1994MNRAS.270..245S Mon. Ian Accepted Gravitational galaxy Physics of The known Yoshii with tion cosmological and & tion reveal Cambridge 1 Framlington tpresent tPresent metals *Present The Jarvis predictions INTRODUCTION no of Not. rate surface Smail,* both Department, & a in no high convincing local 1994 address: R. gradual that Takahara 1979). address: address: disc © evolution CB3 Astron. Soc. redshift Place, modest surface density Royal properties is April geometry galaxies OHA. based sufficient The Caltech bluing Newcastle Richard University Institute Medical turnover 15. 1990; density (Kron of and Astronomical deepest on Received today 270, faint lensing 105-24, with (Tyson of field no extrapolating Lilly, to distributions NE2 1978; of 245-270 of School, to of galaxies yield (Cowie increasing Durham, evolution, optical blue B Cowie 1994 S. Astronomy, 4HH. Pasadena, 1988; galaxies, - ABSTRACT luminosity From (/~25) clusters 1603 and demonstrate lower of dark mass redshift prediction, dominated reconstructing 1~25, principal 1~25. Key - Peterson a 28 Ellist light galaxies: significant the (1994) University April 1991 of is counts (Metcalfe South words: & dynamical Metcalfe matter significantly + Society to in redshift implies faint field faint apparent deep Gardner irrespective which distant CA 43, under 8; that ). tail across et large The the Road, in Madingley result and are photometry 91125, al. by z original galaxies: such fraction and/or to are in = of optical that et a nature 1979; most the inconsistent et redshift have low-z clusters, Durham star 0.89), 1991 the the al. magnitude the • a data, Mike Newcastle, suitable is al. in population USA. assump the as wide 199 Provided form forma field of therefore excess no-evolution lensing Tyson full distant of of 1990; a ), Road, distances would optical dwarf mass images we 3 and it the DHJ the the the significant 1993 ). - whose redshift is J. two-dimensional construct cosmology: for 3LE straightforward distributions galaxies Fitchett:j: clusters. systems. December lensing be well probing the by of richness spectrographs (Broadhurst, considerable cant distribution. made redshift population (Glazebrook Cowie, incompleteness galaxies, most redshift ness by and must population Notwithstanding evolution X-ray expected range, redshift three the low-redshift beyond absence which statistically redshifts departure in rigorous to cluster. A lie The 9 observations properties the NASA Songaila a distribution B tail significant we within sizeable prediction. where clusters, (1455 in = by the dominating degree effects of distribution spectroscopic if distributions 22.5 with our of To Ellis et to interest separate blue - statement on In the from counts rich is al. a Astrophysics galaxies: rule the & a + lensing complete the ( excess incompleteness z negligible Colless & 4-m sample dominant the 22, are volume ~ 1994 Hu number of to sources, for selected Shanks the lensing limits - incompleteness, 1, out and gravitational which exceed gravitational second class clusters well the B-selected 1991; the but predicted ), z on clusters compared depends et is evolution field = a depends from counts attainable that samples compared limits al. it 1988; effects less the 0.26; proportion constrained. if telescopes signature counts low-z we Glazebrook is by the it 1993 redshift paper redshift is than important exists Data the can are no-evolution samples remains Colless and beyond virtue no-evolution on consistent critically 0016 ), of dwarf lensing. of lensing. - to the at where - 5 well lensing with constrain to galaxies: the the as the in faint ( is per could System B I. distribution faint the the distributions bulk et + seen a et of Based has - B understood, this high-throughput distribution to distribution mean Faint cent. the population "" factor separate 16, al. 24 - al. on field no-evolution By 15 their yet note be with of 22 limits signal. ), 1990, shape incomplete in series, 1994). formation its prediction. any no the At in selecting been z on is per galaxies of the redshift = that the redshift a thus signifi X-ray can B excess these entity, 0.55; high of 1993; x were high The - seen two cent The 4-6 for
we no the the by
of of 24 to be of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 246 because functions determined. spectral statistically examples that population systems. found Colless galaxy Jurcevic Efstathiou Broadhurst, may which marked by blue of concluded required has sources, culties galaxy dominated luminosities median removed. (cf. samples significant ceivable of there rapidly State (Allington-Smith secure (1994) diagnostic in much the needed, redshifted stantially signal constrain explored on imaging tion. sponding (1990). 10-m Determining The faint Unfortunately, no In severe B Broadhurst the come the mean simultaneously light = The would means this of may (cf. I. class population beyond produced importance formation, 26 et in redshifts field demonstrate approaching decrease We at excess weak redshift fainter therefore, Such the Smail, redshifts & that emission, the of fainter · for al. arises Babul in the approximately relevant © redshift If paper, or from features et beyond B support to identifying cosmological galaxies that progress defined, to Boyle have, telescopes, be Following for Ellis ( prove art = a samples al. it Royal the 1994) be field the scrutiny. redshift observations clustering distortion the 26 pioneering B=25. a is the et than there such were (1991) in faint & cospatial limited than rapid closely R. in to by however, we associated et & (Cowie median whose al. represent as difficulty 1993) incompleteness is of recent 8000 samples faintest it) Rees an can nature conventional population found the angular Cole explain originates S. al. B Glazebrook physical B"" an rich a a 1992), the proposed describe could convincingly B Astronomical that object lies distribution alternative is possible = increase Broadhurst faint More So the be Ellis hard and = 1994) independent it 24 spectroscopic 1992). present-day A an 24. tracks angular distance to present et of 24. star clusters with star in scalelengths et seen that will redshift paper of long extended (for limits are are excess subsequent al. in the sample, B excess whereas, the be For spectrographs, the with faintness background of and al. importantly, the properties formation formation ::> and such 1991; its how be in in in 4-6 chosen clustering to Some sources with to by consistent counts the as 27). made. excess fact a correlation viewpoint, identifying (1993) 1992). by excess quiescent the the convincing galaxies by painful of M. a optical at to simple would the in MOSIS et Babul the determine how, of populations sources h the no-evolution even Tyson, The the method primordial Tresse the counterparts that optical median different a al.'s if support any a exposures. J. limit dwarf excess to and same surveys, population, workers cannot If recent a Society gravitational sample On induced method, population faint in Fitchett such as found if significant virtually technique merger of have field & hardly (1988) to with z with Glazebrook the (Le a counterpart, spectroscopy only redshift > for are et which such [Ou] Valdes function B"" the region, Rees, z for push redshift. separate evidence systems depth representative galaxy 1 for > al. population as redshifts distances era the counts /:5.25 often intense Fevre galaxies two tail. be (e.g. 1), that other which determining 26 statistically, population, are the by 199 change not as luminosity suggestion model, this Even prediction 3727 cannot is • all the it idea of no galaxies, i.e. resulting & merging data is reasons. is IDSS-2 fraction What reliably that through popula Couch, 3 double Provided only is studies largely is lensing excess (corre model 1993), at of dwarf dwarf ). hand, useful hard, based Wenk limits for diffi were [Ou] et have con A (but with sub and and first the the the can the (cf. for be by al. is is is is a by lensing WORK which by several of ground In review vector sample Our orientations 2 target more presents pattern signal catalogues constraints gentially the by used are cluster objects, idealized images have tribute shifts controlled lens, the redshift analyses dispersion Ziens' potential simple conditions, dynamics. three N(z). strained, consistent gas a described measured technique panion projected adequate the A cluster The The Kaiser It verifying Section presented THE the statistics core but method and may a plan to M( detail zlens' second clusters, should, selection, variety to (Grossman the members first is clusters clusters, with works of galaxies isothermal most paper overcome to NASA Astrophysics are also r). distribution various to case radius to the bears & be, well LENSING to image cluster By with 2D not developed in superimposed of i= above across of lensing are 3, a the some To stage required. Squires we redshift of the check the lensing of by the paper to however, in ideally, fixed elementary applying this of the 1 of as map only we each [parametrized to a logic discussed decouple at the faint little by ... the Section using determine re can lensing distortions, relative a statistical context data nor follows. sequence radius extent, of would cluster the this members. different sample discuss paper the cluster test the its (kpc) & of model. by n, in amount population, apparent (1992). complexity signal. of delineates of relation image sources be N(z). by test concentration. the this the a acquisition Narayan cluster the METHOD article that a low which this proposed. 6. new powers, read from Kaiser joint vector of J distribution and give The follows. these variation in lensing test of series combination in whether upon tests of the model These the distances, signal-to-noise In the paper and The shapes. orthogonal identical Section inversion a in foreground In 'test' to the likelihood magnitude by potential X-ray can shows has misleading gravitational measures practice, given new distribution the conjunction & mean we is two concentration (Smail 1988). its to that and latter such intrinsic mass ac1 depth and redshift Squires and This to field In been be Data parameters in AND have shape the coherent the Of observations, imaging factors, the Although observed 5 allow cluster, how (km of lenses Section the but inverted, distance its result technique reduction. et a at of and produces course, redshift Although serves to lens imaged observed lensing technique of dark applied of companion to the al. limit, fraction situation, PREVIOUS System a the of results. ( also, distributions. s - the the cluster 1992 ratio some of ellipticities the lensing resolution with our course, the at 1994, the forms data i more according centre. nature field, proportion ), dark matter of 2, different lensing to for the can significantly, neither to gravitational distributions aligned using cluster the conclusions in ), field inherent this to signals freedom mass a developed we and explain to fraction of The Section the Paper including an technique the across coherent the the N( matter of complex the be the velocity clusters define paper. aligned can article. In briefly galaxy radius in galaxy z) a back /:5.25 that in weak X-ray signal basis same com faint faint con con red Our tan to and and new the the II), the test are be all of in in
