ > 3000) comes fromr < r500, since bulk of the cluster tSZ signal comes from this cen-tral region. Outskirts of galaxy clusters play an importantrole atlowerℓ. The tSZ power increases by∼ 50% atℓ = 500 when theupper limit of the radial integration is increased to 2r500. There-after, the tSZ amplitude does not vary much if the integrationlimit is extended to radiir > 4r500. If we only consider clustersat high redshifts (z > 0.5), the power contribution from the out-skirts will be roughly equal to that coming from the inner regionfor ℓ . 2000 (dashed-lines in the upper panel of Fig.3).

In a similar way, we calculate the tSZ power spectrum inmass and redshift bins, which are shown in the middle andbottom panels of Fig.3, respectively. On large angular scales(ℓ < 2000) the largest contribution to the tSZ power comesfrom high mass (14< log[M500h/ M⊙] < 14.5) and low red-shift objects (z < 0.2). Above ℓ ∼ 3000, the tSZ power isdominated by low mass (13.5 < log[M500h/ M⊙] < 14) andhigh redshift (z > 0.5) galaxy groups/clusters. The very mas-sive objects (log[M500h/ M⊙] > 14.5) have a negligible contri-bution on small angular scales. Therefore the clusters thatarecurrently constrained from direct tSZ observation byPlanck andBolocam are not representative in terms of the measurement ofthe tSZ power spectrum. Objects with very low mass, or red-shift z > 1 dominate the tSZ power only at multipoles largerthanℓ ∼ 15000, assuming the extrapolation of theA10 pressuremodel is correct in such extreme cases.

From the illustrations above it can be seen that the tSZ powernear the angular scales of its expected peak is dominated by con-tributions from the low mass clusters or groups at intermediateredshifts, for which there are little observational constraints ontheir ICM properties. Thus, using the fiducial values for theA10pressure model on high redshift galaxy groups and clusters couldbe the source of the over-estimation of the tSZ power. Likewise,the A10 pressure profile beyondr500 was constrained from hy-drodynamical simulations, which could also be overestimatingthe thermal pressure component in the outskirts, giving more tSZpower. Thus, two obvious choices for modifying theA10 pres-sure profile would bei) decreasing the pressure amplitude withredshift that offsets the self-similar evolution, orii) decreasingthe thermal pressure support in the outskirts.

The mass dependence of the pressure normalization (or theouter pressure slope), as discussed in Section4, are generallybetter constrained from observation (or simulations) and are notthe main focus of the current paper.

3.5. Effect of cluster morphology

Before proceeding to modify the universal pressure profile,it isnatural to ask whether an over-abundance of merging systemsat high redshifts can be responsible for the lower measured tSZpower. This follows from the result ofA10 who found, with highsignificance based on X-ray data, that disturbed clusters havelower pressure near the core region compared to the mean. In thestandardΛCDM scenario the number of mergers within a timeinterval is a slowly increasing function of halo redshift and mass(e.g.,Fakhouri et al. 2010), and there is some evidence of this in-creased merger fraction from X-ray selected clusters (Maughanet al. 2012; Mann & Ebeling 2012). The resulting change in thecool-core (CC) to non cool-core (NCC) cluster ratio with redshiftmight be causing the lower amplitude of the tSZ power spectrumin the SPT data.

0.1

1

10

1000 10000

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at

15

0G

Hz

ℓ

SPTA10

Cool-coreNon-cool core

A10, r < 0.2r500

Fig. 4.Predictions for the tSZ power spectrum for cluster morphologicalevolution. The red-solid line is given by the meanA10 pressure profile,the green-dashed line for cool-core clusters, and the blue short-dashedline for non-cool clusters. The purple dot-dashed line shows the relativecontribution from the core regions of galaxy clusters (r < 0.2r500) tothe total tSZ power, and the dotted line above it factors in anadditionalscatter contribution (40%) for the core region. This plot shows that, un-like the X-ray luminosity, the core region contributes verylittle to thetSZ anisotropy power.

A10 divided their cluster sample into CC and NCC clustersand provided parametric fits for the respective populations(seeAppendix C ofA10). The CC clusters have more peaked profileat the center, the region that produces bulk of the emissivity in X-rays. However, from Fig.4 we can conclude that the core region(r < 0.2r500) contributes a negligible fraction of the tSZ poweron scales larger than∼ 1 arcmin: the contribution is only 5% atℓ = 3000, and rises up to nearly 17% atℓ = 10000.A10 foundthe pressure profiles of the CC and NCC cluster samples nearlyself-similar in the intermediate (r ∼ r500) to outer regions, andcurrently there are no direct evidence for a systematic differencebetween the CC and NCC cluster pressure distribution from tSZdata. Given that restriction, the CC and NCC clusters produceroughly the same result for tSZ power (Fig.4). We thus concludethat an increased occurrence of NCC clusters at high-z cannot bethe explanation of the low measured value of the tSZ power, ifthose NCC clusters follow the same mass and redshift scalingasgiven for the universal pressure profile byA10.

4. Results

This Section presents our main results, following various at-tempts at modifying the universal pressure model. We groupthese model changes according to their deviations from a sim-ple self-similar scaling.

4.1. Modification following strictly self-similar evolution

In the classical self-similar scenario of cluster evolution, thebaryon distribution will have the same shape and amplitude oncethey are scaled to the cluster mass and redshift with the standardscaling powers (e.g.,Böhringer et al. 2012). In context of theA10 pressure profile, this means that clusters at all mass and red-shift will have the same set of amplitude and shape parameters:P0, c500, α, β, γ, and the total pressure amplitude will scale withredshift asE(z)8/3. In a first attempt to keep the redshift evolu-tion unchanged, we try to find a suitable set of shape parameters



1

2

4

6

8

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at

15

0G

Hz

-6-4-2024

100 1000 10000

χ

ℓ

SPTPlanck

A10A10, β = 6.35

Fig. 5. Predictions for the tSZ power spectrum for self-similar evolu-tion. The red solid line is the tSZ power spectrum given by theA10pressure profile (Eq.9). The shaded gray region represent the 1σ con-straints from the SPT based on theShaw et al.(2010) template (see textfor details). The blue dashed line represents the GNFW modelwith ourbest fit outer slope (β = 6.35), which provides good fit to the actual SPTdata, as shown by theχ plot in the bottom panel. The black data pointsare the marginalized bandpowers of the Planck tSZ power spectrum,taken fromPlanck Collaboration et al.(2014b).

that will remove the tension between the model predictions andSPT data.

