text:
# Cosmological constraints from the local X-ray luminosity function of the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters

## 1 Introduction

The X-ray luminosity function of galaxy clusters in the nearby universe provides a powerful cosmological probe. The observed luminosity function, $`n(L)`$, can be combined with a relation linking the observed X-ray luminosity and mass, and the mass function, $`n(M)`$, predicted by simulations, to obtain tight constraints on the combination of cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\sigma _8`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is the mean matter density of the local universe and $`\sigma _8`$ is the root-mean-square (rms) variation of the density field smoothed by a top hat window function of size 8$`h^1`$Mpc.

Observationally, the keys to such studies are precise determinations of the local X-ray luminosity function of clusters and the relation linking the observed X-ray luminosities and total masses. X-ray selection currently offers the best way to identify massive galaxy clusters, and the local X-ray luminosity function has now been precisely determined by the BCS (Ebeling et al. 1997; Ebeling et al. 2000) and REFLEX (Böhringer et al. 2002) studies. The flux-limited BCS and REFLEX samples, which are based on data from the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS; Trümper 1993), together include $`750`$ clusters and cover approximately two thirds of the sky. Recently, significant effort has also been invested into measuring the local temperature function of clusters (e.g. Markevitch 1998; Pierpaoli et al. 2001; Ikebe et al. 2002), which offers a complementary method for determining cosmological parameters. At present, however, the temperature function samples are significantly smaller than the combined BCS-plus-REFLEX luminosity function data set, and the analysis of the temperature function is complicated by the fact that these samples are selected according to X-ray flux as well as temperature, requiring the use of both mass-temperature and temperature-luminosity relations in the analysis.

Recent years have also seen significant efforts directed towards a precise calibration of the ‘virial’ relations linking the observed luminosities, temperatures and masses of galaxy clusters (e.g. Horner, Mushotzky & Scharf 1999; Nevalainen, Markevitch & Forman 2000; Finoguenov, Reiprich & Böhringer 2001; Allen, Schmidt & Fabian 2001b; Sanderson et al. 2003). In particular, the launch of the Chandra X-ray Observatory has permitted the first precise measurements of the temperature and mass profiles of relaxed clusters from X-ray data. Using a combination of Chandra and gravitational lensing data, Allen et al. (2001b) confirmed that luminous, relaxed galaxy clusters follow the simple scaling relations predicted by theory, but that the normalization of the observed mass-temperature relation measured within $`r_{2500}`$ (where the mean enclosed mass density is 2500 times the critical density of the universe at the redshifts of the clusters) is approximately 40 per cent lower than predicted by standard adiabatic simulations. This highlights the likely importance of additional physics such as cooling and pre-heating in the intracluster gas (see also Pearce et al. 2000; Thomas et al. 2002; Voit et al. 2002; Muanwong et al. 2002).

Theoretically, the primary requirement for cosmological studies using the observed luminosity and/or temperature functions of clusters is a precise prediction of the mass function. This has now been achieved for flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM (and $`\tau `$CDM) cosmologies using the Hubble Volume simulations of Jenkins et al. (2001) and Evrard et al. (2002).

In this paper we present precise constraints on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ based on the observed local luminosity function of the most X-ray luminous clusters in the extended BCS (Ebeling et al. 2000) and REFLEX samples, and a new calibration, using pointed Chandra and ROSAT X-ray observations and weak gravitational lensing results, of the mass-luminosity relation linking the masses of clusters measured within $`r_{200}`$ to their total $`0.12.4`$ keV ROSAT luminosities. Having determined our combined constraint on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, we show that the degeneracy between these parameters can be broken using Chandra results on the X-ray gas mass fractions in the most dynamically relaxed clusters. Including Gaussian priors on the mean baryon density of the universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.0205\pm 0.0018`$; O’Meara et al. 2001), the Hubble constant ($`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$; Freedman et al. 2001), and a theoretical bias factor ($`b=0.93\pm 0.05`$; Bialek, Evrard & Mohr 2001) relating the asymptotic baryon fraction in the most X-ray luminous clusters to the mean value for the universe as a whole, we obtain $`\sigma _8=0.695\pm 0.042`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.287\pm 0.036`$ (marginalized 68 per cent confidence limits for an assumed flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology). We compare our results to other measurements based on the local number density of clusters, evolution of the X-ray luminosity and temperature functions, the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, and measurements of cosmic shear.

Throughout this paper, a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ is assumed. In order to facilitate a direct comparison with previous X-ray studies, results on the masses, X-ray luminosities and X-ray gas mass fractions of individual clusters are quoted for a Hubble parameter $`h=H_0/100`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$$`=0.5`$ or, equivalently, $`h_{50}=H_0/50`$$`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$$`=1.0`$.

## 2 Theory: The predicted luminosity function of galaxy clusters

Jenkins et al. (2001) show that the predicted mass function of galaxy clusters of mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z`$ can be written as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}\sigma ^1(M,z)`$, where $`\sigma ^2(M,z)`$ is the variance of the linearly evolved density field smoothed by a spherical top-hat filter of comoving radius $`R`$, enclosing a mass $`M=4\pi R^3\overline{\rho }_0/3`$. Here $`\overline{\rho }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)\rho _\mathrm{c}(0)`$ is the mean comoving matter density of the universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$(0) is the mean, present matter density in units of the critical density, and $`\rho _\mathrm{c}(0)=3H_0^2/8\pi G`$ is the critical density at redshift zero.

Using a spherical overdensity algorithm to measure the masses of clusters within radii $`r_{200}`$, where the mean enclosed mass density is 200 times the critical density of the universe at the redshift of interest, Evrard et al. (2002) show that for a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, the mass fraction $`f(\sigma ^1)`$ can be written as

$$f(\sigma ^1)=A\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\sigma ^1+\mathrm{B}\mathrm{}^ϵ\right],$$
(1)
where, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ and $`z=0`$, $`A=0.22`$, $`B=0.73`$ and $`ϵ=3.86`$. Evrard et al. (2002) also provide simple interpolations for $`A,B`$ and $`ϵ`$ for other values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`z`$. The differential number density of clusters with mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n(M,z)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}\sigma ^1}=\frac{f(\sigma ^1)\overline{\rho }(z)}{M},$$
(2)
where $`\overline{\rho }(z)=\overline{\rho }_0(1+z)^3`$ is the mean mass density of the universe at redshift $`z`$. Following Viana & Liddle (1999), we write

$$\sigma (R,z)=\sigma _8(z)\left(\frac{R}{8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^{\gamma (R)},$$
(3)
where

$$\gamma (R)=(0.3\mathrm{\Gamma }+0.2)\left[2.92+\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{R}{8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)\right]$$
(4)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the shape parameter of the cold dark matter transfer function. Following Sugiyama (1995), we set

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)h\left(\frac{2.7\mathrm{K}}{T_0}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}(0)\sqrt{\frac{h}{0.5}}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}(0)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)}\right),$$
(5)
where $`T_0=2.726`$K is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (Mather et al. 1994) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}(0)=(0.0205\pm 0.0018)h^2`$ is the mean, present-day baryon density in units of the critical density (O’Meara et al. 2001). For this calculation, we set $`h=0.72`$ and fix the primordial spectral index $`n=1`$. The redshift-dependent quantity $`\sigma _8(z)`$ is related to its present value, $`\sigma _8(0)`$, by

$$\sigma _8(z)=\sigma _8(0)\frac{g(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z))}{g(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0))}\frac{1}{1+z},$$
(6)
where, for a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe

$$g(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z))=\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)\left[\frac{1}{70}+\frac{209\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)}{140}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)^2}{140}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)^{4/7}\right]^1$$
(7)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)\frac{(1+z)^3}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)+(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)}.$$
(8)
e.g. Viana & Liddle (1996). Combining equations 2 and 3, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n(M,z)}{\mathrm{d}M}=\frac{\gamma \overline{\rho }(z)}{3M^2}f(\sigma ^1).$$
(9)
In Section 3.2.4 we show that for clusters with X-ray luminosities, $`L`$, exceeding $`10^{45}h_{50}^2`$ $`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the $`0.12.4`$ keV ROSAT band, the mass $`M`$ measured within $`r_{200}`$ can be related to the X-ray luminosity by a power-law model of the form

$$E(z)M=M_0\left[\frac{L}{E(z)}\right]^\alpha ,$$
(10)
where the best fit values, uncertainties on $`M_0`$ and $`\alpha `$, and the intrinsic scatter in the relation, are determined from Chandra and ROSAT X-ray data and weak gravitational lensing results. The evolution parameter

$$E(z)=(1+z)\sqrt{(1+z\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/(1+z)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(11)
accounts for the expected cosmological scaling of the relationship (e.g. Bryan & Norman 1998; Mathiesen & Evrard 2001). Applying the chain rule to equations 9 and 10, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}n(L,z)}{\mathrm{d}L}=\frac{\gamma \overline{\rho }(z)\alpha }{3M_0}\left[\frac{E(z)}{L}\right]^{\alpha +1}f(\sigma ^1).$$
(12)
The predicted differential luminosity function (i.e. the comoving number density of clusters at redshift $`z`$ with luminosities in an interval $`\mathrm{d}L`$ around $`L`$) given by equation 12 can be compared with the observed X-ray luminosity function from the BCS and REFLEX studies to constrain the combination of cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)`$ and $`\sigma _8(0)`$, hereafter referred to as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\sigma _8`$, respectively.

## 3 Observations

### 3.1 The observed X-ray luminosity function of the most luminous galaxy clusters in the RASS

For this study, we concentrate on the local ($`z<0.3`$) X-ray luminosity function and restrict ourselves to the most luminous clusters, with $`L_\mathrm{X}>10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in the $`0.12.4`$ keV ROSAT band (for a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$). This selection is facilitated by the large sample size and well-determined selection functions of the BCS and REFLEX data sets.