in is in 4
is a a Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S for does the the are format (1990) luminous review probes s- axies excess and and least Applying Lx amounting Cl1409 derived BE & that analytic differences. constructing genuinely large redshifts have a allow distribution, depth. can reach members. (z Simulations al.' lens different Whilst however, a of B"' appropriate constructed. near-infrared passband Our 1 Squires candidate = Our Very s known , = an distributed. ambiguities results [22, 500 rectify brighter 27 these 0.37), not 9.2 ac1=1800±200 equations 70 showed q shifted format I:::;, a recovery 0 method those available By of study aligned + radial = presented surface galaxies. 26] techniques. recently, the per x kpc, yield 25 to clusters: 52. a 0.5 method by high-redshift redshift profiles 1992). the © 10 show whose this probing The to statistic field equivalent First, z::;,0.5, show cent limit. studies beyond list using 44 a using alignment CCD individual extends respectively Royal Using 'mass' for an faint is throughout). "'30-40 and more to This erg in of density at component Cl1455+22 Cl1603+43 Cl0016+16 second of Table how qualitatively sample. absolute of Kneib They mass by derive that the (Soucail Abell Cluster the represent to the possible more s-1, a a a detectors likely galaxy a based Tyson There in the this profiles important the selecting extensive single magnitude closely Astronomical constrain the time determination pioneering 1. Kaiser km this B::;,27 to the population tangential profile of ac1 galaxies BE select et observing 16 signal, easily arclet important their Details and /E analysis arclets (we estimate on sources context - et et distribution, would are also restricted s- 8 ( 9 al. cluster, substructure [22, for the 3000 [20, Samples al. different is the al. and the using 1 & in adopt 0.259 0.895 0.546 ( cosmic is remove sample sample z a result 1994) and Tyson the of 1988). Squires redshifts surface the would z B relatively = in 26] deeper 24], well and dark alignment not single to applying the of analysis km of whose that 0 and passband. of some long clusters, an A1689 .18, difference H the Cl1409+52 redshift imaging of population Tyson our three be is but the attempt constrained have from distances 0 s- et and contaminating R.A. unbiased ooh They were of faint i4h55moo~6 16ho2m45~0 restricting is not = the and Society essential inversion baseline potential cluster cannot possible Lx cluster, in in 1 important paper. Lyman al. total only sufficiently 50 ). clusters 15m may baryonic small, a previous be The median good the utilized signal, et of = and but thus (1950) claimed visually km to distribution By variety selected 1. 56~0 to the al. cluster sensitive galaxies centres. radii is two cluster 7 x it Tyson individually. be has small N(z) colours, s - limit only selecting be at to Abell 'invert' we ( (cf. observed. the seeing, technique. transpires bluer (z=0.46, from 1990 increased • however, they 1 10 Tyson strategic redshift remove a correct, lensing z Mpc- identify r5,380 matter X-ray of high that briefly Provided Kaiser cluster cluster simply Dec. would mass, that 45 rather ~ 12 22°32'20'.'7 43°12'54'.'0 CCD 16°09'36~0 et mass with The ), with also new gal to 0.9. arcs 370 erg the we we al. by in at to in of et is 1 a (1950) Lensing The such subarcsecond 3.1 3 format ellipticities apply could discussed ellipticity addition, account appropriately, system scale 0.27-arcsec ideally arcmin colour large variation tion by are image, orientations FWHM. pixel completeness /=25 in 1.5, were deep density Gunn, optical observations luminous negative systems (1455+22, (see Further projection z 1990) 1991 = The Excellent I Most 1.60 1.43 Obse.rvations 1.1 THE the 0.89), then and leading of errors, also lensing studies Observational format to easily Lx identified, X-ray of size May, baseline suited (Lilly - on seems EEV two 1044 cluster we Hoessel clusters 10 10 of 2 10 the NASA all details published used at Table To of measurements DATA "'2.5, 45 X-ray 45 the the evolution in primarily below, optical ks of of estimated passbands to we likely on be effects. the a seeing real observations sampling on signal achieve CCD, et EEV to the will in 4.2-m in seeing limit of in a faint given z=0.26; to members pixel ~ affected have the an 1 consistent 1324 al. lensing this of (Couch V a clusters at In of ks 7 - al. of to it a 2. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 248 During with second exposures of limit arcsec FWHM). were process sky final analyse night, twilight was stars flats. complex following was sensitivity objects gradients rich regions. reduction give The (ii) The two (i) (iii) flatfield very frames then very only cluster were we in 'superflats', After L An spacing observations target The the image run, the flatfields order with reduction Smail, affair stable, steps. across used Accordingly, considered © used were good object was first images. also variations of for cleaned however, Royal bias containing clusters random shapes Table 1990 to Cl0016+16 Cl0016+16 below Cl1603+43 Cl1603+43 Telescope: Instrument: Detector: Pixel Cl1455+22 Cl1455+22 Cl1603+43 Cl1603+43 Telescope: Instrument: Pixel Detector: than and, to run, the entire for performed 'dithered' Cluster Cluster seeing. taken track with the R. were detection replace which July of Numerous subtraction photometric 2. we comprised normal S. by size: frames images size: 0.01 for Astronomical photometric in variations Journal in-field sky suitable the Ellis and and taken encountered at combining the During the a many night mag. on regular all contain 1991 single values Filter using seeing Filter image algorithm lensing were were data residual v and v I a I v v pixels each I I of shorter multiple dithered was rectangular 4.2m TAURUSII GEC 0'.'27 for May. 4.2m TAURUSII GEC 0'.'27 work and the bright in observations IRAF passband removed taken then M. reduction, drawn deteriorated intervals R.A. ooh15m56~0 the ooh15m55~0 data zero-point 15ho2m45~0 l6ho2m45~0 R.A. night. analysis. 14h55moo~6 14h55moo~6 15ho2m45~0 16ho2m45~0 constructed both contained photometric this second /pixel /pixel WHT EEV WHT exposures J. trimming, large-scale EEV and (FOCAS, transparency. and median-combined Society large for ;:;; (1950) Fitchett during (1950) images study The from the 1000-s were using grid (880 consisted each f/4 (1280 both f/4 throughout for portion especially WHT galaxies. errors WHT Valdes transparency within pixel-to-pixel surrounding beyond and with two not of this x Dec. ( the conditions Dec. night. is 43°12'54'.'0 43°12'54'?0 16°09'36'?0 16°09'36'.'0 clusters, 1.0-arcsec large-scale 22° exposures 22° 43°12'54'.'0 43°12'54'.'0 x variations • 1180 standard 1180 Further used a runs Run used twilight Run Provided 32'20'.' 32'20'.' period on 10-15 of of bright 1982) (1950) (1950) more for The pixels) The the the the the made the pixels) #1 to to #2 to a a 7 7 Observing Observing 22/23-24/25 22/23-24/25 on 11/12-12/13 11/12-12/13 by arising inherent actual the cally defined over alignment distortion quality. to this positions successfully arcsec ellipticity random are frames, for median discuss The 21/22 µv=28.9 deep The 21/22 when 3.2 the 13/14 12/13 (iv) A The linear superflats the William would stacked, aitos in variations typical the remapped size comparison images. Date Object flatfield. optimizing Date July over Log July The l\1ay l\1ay Log from processed To the creation one algorithm by NASA Astrophysics and feature frame. of of interpolation July July and mag l\1ay l\1ay vectors revealed remove produce Herschel the pre-cleaned a 1990 1990 a typical all 1 in 1991 1991 removed thus the resulting selection to a large depth arcsec- each 1990 sources. 1990 entire surface 1991 1991 according produce A of the mismatch frames should of sky with and this spline the a an number passband, of Telescope faint analysis offset of frame. Seeing serious Seeing the 2 0'.'95 0'.'90 in 1'.'05 l'.'00 distortion, reliable brightness. 0'.'90 0'.'85 each l'.'00 uncorrected brightness within an 1'.'5 focal and Investigations the images the were add surface an object to distortion additive of frames µ final The frames pixel ( uncorrelated a technique, it technique, reduction reducing 1 incoherently (WHT 25500 Exposure 9000 11000 20500 ~ Exposure 20850 4800 12000 for 11500 this = then the objects system 100} of were 27.8 remaining reduced was every limit each was Data This twilight so.s surface. scaling combined of ), obtained radial to mag of in fitted then revealed of catalogues remapped the optics. in in image of (s) a per provided (s) fiducial objects System images. the is the the arcsec- level rms offset when distortion flatfield same flatfielded residuals The to most cent. two off-axis was are three using Uncorrected, the this error below distributed references, remapping the to from efficient field bands according such 2 geometri two X • to clusters. and We account a appear frames and in in image broad be using these after 0.07 final that, now are: the the the an to Y Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S (Fig. detail two which checking obvious teristics threshold the (f."" pixels). seeing combined run Figure in Object the global tests constant main 1 by faintest ,,,--...... _,, ). corresponds disc. 0 1. u u CJ) Q) u 0 Q) I- The spurious of These Jarvis on the detection A 1 x 1 1 x A such of sky © parameters 0 """" the 0 N I"') 0 small, FOCAS analysis 2.5 success Royal - sigma, that, & algorithm representative parameters arcmin sources. asky Tyson object but roughly is in sample Astronomical rate asky) performed per the representative, 2 that test (1981} detection are final The of pixel and ( to /;, area control 0 faint were the E a image, the optimum 10 of (see 24- 25 over in on threshold the object the minimum algorithm 25) asky optimized also co-added the an a 1455 1x1 are faintest flat detection Society combination Valdes area detection detections marked. + spectrum arcmin cut 22 object is of V described objects) frame. by (in 20 1982). + within 10 • I 2 units area visually charac images, regions against Provided source pixels, This was The has the (in of in R.A. is a a Lensing 20.8-ks (arcsec) by 30 approach equal These and and detected catalogues detection the rejected faint detection noise repeatedly To I frame the improves exposure, analysed galaxy studies flux faint determine frames at NASA Astrophysics on on in boundaries, both contributions this galaxy, were added both images the the detection with of are point. on provides individual V 40 frames. the clusters merged 40 +I reproduced the into by from effective objects image, median-combining and individual of a from a Any the region bands, objects to thus - fainter detected l. the data. each define objects completeness in Faint have object we of with Figs 50 detection This Data filter. V above created ill-defined the a whose and galaxy very 2(a}-(c}. final areas was Tests cluster System a I= I extreme large limit isophotes a then limit list 25. were frames. high N show shapes, After Those frame. (z) of for number scaled for evaluated signal-to 60 that colours. sources images These object initial touch objects 249 were The this and of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S detection tion completeness 250 tions earlier, our three which could images, then weighted The parameters I 3(a)-(c). exposure Figure image, Standard catalogues. colour of are, performed catalogues, be ...