4.1.1. Constraints on the outer slope of the pressure profile

As mentioned previously, the “universal” pressure profile wasconstrained from X-ray observations out to radiir ∼ r500, andextrapolated beyondr500 to match hydrodynamical simulationresults. The outer slope parameter is denoted byβ, whose valueis fixed atβ = 5.49 in theA10 paper. A significant amount ofthe tSZ signal comes fromr > r500, more than 50% if we ne-glect the few nearby, high-mass clusters (that are generally re-solved in deep tSZ surveys), therefore the impact ofβ on the tSZpower amplitude is pivotal. A higher value ofβwould imply lessthermal pressure. Physical reason for lower thermal pressure canbe additional pressure support from gas bulk motions, usuallytriggered by infalling or merging sub-halos. Recent results fromnumerical simulations (Nagai et al. 2007; Lau et al. 2009; Nel-son et al. 2014) as well as analytical modeling (Shi & Komatsu2014) have shown that this non-thermal pressure contribution issmall in the inner regions, but rapidly increases with radius. Wetherefore concentrate on modifyingβ, given the least amount ofobservational constraint on its value, while keeping the redshiftevolution of the pressure amplitude atE(z)8/3 as in Eq.9.

The best fit value obtained from our MCMC sampling isβ = 6.35 ± 0.19, together with the CIB contribution termsDP

3000 = 7.58 ± 0.28 andDC3000 = 6.42 ± 0.54. The resulting

PTE= 0.80 suggests a good fit to the CMB bandpower data. Thisvalue ofβ is considerably higher than the one assumed byA10(β = 5.49), implying a much lower thermal pressure support inthe outskirts. This new value ofβ has very little effect on the in-ner pressure profile (< 1% atr << r500), but reduces the pressureamplitude by∼ 40% atr500. The effect is significant on the power

spectrum after projection, especially on large scales, where thenew tSZ power amplitude is lowered by∼ 50% compared to theA10 values (Fig.5, blue dashed line). Furthermore, the peak ofthe tSZ power spectrum is shifted to smaller angular scales,nearℓ ∼ 4500. We note that the shape of the tSZ power spectrum dif-fers strongly compared to theShaw et al.(2010) template (grayband), but the new shape provides acceptable fit to the SPT datatogether with the above CIB power amplitudes.

4.1.2. Possible tension with Planck and Bolocam results

The marginalized value of the outer pressure profile slope,β =

6.35±0.19 with 68% confidence, is higher than the mean valuesobtained from direct cluster SZ profile measurement byBolo-cam andPlanck experiments. However, in a GNFW model fit thevalue ofβ generally highly degenerates with other parameters, inparticular it anti-correlates with the scale radius (or equivalently,c500), as shown byPlanck Collaboration et al.(2013). Thereforewe must compare our best fit values with the marginalized errorsonβ from other experiments. This is shown in Fig.6, where weplot the normalized likelihood distributions for the outerslopeparameterβ from Planck andBolocam fits. As can be seen, thereis significant tension for such a steep value of outer slope withBolocam data, whereas it is consistent with thePlanck measure-ment. A possible cause can be that theBolocam team fixes thegas concentration parameterc500, which restricts their likelihoodrange ofβ, even though both our modeling and theBolocamwork bySayers et al.(2013) use the same fixed valuec500 = 1.18from theA10 model. The sensitivity of thePlanck measurementto the slope parameters is possibly lower due to its large beam,except for a few nearby clusters.

A general consequence of having a steeper outer slope isthat it will inevitably reduce the tSZ power at lowℓ values(ℓ < 1000), as seen in subsection4.1.1. This then leads to sometension with the tSZ power measurements based onPlanck data(Planck Collaboration et al. 2014b), which we show in Fig.5.The Planck marginalized bandpower values are taken directlyfrom the Planck collaboration paper. Without a knowledge ofthe covariance we cannot compute theχ2 or the PTE value of ourmodel fromPlanck data, but a clear tension can be seen from thefigure.

4.2. Weakly self-similar: changing pressure normalizationwith redshift or mass

It is possible to imagine scenarios where the amplitude of thepressure distribution in galaxy clusters deviate from a strictlyself-similar evolution, i.e., not scaling asP(r) ∝ M2/3

500 or/andP(r) ∝ E(z)8/3. In fact A10 already show that the mass scalingof the pressure profile is not strictly self-similar, there is an ad-ditional factor,αP = 0.12, in the mass-scaling power (see Eq.9).The reason behind this deviation from self-similarity is the em-pirical calibration of theA10 pressure profile against the mea-suredYX−M500 scaling ofArnaud et al.(2007), which was basedon a subset of REXCESS clusters at low redshifts. Therefore,while the small deviation in the mass exponent in Eq.9 is well-measured in the local universe, its redshift dependence remainslargely unexplored.

In this Section we explore scenarios where the redshift evolu-tion of the pressure amplitude deviates from theE(z)8/3 scaling,while keeping the shape (Eq.10) constant. Physical motivationfor such redshift dependence can be found from the observedscaling of theLX−TX scaling relation (e.g.,Reichert et al. 2011),



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Lik

eli

ho

od

β

This workPlanckBolocam

Fig. 6. 1D likelihood curves for outer slope parameterβ. The purplesolid line shows the constraints fromPlanck . Results fromBolocamare shown by the green dashed line. The blue-filled curve representsour best fit constraint onβ.

possibly relating to a gas mass fraction,fgas, evolution in groupsand clusters which we discuss subsequently. As an extensiontothis model, we consider cases where the redshift evolution de-pends also on mass, in line with the observed difference in themass dependence offgas in groups and clusters.

4.2.1. Departure from self-similar redshift evolution

As discussed in Section3.1, in the self-similar model the red-shift evolution of the global properties of galaxy clustersis de-scribed by a simple power law of theE(z) parameter. However,non-gravitational processes, like cooling and feedback, can alterthe expected redshift evolution parametrization (e.g.,Voit 2005).Such possible deviations from self-similarity can be consideredthrough a (1+ z) term lacking a better understanding of their ori-gin. Recent semi-analytical works (Shaw et al. 2010; Battagliaet al. 2012a) have also used a power-law dependence of (1+ z)for modeling the non-thermal pressure evolution.

