tokens: 2012 ). Numerical simulations suggest that this sample is prevalently composed of relaxed clusters (∼70%) and largely free of orientation bias (Meneghetti et al. 2014 ). An important effect of the CLASH selection function is to significantly reduce the scatter in concentration because of their X-ray regularity (Section 6.2 ). For a lensing-unbiased subsample of 16 CLASH X-ray-selected clusters, we have examined the mean c – M relation and its intrinsic scatter using Bayesian regression methods (Section 6 ; Figures 6 and 7 ). Our analysis takes into account the correlation between the errors on mass and concentration and the effects of nonuniformity of the intrinsic mass probability distribution. Our model yields a mean concentration of at and an intrinsic scatter of , or . The normalization, slope, and scatter of the observed c – M relation are all consistent with ΛCDM predictions (Meneghetti et al. 2014 ) when the projection effects and the CLASH selection function based on X-ray morphological regularity are taken into account. Our regression results are in agreement with the SaWLens analysis of Merten et al. ( 2015 ) and the stacked shear-only analysis of Umetsu et al. ( 2014 ). This multi-probe approach for cluster lensing is one of the key advantages of the CLASH survey, providing consistency checks between different lensing methods and different data sets. We have derived an ensemble-averaged surface mass density profile at an average redshift of for the X-ray-selected subsample of 16 clusters by stacking their individual profiles (Section 5 ; Figure 3 ). The stacked lensing signal is detected at 33 σ significance over the entire radial range, R ≤ 4000 kpc h −1 , accounting for the effects of intrinsic profile variations and uncorrelated LSS along the line of sight (Figure 1 ). Our CLASH lensing determination of the cluster mass distribution provides a firm basis for a detailed comparison with theoretical models. We show that the profile is well described by a family of density profiles predicted for DM-dominated halos in gravitational equilibrium (Table 4 ; Figure 4 ), namely, the NFW, Einasto, and DARKexp models. Of these, the first two are phenomenological models and the last is a theoretically derived model (Hjorth Williams 2010 ; Williams Hjorth 2010 ). The single power-law, cored isothermal and Burkert density profiles are disfavored by the observed mass profile having a pronounced radial curvature. We find that cuspy halo models that include the large-scale two-halo contribution using the b h – M relation of Tinker et al. ( 2010 ) provide improved agreement with the data. Independent of the chosen halo density profile, we find b h ( M 200c ) ∼ 9.3 (). For the NFW halo model (NFW+LSS (i)), we measure a mean concentration of at , demonstrating consistency between complementary analysis methods (Figure 7 ). This model yields an Einstein radius of arcsec at z s = 2, which agrees within 2 σ with the observed median Einstein radius of
ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey B-Wavelength O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O B-Model O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey I-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Wavelength O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Survey O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model B-Model O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O B-Model I-Model B-Model I-Model O B-Model I-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model I-Model O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O B-Model O O B-Model I-Model O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O