1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3:
4: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
5: \newcommand{\myemail}{jiang@astronomy.ohio-state.edu}
6: \newcommand{\msun}{$M_{\sun}$}
7: \newcommand{\lsun}{$L_{B,\sun}$}
8:
9: \def\bfxi{\mathbf{\xi}}
10:
11:
12: \shorttitle{Structure of Early-Type Galaxies}
13: %\shortauthors{Jiang et al.}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17:
18:
19: \title{The Baryon Fractions and Mass-to-Light Ratios of Early-Type Galaxies }
20:
21: \author{Guangfei Jiang and C.S. Kochanek}
22: \affil{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210}
23:
24: %\altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy department, The Ohio State University}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We jointly model 22 early-type gravitational lens galaxies with stellar dynamical measurements
28: using standard CDM halo models. The sample is inhomogeneous in both its mass distributions
29: and the evolution of its stellar populations unless the true uncertainties are significantly
30: larger than the reported measurement errors. In general, the individual systems cannot constrain
31: halo models, in the sense that the data poorly constrains the stellar mass fraction of the halo.
32: The ensemble of systems, however, strongly constrains the average stellar mass represented by
33: the visible galaxies to $0.026\pm0.006$ of the halo mass if we neglect adiabatic compression,
34: rising to $0.056\pm0.011$ of the halo mass if we include adiabatic compression. Both estimates
35: are significantly smaller than the global baryon fraction, corresponding to a star formation efficiency
36: for early-type galaxies of $10\%-30\%$. In the adiabatically compressed models, we find an average
37: local B-band stellar mass-to-light ratio of $(M/L)_0 = (7.2\pm0.5)(M_{\sun}/L_{\sun})$ that
38: evolves by $d\log(M/L)/dz = -0.72\pm0.08$ per unit redshift. Adjusting the isotropy of the
39: stellar orbits has little effect on the results. The adiabatically compressed models are
40: strongly favored if we impose either local estimates of the mass-to-light ratios of early-type
41: galaxies or the weak lensing measurements for the lens galaxies on 100~kpc scales as
42: model constraints.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \keywords{early-type galaxies,gravitational lensing, stellar dynamics}
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49: The presence of dark matter in early type galaxies is clear on large scales, based on
50: both weak lensing (e.g. Kleinheinrich et al. 2006, Mandelbaum et al. 2006) and X-ray (e.g. Humphrey et al. 2006)
51: studies. The distribution of the dark matter and the mass fraction represented by the stars
52: are less well-determined because of the difficulties in measuring early-type galaxy structure in the transition
53: region between the stars and the dark matter. Stellar kinematic studies of the central regions,
54: when compared to estimates of stellar mass-to-light ratios, have argued either that there is
55: little dark matter inside an effective radius (e.g. Gerhard et al. 2001) or that there
56: is a substantial dark matter fraction (e.g. Padmanabhan et al. 2004). The significance
57: of these differences depends on the reliability of estimating the stellar mass from
58: combinations of photometry, spectroscopy and population synthesis models.
59: Studies on larger scales using planetary nebulae, have found examples of galaxies with
60: falling rotation curves (Romanowsky et al. 2003), while the globular clusters in one
61: of these systems show a flat rotation curve (Pierce et al. 2006). Surveys of structure
62: with gravitational lenses (e.g. Rusin \& Kochanek 2005, Treu et al. 2006) indicate that
63: the typical lens has a flat rotation curve on scales of 1--2$R_e$, but the interpretation
64: of the scatter around the mean structure has been used to argue for both inhomogeneity
65: (e.g. Treu \& Koopmans 2002a, Kochanek et al. 2006) and homogeneity (e.g. Rusin \& Kochanek 2005,
66: Koopmans et al. 2006) in the mass distributions.
67:
68: In this paper we reanalyze a sample of 15 lenses from the Sloan Lens ACS Survey (SLACS,
69: Bolton et al. 2006) and 7 lenses from the Lens Structure and Dynamics Survey (LSD,
70: Koopmans \& Treu 2003) that have both mass estimates from the lens geometry and
71: central velocity dispersion measurements. Koopmans et al. (2006) analyzed the
72: sample using a simple, global power law model, $\rho \propto r^{-\gamma}$, for
73: the mass distribution to find a mean slope of $\gamma=2.01^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$
74: where $\gamma=2$ corresponds to a flat rotation curve. With a nominal
75: scatter in the slope of only $0.07$, Koopmans et al. (2006) argue that the
76: halo structures appear to be fairly homogeneous. It is difficult, however,
77: to relate these power law models to theoretical models of halos or to evaluate
78: the significance of the scatter in the slope. Additionally, the models
79: are somewhat unphysical because they allow mass distributions
80: more compact that the luminous galaxy.