The restriction to high luminosities reduces systematic uncertainties by matching the luminosity range of the luminosity function data to the range over which the mass-luminosity relation has been calibrated (Section 3.2.4). At lower luminosities, the effects of pre-heating and cooling in the intracluster gas are expected to become important and cause the mass-luminosity and mass-temperature relations to deviate from simple power-law forms (e.g. Cavaliere, Menci & Tozzi 1997). Since the most massive clusters provide the most powerful constraints on cosmological parameters, relatively little information is lost by restricting ourselves to the largest systems.

The binned X-ray luminosity functions for clusters with $`L_{\mathrm{X},0.12.4}>10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ from the northern extended BCS (Ebeling et al. 2000) and southern REFLEX (Böhringer et al. 2002) studies are summarized in Table 1. The mean redshift of the BCS clusters in this luminosity range is $`z=0.21`$.111We make the comparison between the observed and predicted luminosity functions at $`z=0.21`$, the mean redshift of the BCS clusters with $`L_{\mathrm{X},0.12.4}>10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Shifting this redshift by $`\pm 0.05`$ does not significantly change the results.

### 3.2 The observed mass-luminosity relation for the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters

In determining the mass-luminosity relation we have used mass measurements obtained from Chandra X-ray observations of dynamically relaxed clusters and weak gravitational lensing results drawn from the literature. X-ray luminosities are determined from pointed ROSAT observations. In total, the sample used to define the mass-luminosity relation includes 17 clusters with precise mass estimates and X-ray luminosities $`L_{X,0.12.4}>10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, spanning the redshift range $`0.08<z<0.47`$.

#### 3.2.1 Chandra mass measurements

The Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) on Chandra permits direct, simultaneous measurements of the X-ray gas temperature and density profiles and, via the hydrostatic assumption, the total mass distributions in galaxy clusters. We have used Chandra to obtain precise mass measurements for a sample of ten of the most X-ray luminous, dynamically relaxed clusters identified from the RASS. The relaxed dynamical states of the clusters are demonstrated by their regular X-ray and optical morphologies, X-ray temperature maps and, in 6/10 cases, from the availability of consistent, independent mass measurements from gravitational lensing studies (see Section 4.4).

The Chandra observations were made using the ACIS and the back-illuminated S3 detector between 1999 August 30 and 2001 November 3. We have used the level-2 event lists provided by the standard Chandra pipeline processing. These lists were cleaned for periods of background flaring using the CIAO software package, resulting in the net exposure times summarized in Table 2.

The data have been analysed using the methods described by Allen et al. (2001a, 2002b) and Schmidt et al. (2001; these papers present detailed mass analyses of Abell 2390, RXJ1347-1145 and Abell 1835, respectively). In brief, concentric annular spectra were extracted from the cleaned event lists, centred on the peaks of the X-ray emission from the clusters. (For RXJ1347-1145, the data from the southeast quadrant of the cluster were excluded due to ongoing merger activity in that region; Allen et al. 2002b.) The spectra were analysed using XSPEC (version 11.0: Arnaud 1996), the MEKAL plasma emission code (Kaastra & Mewe 1993; incorporating the Fe-L calculations of Liedhal, Osterheld & Goldstein 1995), and the photoelectric absorption models of Balucinska-Church & McCammon (1992; the absorbing column density was included as a free parameter in the fits, alleviating problems associated with uncertainties in the quantum efficiency of the detectors at low energies). Only data in the $`0.57.0`$ keV energy range were used. The spectra for all annuli were modelled simultaneously in order to determine the deprojected X-ray gas temperature profiles, under the assumption of spherical symmetry.

For the mass modelling, azimuthally averaged surface brightness profiles were constructed from background subtracted, flat-fielded images with a $`0.984\times 0.984`$ arcsec2 pixel scale ($`2\times 2`$ raw detector pixels). When combined with the deprojected spectral temperature profiles, the surface brightness profiles can be used to determine the X-ray gas mass and total mass profiles in the clusters.222The observed surface brightness profile and a particular parameterized mass model are together used to predict the temperature profile of the X-ray gas. (We use the median temperature profile determined from 100 Monte-Carlo simulations. The outermost pressure is fixed using an iterative technique which ensures a smooth pressure gradient in these regions.) The predicted temperature profile is rebinned to the same binning as the spectral results and the $`\chi ^2`$ difference between the observed and predicted, deprojected temperature profiles is calculated. The parameters for the mass model are stepped through a regular grid of values in the $`r_\mathrm{s}`$-$`c`$ or $`r_\mathrm{s}`$-$`\sigma `$ planes to determine the best-fitting values and 68 per cent confidence limits. (The best-fit models generally provide good descriptions of the data). The gas mass profile is determined to high precision at each grid point directly from the observed surface brightness profile and model temperature profile. Spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium are assumed throughout. Small departures from spherical symmetry are expected to have a negligible effect on the results e.g. Piffaretti et al. (2003).  For this analysis, we have used an enhanced version of the image deprojection code described by White, Jones & Forman (1997) with distances calculated using the code of Kayser, Helbig & Schramm (1997).

We have parameterized the cluster mass (luminous plus dark matter) profiles using a Navarro, Frenk & White (1997; hereafter NFW) model with

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _\mathrm{c}(z)\delta _\mathrm{c}}{(r/r_\mathrm{s})\left(1+r/r_\mathrm{s}\right)^2},$$
(13)
where $`\rho (r)`$ is the mass density, $`\rho _\mathrm{c}(z)=3H(z)^2/8\pi G`$ is the critical density for closure at redshift $`z`$, $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ is the scale radius, $`c`$ is the concentration parameter ($`c=r_{200}/r_\mathrm{s}`$) and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}=200c^3/3\left[\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c)\right]`$. The normalizations of the mass profiles can also be expressed in terms of an effective velocity dispersion, $`\sigma =\sqrt{50}r_\mathrm{s}cH(z)`$ (with $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ in units of Mpc and $`H(z)`$ in $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$).

The best-fit NFW parameter values and 68 per cent confidence limits are summarized in Table 3. This table also lists the ‘virial’ radii, $`r_{200}`$, where the mean enclosed density is 200 times the critical density of the universe at the redshifts of the clusters, and the masses within these radii, $`M_{200}`$. (The uncertainties on parameters are determined directly from the $`\chi ^2`$ grids.) Note that the Chandra data only cover the central regions of the clusters out to radii $`0.20.5r_{200}`$ and thus some extrapolation of the models, assuming that the NFW parameterization remains valid to $`r_{200}`$, is required in calculating the virial masses.

#### 3.2.2 Weak lensing mass measurements

In order to expand the sample of clusters used to construct the mass-luminosity relation, and allow certain tests of the fairness of this relation (Section 4.4), we have also included data for clusters with precise mass measurements from wide field weak gravitational lensing studies. In particular, we have included data from the study of Dahle et al. (2002), who present aperture mass profiles for eight clusters with $`L_{X,0.12.4}>10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Section 3.2.3) obtained from wide-field imaging with the University of Hawaii (UH) 2.24m telescope and UH8K camera. One of these clusters, Abell 963, is also in our Chandra sample. Since the Chandra and lensing data for this cluster give consistent $`M_{200}`$ results, but the Chandra data provide tighter constraints, we use the Chandra result in our default analysis. (The Dahle et al. 2002 mass measurement for Abell 963 is, however, used in our analysis of the weak lensing subsample, discussed in Section 4.4.) The weak lensing mass measurements made with the UH8K camera used a control annulus of 550 arcsec, which corresponds to 3.4 $`h_{50}^1`$Mpc for a cluster at $`z=0.3`$.

Unlike X-ray mass measurements, which are based on the hydrostatic assumption, lensing mass measurements are independent of the dynamical state of the gravitating matter. As a result, there are no restrictions in the Dahle et al. (2002) sample on the dynamical states of the clusters; several of the systems appear to be undergoing major merger events. The inclusion of the Dahle et al. (2002) clusters allows us both to examine the effects of dynamical activity on the mass-luminosity relation and assess whether the use of Chandra data for dynamically relaxed clusters is likely to bias our determination of cosmological parameters (see Section 4.4).

We have used the aperture mass profiles presented by Dahle et al. (2002) to recover the mean tangential shear profiles for the clusters and have fitted these with NFW models. In general, the lensing data are unable to constrain both the concentration parameter and scale radius of the NFW models and so we have fixed $`c=5`$ for this analysis, a typical value for such massive clusters inferred from simulations (e.g. Navarro et al. 1997), and consistent with the Chandra results listed in Table 3. The masses of the clusters determined from the Dahle et al. (2002) data are summarized in Table 4.

In addition to the Dahle et al. (2002) UH8K data, accurate weak lensing mass measurements are also available for Abell 2390 (Squires et al. 1996) and RXJ1347-1145 (Fischer & Tyson 1997). In both cases the lensing mass measurements at $`r_{200}`$ are in good agreement with the Chandra results (Allen et al. 2001a, 2002b). Dahle et al. (2002) also present a weak lensing mass measurement for Abell 1835 using a smaller camera, which is consistent with the Chandra result in Table 3.

On the basis of numerical simulations, Metzler, White & Loken (2001) argue that large scale structure in the environments ($`r1020h^1`$ Mpc) of galaxy clusters are likely cause measurements of $`M_{200}`$ from weak lensing to overestimate the true masses of clusters by, on average, $`30`$ per cent. Previous work by Cen (1997) and Reblinksy & Bartelmann (1999) had argued for smaller effects, of the order of $`10`$ per cent. Based on these studies, we have included a statistical correction of 20 per cent to the lensing masses in our determination of cosmological parameters i.e. we multiply the masses in Table 4 by 0.83. We note that the effects of more distant, uncorrelated structure along the lines of sight to the clusters are not expected to bias the lensing mass measurements (e.g. Metzler et al. 2001, Hoekstra 2002).