---...... __, means 0 /.Smail, 2. we (/) 0 0 Q) 0 L 0 Q) the The compared and (a) isophotal times in second process Composite actually © magnitude I") 0 0 N 0 0 fact, ...-- 0 0 aperture images, for 80 limit that Royal aperture are We lower and moments on so each R. 33.0, was the for selected across I adopted that as V+ S. 50 all photometry magnitude data limits the then Astronomical bounds 36.5 object Ellis a I colours per the a images all function catalogue for well-defined for calculated and rerun, from cent from a clusters. objects, and fixed each on 45.8 are of and completeness the calculated. in the the and M. the ks, of cluster a its I combined actual from V- using 3-arcsec magnitude completeness respectively, J. magnitude, the clusters: that redshift position, Society Fitchett I success are the aperture completeness band. seeing-matched The 100 shown (a) aperture better-seeing limits V distribution limit + and 1455 As of intensity gave resulting • I simula colour. in image, for detec the Provided noted in + Figs was the 22 scales the all of R.A. (z = are 0.26), in discuss individual object (a This 3.3 was source only al. 3.3.1 galaxy shift available 1980), by arcsec, 1992 re (b) the initially (Mason cluster The - sec) catalogues. 0016 (z 1455 in but 700 the ). with = NASA for the On lensing catalogues 0.258). Although subsequent + 200 + individual km east suspected four et 16 (Fig. Einstein 22 the al. (z to (z s- clusters basis Astrophysics members, = the = 2a) 1 19 , 0.55), 0.26) are with 81 left Medium spectroscopy of to was clusters ). and marked and broad-band be Unfortunately, only the discovered including north a (c) Sensitivity z formal four and 1603 = on at Data 0.7 the confirmed these velocities their + galaxy the velocity cluster 43 top. as redshifts System Survey dominant (z figures. associated 300 a = photometry, serendipitous 0.89). (Schild dispersion a it lower (Henry would We are The central et faint now only red total be al. et is it Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 00£ ogz © Royal Astronomical OOZ ooz Society (J8SJJD) (J8SJJD) 09 ~ • Provided 'J8Q 'J8Q Lensing 00 by 00~ ~ studies the NASA of clusters Astrophysics og -1. Faint Data galaxy ..- ..- N L() L() L() 0 0 0 0 0 ..- ..- L() 0 0 0 0 0 System N ,,--...... ,,--...... a::: ~ l Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 252 band. clusters our intrinsic tions the time. possible- limit Figure simulations. to an '7'N -...- ""O > companion gravitational for E/SO ~ with 0 UI ...... Q) In The 3. /.Smail, the known: 0 dispersion The for contrast, ...,. ci "' ci 0 at © ROSAT total target Also the Royal V- the paper. sample cluster shown Lx-1.598x10 lensing I has R. a colour-magnitude observations it a High a of S. been redshift Astronomical I= are is 1500 a Ellis a study, a 25. one Resolution the a imaged a • photometric are km and of and a 45 shown aa a to s - the erg a in I M. this .. diagrams a 1 be lmager, a for deep a s- • most • ( J. image • Society errors consistent 1 ), 40 Fitchett in a as pointed a for X-ray-luminous the 0.3-3.5 well per a in is as a a the parallel presented a a a as a cent a function clusters the • observa a with a Provided of 80 a with a keV and the 20 a a aD an (a) of in a a a a magnitude 1455 50 a a "a a a per a a a a iq, + a a (Fig. on colour-magnitude objects type by colour-magnitude a I= aa a a cent a 22, Examining a 22.0} a a a the this for (b) a members 3a}, a completeness a a Iba d1 aa 'ifl the originally 0016 a a a \ \ a NASA Astrophysics relation.) at ~a it a a \ \ a \ entire is the appropriate \ \ a + straightforward \ a the at a 16, samples; this a limits thought and colour-magnitude plane By relation a redshift. (c) a for comparing the 1603 with a the by colour line a (which Schild various + to (It a those, a 43. marked locate should lJ a Galaxies for Data a object a extends 25 et catalogues, a suitably a diagram a si a al. is a be population I I well-defined the to System noted with densities chosen be over scaled, a calculated for colours at that a a z 6 a this magnitude a of = mag on for cluster all 0.7 early similar field from five the the lie to Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S other magnitude was found range metric sponds 3.2, cluster colours observation object approximation, We found the .---.,. ....__, \J > clusters, define to precision [Li( I (marked densities <: to Ul 0 .._ lie Q_ 80 be a 1 a 7 V- LO """" N © 0 either off relation. d d N "'" 0 I per that, /=25.3 15 Royal our l) the a - - - no given = as cent (b) achieved. detection on beyond narrow 0.04 'field' even statistical open The the and photometric Astronomical the mag] in 0 sample circles tightness colour-magnitude I= colour-magnitude within Using V=26.5. limits D the excess 22.0 verifies 0 strongest on Cl the to on the or completeness of Figs be An representing test a seeing bluer the blue the those /=25 Society discussed 3a-c). c D 'Butcher-Oemler' relation than excellent disc. D excess 0 sequence plane sources 0 galaxy c Cl This the 0 limits the ..... Cl in •• • from over " ll " and colour c is Section --- D cluster photo Provided Figure c whose corre : of •• D "o a c .. were c 20 • this fair the the the ' I c I • • _____ ~ ao De a 3 - 3 ,_ 91. ••• " Lensing a· •:t • o o •• •. I • continued Cc o:, ::._,.~·4'1 '& • c aa'11 ••• 0 c 1•.:.• • clusters, per are the no made narrow 1991 galaxies as are by Do m 1983). .aa raC:'i: "" ca co 3 • d's The •••.a,, ~ti' centrally " + cD \ compared radial brighter Coma, the cent _. Cl :r.-);.: Cl CD \\ studies .... c cp• ), 2], Da Cl :ii,po on o B .. ...:.-•-.i'""""""''"'~liflll~fl!""_,..._ JJ"'P '1:J~ \\ finding above Clearly, "tJ· .•11• o o o o o o colour-magnitude D •..... • Cl • NASA \\ iig'lc~\ compared in this the S. _lfb (cf. c J' •• distribution a \d. I•: e c .ae'G1:tO.a D % clustered ~ ~ a than the a DG!i'IBoc l'W'" ~Cl • 1 •• \;;.. Oernler procedure: fraction •·· • of all procedure c with •cD \ \ good agreement, good result ~ 1455 :. •.•a Ill tJ ~ clusters inner ~o l:W'b 11 B r:P'TJ6' I= !licfB ~ Astrophysics c Cl 'l • ri. 6 ••,g cD""'QPw those a\ B co to 'B cq, \Cl 22 a--S..-a Cl .. •llilll + Cl component. o "..D~lfl~..PD 'ifl~ "o 0 1992). lie °\a that of ~CID ""l!irj~ of . d'ijfl:I ci,, . 500 22 48 c over W 3 , Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 254 velocity cluster cD extremely determined is This Mayall metric km despite 3.3.2 z galaxy s- = cluster 0.545 'U 1 L potential. 0016+ studies • prime the .!!!. The dispersion 0 Smail, high © both LO high d C'I 0 d v velocity (Dressler was cluster focus Royal 16 because X-ray .... - - point (z redshift, R. discovered =0.55) illa-F derived S. has luminosity dispersion. Astronomical to . & Ellis of I I been a there plate Gunn Koo's deep from and by the (Spinrad is and and ( 1992) 30 On Richard 1981) little M. subject the members centrally D J. D the or Society and D D 1980). I original Fitchett presence D D of no other Kron D the several population concentrated is The claim D rest-frame on hand, ac of D • 1 redshift D Eb =1324 B a photo Provided tf a Figure B large that, 4-m 20 the D ·T···-·-···-~ D . I D of I I . D D D D D 3 - 3 .. D 'li . continued . . . D Aragon-Salamanca with because exposures contains elliptical Coma, and cally associated of kpc. south-west by The one the the the The red but cluster peak PSPC of of NASA Astrophysics form I three galaxies optical (White contamination blue of Ellis the - in this on (axial bright has the deepest members. et board has et D counts structure. D D al. D D et galaxy no al. ratio been galaxies al. indicate 1981) dominant ROSAT. (1993). Einstein by I I indicate - The surface studied 0.6) The a • D foreground and in D this large • • The and D 25 a central D '. I I I. I I central has I High density D D a linear Data by may ·~' D D D D D a ·- richness population cluster . " " D ~rt.oft Ellis D D .. been ~; .:~·~::::.: core : '•,: be •'(.."1': Resolution members structure system System •' galaxy. lies I I et an ;, recently radius was D I ·"" ·. D al. ., slightly twice D overestimate, D · .... . (1985) 11.. at the of - • - - - The I define of (Fig. z intrinsi· imaged lmager that subject - ""330 to 0.3. core and 2b) the an of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S Figure compared cluster X-ray band. exposure cooling detectable which radius shows rich per studies. in I= 1994 The Following the 25. cent and ). selection 4. The seeing map a 7, In of N is flow ...... _,...... _ .._,. cluster -0 roughly z O" ...J Q) 0>• 0 E centrally O" Differential 0 and to completeness ~ with summary, "' 220 similarly © best-fitting Sunyaev-Zel'dovich 0 the 0 has ~ 0 0 0 would disc. the the Royal t I ~ t criteria. Lilly Lx""-1.43x10 f kpc only (a) was elliptical I= methods concentrated, Using 18 et ! affect number (White therefore, orientated. 25 a al. detected ! Astronomical isothermal 30-arcsec limit limits ( ! the 1991) structure this f discussed 20 counts et colour-magnitude ! corresponds result. 45 in field the t 0 al. in decrement and (220 erg Finally, t this {3-model cluster 1981), in around counts the ! ideally 22 Although s- N ...... I ...... ! c 0 '-" -0 for case z ...J O> 0>• IL> kpc) E 0 0 O> 0 of 1 I 0 deep "' Society 0 0 in ~ 0 0 0 ( o the to I appears (a) 1455 0 although has the (Birkinshaw are resolution, suited ). the 8 a The 24 1455 (c) I 0 optical cluster Einstein 19 an the l sequence, + V= 0.5-4.5 18 I a deficit 22, X-ray for + to published I • detection 26.4 a 22, I be lensing ! Provided centre, the strong 26 it has ! of et (b) I core HRI very keV also and 20 the field 80 al. Hi 0016 a Lensing galaxies + ! 