81:
82:
83:
84: Here we reanalyze the SLACS and LSD lens samples using a more physical mass model that combines a \citet{hern90} profile for the stars with a
85: Navarro, Frenk \& White (1996, NFW) model for the dark matter. By comparing the mass inside the Einstein ring of the galaxies ($M_E(<R_E)$)
86: with the mass needed to produce the observed velocity dispersion, we can estimate the stellar mass fraction and the
87: stellar mass-to-light ratio explicitly. We use a Bayesian formalism that allows us to quantitatively address the homogeneity of the sample.
88: We review the data and describe our mass models and analysis techniques in \S\ref{sec:method}. In \S\ref{sec:result}, we discuss the models of the
89: individual systems (\S\ref{sec:indiv}), the homogeneity of the sample (\S\ref{sec:hom}), and finally, the stellar mass fraction,
90: the mean stellar mass-to-light ratio and the evolution of the mass-to-light ratios (\S\ref{sec:barma}). We summarize our results in \S\ref{sec:dis}.
91:
92: \section{Data and Method}
93: \label{sec:method}
94: \subsection{Data}
95: \label{sec:data}
96: In this paper we reanalyze the data for 15 lenses from the Sloan Lenses ACS Survey (SLACS)
97: and 7 lenses from the Lens Structure and Dynamics Survey (LSD).
98: We neglect two lenses, Q0957+561 and Q2237+030, from the LSD,
99: since Q0957+561 is in a cluster and Q2237+030 is a barred spiral galaxy,
100: to leave us with a sample of 22 galaxies with measured
101: velocity dispersions, effective radii, Einstein radii, enclosed masses and rest frame B band magnitudes taken from the original analyses.
102: For convenience, we summarize the data in Table \ref{tab:tab1}, particularly since the equivalent table in \citet{tkbbm06}
103: contains ordering errors. For consistency we have adjusted all the data to a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological
104: model with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and $\rm{H_0=70~km~s^{-1}~Myr^{-1}}$.
105:
106: \subsection{Method of Analysis}
107: \label{sec:anal}
108: We model the lenses with the two component mass model for lenses introduced by \citet{keeton01},
109: which was also used for early-type galaxies in the SDSS by \citet{padman04}.
110: It consists of a \citet{hern90} model for the luminous galaxy and a Navarro, Frenk \& White (1996, NFW) profile for the dark matter halo.
111: By using this physically motivated model rather than the simple power law normally used by the LSD/SLACS studies, we both better connect the results
112: to theoretical halo models, and avoid models in which the dark matter can be more centrally concentrated than the stars.
113: In essence, we use the mass enclosed by the Einstein radius of the lens to set the virial mass $M_{vir}$, the stellar velocity dispersion to
114: determine the stellar mass fraction $f_*$, and theoretical halo models to constrain the halo concentration $c$. Finally,
115: by comparing the derived stellar mass to the observed luminosity, we can estimate the rest frame B-band mass-to-light ratio ${M_{\ast}/ L}$
116: and its evolution.
117:
118: The \citet{hern90} model used for the luminous lens galaxy is defined by
119: \begin{equation}
120: \rho_H(r) = {M_{\ast}\over{2\pi}} {r_H\over{r(r+r_H)^3}},
121: \end{equation}
122: where the scale length $r_H = 0.551R_e$ is matched to the measured de Vaucouleurs profile
123: effective radius $R_e$ and the stellar mass $M_{\ast} = f_* M_{vir}$ is related to the virial mass by the cold baryon/stellar mass fraction
124: $f_*$.
125: The NFW profile \citep{nfw96} used to model the initial dark matter halo is defined by
126: \begin{equation}
127: \rho_N(r) = {M_{dm}\over{4\pi f(c)}}~{1\over{r(r+r_s)^3}},
128: \end{equation}
129: where the scale length $r_s$ is related to the virial radius by $c = r_{vir}/r_s$,
130: $f(c) = \ln(1+c) - c/(1+c)$, and
131: $M_{dm} = (1-f_*)M_{vir}$ is the mass in dark matter.
