MNRAS 000,1–7 (2021) Preprint 16 July 2021 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0 Quantifying the Rarity of the Local Super-Volume Stephen Stopyra1¢, Hiranya V. Peiris1,2, Andrew Pontzen1, Jens Jasche2, Priyamvada Natarajan3,4,5 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK 2The Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, Department of Physics, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, Stockholm SE-106 91, Sweden 3Department of Astronomy, Yale University, 52 Hillhouse Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511, USA 4Department of Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520, USA 5Black Hole Initiative, 20 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ ABSTRACT 15 −1 We investigate the extent to which the number of clusters of mass exceeding 10 " ℎ within the local super-volume (< 135 Mpc ℎ−1) is compatible with the standard ΛCDM cosmological model. Depending on the mass estimator used, we find that the observed number # of such massive structures can vary between 0 and 5. Adopting # = 5 yields ΛCDM likelihoods as −3 −5 low as 2.4 × 10 (with f8 = 0.81) or 3.8 × 10 (with f8 = 0.74). However, at the other extreme (# = 0), the likelihood is of order unity. Thus, while potentially very powerful, this method is currently limited by systematic uncertainties in cluster mass estimates. This motivates efforts to reduce these systematics with additional observations and improved modelling. Key words: cosmology: large-scale structure of Universe – cosmology: theory – methods: data analysis 1 INTRODUCTION sitivity, we have adopted values which set an expectation of $¹1º above-threshold clusters. We use mass estimates from a variety of There is a long history of testing the Copernican principle, and the methods, allowing us to assess whether the systematic uncertainties ΛCDM model more broadly, by searching for structures or regions are sufficiently well-controlled to obtain a reliable likelihood under in the Universe that appear to be unlikely to arise by chance. Pre- the assumption of ΛCDM. vious studies have focused on the abundance of individual extreme In Sec.2 we outline our method for quantifying the rarity of a vol- structures, including clusters such as the Sloan Great Wall or Shapley ume containing multiple massive clusters. Sec.3 describes available supercluster (Nichol et al. 2006; Sheth & Diaferio 2011), and the Lo- mass estimation methods and discusses the available estimates for cal Void (Xie et al. 2014). The compatibility of individual structures clusters of interest in the local super-volume. We present our results such as these with ΛCDM can be quantified using extreme value on the rarity of the local super-volume in Sec.4. In Sec.5, we discuss statistics such as the Gumbel distribution (Gumbel 1958). Because the impact of possible systematics and considerations for improving the predicted number of halos declines exponentially with mass, even this method in the future. a single example of an unexpectedly high-mass cluster can be a sig- nificant challenge to ΛCDM. Recent works using these techniques include Davis et al.(2011) and Harrison & Coles(2011, 2012). However, the statistical power of individual objects is always lim- 2 METHODS ited, especially if their mass is observationally uncertain. A more In this section, we describe how the halo mass function can be used powerful approach is to consider the likelihood of multiple massive to place constraints on specific regions, such as the local super- structures coexisting in a small volume. ΛCDM provides a predic- arXiv:2107.06903v1 [astro-ph.CO] 14 Jul 2021 volume. By default, we assume a flat ΛCDM cosmology with the tion for the expected number density of clusters above a given mass Planck 2018 cosmological parameters (Planck Collaboration et al. threshold; combining this with a statistical model of fluctuations 2020). This corresponds to a matter density Ω< = 0.315, a matter away from the mean, one can quantify how likely it is to find the power spectrum normalisation f8 = 0.811, and ℎ = 0.674 for the −1 −1 observed number of clusters in a given volume. The results can in Hubble rate, 퐻0 = 100ℎ kms Mpc . We will also explore the principle be used to place constraints on extensions to ΛCDM such effect of lowering the power spectrum normalisation to agree with as primordial non-Gaussianity (LoVerde & Smith 2011). weak lensing results, adopting f8 = 0.741 (KiDS Collaboration et al. In this work, we consider the number of clusters exceeding the 2021) while fixing Ω< and ℎ to the Planck values. 