2 24 22 16, information exposure cluster INT ( a double-check galaxies whilst (1985) centre consisting members, by I= N m ...... -::::- .._,. '-" t -0 V- z ...J Q) O> oi.,,. E 0 0 O> complex 3 e The ; "' + 24, and in 0 the 0 ~ 0 0 0 R 2]. prime ~ studies the we on )-( colour can to ! 0 (c) are Significantly, NASA (b) to more R taken ! 0 the have better 2D of the 18 1603 - be t apparent focus. II I= is I) west. four t of distributions structure. distant detected foreground available the 23.5, successfully + with plane. ! ! clusters than 26 43, Astrophysics ! I This separate 20 colours I a clusters, after the as of 0.2 The large ! 0 down The is an which from ! colour-selected 0 removal mag. -1. final adequate shown groups f removed clumps format excess 22 main at ~ of to faint Faint a It ' cluster 83 I= deep feature in i cluster was of Data identified magnitudes, of EEV lie surrounding 23.5. t Fig. the to 4 26 24 galaxy the I objects 0 therefore 6-ks sample in provide cluster I 5 members bulk is CCD System Additional demonstrate the members ! a R-band partial ! N y Ellis by arises from arises brighter of contains interval members at ! (z) colours, possible the the the delineate annulus service cluster cluster colour 2.5-m on 255 et that, than [ 174 m (• the al. to to 3 ), a , Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 256 contamination relation I= z and Figure slices. colours = Again, 22 0.5 (c) The 5, in 5. /. generally 1603 is V- Smail, the the V- surprisingly bars © + I I /-counts. 43. is Royal scatter is colour at start not equivalent R. the (d) possible at The S. distributions top about the Astronomical Society small[~( .___... ,...... 2:.. > Z z Ellis zN > Removal I I show I V- left side 0 LO 0 0 0 " no 16, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S epoch (z developed A time presented survey, optically 3.3.3 et included Dressler Aragon-Salamanca with produce 1993}. V = ~ high-redshift The al. 26.3 2) (1986}, a of component 1603+43 of very in mean faint & selected (Fig. in its ...... ,...... _ > order z formation little © I by Gunn the long and discovery, Royal 80 l{) Bower 0 0 ..-- 0 2c l{) 0 0 redshift ( difficulty, study to z (z ). per exposure the "" cluster yielded in The test =0.89) et 1) the cent (d) subsequent of of et al. Astronomical cluster the I= of faint high-redshift al., ( cluster 1603 known. 1993 completeness since redshifts possibility 25 times z this = was counts. detection 0.895. + ). very 43 yields ellipticals on It spectroscopic considered 0 for was the was few Selecting of The cluster - a limits discovered WHT Flat limit a Society Sdm1------1 5 are lower truly the cluster cluster of Scd essential 1----1 corresponds known. populations of Sbc for such Zro, most high-redshift follow-up limit 1=25.9 ,__ ,____ this ;;?; E/SQ1--~~~~~~~---. members, • ____ Sob by was a 3 _____ distant cluster on At Provided Figure in Gunn target (Ellis ,____ also and our the the by by to _____ 5 - 5 (V-l)Aper Lensing _, continued 2 clusters magnitude ellipticals frame frame excess of criterion, magnitude remove bimodal by Coma. a 33 I= PSPC the within in .... This galaxies 21 24.0. in the a Gunn studies a border. the centre __, total (Castander The a 2 2 x a of cluster cluster NASA Astrophysics structure detection and In at objects range combined diagram et and relation cluster this z exposure and = offset of al. arcmin the members, 0.89 was way, [m clusters (1986} can the with • • m m et centre 3 spatial within (Fig. , is one (cf. in we 2 m second al. with be broader one aperture 3 1=24-25 1=21-22 1=23-24 time 1=22-23 1=20-21 colour Aragon-Salamanca + identified of sample, 3c) 1994}. is identified - we distribution 2], peak the associated a four /. shows peak adopted of 4 i.e. Faint faint compared than seeing at over The high-redshift imaged 28 a Data a 70 lying that richness to 6.5 magnitude ks, galaxy in the cluster cluster with of a at disc. a the the very to 'V' System members corresponding least with significance to the et a cluster of comparable lower N prominent galaxies, The broad al. was non-evolving targets galaxies the 1=23.5. west (z) cut-off 1993}. detected shows ROSAT redshift colour colour colour on 257 level, from with in An the 'V' To of to to a a Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S Salamanca lution 258 richness surprising. (Edge these observations tion Lx tion that high velocity much (1991), combined observed arc rest-frame the studies). Interestingly, constructed the the workers bution bluer from shift for continuity colours Fig. Certainly, 3.4 of tion corresponds very per band I= similar the brighter estimate are V- objects 3.5 Fig. weighted sources reliable The the The The ""- 23 candidates the cluster marked. three I= cent 1455 the observed, the limits spectroscopic of 1 Couch robust 1.1±0.2 the 4 Field entire colours of Estimating two higher et in illustrates I. are is optical deepest 1.5 detection bluing the cluster then problem increases of but, than al. shows dispersion the overall remains (Tyson completeness Smail, V- - ellipticity cluster evolution + cluster with © distributions the 5 ± second across Castander highly this lD potential colour-magnitude in 17 et 22 mass sample 1990) et by ellipticities for The this I X-ray Royal to /iso 0.10. at x the a field colour of (Smail - velocity al. al., the richness field. is the cluster, the uniform 10 the 0.9, a parent in the fainter a = 1988; massive. image X-ray the R. of the value lensing in inconsistent requirement sample areas. low-redshift continues rapidly random give 44 minimum an identification X-ray 25 the number moments with photometric procedures the The faintest arises luminosity measuring (the and 1603 similar The S. wells, entire three et field et erg Astronomical distributions sample in from area dispersion no low limits are population. seeing is Ellis al. of parameters of which Cowie magnitudes. al. properties the I lower All luminosity, technique - frame relevant In a s- orientation from sample, these + indication beyond 1991 this clusters, very conjecture 1 1 x some as objects colour-magnitude population, lower field, to of X-ray 43, the in 1 the show of detection • (as in and distributions with has to in disc. that envelope more than ac1- cluster Given discussed brighter et objects similar. reliable faint effects ). K contains arcmin absence all they rate active work. data of the and used -band of been consistent limit al. M. the Lx I quantity brighter of under luminosity their of When three relies is claimed which When many - provides The for objects. distant of ac1 V a do faint those /iso 1989) 23 that the relation the J. is estimates at well-known other 2 flat significance the in to ~ frame, however, Society proposed with ellipticities members research. imaging to test of having consistent = Fitchett show 40 clusters. upon consideration median earlier 800 ( allowance about than have of the B field apparent combined FOCAS) 25.0, the spectrum lil~ely the with and samples. for at - objects area than with claimed the good flat km dark negative would 25 colour is this strong our that low galaxies distributions gravitational been fainter giving the /iso of for concentra lower this ). the taken I= colour for somewhat and, the s- growth This by • spectrum can Intensity evidence creates Aragon Previous ability trend E with for matter's in it redshift is that each 1 source. 25 optical lensing Provided Whilst yield shapes • Kaiser evolu drawn 24-25 with detec a distri point. has If made bright when the evo > here, from limit than yield red faint dis the the for are 95 of to of to is a a a a I the by very reason, Instead membership weighting and, moments tion with a communication). intensity-weighted weighted'. simplify convolving objects ellipticity reliability moments measurement second comprising artificial ticities. time same create galaxy image catalogues the necessity, from input input moments provide objects optimally tion the moments weighted reported duced presented Our GRAVITATIONAL constrain telescopes. beyond at 4.1 4 statistical particular To Two In In outer /:5.25, the simulation STATISTICAL similar a in introduction has to primary of the circumvent (Fig. field. object both Model variable our parameters two the the in profile with could 9.5 reduce NASA Astrophysics an separate of For matters, test been simulations, by frames, isophotes in the moments were shallower function weighted are result errors the our in of we 6). measured intensity-weighted unbiased analysis, matched scatter independent The object results. frames As this using the ks. with Bernstein ellipticity /i, Paper for redshift The goal the systematically the redshift spectroscopic have from width sample. 0 measured used. be shown results we These used, E24-25). aperture. final the for simulations an this, of the we populated (Fig. ellipticity The tests then comparison of the in is was comparison modelled II); are moments for are ((L'.\e)=0.04 the radius than tested noise object, I= as two and we to to distributions the 1455 we the adopted (private a using point while distribution ((L'.\e)=0.16). ANALYSES were otherwise to are The LENSING mainly 6). detection tests had a applied heavily mean 25 use allow width were frames, the systematic weighting developed reasonably use ellipticities The intensity-weighted be independent Both A from dependent the + our galaxies, the first of we gravitational where then final rounder, measurements consisted similar spread have 22 the reasonable by this distance limits and (such optimal the communication). comparison concerned test undertaken same influenced a was the when lensing tests selected scatter the test test, the I versus each objects image. generic analysed real isophote unweighted a Data showed, frame more of algorithm function the an roughly intensity-weighted reduction The accurate object, of outer have offset involved as measured using profile function. determined OF faint calculating by weighting to upon individual with of alternative systematic observations observations signals the (L'.