132: The average concentration was modeled by
133: \begin{equation}
134: \label{eqn:c1}
135: c = {9\over 1+z}~\left({M_{vir}\over 8.12\times 10^{12}~h M_{\sun} } \right)^{-0.14},
136: \end{equation}
137: and the individual halos have a log-normal dispersion in their concentrations of
138: $\sigma_c = 0.18$ (base 10) around the average \citep{bullock01}.
139: These initial models neglect the compression of the dark matter density profile by the more concentrated baryons.
140: We estimated the changes in the dark matter
141: distribution using the adiabatic compression model of \citet{blumenthal86}. This approximation may exaggerate the compression
142: \citep{gnedin04}, so we should regard our compressed and uncompressed results as bounding the possible effects of adiabatic compression.
143:
144: The observations provide two constraints,
145: the mass inside the Einstein radius, and the stellar velocity dispersion. For any value of $c$ and $f_*$, we use
146: the projected mass inside the Einstein radius to determine $M_{vir}$ (which also determines $r_{vir}$),
147: then use the spherical Jeans equation and a constant orbital isotropy $\beta$ to compute the velocity dispersion expected for the
148: measurement aperture. The effects of seeing were modeled using a Gaussian PSF with the observed FWHM of the observations.
149: Given the estimated dispersion
150: $\sigma_{i,model}$, the measured dispersion $\sigma_i$ and its uncertainties $e_{\sigma i}$ for galaxy $i$, we estimate a goodness of fit
151: ${\chi_i}^2(\sigma_i)=(\sigma_{i,model}-\sigma_i)^2/e_{\sigma i}^2$.
152: We model the mass-to-light ratios of the stars using the standard power law (e.g. \citealt{vanf96,treu01,rk05,ktbbm06}),
153: \begin{equation}
154: \log\left({M_{\ast} \over L}\right) = \log\left({M_{\ast} \over L}\right)_0 + z\left({d \log(M_{\ast}/L)\over d z}\right)
155: \end{equation}
156: where $({M_{\ast} / L})_0$ is the value today and ${d \log(M_{\ast}/L)/ d z}$ is the rate at which it changes with redshift $z$.
157: This in turn defines a goodness of fit $\chi_i^2((M/L)_i)$
158: with which the model fits the logarithm of the mass-to-light ratio $(M/L)_i$ of galaxy $i$,
159: defined by the ratio of the estimated stellar mass (a model parameter) to the observed luminosity,
160: given its uncertainties $e_{Li}=\Delta(\log(M/L)_i= \Delta L_i/(\ln(10)L_i)$.
161: These two terms define a probability of fitting the velocity
162: dispersion $P(\sigma_i|\bfxi) = \exp(-\chi_i^2(\sigma_i)/2)/\sqrt{2\pi}e_{\sigma i}$ and the mass-to-light ratio
163: $P((M/L)_i|\bfxi) = \exp(-\chi_i^2((M/L)_i)/2)/\sqrt{2\pi}e_{L i}$ given the model parameters $f_*$, $c$,
164: $(M_*/L)_0$ and $d\log(M/L)/dz$ which we abbreviate as $\bfxi$. Combining the two terms, we have
165: the probability of the model fitting the data $D_i$ for galaxy $i$
166: \begin{equation}
167: \label{eqn:eqn2}
168: P_i\left(D_i\big|{\bf\xi}\right) = P\left(\sigma_i|{\bf \xi}\right) P\left((M/L)_i| {\bf \xi}\right).
169: \end{equation}
170:
171: In addition to the measurement errors listed in Table \ref{tab:tab1}, we should also consider sources of systematic
172: errors. The essence of the method is to compare the mass inside the Einstein ring $M(<R_e)$ to a virial mass
173: estimate from the velocity dispersion ${\sigma}_v^2R/G$. We can identify five sources of systematic errors.
174: First, while there is little uncertainty in $M_E$, some of the mass may be projected
175: surface density from either a parent group halo to which the lens belongs, or from another along the line of sight.
176: The extra density, $\kappa=\Sigma/\Sigma_c$ in dimensionless units, modifies the mass inside the Einstein radius by
177: $\pi\kappa R_E^2 \Sigma_c$, so we can think of its effects as a systematic error in interpreting $\sigma_v$ of
178: $\rm e_\sigma=\sigma_{\kappa}/2$. The full probability distribution of $\kappa$ is skewed to positive
179: values (e.g. \citealt{th03}), but we will ignore this problem and assume $\sigma_{\kappa}\backsimeq 0.05$ since the
180: positive tail of the distribution is associated with detectable objects (galaxies and clusters).