#### 3.2.3 ROSAT luminosity measurements

In constructing the mass-luminosity relation, we have used pointed ROSAT observations to determine the total, intrinsic $`0.12.4`$ keV luminosities of the clusters. This minimizes systematic uncertainties by matching the observing band and (as far as possible) detector technology to that used for the RASS observations. The agreement between the BCS and REFLEX fluxes, which are based on RASS data, and the fluxes determined from deep, pointed ROSAT observations is good (Ebeling et al. 1998; Böhringer et al. 2002). The details of the pointed ROSAT observations are summarized in Table 5. The data were analysed using the XSELECT package (version 2.0) and XSPEC (version 11.0). The emission-weighted temperatures and metallicities of the clusters were set to the values measured with Chandra. Where Chandra data were not available, the metallicity was set to 0.3 solar and the temperature was determined iteratively from the luminosity-temperature relation of Allen & Fabian (1998). Note, however, that the precise settings of the temperatures and metallicities have little effect on the measured $`0.12.4`$ keV luminosities for such hot, massive clusters. The absorbing column densities were set to the Galactic values determined by Dickey & Lockman (1990).

The intrinsic $`0.12.4`$ keV luminosities for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`h=0.5`$ (the same cosmology assumed in the BCS and REFLEX luminosity functions in Table 1) are listed in Table 5.

#### 3.2.4 The observed mass-luminosity relation

The mass-luminosity relation for the 17 X-ray luminous clusters in our sample, measured within radii $`r_{200}`$ corresponding to a density contrast $`\mathrm{\Delta }=200`$ with respect to the critical density of the universe at the redshifts of the clusters, is shown in Fig. 1. Those clusters with mass measurements from Chandra X-ray data are indicated by filled circles. Clusters with weak lensing mass measurements are marked with open squares. The four clusters with Chandra mass measurements and consistent weak lensing results are indicated by filled circles surrounded by open squares. A flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ is assumed.

We have fitted the data using a model of the form

$`\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E(z)M_{200}}{h_{50}^1\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right]=\alpha \mathrm{log}_{10}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L}{E(z)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{44}h_{50}^2\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right]`$
$`+\mathrm{log}_{10}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{h_{50}^1\mathrm{M}_{}}}\right].`$ (14)
Using the BCES($`Y|X`$) estimator of Akritas & Bershady (1996), which accounts for errors in both axes and the presence of possible intrinsic scatter, we obtain best-fitting values and 68 per cent confidence limits from $`10^6`$ bootstrap simulations of log$`{}_{10}{}^{}(M_0/h_{50}^1M_{})=14.29_{0.23}^{+0.20}`$ and $`\alpha =0.76_{0.13}^{+0.16}`$. The distribution of $`M_0`$ and $`\alpha `$ values are shown in Fig. 2. The observed slope is in good agreement with the expected slope of the mass–bolometric luminosity relation of $`\alpha =0.75`$, from models of simple gravitational collapse.

The rms scatter of the observed log \[$`E(z)M_{200}`$\] values about the best fitting curve is $`0.22`$ for the full sample of 17 clusters, 0.15 for the 10 dynamically relaxed clusters studied with Chandra, and $`0.29`$ for the 8 clusters with weak lensing measurements from Dahle et al. (2002). The scatter in the full sample is similar to that measured by Reiprich & Böhringer (2001) using ASCA and ROSAT X-ray data. Note, however, that our best-fitting curve implies a slightly higher X-ray luminosity for a given mass.

## 4 Determination of cosmological parameters

### 4.1 Monte Carlo method

Using the theoretical prescription for the mass function of galaxy clusters described in Section 2, the observed BCS and REFLEX X-ray luminosity functions summarized in Table 1, and the mass-luminosity data discussed in Section 3.2.4, we can determine $`\sigma _8`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$.

In determining our results on cosmological parameters, we have used a Monte Carlo approach. For each iteration of the code, we construct a random bootstrap sample of the $`M_{200}`$ and $`L_{0.12.4}`$ values listed in Tables $`35`$ and examine a grid of ($`96\times 131`$) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ values, covering the plane $`0.05<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<1.0`$ and $`0.20<\sigma _8<1.50`$. For each value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, we scale the mass and luminosity values appropriately and determine the best-fitting mass-luminosity relation. For each $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, $`\sigma _8`$ parameter pair, we construct a model X-ray luminosity function, including the effects of random scatter in the mass-luminosity relation, which we characterize using a log-normal distribution. The model X-ray luminosity function is then compared with the observed BCS and REFLEX data, also scaled to the appropriate cosmology, and the $`\chi ^2`$ difference between the two is calculated. In this way, the best fitting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, $`\sigma _8`$ pair for the grid is determined, which provides us with a single sample result. The whole process is repeated for $`10^6`$ iterations to produce the final results, discussed below.

### 4.2 Results on $`\sigma _8`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$

Fig. 3 shows the 68.3 and 95.4 per cent confidence contours in the $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ plane from one million iterations of the Monte Carlo code. The results exhibit the well known degeneracy between $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, which can be approximated (for $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.4`$) by the simple fitting formula $`\sigma _8=(0.510\pm 0.019)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{(0.253\pm 0.024)}`$. Our analysis favours low values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$: marginalizing over $`\sigma _8`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0.34`$ at 68 per cent confidence.

Note that when neglecting the effects of scatter and uncertainties in the normalization and slope of the mass-luminosity relation, we obtain the best fit ($`\chi ^2=5.1`$ for 4 degrees of freedom) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.23`$ and $`\sigma _8=0.74`$.

### 4.3 Breaking the $`\sigma _8\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ degeneracy using the Chandra $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(z)`$ data

The usual approach, discussed in the literature, to break the degeneracy between $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ (Fig. 3) is to use the redshift evolution of the luminosity and/or temperature function of clusters, which depends strongly on the mean mass density of the universe (see references in Section 5.2). However, this approach is both observationally challenging in terms of identifying complete, high-redshift cluster samples, and prone to systematic uncertainties due to potentially increased levels of dynamical activity and contaminating AGN emission at high redshifts, which introduce additional scatter into the mass-luminosity and mass-temperature relations.

Fortunately, the Chandra data offer a powerful alternative method to break the degeneracy between $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ using the observed X-ray gas mass fractions, $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, in the clusters and their apparent redshift dependence (e.g. White & Frenk 1991; White et al. 1993; Sasaki 1996; Pen 1997; Ettori & Fabian 1999; Allen et al. 2002a; Erdogdu, Ettori & Lahav 2002; Ettori, Tozzi & Rosati 2003). The matter content of rich clusters of galaxies is thought to provide an almost fair sample of the matter content of the universe (e.g. White et al. 1993). The observed ratio of baryonic to total mass in clusters is therefore expected to closely match the ratio of the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ is the mean baryon density of the universe. The apparent redshift dependence of the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ measurements arises from the fact that the measured $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values depend upon the assumed angular diameter distances to the sources as $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}D_\mathrm{A}^{1.5}`$. Thus, although we expect the measured $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values to be invariant with redshift, this will only appear to be the case when the assumed cosmology matches the true, underlying cosmology.

The observed $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles for the ten relaxed clusters studied with Chandra, for an assumed $`h=0.5`$ standard cold dark matter (SCDM) cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=1.0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.0`$, are shown in Fig. 4. (The six clusters previously studied by Allen et al. 2002a are shown in a lighter shading.) With the possible exception of Abell 963, we see that the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles appear to have converged, or be close to converging, within $`r_{2500}`$. We note that the data for the two nearest clusters, Abell 478 and PKS0745-191, do not extend to $`r_{2500}`$. However, their $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles appear to be close to converging within $`r0.6r_{2500}`$.

Fig. 5 shows the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ measurements at $`r_{2500}`$ (or at the outermost radii studied for Abell 478 and PKS0745-191) as a function of redshift, for the nine clusters with convergent $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles. Following Allen et al. (2002a), we have fitted these data with the model

$`f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{b\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}{\left(1+0.19\sqrt{h}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{h}{0.5}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0}(z)}{D_\mathrm{A}^{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m},\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}(z)}}\right]^{1.5}`$ (15)
and determined the best-fitting value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, for an assumed flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology. The parameter $`b`$ is a bias factor that is motivated by gasdynamical simulations, which suggest that the baryon fraction in clusters is slightly depressed with respect to the universe as a whole (e.g. Cen & Ostriker 1994; Eke, Navarro & Frenk 1998a; Frenk et al. 1999; Bialek et al. 2001). We include a Gaussian prior on the bias factor, $`b=0.93\pm 0.05`$, a value appropriate for hot ($`kT>5`$ keV), massive clusters in the redshift range $`0<z<0.5`$ from the simulations of Bialek et al. (2001). We also include Gaussian priors on the Hubble constant, $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$, the final result from the Hubble Key Project reported by Freedman et al. (2001), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.0205\pm 0.0018`$ (O’Meara et al. 2001), from cosmic nucleosynthesis calculations constrained by the observed abundances of light elements at high redshifts. The constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ determined from this analysis are shown as the dark, solid curve in Fig. 6. We obtain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.291_{0.036}^{+0.040}`$ at 68 per cent confidence. Also shown (dashed curve) are the results obtained when fixing the bias parameter $`b=1.0`$, for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.314_{0.035}^{+0.038}`$.

We can now combine (by multiplying the relevant probability densities) the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ from Fig. 6 with the joint constraints on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$, shown in Fig. 3, to obtain our final results on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. These are shown in Fig. 7. Using the Gaussian prior on the bias parameter, we obtain $`\sigma _8=0.695\pm 0.042`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.287\pm 0.036`$ (marginalized 68 per cent confidence limits). With $`b=1.0`$ fixed, we obtain $`\sigma _8=0.683\pm 0.041`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.309\pm 0.035`$.