\e)=0.16 the a the about (Bernstein, optimally lensing in with efficient were System a with some circular by field circular regions, and simulations. however, of to large have a - as to four-fold for the faint FOCAS largest broadened mass an this noise. estimate total estimating moments as the the in establishing known for estimate combined We 0.1, against define the drawbacks - galaxies function form the as the scatter number simplifica population bias approach. also object. exposures individual 'optimally from measured Gaussian optimally an moments exposure weighted aperture mapping resulting a a than refer For that faintest second for are, private current of reduc tool object of radial of intro FOCAS ellip pixel three been give The this well and the for the the the the the the the the To by to of to of to a Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S lower Figure panel scatter various model samples tion, the troscopic up appropriate limiting Rees was picture proportion Tyson Frenk: The (i) (ii) (iii) in a distribution which panel illustrates 1992). The the in 6. The well-defined (1991), et A (Broadhurst redshift physical three are individual magnitude. The al. same observations © compares deep no-evolution shallow as of (1990). maintains model two Royal follows. model the which galaxies redshift in 1 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 260 Figure and curves then lensing statistical coherent lensing general, Miralda-Escude population (Kochanek determine relative hood (Kaiser whereas metric methods the be The Throughout modelled B=27 converted relative show 7. I. tests, tests, analyses cluster, of & these mass Smail, (a) the are methods distributions lensing Squires © faint the the - distribution The 1990; latter which from which by using Royal capable methods no-evolution distribution '-...... _,, ,...... , most rather "O "O z this v /\ N a N various N fall galaxies R. spherically 199la,b; 1992) a methods Miralda-Escude which signal. have are ci LO 0 LO LO 0 paper 0 fixed assume into S. likely Astronomical from than of 0 assumed Ellis normalized aim of been colour can two the by testing we mass differential In in White 20 the values are to --No - - Kaiser rich some be symmetric - - - 2D and main will developed the recent derive term. properties better in directly to the projected & clusters redshift assume the M. lens of be classes: Sha Deefi functional Frenk 199la,b) (b) N(z) & faint the lensing the known. suited J. years, The and non-singular Evolution inferred. Society low Squires to Fitchett distributions mass centred (1991). that model of (Kochanek galaxy parametric run mass analyse then for the cluster. and ------a our form of profile investigating The number faint 22 on distribution The median parameters attempt properties, 1992). non-para lenses • the the for isother- curve used Provided former galaxy of 1990; likeli weak I redshift magnitude can the the in In of to shown the / -- "\. with analysis. / . -:. \ liso as z by frame the simplification other clusters The lensing mal results adopted analyses are image distributions tion 4.3 to marked "\ / ...... I dotted magnitude "\. have ...... companion reviewed 24 the ...... of sphere, parametric / ..... The Parametric information. one-dimension! ...... the parameters - clusters allow is ..... very can NASA - these in using dashed " a lensing Bruzual ..... • "\. WF25 this for parametrized be in 2 were ------J - simple initially were ' us ..... article that the I for the tests parametrized curves paper. methods Astrophysics ....._WF27 to effect first three calculated As B=27 each with paper. Kaiser ...... noise test compare to (Paper velocity / marked we calculated ...... hypotheses. The make of 26 of those cumulative directly " / ...... explained by a properties. GBA27 the & for given ..._ II) ' uncertainties / WF25 progress a by the dispersion Squires observations various presents -- ' calculated core using simple cluster, ' Data observed the N(z). and in radius In in parametric an Section N(z). statistic, WF27 the 3 isothermal The the tests, System assuming ac1. analytic in for in non-parametric distributions re, absence These remaining the We assuming are however, a 1, and R and chose family the however, prescrip methods band the 'model' models a B of those solid rest = data any and this the we 25 of of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S found because cally distributions, degradation, noise represented cluster attempt hood of hypothesis according evolution observed two maximum probabilities al. lens image likelihood to Ueo each alternate method the hypothesis. The As formalism distinguishing extremely combination drawn lens is The radial A vational bining blank source ( and distortion comparison galaxy model kinds mine assume, drawn 4.3.1 logarithmically ac1 O), To cluster repeated Fig. linear selecting = 1991). relative and estimates centre the predicted and cluster. are 1400 model analytical to determine offset technique. the that, field orientations, position parameters. of randomly could Analytical 8 magnitude the from plane, returns to estimate, the as lensing parameters Kolmogorov-Smimov the chosen case). parameters, shows correct data fc1) to hypothesis simulations. © We powerful likelihood ratio (say, arising although distribution include km This with likelihoods of input, ellipticity in until of probabilities the we from galaxies a it Royal create of are of power. real the compare distributions, family and the the Miralda-Escude yields with (r), set spaced For s - the undertook preferred test the core A= most those approach how Consider from Oc1, from signal there solutions as input determined that 1 model their the analytical no-evolution from for ellipticities deep limit) both all suitability and data two the when p accurately this denoted ellipticities works (cluster Astronomical method radius of cluster accurately ( are 0 we likely the is predicted e) probability orientation the / for Both the a a are and p cluster observations the lens diminishes, we case) re= of true method 1 distributions probabilities, the adopted grid given rejected for values • hypothesized redshift contain [logp=log(p,p applied distributed our can cluster more two If sufficient likely the random as estimate hypotheses and and N( 100 models. parameters treatment. simulations redshift, a the lens to of the and values. three by and obviously of 0 parameters model as followed. z redshift cluster test (1991a), realistic ), the and drawn by our for a velocity redshift each is kpc, values. contours is sources ratio possible, to comparing a relative given a the 1455 radial in systematic is sensitive the simple orientations. model null final a compares the the strong lensing is The however, a objects image. uniformly with the spherical calculated This hypothesis 1 frame maximum favour and determined Society , is can Po models distributions, by To from lens + N(z) probability hypothesis two that be simulations, positions 8 likelihood Galaxies For dispersion application adopt distribution. which p,)]. large 22 to of for N( show maximum constructing the and the correct extended lensing be is The to parameters test the estimates to are for z size observational the data the each observations. two the ). offset of effects presumably so (cf. the The distribution. galaxies reproduced system (A~ allow In the lens p the a The systemati across can yields procedure likelihood using will • 1 observed and observed observed given from the are does different addition Smail • by redshift systems. for (the set that that N(z), derived Provided for 1 test which in These obser to test to centre of deter likeli image a a ), com yield of field then with this The null not test and the no fair the the the the the the the the the for are the set its et re is a Lensing cluster by drawn input Escude was redshift of description). selection simulations comes lie log the meters radial distributions, correctly dominant an contours contours increase the more lens For very test tion set simulated ability locus. that are by effect fainter complications. the hoped minimized. measurements trating systematic this results plane. sample. (Fig. can To reduce tions, same 4.3.2 In For The the increase somewhere p the in seeing individual calibrate independent, constructed weak be can correct and parameters the analytic 1 the sensitive acts value studies / 8). manner distant the positions on we Po= Whilst the This from of from simulated calibrated are in parameters, on Simulated (described analytical that the distributions. NASA than probabilities correction case still The effects in By can the the power for a simulate distinguishes signals, best-fitting to the frames, catalogue are in correctly error log attempt paucity is observed in re Furthermore, the the redshift either determine using test to the of image be with galaxies the populate as models) because combined the the image to the of distributions, - ac1 and ignored. A< along the as then become orientations of the understood using The which effects the statistical Astrophysics clusters in a-re and frames cluster this catalogue the - overall two log above), possible, for a observafion's the and simulated the of to analytical - the orientations determine the assuming which real orientation set recovered. from strength confine from 10. lens the likelihood lensing distribution: a The allow objects is A= plane. are this amplification orientation the degradation effects obviously redshift the this weakens between its measured no-evolution of Both slanted less data not of effect observations (see In likelihood offset the more whereas parameters the - analytical frames, - strengthens the tests filled source correct by for these (created we meaningful. a /. which region in In 1.8. addition, using the models, signal observations, in of these simulated fixed the Section critical the three constructing Faint terms the as of find The of is the and applied locus. distributions will easily peak the However, circle solution it. the magnitude many distribution. systematic the disregards Data correct ellipticity. which observed all FOCAS. top is in constrain the of redshift lens bias The in effects noise observed by source K-S radial that be is shape formalism in of the the galaxy discussed two motivation (H flattens the assumption, appears. corrected these distorted. the panels, the The the 4.3.2 derived denotes the random. probability of magnifying a to centre 0 frame, has the shifts test System are ) tests bottom This induced lens to trade-off the possible distributions, lens simulated input the or of a will same a this on distribution, magnitude ellipticities been processes a galaxies However, greatest for the systematic analysed readily realistic limit errors N and, the arise a observational lensing the for shallow approach parameters point real on The between by - of the the for degradation introduce below. (z) By for the number solution Examining a panels lens manner against likelihood catalogue neglected; r, distortion the Miralda given while assuming into between detailed observa it. test because creating concen ratio redshift calibra correct galaxies (} returns on will frames power frame signal. to image image and in para 26 (H is their limit The and this off still the it was .the the the the the the be an to be 1 as of to l is is is ) a e · Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 262 lens Figure below numerical chosen in these undetected image correlations obvious features, modelled. systematic function as those empirical distortion of limit, measurements with distorted. that