Following the above argument, and keeping the functionalform of theA10 pressure profile unchanged at low redshifts, weintroduce an additional (1+ z) dependence of the form

Pe(r) ∝ E83 (z)(1+ z)αz M

23+αp

500 . (11)

The parameterαz signifies the departure from the self-similarevolution, and we constrain its value by comparing with theSPT measurements (R12) through our MCMC method. The bestfit value is αz = −0.73 ± 0.16, DP

3000 = 7.69 ± 0.27, andDC

3000 = 6.35 ± 0.49, with a PTE of 0.78. The overall effectof such non self-similar evolution is to lower the amplitudeofthe tSZ power spectrum (purple-dotted line in Fig.7), sinceas the negative value forαz implies, the pressure amplitude ingroups/clusters decreases with increasing redshift. The modifiedshape of the tSZ power spectrum is in good agreement with theShaw et al. template (Fig.7).

From a cosmological point of view, a power-law dependenceof E(z) is a more attractive parametrization for the non-self-similar evolution.Efstathiou & Migliaccio(2012) have proposedsuch a model by introducing the parameterǫ into theE(z) power

2

3

4

5

678

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at

15

0G

Hz

-4

-2

0

2

4

1000 10000

χ

ℓ

SPTA10

A10, ǫ = 1.17A10, αz = −0.73

Fig. 7. Predictions for the tSZ power spectrum for a weak departurefrom self-similarity, affecting only the pressure normalization. The redsolid line is the tSZ power spectrum given by theA10 pressure model,and the shaded gray region is the 1σ scatter around the best fit Shawmodel with SPT data. The blue dashed line represents theA10 modelwith ǫ = 1.17 (Eq.12). The purple dotted line representsA10 modelwith αz = −0.73 (Eq.11). Both parameters,ǫ andαz, modify the redshiftevolution of the pressure profile to reduce its amplitude at high-z.

for the pressure scaling:

Pe(r) ∝ E(z)83−ǫM

23+αp

500 . (12)

As before, we can constrain the value ofǫ by comparing with theSPT measurements. We find values ofǫ = 1.17± 0.27,DP

3000 =

7.69± 0.26, andDC3000 = 6.40± 0.51, with a resulting PTE of

0.79 (blue-dashed line in Fig.7). We cannot directly comparewith the results ofEfstathiou & Migliaccio(2012), since theyconstrained theirǫ value by comparing with simulated tSZ powerspectrum templates (Battaglia et al. 2010; Trac et al. 2011), andincorporate another additional normalization parameter (A) fortheir model that should be highly degenerate with the redshiftevolution termǫ.

Depending on the physical origin of the non-self-similar evo-lution, either anE(z) or a (1+ z) power-law dependence willdescribe the pressure profile modification correctly. Sinceboththese parametrizations result in similar changes to theP(r), andshow similar relative errors, we have opted for keeping bothcases in our analyses.

4.2.2. Association with fgas and X-ray scaling laws

The pressure-mass,P − M, scaling relation has a direct de-pendence on the gas mass fraction,fgas: P ∝ fgasE8/3M2/3.This quantity is usually assumed as constant, and theA10 workmake no explicit statement on gas mass fraction either. How-ever, theP − M relation used byA10 deviates from the self-similar prediction, having a slightly stronger mass dependence:P ∝ E8/3M2/3+0.12. By comparing theA10 P − M relation withthe self-similar prediction, we can assume that this excessis theresult of the gas mass fraction:fgas∝ M0.12. This is motivated bystudies which have found thatfgas increases with mass of galaxygroups and clusters (Vikhlinin et al. 2006; Arnaud et al. 2007;



2

3

4

5

678

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at1

50

GH

z

-4-2024

1000 10000

χ

ℓ

SPTA10A10, αz = −0.73A10, two M dep.A10, two M dep., αz = −0.66

Fig. 8. Predictions for the tSZ power spectrum for a weak departurefrom self-similarity, factoring in additional mass-dependence for thescaling. The red solid line and the gray shaded regions have the samemeaning as in earlier figures. The blue dashed line represents the tSZpower spectrum withαz = −0.73 (Eq.11), as in Fig.7. The green dot-ted line is given by a modifiedA10 pressure profile that has doublemass dependence:fgas ∝ M0.2 for masses belowM500 = 1014 h−1 M⊙,and fgas ∝ M0.12 above this mass limit. Since this change alone is notenough to reach the SPT constraints, we need to introduce a redshiftevolution, the result of which is shown by the magenta dash-dotted line.

Pratt et al. 2009; Sun et al. 2009), since non-gravitational pro-cesses (e.g., AGN feedback and star formation) produce a largerimpact on galaxy groups than in clusters.Pratt et al.(2009), forexample, found a relatively strong mass dependence offgas inthe REXCESS sample:fgas ∝ M0.2; and for low mass regime,Sun et al.(2009) constrained the mass dependence in the range:fgas∝ M0.16−0.22.

In order to assess the impact of different mass dependenceof fgas on the tSZ power spectrum, we introduce two distinctpower laws for the mass dependence in theA10 pressure profile(Eq.9): fgas∝ M0.2 and fgas∝ M0.12 for masses below and aboveM500 = 1014 h−1 M⊙, respectively. Fig.8 shows the small effectof this broken power law for mass dependence on the tSZ powerspectrum (green-dotted line), which is not enough to explain thediscrepancy between tSZ power spectrum predictions and theSPT constraints. This shows that a small departure from the self-similar mass scaling, in accordance with the observationalre-sults, is not sufficient to explain the low amplitude of the tSZpower spectrum by itself; one needs to consider a modification tothe redshift evolution as well. By using our MCMC method, wefound that the necessary evolution is given by:αz = −0.66±0.15,DP

3000= 7.70±0.21, andDC3000= 6.38±0.47, with a PTE of 0.79

(shown in Fig.7 by the magenta dash-dotted line).