### 4.4 Systematic uncertainties and the effects of merger events

An important aspect of the present work is the reduced level of systematic uncertainty with respect to most previous studies based on the local abundance of galaxy clusters. In the first case, the independent BCS and REFLEX studies have well determined selection functions (Ebeling et al. 1998, 2000; Böhringer et al. 2002) and provide precise, consistent results on the local X-ray luminosity function. With the large size of the combined BCS-plus-REFLEX data set (which covers two thirds of the sky) we have been able to limit our analysis to the most luminous clusters, with $`L_{X,0.12.4}>10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (for an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, cosmology), for which the mass-luminosity relation has been calibrated using Chandra and ROSAT X-ray data and weak lensing observations (Section 3.2.4). The complicating effects of cooling and pre-heating are minimized for such massive clusters and a simple power-law model provides a reasonable description of the mass-luminosity relation (Fig. 1), albeit with some residual intrinsic scatter that is in part related to the different dynamical histories of the clusters and residual systematic effects in the mass measurements (Sections 3.2.2, 3.2.4; see also below). Repeating the analysis using only the BCS luminosity function data, or only the REFLEX data, or using a higher luminosity cut in the luminosity function (e.g. $`L_{X,0.12.4}>1.3\times 10^{45}h_{50}^2`$$`\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$), leads to consistent results (although with larger statistical uncertainties). Consistent results on cosmological parameters are also obtained if we replace the Evrard et al. (2002) critical spherical overdensity mass function (Section 2) with the Jenkins et al. (2001) mean spherical overdensity (SO324) prescription, scaling the cluster masses accordingly.

The dominant statistical and systematic uncertainties in the analysis are associated with the mass-luminosity relation. However, care has been taken to minimize the systematic uncertainties. In particular, we have limited our study of the mass-luminosity relation to clusters with precise mass measurements from Chandra or wide-field gravitational lensing studies. The clusters studied with Chandra have been selected from the RASS as the most luminous, dynamically relaxed (in terms of their X-ray and optical morphologies) clusters known. The relaxed natures of these systems means that they are the clusters for which X-ray mass measurements are most reliable. For Abell 963, 1835, 2390 and RXJ1347-1145, independent confirmation of the Chandra mass measurements at $`r_{200}`$ is available from weak gravitational lensing studies (Dahle et al. 2002; Squires et al. 1996; Fischer & Tyson 1997; Allen et al. 2001a, 2002b). A programme of weak lensing measurements for the other clusters in our Chandra sample is underway (Gray et al. , in preparation). In addition, consistent strong lensing mass measurements are available for Abell 1835, 2390, RXJ1347.5-1145, MS2137.3-2353 and PKS0745-191 (Schmidt et al. 2001, Allen et al. 2001a, 2002b, Schmidt et al. , in preparation). The presence of significant non-thermal pressure support on large spatial scales in these clusters can therefore be excluded.

As well as increasing the size of our calibration sample, the inclusion of the Dahle et al. (2002) weak lensing data is important in that it allows us to examine the distribution of less dynamically relaxed systems in the mass-luminosity plane. Whereas X-ray data can only be used to obtain precise mass measurements for dynamically relaxed clusters (the X-ray mass measurements are based on the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium in the X-ray gas), lensing mass measurements are essentially independent of the dynamical state of the gravitating matter and so can be extended to systems undergoing merger events. The Dahle et al. (2002) sample includes clusters with a range of dynamical states. Inspection of ROSAT and Chandra images of these systems shows that many exhibit significant dynamical activity, with Abell 141, 209, 520, 1351 and 1576 undergoing major merger events. (Similar conclusions are drawn by Dahle et al. 2002 from their optical data). The BCS and REFLEX samples, from which the X-ray luminosity functions have been constructed (Section 3.1), include all clusters above the respective X-ray flux limits, independent of their dynamical states. It is therefore important that the mass-luminosity relation provides a fair translation between luminosity and mass for all clusters included in the samples. Although the 17 clusters in our mass-luminosity relation do not represent a complete subsample of the BCS and REFLEX data sets, inspection of Fig. 1 suggests that the Dahle et al. (2002) clusters exhibit a similar mean mass per unit X-ray luminosity to the relaxed systems studied with Chandra, albeit with two significant outliers from the best-fit curve (see below) and, therefore, that the application of the mass-luminosity relation determined here to the BCS and REFLEX samples is reasonable.

We have carried out a more rigorous test of the validity of the mass-luminosity relation by repeating the determination of cosmological parameters using other mass-luminosity relations constructed from subsamples of the calibration data. In the first case, a mass-luminosity relation based on the Chandra mass measurements (10 clusters) was examined. In the second case, only the weak lensing measurements were used (8 clusters).333For the determination of cosmological parameters with the weak lensing subsample, only the first two bins of the BCS and REFLEX luminosity functions (Table 1) were fitted, as the Dahle et al. (2002) clusters do not populate the highest luminosity bin. These results were then compared with those obtained from the full sample (17 clusters, excluding the lensing result for Abell 963). The normalized, marginalized probability distributions for $`\sigma _8`$ are shown in Fig. 8. For the Chandra subsample, we obtain $`\sigma _8=0.69\pm 0.04`$. For the lensing subsample, we find $`\sigma _8=0.71_{0.12}^{+0.17}`$ (68 per cent confidence limits). Both results are consistent with those obtained for the whole sample, $`\sigma _8=0.70\pm 0.04`$, although for the lensing subsample the increased scatter in the mass-luminosity relation leads to larger error bars. It appears, then, that the inclusion of Chandra mass measurements for dynamically relaxed clusters does not bias the best-fit result on $`\sigma _8`$ significantly, but does reduce the formal statistical uncertainties. Assessing whether this leads us to underestimate the true uncertainties in $`\sigma _8`$ will require more data and the ability to disentangle whether the scatter in the lensing results arises primarily from the effects of correlated substructure (or similar systematic problems in the lensing analysis), or the effects of dynamical activity on the X-ray gas (see below).

Ricker & Sarazin (2001), Ritchie & Thomas (2002) and Randall, Sarazin & Ricker (2002) present simulations of the effects of mergers on the X-ray properties of clusters for a variety of mass ratios, impact parameters and central gas densities. These authors suggest that major mergers can lead to significant short-term increases in the luminosities of clusters during the periods of closest approach, which are then followed by dips in luminosity as the merging dark matter cores move apart, before the cluster returns to equilibrium. From Fig. 1 we see that Abell 209 appears to have an unusually high X-ray luminosity/mass ratio, which may have been boosted by the ongoing merger activity in this cluster. (We note, however, that MS2137.3-2353, which is a highly relaxed cluster with no obvious merger activity and a sharp central density peak, also appears to have a high luminosity/mass ratio and lies below the best-fitting curve. In this case, the offset may indicate a relatively early formation epoch for the cluster.) In contrast Abell 1351, which is also undergoing a major merger event, has an unusually low X-ray luminosity/mass ratio and lies above the best-fit curve in Fig. 1. Detailed simulations and further observations are required to improve our understanding of the effects of mergers on the X-ray properties of clusters. However, the indications from the present study are that the effects of mergers on the mean mass-luminosity relation for the most luminous clusters are relatively small.

Chandra measurements of the X-ray gas mass fraction, $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$, in dynamically relaxed clusters provide one of the most simple and robust methods by which to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ (see e.g. Allen et al. 2002a and references therein). The largest systematic uncertainties in the analysis lie in how well the measured baryonic mass fractions in the clusters approximate the universal mean. Lowering the bias factor, $`b`$, by $`10`$ per cent would cause the best-fitting value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ to rise by a similar amount. Similarly, although the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles in Fig. 4 appear to have converged, or be close to converging, at the outer measurement radii, any rise in the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values beyond these points would cause a corresponding reduction in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. Any change in the best-fitting value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ would then lead to a change in $`\sigma _8`$, as shown in Fig. 3.

Finally, we note that our Monte Carlo analysis (Section 4.1) takes account of the intrinsic scatter and uncertainties in the normalization and slope of the mass-luminosity relation. (The scatter is modelled as a log-normal distribution about the best-fitting curve, which provides a good description of the measured offsets.) Neglecting such effects would cause to the best-fitting value of $`\sigma _8`$ to rise slightly, and significantly reduce the formal statistical uncertainties on the measured parameters.

## 5 Comparison with other results

### 5.1 Other local cluster abundance studies

Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the results on $`\sigma _8`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ from the present study (thick, solid curves: as in Fig. 3), with the findings from five other recent studies based on the observed local number density of galaxy clusters. The dot-dashed curve in Fig. 9 shows the result of Seljak (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.44\pm 0.04)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.44}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/0.2)^{0.08}`$, using the observed local X-ray temperature function of rich clusters (Pierpaoli, Scott & White 2002) and a mass-temperature relation determined from ASCA and ROSAT observations (Finoguenov et al. 2001). The result of Seljak is consistent with ours for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$, although the present study leads to tighter constraints. The result of Pierpaoli et al. (2001), $`\sigma _8=(0.50\pm 0.04)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.60}`$ (dotted curve), based on the same local temperature function data but normalized by a theoretical mass-temperature relation, lies significantly above ours. The result of Reiprich & Böhringer (2001), $`\sigma _8=0.43\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.38}`$ (short dashes), based on ASCA and ROSAT observations of RASS selected clusters, is in good agreement with the present study for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$. The result of Viana, Nichol & Liddle (2002), $`\sigma _8=0.38\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.48+0.27\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}`$ (long dashes), using the local REFLEX X-ray luminosity function and a mass-luminosity relation determined from ROSAT X-ray observations and a stacked weak lensing analysis of relatively low-mass clusters identified in Sloan Digitized Sky Survey (SDSS) commissioning data, is consistent with the present study for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$. The result of Bahcall et al. (2002), $`\sigma _8=0.35\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.60}`$, obtained by combining the number density of optically-selected, relatively low-mass clusters observed in SDSS commissioning data with a mass-optical richness correlation, is in good agreement with this work for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$. Finally, our results are in good agreement with the recent findings of Schuecker et al. (2003; not plotted), $`\sigma _8=0.711_{0.031}^{+0.039}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.341_{0.029}^{+0.031}`$, from a combined analysis of the X-ray luminosity function and large-scale clustering in the REFLEX sample.