measurement strongly (i) (ii) amplification the in parameters the redshift, may the The the appropriate 8. Instead I. data a characteristics to lensed of as Smail, effect The peak simulation faintest, differential analytic cater However, The control at degrade effects © errors follows. magnitude, which in.the merged a particular top Royal probability. are decreases lensing more of are for objects is bias panels R. marked of in for a data of included simulations atmospheric with possibly cannot most the as cumulative S. the in seeing, distant a particular changes images Astronomical is b are b distribution the strength allowing are our due the same the Ellis show performed of derived (•).The radius Details N for 0 0 0 l{) 0 0 0 0 0 N l{) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 signal to most be also observations. the to in 0 pixellation most the fainter sources and redshift handled the also to with biases on of lens of us a effectively likelihood seeing, N(z) core lens • observation. the the simulated the concern, the M. distant, to noise using parameters. is contribute. a objects, radius model form that simulations parameters. will to lensing dependence source 200 number J. analytically. used, and I I Society but Furthermore, Fitchett in the a are contours tend degraded. (re) and of given a sky easily unless image, same sky given plane it re signal, likely is which the The of noise is in are to hence Underlying noise magnitude 400 additional kpc The the technique important N(z) of of probability ellipticity • increases I to properly be I given to Each of Each causing Ideally, certain a Provided on effects and allows match occur as Shallow test more most most as and in the the the of a the velocity contours an 600 - text, analytic we tional unaffected or by the distortion lengths galaxies their also (Griffiths observed function images. then rare uniformly bias. simulations. et appreciably of lens the dispersion (iii) Of ellipticity the are • would al. the input HST the strongly included. simulation, Current discarded course, data number logarithmic fainter The 1993), This for fainter galaxies 200 NASA for redshift et counts. Medium also of distributed by on ( al. effects under.estimated. with ac1) such The sources image is sources lensed once data atmospheric either 1992) like The and is re than while being unimportant after distribution does and redshift, in most faint Astrophysics Data Detected imply of to again, isophotes km Deep 400 latter the so spaced images were of the selected on thus crowding include not the objects determined s - obvious these the adopted bottom the 1 a but • there produce Survey measured effect FOCAS allows every very N.E. was N.E. seeing, objects (giant for source crowding there by correlations. any (Efstathiou from 600 is the panels are on undetected faint weak factor the is magnitude analysis. that modelling (MDS) correlation no-evolution any are arcs) were image from incorporated shortcomings plane, for fainter their majority show the of two-point currently curvature effects this close 10 kindly System et Team, extrapolating detection technique first Images The and the - purpose. al. limit than of starting of of to contours model and model amplification 1991; the will deep supplied sources no images, source correlation in (to and images the by with I= to inclusion observa the and at used not I= lensing 25 cluster I= Couch image scale 10- these for final size 27), but 23, the are the are are the by be to 10 a Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S can contains centre taken the remove NTT circular the tion smaller observations length for from probability impossible. observational This derived good magnitude then source 0.3-0. axy km no becomes sample, 1993). model because In galaxies Tyson 5 evidence its Here, constraints estimates possible the the model how we parameters. article Tyson 5.1 the radius of A Finally, In dependence the same discussing intrinsic s - the offset images data can more RES be fraction taken potential quantifies amounts the much data). the estimate 1 7 in Orientation we parameters. are (Paper distribution vector. et clusters Unfortunately, N(z) between ellipticities. et effect area, images. this applied arc velocity this rule such cluster from parent sets of perpendicular for UL ""1-arcsec presence will al. for rigorous increasingly there in al. not appear © sec from of The that Clearly, freedom effect. on scatter the discussed The gravitational ( of technique TS for a of out the 1990) II) 1455 of essentially a Royal worry ( effects this We to the of the at the 1990) well two-sample giant in the population. observations derived giant the on is the to weak for galaxies dispersion all AND seeing. a ground-based reader the I= aiu redshift various derived start histograms very the turn. analysis, A visual MDS maximum results, velocity in + Although of the both input used. three mean there further modelled. introduced two is 23) arcs seeing lower we 22 input arc listed the and question Astronomical in a the that differentiation by similar DISCUSSION gives colour difficult Making scalelengths to When from follow is strong impression ellipticity are are Section data the and aligned clusters, and lensing (Wu could orientation A analysing redshift core small the utilize again we information. particularly if cut-off we core K-S of dispersion above (Colless comparable when willing similar a output likelihood simulations the so & to X-ray the make rely None of applied of cluster similar will the the be data intrinsic radius. the the Hammer radius. test in to area an 4. referred tangentially the the in HST cluster, the distributions allowance is of distributions appear some on our original The simple such gross upper from that first real to cluster distinguish the studies. already concern & shows a of measurements limited accuracy faint the between and an offset orientations range radius sample, assign to definitive For MDS Ellis's The the Society analysis strength context the data. histograms degradation lensing to we the ellipticity present I and to simplification the while 1993; ellipticity test to brighter field :s: method parameters, tbose an model three introduce weak the applied has 25 We measured of HST at of bias to fainter to arises vector. data real unpublished of of and 85 the depends came of returning population. - Smail I sample scale to the companion been with signal, then the the statement the measuring measured - the data 300-400 data faint per • distribu only the lenses examine examine cover data 23 of allowed limiting used for of cut-off due in cluster Provided of cluster offset, I scale which made Some apply sizes. from et basic three mass near - cent faint ( each bias sets and and gal the r the that the the are 25 al. to by on to - it a a Lensing our to those bias, of orientation distributions consistent of cluster histogram. obvious the (23 shows 356 galaxies field by Figure weighted and text 1603 We the remove the ± 2 clusters excess and the ellipticities galaxies samples we + ..__,, ....--... defined ....--... ..__,, ..__,, ....--... studies three z CD z CD select z CD no clusters. and, 9. 43. per the excess arcmin- directly NASA ellipticities alignment N 0 0 L{) 0 0 0 L{) Orientation 0 0 0 0 CX'.l N CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ L{) 0 with The The the is optically histograms hence, clusters. cent), are galaxies with in 0 (21±2 by the approximately effect of histograms used those Paper our centres of Cl1455+22 Cl1603+43 CI0016+16 identical JE[20, 2 infer clusters , corresponding tangentially Astrophysics Data N( whereas, cluster determined for excess. above Both of cluster in defined 20 z histograms per II ). the the used for elliptical the 25) demonstrates were objects, the cent) a annular sample. the fraction - and lens cut-off members are for by /. lower 190 constructed lens 40 aligned /:S:25 ( Faint V- or both ellipticity the 0016+16, for annuli 8 to and bins centres in of Fig. 4.5 J)E[ redshift clusters optically of a 1455 the field a E (see ignoring surface galaxy were images. that ~ galaxies arcmin- 9 60 total that -1, 0.05. mass were using shows + on samples, Paper System these 22, those 2.5), it are defined of the The used. is density all and In N amplification 0016 behind 2 the aligned with 810 80 • ""80 quoted centres II) objects orientation (z) 1455 1603+43 orientations X-ray resulting for in show + optimally centres objects 16 of out order + 26 each each in with in gas are 22, 7.0 and an the the of 3 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 264 compare ized, hypothetical combined the the most Tyson would according 0016 as al.'s colour or the mean population strong 5d). shown metric similar are 0016 contrast Indeed, no bins, and assume distribution colours cent colour the it galaxy is ponent bluer strong Deep star-forming The V- determining can than which 5.2 are conventional to /s22. Under The is faintest The We massive not variation At derive Shallow real EEV maximum claim completely I those the also confidence critical this measure relatively + but I= + colours. sample also in Constraints models the I. et that primarily shift signal distribution can distributions the 16 difference population. 