4.2.3. fgas evolution vs. X-ray data and simulations

In the previous subsection we assumed that the weakly non-self-similar P − M scaling used byA10 is due to the fact thatfgashas a mass dependence. In a similar manner, the non-self-similarevolution required to explain the discrepancy between the SPTmeasurements and the theoretical predictions of the tSZ powerspectrum (subsection4.2.1) can be attributed to an evolution in

fgas. This assumption is motivated by recent observations thatshow scaling relations, which have a direct dependency on thefgas, do not always follow a self-similar evolution (see discussionin Böhringer et al. 2012). For example,Reichert et al.(2011) andHilton et al.(2012) have measured theLX−TX scaling relation indifferent redshift ranges, and they find it to be non-self-similar.

The X-ray bolometric luminosity scales withfgasas

Lbol ∝ f 2gasT

2E(z). (13)

If we assume that the temperature scaling remains self-similar,this would suggest an evolving baryon fraction in clusters.Thus,our tSZ power spectrum based on an evolvingfgas model, fol-lowing the results from previous subsection4.2.2, would suggest

E−1Lbol ∝ T 2.36(1+ z)−1.82±0.302, (14)

for the (1+ z)αz scaling, or

Lbol ∝ T 2.36E−1.58±0.54, (15)

for theE(z)8/3−ǫ scaling. We compare these results with the XCScluster sample result fromHilton et al. (2012), and also fromReichert et al.(2011) who use an ad-hoc high-z cluster sam-ple. Hilton et al. (2012) have found the scaling for the bolo-metric luminosity asE−1Lbol ∝ T 3.18(1 + z)−1.7±0.4 or Lbol ∝

T 3.18E−1.2±0.5. The result fromReichert et al.(2011) is a lesssignificant change with redshift for the soft-band luminosity:LX ∝ T 2.70±0.24E−0.23+0.12

−0.62. We see that our results are generallyconsistent with those fromHilton et al.(2012), but there is dis-agreement with theReichert et al.(2011) scaling. What is sig-nificant, however, is that the errors on the redshift evolution termfrom our modeling are similar to those available at present fromdirect X-ray observations. This illustrates the promise oftSZpower spectrum measurements to constrain cluster scaling re-lations, and we shall discuss its future prospects in subsection5.2.

Currently there are no directfgas measurement in a mass-limited cluster sample out to high redshifts. The works byAllenet al.(2004,2008) use carefully selected relaxed clusters from X-ray survey data, where they find thatfgasremains practically un-changed with redshift. The results from complete X-ray samplesare restricted to low redshifts, for example the REXCESS sam-ple byPratt et al.(2009). Therefore, we make a comparison withrecent results from N-body hydrodynamical simulations of clus-ters that have aimed at measuring the evolution of the baryoniccomponent. Fig.9 shows a comparison of thefgasfrom Battagliaet al.(2013), who use hydrodynamical TreePM-SPH simulationsincluding cooling, star-formation, and supernova and AGN feed-back, with our results. Clearly both our single power law evo-lution and the broken mass-dependent evolution models are in-consistent withBattaglia et al.(2013) predictions, which show anegligible change infgaswith redshift.

4.3. Non-self-similar: an evolving shape of the pressureprofile

In our study of a deviation from self-similarity, we have as-sumed the shape of the pressure profile remains constant withredshift, such that the outer pressure slope parameterβ does notchange withz. In reality this is unlikely to be true, since thecluster merger fraction steadily increases with redshift,mean-ing departure from hydrostatic equilibrium should become moresignificant at high-z, making non-thermal pressure support more



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

f gas

z

fgas ∝ (1 + z)−0.73

fgas ∝ (1 + z)−0.66

Battaglia 13

Fig. 9. Redshift evolution of the gas mass fraction,fgas, based on ourmodeling. The blue solid line is for redshift-dependentfgas followingthe (1+ z)αz power law, and the red dashed line if the same but with twodifferent mass scaling (see subsection4.2.2). The hatched and shadedregions mark the 1σ confidence intervals around these lines, respec-tively. Points with error bars are taken fromBattaglia et al.(2013) sim-ulations, who compute the meanfgas within r200.

prominent.Shaw et al.(2010) considered this effect and identi-fied a redshift evolution of the non-thermal pressure support aspotentially the most significant contributor to the lower ampli-tude of the tSZ power spectrum. An enhancement of the non-thermal pressure (random gas motions) with redshift is alsoshown by recent hydrodynamical simulations (Lau et al. 2009;Nelson et al. 2014), who in addition find that there is practicallyno mass dependence for this effect. Our treatment of a non-self-similar pressure shape, therefore, only consists of an evolutionwith redshift and no scaling with cluster mass.

We consider a model of this redshift-dependent steepeningof the pressure profile using a simple, analytic form for the slopeparameterβ as follows:

β = β0(1+ z)βz , (16)

Here β0 is the outer slope parameter atz = 0, roughly remi-niscent of the low-redshift measurements byA10 and Sun et al.(2011), andβz is its redshift scaling. Fig.10 shows the result ofmodel constraints using this new redshift-dependent term.Theparameterβz is highly degenerate withβ0, with large errors ontheir marginalized values:βz = 1.50+0.60

−0.55 andβ0 = 3.50+0.80−0.70 with

a PTE= 0.79. Likewise, if we parametrize the redshift evolutionof β with anE(z) power-law as

β = β′0E(z)β′z , (17)

we obtainβ′z = 2.12+1.19−1.07 andβ′0 = 3.79+0.79

−0.71 with a PTE= 0.76.This parameter degeneracy is a general conclusion wheneverwetry to constrain a pressure profile model parameter and its red-shift evolution simultaneously from the current SPT data.

5. Discussion and outlook

In this Section, we discuss the limitations of the present gen-eration tSZ power spectrum experiments to constrain multiplemodel parameters for the ICM pressure. We then make predic-tions for future experiments using simulated bandpower data,based on the same SPT baseline model but scaled to the expected

Fig. 10. 2D Likelihood contours for the correlation between theβ0

(the outer slope parameter atz = 0) andβz (its redshift evolution, seeEq.16). The colored contours show the 1, 2, and 3σ constraints, and themarginalized values are shown in the side panels. Bothβ0 andβz tendto lower the tSZ power amplitude and hence anti-correlate.

sensitivities for those new tSZ surveys. Finally, we consider theimpact of cosmological parameter uncertainties on our method-ology of constraining the ICM pressure from current and futuretSZ power measurements.