### 5.2 Evolution in the X-ray luminosity and temperature functions

Borgani et al. (2001) present constraints on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ determined from an analysis of evolution in the X-ray luminosity function of clusters in the ROSAT Deep Cluster Survey, which spans the redshift range $`z<1.3`$. Their results of $`\sigma _8=0.66_{0.05}^{+0.06}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.35_{0.10}^{+0.13}`$ for a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology are consistent with those reported here.

Donahue & Voit (1999) report results from an analysis of evolution in the temperature function of clusters within $`z<0.8`$, using the low-redshift cluster sample of Markevitch (1998) and a high redshift sample identified from the Einstein Observatory Extended Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS). Their results, for an assumed flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, of $`\sigma _8=0.73_{0.05}^{+0.03}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.27\pm 0.10`$ are in good agreement with ours. Eke et al. (1998b) obtain $`\sigma _8=0.75\pm 0.15`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.36\pm 0.25`$ (flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) from an analysis of the temperature function within $`z0.4`$, which is consistent with the present work. Our results are marginally consistent with the values of $`\sigma _8=0.72\pm 0.10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.49\pm 0.12`$ reported by Henry (2000) from an analysis combining the local temperature function of clusters with the properties of EMSS clusters within $`z<0.6`$.

### 5.3 Cosmic shear measurements

Fig. 10 shows a comparison of the results on $`\sigma _8`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ determined from the present study (dark, solid curves: as in Fig. 3) together with the findings from seven recent studies based on measurements of weak gravitational lensing due to large scale structure (cosmic shear). The upper dotted curve in Fig. 10 shows the result of Van Waerbeke et al. (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.57\pm 0.04)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{(0.24\pm 0.18)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.49}`$. The upper short-dashed curve shows the result of Refregier, Rhodes & Groth (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.55\pm 0.08)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.44}`$. The long-dashed curve shows the result of Bacon et al. (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.43\pm 0.06)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.68}`$. The dot-dashed curve shows the result of Hoekstra, Yee & Gladders (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.45\pm 0.05)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.55}`$. The results on $`\sigma _8`$ from these four studies lie $`2035`$ per cent above the present work for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}0.3`$. (Note that in order to obtain agreement with these results, the mean mass per unit X-ray luminosity for the clusters included in the present study would need to be raised by a factor $`2.5`$, well beyond the systematic uncertainties, which are $`<20`$ per cent.)

The lower three curves in Fig. 10 show the results from the three most recent cosmic shear studies, which have appeared on preprint servers after this paper was submitted. The lower dotted curve shows the result of Hamana et al. (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.41\pm 0.09)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.43}`$. The lower dashed curve shows the result of Brown et al. (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.41\pm 0.05)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.50}`$. Finally, the solid curve shows the result of Jarvis et al. (2002), $`\sigma _8=(0.36\pm 0.04)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}^{0.57}`$. Importantly, the Brown et al. (2002) and Jarvis et al. (2002) studies include improved estimates of the redshifts of the lensed, background sources. (A flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology is assumed in all cases.) The results from the three most recent cosmic shear studies are in good agreement with the present work.

### 5.4 Cosmic microwave background anisotropies and the 2dF galaxy redshift survey

Fig. 11 shows a comparison of the 68.3 and 95.4 per cent confidence constraints on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ obtained from the present study (inner, shaded contours), including the Chandra $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(z)`$ data and Gaussian priors on the bias parameter ($`b=0.93\pm 0.05`$), Hubble constant ($`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.0205\pm 0.0018`$), with the results from analyses of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies and 2dF galaxy redshift survey data. For this comparison, we have used the published Markov Chain Monte Carlo samples of Lewis & Bridle (2002). The CMB data consist of a combination of COBE (Bennett et al. 1996), Boomerang (Netterfield et al. 2002), Maxima (Hanany et al. 2000), DASI (Halverson et al. 2002), Cosmic Background Imager (Pearson et al. 2002) and Very Small Array (Scott et al. 2002) data. The 2dF galaxy redshift survey constraints are from Percival et al. (2002). The results obtained from the CMB data alone, using the 6 parameter model of Lewis & Bridle (2002) and fixing the optical depth to reionization $`\tau =0.04`$ and marginalizing over $`h`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2`$ and $`n`$, are shown as the outer, shaded contours. The results obtained from the combined CMB+2dF data set, marginalizing over the same parameters, are shown as solid lines. A flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology is assumed throughout. We see that the results from all three data sets are consistent at the 68 per cent confidence level. Our results are also in good agreement with the independent analyses of CMB+2dF data reported by Lahav et al. (2002), Percival et al. (2002) and Melchiorri & Silk (2002), the results from CMB data and Type Ia supernovae presented by Jaffe et al. (2001), and the analysis of the IRAS Point Source Catalogue Redshift Survey presented by Plionis & Basilakos (2001).

## 6 Implications for other work

The constraints on cosmological parameters reported here ($`\sigma _8=0.695\pm 0.042`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.287\pm 0.036`$ for an assumed flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology) are consistent with, though (in most cases) tighter than, those obtained from a number of other, recent studies based on the observed X-ray temperature and luminosity functions of galaxy clusters. (Schuecker et al. 2003 report results with similar precision to those presented here). Our results are also consistent with current findings from studies of anisotropies in the CMB, the distribution of galaxies in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, the properties of type Ia supernovae, early results on large scale structure from the SDSS, and the most recent results from studies of cosmic shear.

Our results have a number of implications for other cosmological work. Firstly, the agreement between the cluster, CMB and 2dF results in Fig. 11 suggests that the optical depth to reionization is not large ($`\tau <0.2`$; this issue will be examined in more detail in future work). Secondly, our result on $`\sigma _8`$ implies that the possible excess power detected at high multipoles ($`l20003000`$) in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum with the Cosmic Background Imager (Mason et al. 2002; Bond et al. 2002) is unlikely to be due to the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect. Our results also have important implications for future X-ray and SZ clusters surveys, since the number of clusters detected at high redshifts with high X-ray luminosities, temperatures and SZ fluxes will be much lower in a $`\sigma _80.7`$ universe than predicted by simulations with $`\sigma _81`$.

Finally, we suggest that given the precision of the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ available from current Chandra $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(z)`$ data for relaxed clusters, and the relatively small systematic uncertainties involved, the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}(z)`$ data should be considered as a powerful probe in future cosmological work, complementary to measurements of redshift evolution in the X-ray temperature and luminosity functions of galaxy clusters.

## Acknowledgements

We thank George Efstathiou, Sarah Bridle and Jerry Ostriker for a number of helpful discussions and suggestions. We also thank Sarah Bridle for providing the CMB and 2DF results shown in Fig. 11. We thank Alastair Edge and Carolin Crawford for their efforts in compiling the extended BCS sample, and Ofer Lahav, John Peacock and Andrew Liddle for comments on the manuscript. SWA and ACF acknowledge the support of the Royal Society. HE acknowledges financial support from NASA grant NAG 5-8253 and CXO grant GO1-2132X.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It has recently been demonstrated that certain four dimensional gauge theories can reproduce the physics of higher dimensional gauge theories, typically up to some energy scale . The four dimensional theory is referred to as the “deconstructed,” or “latticized,” theory. Gauge theories in more than four dimensions are typically not renormalizable, so the deconstructed theory provides an ultraviolet completion for the higher dimensional theory. The basic idea is to begin with a four dimensional action which, after certain elementary or composite fields get vacuum expectation values (VEVs), is the action for the higher dimensional theory latticized in all but four dimensions, plus corrections which become small if the lattice spacing is relatively small. The lattice spacing can generally not be taken to zero in a controlled way because this requires the infinite coupling limit of the gauge theory. Deconstruction of extra dimensions has proved useful in model building , and often the number of lattice sites can be taken as small as two while maintaining the relevant features of the extra dimensions.

Deconstruction of supersymmetric (SUSY) models is especially interesting . The deconstructed SUSY theory typically has less supersymmetry at high energies than at the low energies for which it describes the higher dimensional model. This unusual behavior is due to an accidental symmetry on the chosen branch of moduli space of the theory, and it must be checked that there are no radiative or nonperturbative corrections which would violate the enhancement of SUSY. In the case where the 5D SUSY gauge theory with 8 supercharges is deconstructed to a theory with $`𝒩`$=1 SUSY in 4D (4 supercharges) , stability of the spectrum and other holomorphic data follows from a non-anomalous U(1)R symmetry which is preserved, or alternatively by the $`𝒩`$=1 nonrenormalization theorem which prevents the generation of $`𝒩`$=2 SUSY breaking terms in the superpotential. Here we will study a six dimensional theory with 16 supercharges, deconstructed to a theory with 8 supercharges. In this case we will explicitly understand the stability of SUSY enhancement from the Seiberg-Witten description of the theory. This model was studied in , and we will generalize the model to the case with arbitrary theta vacuum in the deconstructed theory. By varying the theta vacuum we deconstruct the 6D theory with (0,2) SUSY compactified on a torus with arbitrary complex structure.