16. in orientation To and that alignments cannot that for radial 23 Smail, by CCD, V- A( al.'s is shifted the that these to galaxies. the © of current rule Fig. should and result provides Clearly field we to undertake place distribution V- prompts similar illustrative N(z) in analytical of they 1455 the fall applying the I in Lilly Royal median galaxies, colour spectroscopy, colour the B- the containing the strong estimating colour assumption distribution can than out concentrated consistent the /) we be lO(a), limit due redshift Shallow redshift either to R. orientation distributions. are blue - = excess + be R. a from from (1993) lens for time, the all We in subdivide only rapidly drawn two histograms and the 22, This of the S. strict of us to beyond shift drawn by redshift We alignment Astronomical four is shape with 0.2. Deep seen orientation note, unless the this photometric for galaxies Ellis side in current parameters V- blue. lower to the A( at the main have the so far all is of distribution N(z), N(z). a chose allowed. and constraint determining subclasses, consider radius. with V- In the from limit excess predominantly of begins analysis, in primordial 1455 I= the we of to existence from however, we two N(z). of deepest three the z of and The as other the they the a histograms the redshift Tresse population. that I) 99.7 = Although 1.5 Using only can that spectroscopic faint identical for signal those the in V- the to cannot 0.55. on = - = a most + field a strongest sample aligned aligned distributions, upper M. For the to and observed exhibit population 22, then population Is split a words, for per clusters. the I of other 2 selections. the galaxy we 0 argues /-selected 'boot-strap' et baseline, a is for that, shift of in in Were .2 J. per clusters colours 25 aligned 1455 the population obvious K-S /iso which and Society cent a four al. apply already improve the the a and, selected considerably the maximum Fitchett limits both to sample. clusters, component bright population, cent = seen clusters, Alternatively, by distant with a cluster to (1993), the population. rejection 1603 samples test in check + 23 Fig. level, unaligned samples against wide subclasses As virtue surveys for the clusters, the beyond cluster 22, bins is the with compared that aligned then of in field - The arclets we to secure sufficiently sample, our 0016 method + where lens galaxies the the blue lO(b), the bluest the the expected, blue members, unaligned • using of spread compare Tyson limited the ( we 43 rule a of is possible (} refer brighter generic Provided surveys photo distant 90 colour at is ideal shows > since, /s25 I= signal model three using much to if show + com (Fig. data have bins. z If from 60°) can out the the the the per are ;;::; 16, for the we be for for 23 to we et to in in at 1 combined distributions: the distribution redshift the e 1455 this parameters and detailed these bright samples spectroscopic from N(z) ac1=1800 deeper cluster technique by a We 5.3 4.3 realizations use ellipticities observed limit limit three Poeep and very range, probability earlier redshift ac1E[400, preferred. dispersion The the the km N.E. cant where, abilities Given and preferring space space 0 viable P The 1 For As For ~ better the to errors Shallow now the systematic apparent 1.0 s- similar Poeep on 0.05. errors + to 10-m for re= = estimates constraint. Maximum fit galaxies, before, due the 1455 was model uncertain 22 parameters is 1 again, the (Fig. surveys -0.8. approach 1603 distribution complete in /s25. the that Mpc, NASA are apply distributions the and 400 of is r, compatible in - = Section data discriminator. The km To to class 2000] the maximum is to searched. for and and core quoted uncertain probably peak shapes (}, of + overlap ac ac1 Pshallow the cluster distribution the + 8). strictly e 0016 ac1 redshift test for 22, rc=210±100 no-evolution 3.3, Thus, magnitude s- 1 e they are We kpc, N(z). lens 43, are each E[O.l, the the sets =860±250 effects and telescopes (and orientations likelihood analyses Here, distributions radius one The degradation represents cluster Astrophysics 1 0016 in km the the moving /E[20, 4.3. the and are will derived ruling to likelihood the are parameters 1455+22 + future. = - = constructed was re velocity in a lens observed with too For likelihood s- 16 thus those the three The with maximum to 0.8]. likelihood cluster method, surveys lower we are + not illustrated apparent 90 less translates see three rc=70 1 1.2, parameters rejected be (Fig. Taking 16, hazardous the model and 25] out (hypothesis: obtain limit. no-evolution outside will per that higher The log Pshallow from the seen affected orthogonal. later, a N(z). clusters. parameter km and, limit dispersion PNE illustrated lower N.E. kpc. with models samples, mass, satisfying 11 analysis the lens indicate rcE[O, make by cent Po= for kpc, we observations erroneous. likelihood distributions from in s- b) magnitude The both the probabilities calculated at the The - = Pshallow into however, as estimator Lilly to in = Shallow Data galaxy this chose those the model, 1 our The provides limit were confidence - by a with inferred -1.1, the expected, and The a analysis the the 1.3 0.1. lens method metric 2] the have maximum clusters, simulations fit very described the (hypothesis: that restricting H in 95 searched space 'boot-strap' - = protects to best-fitting N(z) actual arcmin. from rc=210±250 are ac1=1300 two simulations /E[20, logp System 1 rather three surface Fig. and parameters ). test a systematic the per The model that For PNE with maximum this for wide the 6.2, large We radii on from ac1=630 of (Fig. (Fig. input for 8. 0 actual compares for is 10 0016 cent Poeep value, limits, the = searched = clusters. a the prospect each most 'boot-strap' small the 0016 PNE the The against applied estimating likelihood in marginally parameter sample -0.7 of combined -1.9. the parameter presented parameter densities) 22] 1 and the the 11c). H Shallow redshift la) method level derived km current velocity Section 0.6, + = - = value. - = 0 biases signifi above. of radial due for upper taking FOCAS ± lower small + ) 16 prob three again have and and kpc, s- 150 and 16, As We the the 0.9 the 1.4. For the 2.8 to of of is to a is 1 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S samples in Figure the all bulk four 10. of contain samples, the (a) © faint The Royal an excess orientation histograms field showing population. Astronomical Society of that tangentially 0 it 0 has no 20 aligned strong for 1455 objects, colour 40 + El 22 or separated confirming that • 60 magnitude Provided 80 in terms dependence. this 0 by of 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ arises colour the from (b) 20 NASA and As a magnitude. above, population 40 Astrophysics El for 60 The the of objects 0016 aligned 80 + with 16 Data excess sample. similar characteristics has System As a similar in (a), strength all four to Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 266 both and without can the redshift apparent limit the placed Figure the spaced Combining Deep model Deep only re"" were the b b 11. every I. on further distribution 900 claim N © distribution from Smail, redshift red N 0 0 ..-- placed l{) 0 0 0 the ..-- 0 0 0 l{) 0 0 ..-- N l{) 0 ..-- l{) a 0 0 0 0 0 0 .E. 0 0 The facto Royal shift kpc · and velocity (a) all a Fig. likelihood assumptions marginal r N.E. distributions. for on distribution. R. of three Deep ll(c), 10 its Astr at the S. at dispersion from the core the Ellis clusters, distributions models, maximum preference however, onomical 99.98 level th about radius, 200 The 200 e and peak. of we units we of per the M. 23 that, likelihood we for obtain this for can for cent per cluster J. Society the would the if cluster the Fitchett reject cent a clu level ac1"" N.E. lower axes ster 400 400 properties strongly solutions. ( 1.2 the or 400 (3.8 are lensing model • limit a). an km Shallow Provided a), km upper reject s were models over , It but, - s we 1 - is and 1 600 600 of kpc. (a) by determined redshift no-evolution relatively with catalogues tion. respectively. redshifts ac1 The 1455 We the -600 Deep contours different The can • • • ::::::::::::::: l~~~~@~~~~ + NASA 22, clusters (z and refine strong created = (b) likelihood transformation. Log10 Log10 Log10 Log10 Log10 are We 0.26, 0016+16, N(z), 850 200 lens for the from Astrophysics simulated signal z from the km parameters derived = (Prel) (Prel) (Prel) (Prel) (P we simulated 0.55), smoothed analysis rel) s- and each already in 1 images (c) From cluster using for > > > > > these of 1603 400 probability ( frames -5 -3 -7 -1 these 1455 -9 was a Data the the c1, have parameters for + systems 43. re) N likelihood + then images a . (Section 22 E. Each System at lower family distributions redshift the and run gives plot and for 600 two bounds 4.3.2 0016 fits of is on the the distribu for a clusters for cluster and ) FOCAS lower . input one + well The t 16 a he of of r e , · Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S corrected lens meters Singular and offset observed inferred meters that value parameters. radius For shown a parameters . of b b core appears 1455 lay are from potentials © - estimates lens ..-- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO ..-- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO ..-- 0 0 0 0 0 LO closest in closest 300-400 radius Royal + The Fig. 22, (b) the parameters to of be cluster to 8 the X-ray of to . of do However, the Astronomical the representative km those re= ac1 simulation 200 not 200 observations simulation and data s - velocity 300 for appear observed 1 re in as kpc a but for the reasonable before, whose 400 dispersion 400 the as above to of whose dispersion had then input. the be two Society the derived able intrinsic ac1 the clusters. provide measured best-fitting choice The = 600 600 is spectroscopic to 1000 is below systematic • lens create similar core the of Provided Figure km para para input final core size that s - the 800 800 to 11 1 . Lensing - continued by (1992) dispersion Our lens to kpc tion tions. previously 5.4 + 400 In the the . parameter primary Again, to 0016+16, Redshift studies The • • II !~l~~l~~~~ . spectroscopic km NASA I!:> 200 corrected calculated of 25 s - Log10 singular Log10 Log10 Log10 Log10 conclusion ac1 1 of distributions that values. and Astrophysics the = clusters 1200 is closest 400 models (P (P (P velocity (P (P re for value The significantly rel) is rel) rel) rel) rel) is km both the - in systematic matched measured I. fail s - > > > > > dispersion rejection rough the Faint 1 600 -5 -3 -1 -9 -7 to and Data mass reproduce shallower simulation agreement a galaxy offset by of core and is System a Dressler 800 gratifyingly redshift in galaxy radius N than the ac1 has (z) with is observed & distribu distribu an re= close the Gunn 267 those input close 300 no- to Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S 268 evolution galaxies redshift the X-ray ultrafaint alone robust evolution cluster presence are 1603 To not lensing t> t> + is constrain data I. than conclusion. 43. so consistent to /5.25 N 0 0 0 (z 0 0 ..-- ..-- LO 0 0 ..-- ..-- N LO LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO Smail, © form, prediction. counts of important, < on While for maps Royal (c) 0.5) a our the we distant lying redshift R. were dwarfs. presented with two less two have The S. Astronomical Such as beyond lower redshift the dominated Ellis lower information any to population distributions lensing a The consider bulk lensing model in and the redshift (70-80 detailed Paper cluster signal M by 500 500 would signal our is (z . systems, J. a clusters, II, Society deeper ; velocity the any is 2 1 10 our the from signal O Astrophysics tail, z unlikely. for redshift level, ""2 re ( (P (P (P (Prel) conclusions /5.25 P at 500 1603 < X-ray dispersions [such rel) rel) rel) rel) suggests 250 a of however, confidence correlations, To distribution + (B::>27) 1603 kpc. > > > > > observations, as 43 reject implied -2 -1 -3 -5 -4 that would Adopting of + discussed a Data 43. lower an formally limit a redshift substantial in predict allow At absence recently System the of which, limit the present, in > 1000 White us a distribution nominal Section 9 5 ac1 is high-redshift to of derived interpreted per needed > ( reject > a & this 800 20 cent. high-z Frenlc offset 4.3.2, can per km the on by is Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S cluster sample (Fig. Kneib predicted especially al. invoked dispersions dispersions velocity tions. redshift, predictions. with baryonic luminosity Paper however, absence clusters guarantee the the satisfactory scopes, systems vial for available state look We to redshift between that 6 detailed tion, taneously more spectrographs, follows. are that parametric redshift galaxy Koo such absence end per cent imaging We Although faint ( (i) Our 1990 clusters well mass CONCLUSIONS cent have 7). systematic slope spectroscopic forward are et as The level. The detail of et II, Abell at is can galaxies Only luminosity for al. distributions conclusions can might understood. are of distribution implies ), dispersion data to tests z of al. and of distribution lensing-based able, 1603 © where a developed distribution that the rescaled high - for at strongly limits 1993) force the/= potential does manner. strongest improving The at used for are conclusions. ( This our in 0.9, a be compare Royal 370. 