5.1. Need for better tSZ power spectrum measurements

In the course of our modification attempts for the ICM pressureprofile from its universal shape and amplitude, we found severalpotential solutions that can bring the power spectrum amplitudein accordance with the SPT data, but none of these solutionsare fully satisfactory in light of the current data or simulations.Evidently, more than one effect is responsible for the observedlow tSZ power, such as a combination of steeper pressure pro-file in the cluster outskirts (and possibly its redshift evolution)and a redshift-dependent baryonic fraction. Unfortunately, cur-rent ground- or space-based tSZ experiments do not have therequisite sensitivity and resolution to simultaneously constrainboth the shape and the amplitude of the tSZ power spectrum,while separating it from the other multiple astrophysical compo-nents affecting the CMB bandpowers at 150 GHz.

As an illustration we pick up the two most prominent pa-rameters featured in our analysis: the slope parameterβ and thenon-self-similar termαz, to demonstrate this parameter degen-eracy. Results are shown in Fig.11 with colored contours, andmarginalized values in red solid lines. When both parametersare varied simultaneously we obtainαz = −1.42 ± 0.75 andβ = 4.71± 0.71. Clearly, none of these constraints are very in-formative, the non-self-similar evolution term is consistent withzero at 2σ. A similar case arises for any other parameter combi-nation that can each individually attribute to the lower tSZpowermeasurement.

Upcoming SZ survey experiments, however, will have suf-ficient sensitivity and sky-coverage to place simultaneouscon-



Fig. 11. 2D likelihood contours for theβ andαz parameters and theirmarginalized values. The colored contours show the 1, 2, and3σ con-straints available from the SPT bandpowers ofR12. The black solidlines show the expected constraints from the CCAT tSZ survey. Themarginalized errors for CCAT (dashed lines) are almost an order ofmagnitude smaller.

straints on the amplitude and the shape of the tSZ power spec-trum. This will bring in a significant improvement in the param-eter uncertainties (e.g.,β or αz), and help to break the currentparameter degeneracies. Two such experiments are CCAT1 andSPT-3G. In the following we use CCAT to demonstrate the im-proved parameter constraints from future SZ experiments.

5.2. Predictions for CCAT

CCAT is expected to be a 25 meter class submillimeter telescopethat will perform high resolution microwave observations of theSouthern sky (e.g.,Woody et al. 2012). It will enable accuratemeasurements of the tSZ and kSZ power spectra in the multi-pole range between 2000< ℓ < 20000. CCAT will be moresensitive than SPT in the location of tSZ power spectrum peak,and thus can better constrain the shape and the normalization ofthe spectrum. Figure12 shows simulated CCAT bandpowers at150 GHz from a 5 years survey, performed over 2000 deg2 inapproximately 10, 000 hours of integration. The nominal noisevalue at 150 GHz for this fiducial CCAT survey is 12µK/beam. Itis assumed that the wide frequency coverage of CCAT, in partic-ular its 850µm band, will effectively remove the dusty sub-mmgalaxy confusion at lower frequencies.

We have used predicted CCAT bandpowers created using thebaseline SPT model (C. Reichardt, priv. comm.). Assuming thesame shapes for the foreground power spectra templates, themodels were extrapolated to higherℓ values to account for thefactor two better resolution of CCAT. For our analysis we alsoonly used the three auto-spectra frequencies (95, 150 and 220GHz) as in SPT, and the three cross-spectra, since the higherfrequencies mostly provide better constraints on the CIB spec-tra. The survey area was scaled from the SPT survey area usedin R12for improved statistical errors. Calibration and the beamuncertainties were included at 5% level. Although the increased

1 www.ccatobservatory.org

1

10

100

1000

100 1000

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at1

50

GH

z

5000 10000 15000 20000

ℓ5000 10000 15000 20000

ℓ

SPTCCAT

Primary CMBForegrounds

tSZ from SPTtSZ from CCAT

Fig. 12.The current SPT bandpower measurements for the total CMBanisotropies (black data points, fromR12), and the predicted bandpow-ers for CCAT (red points), shown with their respective±3σ errors. Thethick blue line is the best fit SPT foreground model, and the purpleline is the lensed CMB power spectrum. The cyan and magenta shadedregions represent the±3σ model uncertainties on the tSZ power spec-trum from the SPT and CCAT, respectively. This figure illustrates howthe improved sensitivity and angular resolution of CCAT canconstrainboth the amplitude and the shape of the tSZ power spectrum at the sametime.

frequency coverage of CCAT might enable a more precise mod-eling of the CIB background, we did not use any new foregroundmodel for our predictions. The CCAT bandpowers thus reflectan experiment with better sensitivity and resolution but with ourcurrent knowledge of the microwave foreground templates.

As seen from Fig.12, the combination of unprecedented sen-sitivity and angular resolution of CCAT can constrain the shapeand normalization of the tSZ power spectrum accurately, suf-ficient to break parameter degeneracies. When varying simul-taneously the evolution parameterαz and the slope termβ, weobtainαz = −1.42 ± 0.07 andβ = 4.71 ± 0.08 (see Fig.11,black contours). The marginalized errors on these two parame-ters thus show almost an order of magnitude improvement overthe current SPT-based results. Similar tight constraints are ob-tained from other parameter combinations as well. This result issignificant, since gaining an order of magnitude better accuracythrough targeted observation of galaxy clusters, either intSZ orin X-rays, will be very difficult, at least with the surveys plannedfor the coming decade. Through tSZ power spectrum measure-ments one can thus put the most stringent constraints on the massand redshift scaling of the pressure profile in galaxy groupsandclusters.