The model is a 4D SU$`(M)^N`$ gauge theory with $`𝒩`$=2 SUSY and $`N`$ bifundamental hypermultiplets $`Q_i`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& SU(M)_1& SU(M)_2& SU(M)_3& \mathrm{}& SU(M)_{N1}& SU(M)_N\\ & & & & & & \\ Q_1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\\ Q_2& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1\\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ Q_{N1}& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\\ Q_N& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\end{array}$$
(1.1)
$`Q_i`$ represents a vectorlike pair of $`𝒩`$=1 chiral multiplets in (1.1). The SU$`(M)`$ gauge couplings $`g`$ are all taken to be equal, and we will usually assume that the theta parameters for individual SU$`(M)`$ gauge group factors are equal. This theory has a Higgs branch, for which the scalars in the $`Q_i`$ hypermultiplets get VEVs, and a Coulomb branch, for which the adjoint scalars in the $`𝒩`$=2 vector multiplets get VEVs and the gauge group is generically broken to U$`(1)^{N(M1)}`$. If the $`Q_i`$ all have equal VEVs $`v\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (and the adjoints do not have VEVs), then the gauge group is broken to a diagonal SU$`(M)_D`$. At energies much smaller than $`gv/N`$ the theory is 4D $`𝒩`$=4 SU$`(M)`$ gauge theory. If the theta parameters vanish and $`N1`$ with $`g^2/N`$ and $`gv/N`$ held fixed, then it was argued in  that the low lying dyonic spectrum is the KK spectrum of 6D (0,2)M superconformal field theory on a torus of radii $`N/(2\pi gv)`$ and $`g/(8\pi ^2v)`$. The correspondence was made precise by starting with a Type IIB string theory description of the gauge theory and showing that the corresponding M theory description on a baryonic Higgs branch (i.e. when the “baryons” $`Q_i^M`$ have expectation values, in analogy with the baryonic branch in SUSY QCD ) is that of a stack of $`M`$ M5-branes wrapped on the torus, with the 11D Planck length $`l_P`$ taken to zero. This is the (0,2)M theory  compactified on a torus. In the case $`M\mathrm{}`$ the deconstructed theory is a holographic description of Type IIB string theory on a pp-wave background .

We will study the correspondence between the (0,2) theory and its deconstructed version by starting with the Type IIA description of the deconstructed theory, and raising it to M-theory before moving along the baryonic Higgs branch. This allows us to easily determine the complex and metric structure of the torus in terms of the parameters of the deconstructed theory. The M-theory description involves an M5-brane wrapped on the Seiberg-Witten curve which describes the dynamics of the gauge theory on the Coulomb branch. The Seiberg-Witten description of an $`𝒩`$=1 version of this $`𝒩`$=2 theory was studied in . The Seiberg-Witten curve in the $`𝒩`$=2 case studied here will be useful despite the fact that the relevant branch of moduli space for deconstruction is the Higgs branch, not the Coulomb branch.

There is a baryonic reduced Coulomb branch in which both the $`Q_i`$ and adjoints have VEVs. The gauge group in the low energy theory along this branch is U(1)M-1. The Coulomb and reduced Coulomb branches meet when the bifundamental VEV $`v`$ vanishes and the adjoint scalar VEVs among the $`N`$ gauge group factors are equal. Along the reduced Coulomb branch, the Coulomb and Higgs sectors have a product structure. In other words, $`Q_i`$ VEVs do not affect the low energy behavior of the adjoint fields, and vice versa. This follows by studying constraints on the Kähler potential from $`𝒩`$=2 supersymmetry .

The Seiberg-Witten curve becomes singular and factorizes on the intersection of the Higgs and Coulomb branches . One factor precisely describes the complex structure of the torus on which the M5-branes are wrapped, which allows us to easily identify the torus in terms of the gauge theory parameters. By the decoupling of the Higgs and Coulomb branches, the complex structure of the torus does not depend on the $`Q_i`$ VEVs. This is true even along the root of the reduced Coulomb branch, when the adjoint VEVs vanish and the low energy theory has an SU$`(M)`$ gauge symmetry. This is the domain of moduli space which describes the (0,2)M theory. Hence, the Seiberg-Witten curve contains information about the (0,2)M theory on the torus. The low energy dynamics of the (0,2) theory on a torus, which is 4D $`𝒩`$=4 SU$`(M)`$ gauge theory, is recovered exactly without corrections from the additional moduli involving the $`Q_i`$ hypermultiplet VEVs. The factorization of the Seiberg-Witten curve is easy to understand from the M-theory 5-brane description of the theory. It also demonstrates that the enhancement of SUSY at low energies is stable to radiative and instanton corrections. A more detailed analysis is the purpose of this paper.

## 2 Type IIA and M-theory construction of the deconstructed (0,2) theory

Witten demonstrated that the low energy dynamics of a class of $`𝒩`$=2 supersymmetric gauge theories, which arise as the low energy theories on configurations of NS5-branes and D4-branes of Type IIA string theory, can be understood by lifting the corresponding brane configurations to M-theory . Intersections of D-branes and NS5-branes are generally smoothed out into a single M5-brane, as in Figure 1.

In this interpretation, the D4-brane corresponds to the M5-brane wrapped on the M-theory circle of radius $`R_{10}`$, and the NS5-brane corresponds to the M5-brane at a point on the M-theory circle. The algebraic curve which describes the geometry of the M5-brane was shown in  to be precisely the Seiberg-Witten curve  from which the holomorphic gauge coupling $`\tau =4\pi i/g^2+\theta /2\pi `$ and Kähler potential are determined along the Coulomb branch of the corresponding gauge theory.

The 4D theory proposed in  as a deconstructed version of the six dimensional (0,2) theory is derived from a Type IIA brane configuration as in Figure 2a.

There are $`N`$ NS5-branes which live in the $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_3;x_4,x_5)`$ directions and $`M`$ D4-branes stretched along the $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_3;x_6)`$ directions between neighboring pairs of NS5-branes. The $`x_6`$ direction is compactified on a circle of radius $`R_6`$, which will be identified by the KK spectrum. All of the branes are at $`x_7=x_8=x_9=0`$ to begin with. The Type IIA description is T-dual to the Type IIB $`A_{N1}`$ quiver theory described, for example, in . The gauge theory that lives on the brane configuration described above, at energies below the string scale $`l_s^1`$, is an $`𝒩`$=2 SU$`(M)^N`$ gauge theory with bifundamental hypermultiplets $`Q_i`$ as given in (1.1). This is the theory described in the Introduction. In fact, there is an additional U(1) in the theory, but nothing is charged under it so it decouples from the theory we are interested in. The gauge coupling of the $`i^{th}`$ group factor is given by,

$$\frac{4\pi }{g_i^2}=\frac{x_6^ix_6^{i1}}{g_sl_s},$$
(2.1)
where $`g_s`$ is the string coupling, and $`l_s`$ is the string length. The branch of moduli space relevant to the deconstructed (0,2) theory is along the Higgs branch with all the $`Q_i`$ VEVs equal and proportional to the identity, $`Q_i=v\mathrm{𝟏}`$. On this branch the gauge group is broken to a diagonal SU$`(M)_D`$ with a massless adjoint hypermultiplet. The adjoint scalar in the SU$`(M)_D`$ vector multiplet can still get a VEV in the Cartan subalgebra of SU$`(M)_D`$, which would generically break the gauge group further to U(1)M-1. If the adjoint gets a generic VEV this is a reduced Coulomb branch, an analog of the baryonic branch in . The positions of the D4-branes in the $`z=x_4+ix_5`$-direction correspond to the VEVs of the adjoint scalars in the SU$`(M)^N`$ vector multiplet (up to instanton corrections). If the adjoint VEVs are equal for all of the SU$`(M)`$ gauge group factors, then the D4-branes wrap the circle and decouple from the NS5-branes, so that the NS5-branes can be removed while remaining on the vacuum manifold. (This will be made explicit in the next section.) This is the intersection of the Coulomb and reduced Coulomb branches. The bifundamental hypermultiplets correspond to strings which cross the NS5-branes, and they obtain VEVs when the NS5-branes are removed from the circle in the $`x_7,x_8,x_9`$ directions. When all of the NS5-branes are removed from the D4-brane circle, the gauge theory on the circle is generically broken to U(1)M-1. This is the reduced Coulomb branch discussed earlier.

The relevant limit of the deconstructed theory is $`l_s0`$ (in order to decouple the string modes so that the brane dynamics is described by the field theory ), $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`g\mathrm{}`$, $`v\mathrm{}`$, $`g_s=g/(8\pi ^2vl_s)\mathrm{}`$ such that $`N/gv=\mathrm{const}`$, $`g_sl_s=\mathrm{const}`$. These limits imply that the theory is better described within M-theory compactified on a circle $`R_{10}=g_sl_s,`$ which is held fixed in the deconstruction limit. When lifted to M-theory the brane configuration is generically described by a single M5-brane wrapped on the Seiberg-Witten curve. The nontrivial geometry of the M5-brane is confined to the directions $`x_4,x_5,x_6`$ and the M-theory direction $`x_{10}`$. The effective four-dimensional low energy theory lives in the directions $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_3`$. The D4-branes become M5-branes which are wrapped around both the M-theory circle in the $`x_{10}`$ direction and the circle in the $`x_6`$-direction. For small $`l_s`$ and constant $`R_{10}`$, the 11D Planck length $`l_P^3=l_s^2R_{10}`$ is small, and the theory which lives on this brane configuration is the 6D (0,2) theory wrapped on a torus up to energies which probe the NS5-branes. We will discuss the relevant energy scales in more detail later. At energies smaller than the inverse size of the torus, the theory is simply 4D $`𝒩`$=4 Yang-Mills theory. This demonstration was another approach to the same M5-brane configuration described in . But, as we will see by studying the Seiberg-Witten curve for this theory, the choice of theta vacuum of the deconstructed theory is reflected in the complex structure of the manifold on which the M5-brane is wrapped.