15 −1 −1 threshold mass 10 " ℎ in the local region < 135 Mpc ℎ (ap- The expected number of clusters, #exp, within volume + and with proximately I 0.046). We will refer to this volume as the local 6 mass " > "thresh is obtained by integrating the halo mass function, super-volume. To obtain a sensitive test of ΛCDM, the choices of d=¹"º/d", mass threshold and volume are coupled; for maximal statistical sen- ¹ 1 d=¹"º #exp = + d". (1) "thresh d" ¢ Contact e-mail: [email protected] To quantify the likelihood of the number of clusters actually observed © 2021 The Authors 2 S. Stopyra et al. 15 −1 Halo counts within 135 Mpch 1 radius spheres consider the number of clusters with "2002 > 10 " ℎ , where 0 10 "2002 is the mass within a radius such that the average density is 200 times the critical density of the Universe. This threshold is 1 10 somewhat arbitrary, but is chosen for two reasons: it corresponds to an ¹ º 10 2 expected abundance of $ 1 in a volume the size of the local super- volume; further, few clusters are found above this mass threshold 10 3 in the Universe at large (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016a; Hilton et al. 2018), since it is around the scale of the largest structures 4 10 that have had time to viralise by redshift I = 0 (Press & Schechter 1974). Consequently, the halo mass function above this mass is poorly 10 5 Fraction of Samples constrained observationally. A significantly lower mass threshold (for Poisson Distribution, N = 0.49 14 −1 10 6 exp example, 5 × 10 " ℎ ) would have $¹10º or more clusters in the All regions local super-volume, making the computed likelihood insensitive to 10 7 the addition of one or two extreme-mass objects, while a significantly 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 higher threshold would run into essentially the same limitations in 15 1 Number of halos, M200c 10 M h statistical power that arise when studying individual objects. Figure 1. Fraction of randomly-selected 135 Mpc ℎ−1 spheres in six simula- 15 −1 tions with a given number of halos above "2002 > 10 " ℎ , compared 3 CLUSTER MASS ESTIMATES with a Poisson distribution with mean cluster count fixed to be the same as that of the simulations. We now turn to obtaining estimates for the masses of the most extreme local clusters. We briefly review different mass estimation methods in a given volume, we additionally require a statistical model for – with a view to highlighting advantages and current limits – and fluctuations away from this expectation value. discuss estimates available in the literature for massive local clusters Specifically, we assume that the likelihood of observing # clusters and super-clusters. The clusters on which we focus are shown in in Fig.2, along with follows a Poisson distribution with mean #exp, i.e. their Abell catalogue numbers (Abell et al. 1989). These clusters are # −#exp #exp e consistently represented as massive halos in reconstructions of the L¹#j# º = . (2) exp #! local super-volume that make use of Bayesian-Origin-Reconstruction from Galaxies (BORG). Specifically, the clusters we have selected cor- To test the validity of this assumption, we performed six 5123-particle respond to the nine most massive local structures in a reconstruction ΛCDM simulations with a side-length of 677.7 Mpc ℎ−1, from which performed by Jasche & Lavaux(2019) of the local super-volume, we randomly extracted spheres of the same size as the local super- using the 2M++ galaxy catalogue (Lavaux & Hudson 2011) at high volume. We confirmed that the distribution of the number of halos −1 15 −1 signal-to-noise ratio out to 135 Mpc ℎ . In the future, using im- with masses above 10 " ℎ was well approximated by a Poisson proved forward-modelling, BORG itself could be used to give inde- distribution, as shown in Fig.1. The simulated distribution shows pendent mass estimates for these clusters; however in this work we marginally lower probabilities in the high-# tail, meaning our Pois- only use more traditional mass estimates. son likelihoods should be regarded as an upper limit. Mass estimates for these clusters taken from the literature are col- This method was then used to quantify the rarity of the local lated in Fig.3. All mass estimates have been converted to " super-volume by counting the number of clusters with masses above 2002 15 −1 masses using the concentration-mass relationship of Bhattacharya ¡ 10 " ℎ . Because the likelihood function is highly sensitive et al.(2013). Since much of the literature uses " masses, the to # (decreasing rapidly when #¡# ), it is essential to obtain 5002 exp typical correction is an increase in mass by ∼ 30%, with a maxi- accurate estimates of the cluster masses; we turn to this crucial issue mum correction of 31%. Assuming that all halos follow the mean in the next section. relationship will introduce some error into these extrapolations (in- Another important consideration is the sensitivity of # to the exp cluded in the error bars on Fig.3), but cannot account for the large choice of halo mass function.