We can obtain very similar parameter constraints when us-ing simulated bandpowers for the SPT-3G experiment. SPT-3Gis the proposed third generation detector array on SPT (Benderet al. 2014), and will possibly have marginally better sky sensi-tivity than CCAT due to its longer survey duration. However,itsresolution will be worse than the CCAT and may not resolve theshape of the tSZ power equally well. It may also be less efficientin the modeling and removal of foreground components due to asmaller number of submillimeter frequency channels. Neverthe-less, as we use the same frequency bands and the same baselinemodel templates for computing the CCAT and SPT-3G results,the respective model constraints turn out to be very similar. Ourresults here are not intended as a comparison between experi-



2

4

6

810

20

Dℓ[µ

K]2

at1

50

GH

z

-8-6-4-202

1000 10000

χ

ℓ

SPT constraintsA10, WMAP CosmologyA10, Planck Cosmology

Fig. 13.Prediction for the tSZ power spectrum amplitude from theA10model, but using both the WMAP7 andPlanck best fit cosmologicalmodel parameters. The higher predicted amplitude from thePlanck cos-mology comes primarily from the higher values ofσ8 andΩb. Theshaded regions around the best-fit models are obtained usingthe respec-tive parameters chains for these two parameters. The highersensitiv-ity of Planck clearly provides tighter constraints, although will requiremore drastic changes to the ICM pressure profile than we considered inthis paper.

ments, rather as a general demonstration of how these upcomingexperiments can help to model cluster astrophysics parametersprecisely through the tSZ power spectrum.

5.3. Impact of cosmological uncertainties

The key assumption in our work had been that cosmological pa-rameters likeσ8 andΩm are known to infinite accuracies, whichis not realistic. In this final Section we discuss the issue ofpa-rameter priors instead of fixed values. The error in cosmologycan be of two different types. First, there is uncertainty in thecosmological model parameter fits in any given data set (or acombination thereof), that is given by the parameter covariances.Second, there can be additional systematic uncertainties betweenthe best fit values from different probes, like that between thecurrent WMAP andPlanck results based on the CMB analysis.In Fig.13we show the difference in amplitudes of the tSZ powerspectrum, computed using theA10model without modifications,from either the WMAP7 (Komatsu et al. 2011) orPlanck (PlanckCollaboration et al. 2015) best fit cosmological parameters. Theroughly factor 2 higher amplitude fromPlanck primarily comesfrom the higher values ofσ8 andΩb, since the tSZ amplituderoughly scales asDtSZ

ℓ∝ σ8.3

8 Ω2.8b (e.g.,R12). Consequently,

choosing the presentPlanck cosmological parameters instead ofthe WMAP values would require all the pressure profile modifi-cation results presented in this paper to be even stronger.

It is not the purpose of this work to address the current ten-sion between the WMAP andPlanck cosmological parametersvalues. However, even if a concordance is reached, there will al-ways remain the statistical uncertainties (and some unresolvedsystematics) in any specific cosmological model that will affectthe pressure model predictions based on the tSZ power. This is-sue can be addressed through applying known parameter priors

Table 2.Comparison of the redshift evolution parameterαz (Eq.11) andthe CIB amplitudes with and without priors on the cosmological param-eters. The adopted cosmology is from WMAP9 (Hinshaw et al. 2013),and we use the corresponding chains for cosmological parameters aspriors, instead of fixed parameter values.

SPT CCATNo priors With priors No priors With priors

αz −0.73± 0.16 −0.98± 0.25 −0.73± 0.02 −0.79± 0.07DP

3000 7.69± 0.27 7.69± 0.24 7.69± 0.01 7.54± 0.02DC

3000 6.35± 0.49 6.36± 0.48 6.35± 0.04 6.26± 0.05

in the MCMC chain while computing the halo mass function andthe volume element.

We set priors on the two cosmological parameters that af-fect the tSZ power spectrum most:Ωm andσ8. The priors arefrom the WMAP9 measurements (Hinshaw et al. 2013), Ωm =

0.264± 0.00973 andσ8 = 0.81± 0.014, and we take care ofthe correlation between the parameters by using the actual pa-rameter chains from WMAP9. We run our chains marginalizingover these two parameters, to constrain the redshift evolution pa-rameterαz, as well as the CIB amplitude parameters. We obtainαz = −0.98± 0.25, DP

3000 = 7.69± 0.24, DC3000 = 6.36± 0.48,

whose values and errors are consistent with the ones obtainedpreviously (see subsection4.2.1). The use ofPlanck cosmologi-cal priors instead of WMAP9 provides a roughly factor 2 betterconstraints on these parameters, as can be seen from the respec-tive uncertainty intervals in Fig.13. A similar conclusion wasobtained byHill & Pajer (2013), who obtained constraints forthe outer-slope parameterβ at 6%− 8% level, after marginaliz-ing over cosmology, using a noise power model forPlanck .

For the predicted CCAT bandpowers, we constrain the evo-lution parameterαz in a similar way, with and without priors onthe cosmological parameters. For the priors in this case we takea fiducial 1% uncertainty onσ8 andΩm. This is assuming thatby the time when CCAT will be in operation, the constraints onthe cosmological parameters will be tighter thanks to some otherexperiments, like DES or eROSITA2. The results are displayedin Table2. Clearly, switching from fixed cosmological values torealistic priors makes no major changes in the results, the samebeing true also for other pressure model parameters. The generalconclusions presented in this work remain valid even when theparameter uncertainties are degraded by a factor∼ 2 − 3 whilemarginalizing over the cosmology.

6. Summary and conclusions

We have provided a systematic calibration of intracluster gasmodels against observational data for the tSZ power spectrum. Inparticular, we used the GNFW model for an analytical descrip-tion of the gas pressure profile with empirically determinedpa-rameters fromArnaud et al.(2010, A10). We tested various ex-tensions of this model against the SPT measured values of CMBbandpowers on arcminute scales (Reichardt et al. 2012, R12).We employed an MCMC based method following the baselinemodel of SPT to explore the parameter likelihoods.

Similar to earlier works, we found that the “universal” pres-sure model ofA10 produces an amplitude of the tSZ power spec-trum that is roughly a factor two higher than that measured bythe SPT, ACT, andPlanck. In addition to theA10 model itself,we tested the GNFW models fitted directly to thePlanck andBolocam data, which fail to account for the low tSZ power in

2 http://www.mpe.mpg.de/eROSITA



the same way as theA10 model. The measurement errors in thePlanck andBolocam results are small compared to the currentmismatch between model predictions and experimental results.

We considered three different modifications to theA10 pres-sure model: first, following a strictly self-similar evolution; sec-ond, applying a weakly self-similar evolution where only the am-plitude of the pressure profile changes with redshift and mass;and third, having a non-self-similar evolution where both theamplitude and shape ofP(r) change with redshift. For the self-similar case, we only varied the cluster outer slope parameter,β,because it has the weakest observational constraint. The maxi-mum likelihood value, which needed to reconcile model predic-tions with the SPT bandpowers, isβ = 6.3 ± 0.2. This is sig-nificantly higher than the most probable values measured by theBolocam and Planck cluster tSZ observation. It also produceslow-ℓ tSZ power that is inconsistent with thePlanck tSZ band-power measurements.