## 3 Factorization of the Seiberg-Witten curve and enhancement of supersymmetry

In this section we will demonstrate the factorization of the Seiberg-Witten curve on the reduced Coulomb branch, and thus the enhancement of supersymmetry. To begin we will avoid the additional complications which arise from putting the $`x_6`$ direction on a circle, and first demonstrate in more detail the decoupling of the Coulomb and Higgs branches in the Seiberg-Witten curve for the following $`𝒩`$=2 theory with hypermultiplet $`Q`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& SU(M)_1& SU(M)_2\\ & & \\ Q& \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }& \overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\end{array}$$

Recall that the hypermultiplet is vectorlike, so this theory is anomaly free. It is described by the brane configuration shown in Figure 2b. Note that this theory differs from that studied in  in that the latter had a vanishing superpotential, whereas the $`𝒩`$=2 theory studied here has superpotential,

$$W=Q_A^\alpha \varphi _\alpha ^\beta \stackrel{~}{Q}_\beta ^A\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ^A\phi _A^BQ_B^\alpha +\lambda \varphi _\alpha ^\alpha +\mu \phi _A^A,$$
(3.1)
where $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ are the two $`𝒩`$=1 chiral multiplets in the bifundamental hypermultiplet, and $`\varphi `$ and $`\phi `$ are the adjoint chiral multiplets of the two SU$`(M)`$ gauge groups. Greek and Roman indices run from $`1`$ to $`M`$ and refer to the two gauge group factors. The Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ enforce the tracelessness of the adjoint fields. Although the superpotential was absent in , their analysis of the $`D`$-flatness constraints on $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is unchanged as long as the adjoints $`\varphi `$ and $`\phi `$ do not get VEVs. It was found there that the general solution to the $`D`$-flatness constraints was that $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ take the form,

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}q_1& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & q_N\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{Q}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{q_1^2+c}& & \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ & & \sqrt{q_N^2+c}\end{array}\right)Ce^{i\beta },$$
(3.2)
where $`C`$ is a diagonal SU$`(M)`$ matrix.111A complete analysis of the moduli space of a more general class of theories which includes this one can be found in .

The $`F`$-flatness constraints can be read off of the superpotential (3.1), namely

$`\lambda \delta _\beta ^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{Q}_\beta ^AQ_A^\alpha =0`$ (3.3)
$`Q_A^\alpha \varphi _\alpha ^\beta \phi _A^BQ_B^\beta =0`$ (3.4)
and two similar equations of motion with respect to $`\phi `$ and $`Q`$. Note that generically the bifundamentals $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ cannot get VEVs if the adjoints $`\varphi `$ and $`\phi `$ do have VEVs, but if $`\varphi `$ and $`\phi `$ have equal nonvanishing VEVs in the Cartan subalgebra of the corresponding SU$`(M)`$, then $`Q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ can get VEVs proportional to the identity. In particular, we can choose $`Q=\stackrel{~}{Q}=v\mathrm{𝟏}`$. This is the reduced Coulomb branch discussed earlier.

We can easily recover this behavior from the Seiberg-Witten curve for this theory. The Seiberg-Witten curve and one-form determine the holomorphic gauge coupling function and Kähler potential on the Coulomb branch as a function of the Coulomb branch moduli of the theory, namely the VEVs of gauge invariant operators ,

$`u_n^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^n`$ (3.5)
$`u_n^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\phi ^n,`$ (3.6)
where $`n=2,\mathrm{},M`$. But we will restrict the VEVs to all be equal so that we intersect the Higgs branch, in which case there are only $`M1`$ independent moduli in the curve, as opposed to $`N(M1)`$.222On the reduced Coulomb branch there are additional moduli corresponding to the hypermultiplet VEVs. However, they cannot appear in the Seiberg-Witten curve because of the product structure of the Higgs and Coulomb branches . If we define the complex parameters $`z=x_4+ix_5`$ and $`t=\mathrm{exp}(x_6+ix_{10}/R_{10})`$ (which is holomorphic because $`x_{10}x_{10}+2\pi R_{10}`$), then Witten argued that the M5-brane is described by the curve ,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^Mt^3+A_1(z)t^2+\mathrm{}+A_2(z)t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M=0,$$
(3.7)
where $`A_i(z)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`M`$ in $`z`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ is the dynamical scale of SU$`(M)_i`$. At constant $`t`$, (3.7) has $`M`$ roots for $`z`$, which correspond to the positions of the $`M`$ D4-branes at that $`t`$. At constant $`z`$, (3.7) has $`3`$ roots for $`t`$, which correspond to the positions of the NS5-branes at that $`z`$.

If we write,

$$A_i(z)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}(za_{i,j}),$$
(3.8)
then the $`a_{i,j}`$ ($`i=1,2`$; $`j=1,\mathrm{},M`$) represent the positions of the $`M`$ D4-branes between the $`i`$th and $`(i+1)`$th NS5-branes. In terms of the SU$`(M)\times `$SU$`(M)`$ gauge theory that lives on the branes, for $`i=1,2`$, the $`a_{i,j}`$ are the VEVs of the adjoint in the $`i`$th SU$`(M)`$ factor (up to instanton corrections). The difference in the average of the $`a_{i,j}`$ on the two sides of an NS5-brane is the bare mass of the corresponding bifundamental hypermultiplet, which we take to be zero,

$$\frac{1}{M}\underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left(a_{1,j}a_{2,j}\right)=0.$$
(3.9)
The adjoint VEVs are in the Cartan subalgebra of the gauge group, but are not gauge invariant. They transform under the Weyl group (which preserves the Cartan subalgebra), which permutes the VEVs $`a_{i,j}`$ for fixed $`i`$. Instead, the curve should be written in terms of the gauge invariant moduli, which are in general shifted from their classical values by instanton effects. The Seiberg-Witten curve can then be written ,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^Mt^3+\left(P_1(z;u_n^{(1)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M\right)t^2+\left(P_2(z;u_n^{(2)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M\right)t+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M,$$
(3.10)
where $`P_1(z)`$ and $`P_2(z)`$ are the same function of $`z`$, the Coulomb branch moduli $`u_n^{(i)}`$ defined in (3.5) and (3.6), and the dynamical scale of the corresponding SU$`(M)_i`$ group factor.333$`P_i(z,u_n^{(i)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^M)`$ contains a constant term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^M`$. This represents a shift in the maximal moduli $`\mathrm{Tr}\varphi ^M`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}\phi ^M`$ from their classical values. We have ignored a numerical constant in the definition of the dynamical scale. For more on these subtleties, see for example . Equating the VEVs of the two adjoint scalars amounts to setting $`P_1(z;u_n^{(1)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M)=P_2(z;u_n^{(2)},\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M)`$. In that case, the curve (3.10) factorizes as,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M(t+1)\left(t^2+\frac{P(z)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M}t+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M}\right)=0.$$
(3.11)
If all moduli and dynamical scales are the same for each gauge group factor SU$`(M)_i`$, this amounts to enforcing a reflection symmetry about the middle NS5-brane. If we fix $`x_{10}=0`$, the symmetry $`x_6x_6`$ becomes $`t1/t`$. If we then equate the dynamical scales $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, and fix the moduli of both gauge groups to be equal, then the factorization of the curve immediately follows from the $`t1/t`$ symmetry. Physically, the factorization corresponds to the fact that the hypermultiplet $`Q`$ can get a VEV from such a point in moduli space, where the Coulomb and Higgs branches intersect, and the Higgs and Coulomb branches decouple . In the M-theory picture giving a VEV to $`Q`$ corresponds to removing the middle brane, which is at $`t=1`$ as we have written the curve, in the $`x_7,x_8,x_9`$ directions. By rescaling the curve by $`t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2t`$, the dynamics along the reduced Coulomb branch is given by the factor multiplying $`(t+1)`$, which we recognize to be simply the Seiberg-Witten curve for the diagonal SU$`(M)_D`$ gauge theory, with dynamical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_D^{2M}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^M\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^M`$. That is, the Seiberg-Witten curve describes the unbroken U(1)M-1 gauge theory on the reduced Coulomb branch. Giving a VEV to the hypermultiplet $`Q`$ corresponds to the removal of the middle brane in the $`x_7,x_8,x_9`$ directions, but as mentioned earlier that dynamics is decoupled from the dynamics described by the Seiberg-Witten curve at low energies.

We now see explicitly from the brane construction that the enhancement of SUSY along the reduced Coulomb or Higgs branch is stable to radiative and nonperturbative corrections. The D4-branes break half of the 32 supersymmetries of the Type IIA string theory, and the NS5-branes break another half. If the NS5-branes are removed, then the remaining theory at energies below those which probe the NS5-branes is that of the D4-branes on the circle, which has twice as much SUSY. In essence, the theory has factorized into the theory on the parallel NS5-branes with 16 supercharges, and the theory on the D4-branes with a different 16 supercharges. The decoupling is confirmed by the factorization of the Seiberg-Witten curve.

As mentioned in the Introduction, we need to take the number of gauge group factors large in order to be able to probe the size of the torus because otherwise the spectrum differs from the expected KK spectrum at low energies, and the deconstructed theory can not correspond to a six dimensional theory on a torus. We can understand this from the string theory construction as well by considering the relevant energy scales. The Type IIA brane configuration is useful in understanding the gauge theory on that brane configuration at energies less than $`l_s^1`$. The (0,2) theory is the theory on a stack of M5-branes with vanishing 11D Planck scale, $`l_P^3=l_s^2R_{10}`$, so we take $`l_s0`$. Furthermore, the theory that lives on the wrapped M5-branes is only the (0,2) theory up to scales where they probe the M5-branes that were removed from the torus. At energies much smaller than the inverse sizes of the torus, the (0,2) theory becomes the 4D $`𝒩`$=4 theory. We want to arrange the parameters of the theory so that we can probe somewhat higher energies, on the scale of the inverse sizes of the torus, without also probing the NS5-branes. Strings which stretch from a D4 brane to an NS5 brane and back carry energy of order $`gv`$, corresponding to the fact that at that energy the gauge theory probes the individual gauge group factors and hypermultiplets $`Q_i`$.