15 1994 makes to low total of the statistical be significant 0016 0016 the and + biases inferred in directly with selection tighter per results the free very that these very we 43 as expected agreement or is provide The redshifts. extremes the ), 25 well companion function mass to samples. lensed the cent distribution this lenses, for + particularly The of + if compact two (Section compare Astronomical Society at some via new close from near X-ray population of inherent b constraint 16) deep assumed 16 techniques median constraints there our a the rely, distribution = 1 = checked a velocity this of and distances - in sample The beyond the latter population particularly lower of = future. and 40 [in arcs to the their massive and if understanding of our we limitations, in We to 30-50 is derived surface This selection is between either stage that spectroscopically clusters projection enough 5.2) arclets the line prospects, CDM both article, in redshift some seriously the demonstrate strong powerful conclusions in reject clusters. 'best' for for of dispersions from and interesting, redshift at our standard of we discussion these which, are on N(z) with the /5.25 2D the z5.0.55, can of redshifts the the systems, N(z) extent, brightness simulations enlarging the seen observational of to sample effective constraint. that line-of-sight excellent. evolution a Paper the can the dark does according they faint the distributions to to two no-evolution model produce reach two be faint underestimated We statistical effects lensing with field we clusters lensing predicted of ae] given cases], through observed the cold constrain provide COBE matter are on obtain in high-dispersion at not summarized end of II. as conclude believe, have is lower the (such low-z although galaxies 8-10 the field Paper the N(z) the the We extended We dark discussed the limit based of of of of a necessarily commonly techniques dynamical • data, to z giant 99.98 with nature distances observa in the for Frenk data clusters, the can describe the velocity ~ derived redshift popula overlap with Provided m current on cluster dwarfs, matter as locally model of ensure a II of simul X-ray 1.5. here, their faint is non field local tele rich with thus arc. that the sets the the are our per the the (cf. its 98 et of in as in Lensing by high-redshift information with cluster However, model progress. properties fragments the might range redshift evolves by been physical 1603 (ac1) tions, value provides value the where surface surveys. scopic extreme above, dispersions ac1, ac1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS from The ac1 acknowledge Escude. REFERENCES Frenk, Dave Allington-Smith Aragon-Salamanca Abell Genevieve Babu! pioneering supported Birkinshaw Bower (ii) (iii) (iv) Broadhurst the = = MNRAS, are high ApJ, cluster as and 1000 described 1200 + studies above G. understand the Our of A., Carter, of at of the R. By we The 43 high no affected 1603 limit. NASA in Nick distribution density 0., submitted model Whilst better 1300 a core The At G., Rees number parameters enthusiasm tail field whose - shape ± ± incorporating direct if, is improved by correct of M., constraints Corwin lensing in about 700 parameters Lucey present, as 200 300 262, Soucail galaxies work project compact + is useful the M. Kaiser, We support radii standard as of other et km J. than Gull 43. 20 by of N(z) of also the of by Astrophysics J., R. measure according 764 al. clusters star km SERC. km how km we counts, Broadhurst J. A., conclude per H. such s- galaxies the strength the 1992, et (rJ. systematic the Further of values S. a ( R., is is discussions gratefully we 1988, high-z was estimates G., 1 are al., 95 formation Ellis for at of s- ). Chris s- s surmise therefore and F., cent such already of dynamical Ellis - CDM on The Tony We evolution, biases are Olowin predicted 1 1994, using 1 1 per Bernard MNRAS, weaker, external ), Hardbeck Toulouse the of the initiated if R. - (compared (compared derived massive, see of R. models of available a to unable and, attempt the clusters study estimates, cent the I. that Kochanek model S., (Frenk La S., et our MNRAS, the three biases. acknowledged. the well Tyson their Faint the R. are from and, probable the with al. rate Couch 1992, galaxy for confidence Palma due P., 255, Fort, Data both two /5.25 state empirical constraints incorporating formally ( understood are of obtained, H. with lensing no-evolution distribution 1992 with fig. we occurs, to 1988, clusters, et Observatory, is for at Gary is 0016+16, Using to galaxy its MNRAS, lower E., 346 this to to and however, in consistent al. derive W. slowly Yannick of can 4 clusters the luminosity necessary and population staff, the inspiration System press ). ). velocity large Moffatt X-ray 145 ApJS, 1990). the the J., our A Bernstein, system signal current notwithstanding to reject detailed lack redshift form colleagues. level. Carter Jordi due possible 5 + our This constraints N and declining, spectroscopic spectroscopic on reject from 254, most fractions 70, Mellier particularly (z) are properties, mergers of 22, model. A. of we dispersion with to described the preferred the to especially work to 1 function and 601 and Miralda detailed D., at spectro T., clusters redshift models the simula derived distant on cluster obtain obtain Carlos I astro likely Deep make z 269 those 5. 1993, 1994, - We has low the and was 22, the We the on of of 2. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded 1994MNRAS.270..245S Broadhurst Castander 270 Broadhurst Cole Colless Colless Colless Couch Couch Edge Dressler Cowie Cowie Cowie Efstathiou Ellis Ellis Frenk Gunn Grossman Griffiths Glazebrook JarvisJ. Kaiser Henry ApJ,424,L79 267,541 MNRAS, 408 Cosmological 1993,MNRAS,261,19 L29 249,606 559 PASCOS Ann. 1991,ApJ, Smith 351, Telescope. 217,239 ECF/STScl Wolter S., R. R. A., J. L. C. W. L. L. W. N., J. M., M., I. M., E., S., Ellis F., S., A., 10 Stewart NY R. L., L., P., S., J., L., J., J., F., Smail, 1991, S. G., Tyson T. T. A., Ellis © Couch Hoessel Ellis 1993, et Gunn Jurcevic Songaila K., Tanvir Schade Gioia White Ellis A., Ellis Acad. 267, 1991, Lilly J., J., '92 R. Bernstein al., 1992, p. Royal 380,L47 Ellis Ellis Ellis R. Narayan ApJ, R. S., S., 13 Workshop, Inflation. J. Relativistic J.E., 1992, R. R. in 1108 W. S. I. S., R. Sci., N., A., in J. S. S., Fabian Colless ApJ, J. S., R. S., R. D. Akerlof A., R. M., J., G., 383, J., Taylor Shanks D. Broadhurst S., Taylor S. 1981, 1992, S., S., Frenk Astronomical 688, Malin S., in Gardner G., Hu J., MacLaren Oke R., Maccacaro M., Boyle 386, Ellis Shanks Glazebrook Kluwer, 104 Benvenuti Colless A., M., Katz Broadhurst E. 1988, p. K., AJ, Astrophysics ApJS, Efstathiou C. J. K., T. Science C. D. Arnaud M., 408 207 B., B. Broadhurst Hook et and W., S., 1994, 86, N., J., F., T., J., T. 1991, ApJ, Dordrecht, M., 1986, al., Dressler I., 75, MacLean MacLaren Tyson 476 Srednicki T., 1988, 1993, J., P., M. K., Koo R. eds, Broadhurst K. MNRAS, with 1 324, Taylor Morris Schreier T. G., Nat, ApJ, N., A., 1992, J. MNRAS, & MNRAS, J. Observational D. J., Society T. Davis A., L1 1990, Fitchett 1990, 354, A., the Particle p. 306, I., C., J., M. Ellis K., I., S. Nat, Gunn 257 in E., Guhathakurta 1989, 1993, 1991, 460 1985, L., T. A., M., Peterson Hubble 30 MNRAS, press MNRAS, eds, 355, 235, R. 264, J., Stocke J. Cosmology, eds, 1990, • ApJ, Allington S., E., MNRAS, MNRAS, MNRAS, Proc. 55 827 604 Tests Provided Texas/ 1994, B. 1994, Space 332, 224, J. 245, ApJ, ST A., T., P., of Kaiser King Lilly Kron Koo Kochanek Kneib by Le Mason Lilly Koo Smail Miralda-Escude Metcalfe Metcalfe Metcalfe Miralda-Escud~J., Soucail Schild Smail Oemler Tresse Peterson White Smail Spinrad Tyson TysonA.J., Tyson Wu White Yoshii Valdes Fevre P.-Y., Acad., Hooley Galaxies. 249,498 L., Syrop. Giraud X. mitted, the D. D. S. S. C.R., R., I., I., I., A. A. S. S. J.-P., P., R. N., Y., L., Jorgensen J., F., J., K. C., C., G., A., Ellis H., Ellis 1978, D. D. N., 0., 1994, Ellis N., et Hammer J., J., B. N., NASA Astrophysics Cowie Takahara 1993, 0. Squires 1982, HammerF.,Le C. 92, 688, Gronwall 1981, Ellis Mellier Paper E., A.J., al., M., M., 1992, Jarvis Valdes Mathez 1988, 1980, 1983, 1993, A., et Fong S., Kluwer, Shanks R. R. Objects R. 1993, PhD 1980, al., preprint SilkJ., Frenk 534 R. ApJ, 1990, Proc. J., S., L. S., Ellis Horne ApJ, H. S., II G., J. in AJ, R. S., 1981, F., PhD Y., CFHT in F., 199lb, 1991a, L., Fitchett Fitchett F., F., thesis, E., G., C., Fabian Aragon-Salamanca MNRAS, 411, AJ, T. Dordrecht, 1992, F., 1985, 1993, C. Abell SPIE, Wenk Fort MNRAS, of 251, R. Henry 96, Gardner 1990, 1979, 1991, Bruzual thesis, D., Fort S., S., Shanks High AJ, 85, Fevre S., 1 Newsletter, 501 ApJ, ApJ, B., Univ. L75 1991, Roche 1979, ApJ, ApJ, MNRAS, M. A. 331, M. R. G. ApJ, 86, Kibblewhite J.P., 121 B., ApJ, Cailloux MNRAS, Redshift. Univ. A., 263, J., C., 0., J.P., J., 0., 370, 380, 24 G., T. 803 California, Mellier 404, p. 288, 465 ApJ, ApJ, Edge 1981, 346, Norgaard-Nielsen 1990, ed., 230, 7, N., Proust Peebles S., 29 1993, 628 1991, Oxford 1 1 135 262, No. 441 456 Jones M., Fong Cluster Data 379, 233, 28 L153 Reidel, A. 252, ApJ, A., ApJ, Y., D., ApJ, 28 E. ApJ, 1988, C., 187 P. Berkeley 52 L109 Soucail Soucail R. L. 19 J., 251, 1993, J. 349, 1994, System and Dordrecht, 415, R., F., 369, E., Bridgeland A&A, L65 L1 Superclusters 1993, 1990, A&A, eds, L21 G., G., MNRAS, H. 79 191, U., Longaretti Mellier Proc. MNRAS, Ann. 277, p. Hansen L19 M. 39 IAU sub 53 NY Y., T., of Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 by California Institute of Technology user on 19 May 2020 May 19 on user Technology of Institute California by https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/270/2/245/1163474 from Downloaded