In a weak departure from self-similarity, we took the shapeof the pressure profile as constant with redshift, but let theam-plitude evolve differently than for self-similar models. We con-sidered a power-law dependence of (1+ z) or an additional expo-nent toE(z) to model this evolution in the pressure scaling. Sucha dependence on redshift could be due to an evolution of thegas mass fraction,fgas, with redshift. We found that such modelsproduce an excellent fit to the SPT data. However, an evolutionof fgas also affects the X-ray luminosity and would thereby pro-duce some tension with the measuredLX − TX scaling relationof high-z clusters. Additionally, a strong decrease infgas withredshift appears to be inconsistent with some recent hydrody-namical simulations of cosmological halo samples.

In a final attempt to modify the GNFW pressure profile ofA10, we let both its shape and amplitude vary with redshift ina strong departure from self-similarity. We considered a simplemodeling for the redshift dependence of the pressure outer slopeparameterβ, as motivated by the recent simulations of randomgas motions in the cluster outskirts. We found that in such casesthe parameters are highly degenerate: neither the pressureslopeat z = 0 nor its redshift evolution can be constrained accuratelyfrom the current tSZ power spectrum data.

The degeneracy between the model parameters is a generalproblem when using the currently available CMB bandpowermeasurements. For future CMB/tSZ experiments with better sen-sitivities, these degeneracies can be broken by measuring boththe shape and the amplitude of the tSZ power spectrum to highaccuracy. We used the simulated bandpower measurements foraCCAT 2000 deg2 sky survey and found almost an order of mag-nitude improvement over the current model parameter uncertain-ties. This can, for example, enable simultaneous measurementsof the outer slope parameter and the redshift evolution offgas tothe level of a few percent.

We tested the impact of cosmological parameter uncertain-ties, in particularσ8 andΩm, on our results. For the current SPT-data based results, we used the WMAP9 cosmological parameteruncertainties, directly using the chains for the relevant cosmo-logical parameters as priors in our MCMC modeling. This de-grades the uncertainties on the pressure profile parameterslikeβ or αz by roughly a factor two. For the CCAT fiducial sur-vey, we reduced the cosmological errors by an additional 50%.This causes the ICM pressure model errors for CCAT to degraderoughly by a factor three, which will still be sufficient to placestrong constraints on multiple model parameters. The largesys-tematic difference between the current WMAP andPlanck cos-mological parameters remain an open question, although we notethat adopting to thePlanck cosmology will roughly cause a fac-

tor two higher prediction of the tSZ power amplitude, so willrequire more drastic modifications to the ICM pressure profilethan we considered in this paper.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the help from Christian Reichardt and DaisukeNagai in providing the simulated bandpower measurements forCCAT; Laurie Shaw for sharing his tSZ and kSZ power spec-trum templates; and Jack Sayers for sharing theBolocam clus-ter pressure profile fit results. The authors acknowledge finan-cial support from the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft),through the Transregio Programme TR33 “The Dark Universe”.FP acknowledges support from BMBF/DLR grant 50 OR 1117.

References

Allen, S. W., Rapetti, D. A., Schmidt, R. W., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383,879

Allen, S. W., Schmidt, R. W., Ebeling, H., Fabian, A. C., & vanSpey-broeck, L. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 457

Arnaud, M., Pointecouteau, E., & Pratt, G. W. 2007, A&A, 474,L37Arnaud, M., Pratt, G. W., Piffaretti, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 517, A92

(A10)Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2012a, ApJ,

758, 74Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2012b, ApJ,

758, 75Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., & Sievers, J. L. 2013, ApJ,

777, 123Battaglia, N., Bond, J. R., Pfrommer, C., Sievers, J. L., & Sijacki, D.

2010, ApJ, 725, 91Bender, A. N., Cliche, J.-F., de Haan, T., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-

Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol.9153, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers(SPIE)Conference Series, 1

Bhattacharya, S., Heitmann, K., White, M., et al. 2011, ApJ,732, 122Bhattacharya, S., Nagai, D., Shaw, L., Crawford, T., & Holder, G. P.

2012, ApJ, 760, 5Bode, P., Ostriker, J. P., & Vikhlinin, A. 2009, ApJ, 700, 989Böhringer, H., Dolag, K., & Chon, G. 2012, A&A, 539, A120Borgani, S., Murante, G., Springel, V., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 1078de Zotti, G., Ricci, R., Mesa, D., et al. 2005, A&A, 431, 893Dunkley, J., Hlozek, R., Sievers, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 739, 52Efstathiou, G. & Migliaccio, M. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2492Fakhouri, O., Ma, C.-P., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, MNRAS, 406,

2267George, E. M., Reichardt, C. L., Aird, K. A., et al. 2015, ApJ,799, 177Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., et al. 1998, ApJ, 503,

543Hall, N. R., Keisler, R., Knox, L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 632Hernández-Monteagudo, C., Trac, H., Verde, L., & Jimenez, R. 2006,

ApJ, 652, L1Hill, J. C. & Pajer, E. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 063526Hilton, M., Romer, A. K., Kay, S. T., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2086Hinshaw, G., Larson, D., Komatsu, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208,19Kaiser, N. 1986, MNRAS, 222, 323Keisler, R., Reichardt, C. L., Aird, K. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 28Komatsu, E. & Kitayama, T. 1999, ApJ, 526, L1Komatsu, E. & Seljak, U. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1256Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18Lau, E. T., Kravtsov, A. V., & Nagai, D. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1129Lueker, M., Reichardt, C. L., Schaffer, K. K., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719,

1045Mann, A. W. & Ebeling, H. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2120Maughan, B. J., Giles, P. A., Randall, S. W., Jones, C., & Forman, W. R.