The size of the torus is determined by the low lying “electric” spectrum of the gauge theory, which corresponds to the KK modes around the $`x_6`$ circle. This fixes $`R_6=N/(2\pi gv)`$, so we must have $`N`$ large in order for the scale of low lying KK modes to be much smaller than the bifundamental hypermultiplet scale $`gv`$. Notice that the size of the torus is related to the positions of the NS5-branes. $`R_{10}`$ will be related to $`R_6`$ by identifying the low energy gauge coupling in terms of $`R_6/R_{10}`$ via the M5-brane brane construction. Alternatively, we can identify $`R_{10}`$ via the magnetic spectrum, as in , which is interpreted as the KK modes around the other cycle of the torus. For nonvanishing theta parameter in the low energy SU$`(M)_D`$ gauge group, the low lying states in the large $`N`$ limit have masses,

$`M_{n,m}={\displaystyle \frac{gv}{N}}`$ $`\left|n+m\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\pi }}+i{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g_D^2}}\right)\right|`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R_6}}`$ $`\left|n+m\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\pi }}+i{\displaystyle \frac{R_6}{R_{10}}}\right)\right|`$ , (3.12)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ are the electric and magnetic quantum numbers of the BPS (in the sense of the theory with sixteen supercharges) dyon, respectively, and correspond to the KK numbers around the two one-cycles of the torus. Equation (3.12) also determines the complex structure of the torus, $`\tau =\theta /(2\pi )+iR_6/R_{10}`$, in terms of the gauge theory parameters. Note that the bifundamental VEV $`v`$ sets the overall scale for the flat metric on the torus, but does not appear in the period $`\tau `$. This is once again a reflection of the product structure of the Higgs and Coulomb branches where they intersect. The first equality in (3.12) is the holomorphic extension of the spectrum found in , where $`v_h=gv`$ is the holomorphic VEV. The second equality in (3.12) follows immediately from the M-theory construction as we will now see.

## 4 Compactification on an arbitrary torus: complex structure and factorization

To identify the complex structure of the torus we will closely follow Witten . The M-theory circle in the $`x_{10}`$ direction has radius $`R_{10}`$ and the circle in the $`x_6`$ direction has radius $`R_6`$. The bare gauge coupling of the $`i`$th gauge group SU$`(M)_i`$ is given by the difference in the $`x_6`$ positions of the $`i`$th and $`(i+1)`$th NS5-branes ,

$$\frac{4\pi }{g_i^2}=\frac{(x_{i+1}^6x_i^6)}{R_{10}}.$$
(4.1)
The bare coupling of the diagonal gauge group is given by,

$$\frac{4\pi }{g_D^2}=\underset{i}{}\frac{4\pi }{g_i^2}=\frac{R_6}{R_{10}}.$$
(4.2)
The theta parameter of the SU$`(M)_i`$ gauge group factor is given by the difference in the $`x_{10}`$ positions of the $`i`$th and $`(i+1)`$th NS5-branes ,

$$\theta _i=\frac{x_{i+1}^{10}x_i^{10}}{R_{10}}.$$
(4.3)
By “going around the circle” in the $`x_6`$ direction, namely by summing (4.3) over $`\theta _i`$, we would find

$`x_6`$ $``$ $`x_6+2\pi R_6`$
$`x_{10}`$ $``$ $`x_{10}+\theta R_{10}.`$ (4.4)
By varying $`\theta `$, the theta parameters in the gauge theory can be chosen arbitrarily, as now $`_i\theta _i=\theta `$. The period of the torus $`\tau =\theta /2\pi +iR_6/R_{10}`$ is identified with the holomorphic gauge coupling of the diagonal SU$`(M)_D`$ gauge theory on the Higgs branch, $`\tau =4\pi i/g_D^2+\theta /2\pi `$. Thus, by varying $`R_6/R_{10}`$ and $`\theta `$, or equivalently by varying the gauge couplings and theta parameters of the deconstructed theory, the complex structure of the torus on which the (0,2) theory is compactified can be chosen arbitrarily.

Let us now discuss the factorization of the Seiberg-Witten curve on the intersection of the Higgs and Coulomb branches for the full deconstructed theory. A classical analysis similar to that done in Section 3 indicates that there is a reduced Coulomb branch in this theory along which the Seiberg-Witten curve should factorize. We write the Seiberg-Witten curve as in :

$$z^Mf_1(x,y)z^{M1}+f_2(x,y)z^{M2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^Mf_M(x,y)=0,$$
(4.5)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ parametrize the torus on which the M5-brane lives, which is specified by an elliptic curve of the form,

$$y^2=x^3+c_1x+c_2,$$
(4.6)
for some complex constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$. These constants, together with the unique nonsingular holomorphic differential $`\omega =dx/y`$ and a choice of cycles, determine the complex structure of the torus. To be precise, there is a basis of cycles $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ on the torus with unit intersection from which the period of the torus can be calculated as

$$\tau =_{\gamma _1}\omega \left(_{\gamma _2}\omega \right)^1.$$
(4.7)
The period $`\tau `$ is to be identified with the gauge coupling and $`\theta `$ parameter of the diagonal SU$`(M)_D`$ gauge group via $`\tau =4\pi i/g^2+\theta /2\pi `$. The constants $`c_i`$ in (4.6) and the cycles $`\gamma _i`$ are chosen to give the correct period $`\tau `$ on the moduli space of vacua. There is also a flat metric on the torus which specifies its size.

For generic adjoint VEVs, there are $`M`$ roots for $`z`$, which describe the positions of the D4-branes as before. The functions $`f_i(x,y)`$ are generically meromorphic functions on the torus which have simple poles. At the pole there would be a singularity in at least one of the roots of $`z`$ which looks near the singularity like,

$$(zz_0)(ss_0)=ϵ,$$
(4.8)
where $`s`$ is a good local coordinate on the torus near the singularity. This would describe the smooth connection of the D4-brane at $`z_0`$ to the NS5-brane at $`s_0`$. But at points in the moduli space where the Higgs and Coulomb branches meet, the curve factorizes. This happens when the $`f_i(x,y)`$ are constants. The interpretation of this is as follows. If we assume that $`R_6R_{10}`$ then in the neighborhood of an NS5-brane the Seiberg-Witten curve is well described by the coordinates $`z`$ and $`s=\mathrm{exp}(x_6+ix_{10})`$ with the $`x_6`$ position of the NS5-brane set to 0, say. (Alternatively we can just focus on an appropriate neighborhood of the NS5 brane for which $`|x_6|2\pi R_6`$, and remove the restriction on $`R_6/R_{10}`$.) When the Higgs and Coulomb branches intersect there is a symmetry corresponding to reflections about the NS5-brane, which as we saw earlier implies that the curve should factorize near the NS5-branes. This implies that locally the $`f_i(x,y)`$ in (4.5) are constants, which by holomorphy implies they are constants over the torus. Then, using the S-duality which takes $`\tau 1/\tau `$ and $`\tau \tau +1`$ we can relax the restriction $`R_6R_{10}`$, so that the $`f_i(x,y)`$ are generically constants on the intersection of the Higgs and Coulomb branches.

In order to completely specify the brane configuration in the case in which it factorizes, the curve (4.5) should instead be written,

$$h_0(x,y)z^Mh_1(x,y)z^{M1}+h_2(x,y)z^{M2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^Mh_M(x,y)=0,$$
(4.9)
where now the $`h_i(x,y)`$ are all equal up to overall numerical constants. All of the $`f_i(x,y)=h_i(x,y)/h_0(x,y)`$ of (4.5) are then constants. The curve factorizes as,

$$h_0(x,y)\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}(zz_i)=0,$$
(4.10)
where $`z_i`$ are the positions of the D4-branes, and the zeroes of $`h_0(x,y)`$ specify the positions of the NS5-branes. The singular intersections of the D4-branes and NS5-branes are similar to (4.8) with $`ϵ0`$.

Having understood how the M-theory 5-brane configuration contains information about the reduced Coulomb branch that we are interested in, we can now easily understand the emergence of the (0,2) theory from the deconstructed theory. When the VEVs of all the adjoints are equal, the Seiberg-Witten curve describing the brane configuration factorizes into a product of terms reflecting the positions of the flat NS5-branes and the positions of the D4-branes which wrap the $`x_6`$ direction. When the NS5-branes are removed symmetrically around the torus, the Seiberg-Witten curve describes the remaining D4-branes, which are really M5-branes wrapped on the $`x_6`$$`x_{10}`$ torus. If we also take the 11D Planck scale $`l_P^3=l_s^2R_{10}`$ to zero, then up to the presence of the additional NS5-branes this is precisely the (0,2)M theory on a torus whose complex structure we have identified above. At very low energies the theory on the D4-branes is the 4D $`𝒩`$=4 SU$`(M)`$ gauge theory, the dynamics of which is not corrected by the presence of the NS5-branes (as a result of the product structure of the Higgs and Coulomb branches). At higher energies but below the scale $`gv`$ which probes the positions of the NS5-branes, the spectrum mimics the KK spectrum expected of the (0,2)M theory on a torus with the same complex structure as that determined by the Seiberg-Witten curve. This provides additional evidence that the deconstructed theory does indeed mimic the (0,2) theory at scales which probe the size of the torus on which the (0,2) theory is compactified.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Allan Adams, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Andy Cohen, Mike Graesser, Christophe Grojean, David B. Kaplan, Asad Naqvi, Luigi Pilo, Stephan Pokorski, Yuri Shirman, Matt Strassler and Arkady Vainshtein for useful conversations. We are also happy to thank the Aspen Center for Physics, where this work was completed. The research of C.C. is supported in part by the NSF, and in part by the DOE OJI grant DE-FG02-01ER41206. The research of J.E. and J.T. is supported by the US Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36.