181: This systematic error also affects estimates of the mass-to-light ratios. Second,
182: there are $1-10\%$ uncertainties in the galaxy effective radius measurements which contribute uncertainties of
183: $0.5\%$ to $5\%$ to our interpretation of the velocity dispersion. Third, the measured velocity dispersion
184: is a Gaussian fit to the spectrum, which is not identical to the rms velocity appearing in the Jeans equation
185: (e.g. \citealt{bs87}). The difference can be estimated from the typical Gaussian-Hermite coefficients
186: $|h_4|\backsimeq0.02$ \citep{bsg94} as a fractional error in $\sigma_v$ of order $\sqrt{6}|h_4|\backsimeq0.05$
187: in the velocity dispersion (e.g. \citealt{vf03}). Fourth, non-sphericity, (somewhat to our surprise) leads
188: to negligible systematic errors provided we use the intermediate scale length (the geometric mean of the
189: semi-major and minor axes), at least in the limit of the tensor virial theorem. It leads to large errors
190: if any other scale length is used. \citet{Barnabe07} have taken the first steps towards
191: removing these two dynamical problems, although they are restricted to oblate two-integral models
192: which may not be appropriate for massive elliptical galaxies.
193: Finally, calibration errors in the velocity dispersions contribute
194: fractional errors of order 0.03 (see \citealt{bernardi03a}). Combining all these contributions in
195: quadrature, which corresponds to assuming a Gaussian model for each systematic error, we estimate that the typical
196: systematic uncertainty to interpreting the velocity dispersions is approximately $8\%$ with the exact value
197: depending on the uncertainties in the effective radius.
198:
199: Our statistical methods are chosen so that we can understand the homogeneity of the lens galaxies
200: in either their evolution or their dynamical properties and estimate their average properties in
201: the presence of inhomogeneities. We will analyze the results using two Bayesian methods. In the
202: first method, we will fit the data while simultaneously estimating the systematic errors in the
203: velocity dispersion and the mass-to-light ratio. When combined with the measurement errors,
204: these define new uncertainty estimates for the data which we will call the ``bad'' case errors
205: in comparison to the original uncertainties (the ``good'' case). These broadened uncertainties
206: can be representative of either true systematic uncertainties, such as the ones we discussed above
207: for the dynamical measurements, or indicative of inhomogeneities in the structure or evolution of
208: the galaxies. In the second method we
209: will compare these two cases using the approach outlined in \citet{bo97} to determine the
210: degree to which the sample homogeneous or heterogeneous. In this method,
211: we assume that there are probabilities $p_\sigma$ and $p_L$ that the galaxies have
212: homogeneous structures or evolutionary histories in the sense that the scatter in the measurements
213: is simply determined by the ``good'' measurement errors. There are then probabilities $1-p_\sigma$ and $1-p_L$
214: that the galaxies are not a homogeneous group in either their structure or their evolution, where
215: we characterize this by assuming that the uncertainties in the velocity dispersion and the mass-to-light
216: ratio are significantly broadened to be the ``bad'' measurement errors. In essence, we are determining
217: the relative probabilities of the stated measurement errors and our estimate of the
218: true uncertainties from the first method. Both approaches provide uncertainties on the average
219: properties of the sample that account for potential inhomogeneities, although the second method
220: is a better formal approach since it can reject individual objects.
221:
222: In the first approach, we will estimate the fractional systematic errors $e_\sigma$ and
223: $e_L$ in the velocity dispersion and luminosity. The $\chi^2$ expressions are modified to use uncertainties
224: of $e_{\sigma i} \rightarrow \sqrt{e_{\sigma i}^2+e_\sigma^2\sigma_i^2}$
225: and $e_{L i} \rightarrow \sqrt{e_{Li}^2+e_L^2}$ for the velocity dispersions and the logarithm of
226: the mass-to-light ratios respectively.
227: We assume logarithmic priors for $f_*$, $\left({M_{\ast}/ L}\right)_0$, and
228: $\left({d\left(M/L\right)/dz}\right)$, and the theoretical prior defined by Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:c1}) for the
229: concentration $c_i$. Note that we are forcing all galaxies to have the same concentration, which
230: should have no significant impact given the scales we are studying.