2012, MNRAS, 421, 1583McCarthy, I. G., Le Brun, A. M. C., Schaye, J., & Holder, G. P. 2014,

MNRAS, 440, 3645



Nagai, D., Kravtsov, A. V., & Vikhlinin, A. 2007, ApJ, 668, 1Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 720Nelson, K., Lau, E. T., & Nagai, D. 2014, ApJ, 792, 25Piffaretti, R. & Valdarnini, R. 2008, A&A, 491, 71Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014a, A&A,

571, A12Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014b, A&A,

571, A21Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2013, A&A,

550, A131Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2015, ArXiv

e-prints [arXiv:1502.01589]Pratt, G. W., Croston, J. H., Arnaud, M., & Böhringer, H. 2009, A&A,

498, 361Reichardt, C. L., Shaw, L., Zahn, O., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 70(R12)Reichert, A., Böhringer, H., Fassbender, R., & Mühlegger, M. 2011,

A&A, 535, A4Rubiño-Martín, J. A. & Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1155Sayers, J., Czakon, N. G., Mantz, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 177Scott, D. & White, M. 1999, A&A, 346, 1Sehgal, N., Bode, P., Das, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 920Shaw, L. D., Nagai, D., Bhattacharya, S., & Lau, E. T. 2010, ApJ, 725,

1452Shaw, L. D., Rudd, D. H., & Nagai, D. 2012, ApJ, 756, 15Shi, X. & Komatsu, E. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 521Shirokoff, E., Reichardt, C. L., Shaw, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 61Sievers, J. L., Hlozek, R. A., Nolta, M. R., et al. 2013, J. Cosmology

Astropart. Phys., 10, 60Suárez-Velásquez, I. F., Mücket, J. P., & Atrio-Barandela,F. 2013, MN-

RAS, 431, 342Sun, M., Sehgal, N., Voit, G. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, L49Sun, M., Voit, G. M., Donahue, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1142Sunyaev, R. A. & Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics

and Space Physics, 4, 173Sunyaev, R. A. & Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1980, MNRAS, 190, 413Tinker, J., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, 709Trac, H., Bode, P., & Ostriker, J. P. 2011, ApJ, 727, 94Vikhlinin, A., Kravtsov, A., Forman, W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 640, 691Voit, G. M. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 36, 701Wilson, M. J., Sherwin, B. D., Hill, J. C., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86,

122005Woody, D., Padin, S., Chauvin, E., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-

Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol.8444, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers(SPIE)Conference Series, 2

Appendix A: Details of the R12 sky model

In this appendix, we summarize the models defined byReichardtet al.(2012, R12) for the different components of the microwavesky diffuse emission. These are used as a baseline throughoutthe article while constraining parameters from the measured SPTbandpowers.

– Lensed Primary CMB. The lensed CMB is calculated withCAMB3. Gravitational lensing effects are important becausethey tend to increase the power of the CMB anisotropies onsmall angular scales, compared to the unlensed estimates.

– Poisson infrared (IR) source power. This term takes into ac-count the shot-noise fluctuation power from randomly dis-tributed microwave-emitting galaxies. It is given by

DPℓ,ν1,ν2

= DP3000ǫν1ν2η

ανν1ν2

(

ℓ

3000

)2

, (A.1)

3 http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/tb_camb_form.cfm

where DP3000 ≡ DP

3000,ν0,ν0is the amplitude of the Poisson

power term for infrared galaxies atℓ = 3000 and at referencefrequencies (ν0): 97.9, 153.8, and 219.6 GHz. The coefficient

ǫν1,ν2 ≡

dBdT |ν0

dBdT |ν0

dBdT |ν1

dBdT |ν2

, (A.2)

is the ratio of power in theν1⊗ν2 cross-spectrum with respectto theν0 ⊗ ν0 auto-spectrum.ην1ν2 = (ν1ν2/ν20) is the ratio ofthe frequencies of the spectrum to the reference frequency.R12 obtained a best fit value for the spectral index ofαν =3.45.B(T ) is the CMB blackbody specific intensity.

– Clustered IR source power. Because the infrared galaxiestrace the mass distribution, they are spatially correlated. Thisleads to a clustered term in the power spectrum of infraredgalaxies given by

DCℓ,ν1,ν2

= DC3000ǫν1ν2η

αcν1ν2

(

ℓ

3000

)0.8

, (A.3)

whereDC3000 is defined as in the IR Poisson term, andαc =

3.72 is the best fit value taken fromR12. Moreover,R12adopted the power law modelℓ0.8 from Lyman-break corre-lated galaxies (Giavalisco et al. 1998; Scott & White 1999).

– Radio source power. The brightest point sources in the SPTmaps coincide with known radio sources. To take this contri-bution into account, the Poisson radio term is given by

DRℓ = DR

3000ǫν1ν2ηαRν1ν2

(

ℓ

3000

)2

, (A.4)

where DR3000 is the amplitude of the radio Poisson power

spectrum atℓ = 3000 with value 1.28±0.19µK2 at 150 GHz.This value is based on thede Zotti et al.(2005) source countmodel.αR = −0.53 is the mean spectral index from theShi-rokoff et al.(2011) analysis.

– Galactic cirrus. An average Galactic cirrus contribution termis parametrized as

Dcirℓ = Dcir,ν1,ν2

3000

(

ℓ

3000

)−1.2

. (A.5)

Following the cirrus treatment inHall et al. (2010) andKeisler et al.(2011), R12measured powers atℓ = 3000 to be0.16, 0.21, and 2.19 µK2 for 95, 150, and 220 GHz respec-tively.

– kSZ power spectrum. A homogeneous kSZ power spectrumis adopted, following thecooling plus star-formation (CSF)model ofShaw et al.(2012). This model is constructed bycalibrating an analytic model with two hydrodynamical sim-ulations. The CSF template predicts 1.6 µK2 at ℓ = 3000.

– tSZ power spectrum. R12uses the analytical model ofShawet al.(2010) as a template for the tSZ power, which relies ona physical cluster model coupled with halo formalism simi-lar to the one presented in Section2.1. Their cluster modelmainly accounts for star formation, energy feedback (fromsupernovae and active galactic nuclei), and non-thermal pres-sure support. In our analysis, we replace the Shaw et al.model by a phenomenological description of the intraclus-ter pressure profile that allow us for more freedom.


Documents

from the thermal SZ power spectrum - arXiv · the future CMB/SZ experiments (e.g., CCAT and SPT-3G) to predict their ability to breakthe parameterdegeneraciesand con-strain cluster