231: The priors for the systematic errors, $P(e_\sigma)=1/\sqrt{\langle e_{\sigma i}^2 \rangle + e_\sigma^2\sigma_i^2}$
232: and $P(e_L)=1/\sqrt{\langle e_{Li}^2\rangle + e_L^2}$, naturally switch between uniform priors
233: for systematic errors small compared to the mean square measurement errors ($\langle e_{\sigma i}^2 \rangle$
234: and $\langle e_{Li}^2 \rangle$) and logarithmic priors for large systematic errors.
235: The resulting probability distribution for the fractional errors is then
236: \begin{equation}
237: P(e_\sigma, e_L |D) \propto P(e_\sigma)P(e_L)
238: \int d\mathbf{\xi} P(\mathbf{\xi}) {\prod_{i}}
239: P\left(D_i|e_\sigma,\mathbf{\xi}\right)
240: P\left(D_i|e_L,\mathbf{\xi}\right)
241: \label{eqn:e1e2}
242: \end{equation}
243: where $P\left(D_i|e_\sigma,\mathbf{\xi}\right)$ and $P\left(D_i|e_L,\mathbf{\xi}\right)$ are
244: the probability distributions modified by the addition of the systematic errors $e_\sigma $ and
245: $e_L$. We then use these systematic error estimates to define the uncertainties used for
246: the ``bad'' case in our second formalism.
247:
248: The second, \citet{bo97} approach properly weights all combinatoric possibilities of the individual systems
249: being members of a homogeneous sample or not. Let $P_{Gi}(\sigma_i|\bfxi)$ and $P_{Gi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi)$
250: be the probabilities of the data given the parameters for galaxy $i$ if it is a member of a homogeneous
251: group based on the measured, ``good'' uncertainties, and $P_{Bi}(\sigma_i|\bfxi)$ and $P_{Bi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi)$
252: be the probabilities if it is not and we should be using the ``bad'' uncertainties based on the systematic
253: error estimates derived from our first method. The \citet{bo97} provides estimates of the relative
254: likelihoods describing either the full sample or the individual systems by the
255: ``good'' or ``bad'' data model.
256: If we want the Bayesian probability distribution for the parameters $\bfxi$ properly weighted
257: over all possible group membership combinations, we find that
258: \begin{equation}
259: P(\mathbf{\bfxi}|D) \propto P(\mathbf{\bfxi}) \int dp_\sigma dp_L {\prod_{i}} F_i
260: \label{eqn:p1}
261: \end{equation}
262: where
263: \begin{equation}
264: F_i = \left[ p_\sigma P_{Gi}(\sigma_i|\bfxi) + (1-p_\sigma) P_{Bi}(\sigma_i|\bfxi)\right]
265: \left[ p_L P_{Gi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi) + (1-p_L) P_{Bi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi)\right]
266: \end{equation}
267: and where $P(\mathbf{\xi})$ sets the prior probability distributions for the parameters. We assume a uniform priors
268: for $p_\sigma$ and $p_L$. We obtain the probability distribution for any parameter by marginalizing Eqn.~(\ref{eqn:p1})
269: over all other variables and then normalizing the total probability to unity. We can also
270: estimate the probability that the sample is homogeneous in either its structural or evolutionary
271: properties as
272: \begin{equation}
273: P(p_\sigma,p_L| D_i) \propto \int d\bfxi P(\bfxi) \Pi_i F_i
274: \label{eqn:egb}
275: \end{equation}
276: and the probability that a particular galaxy is in the dynamically homogeneous class is
277: \begin{equation}
278: \label{eqn:aob}
279: P(\sigma_i \in \hbox{homogeneous} |D) = {A_i \over A_i+B_i}
280: \end{equation}
281: where
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: \label{eqn:ab}
284: A_i =\int d\mathbf{\xi}P(\mathbf{\xi})\int dp_\sigma dp_L p_\sigma P_{Gi}(\sigma_i)
285: \left[ p_L P_{Gi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi) + (1-p_L) P_{Bi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi)\right] \Pi_{i\ne j} F_j \quad\hbox{and}\\
286: B_i =\int d\mathbf{\xi}P(\mathbf{\xi})\int dp_\sigma dp_L (1-p_\sigma) P_{Bi}(\sigma_i)
287: \left[ p_L P_{Gi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi) + (1-p_L) P_{Bi}((M/L)_i|\bfxi)\right] \Pi_{i\ne j} F_j. \nonumber
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: A similar set of expressions gives the probability that the galaxy is in the set of galaxies with
290: a homogeneous evolutionary history.
291:
292:
293: \section{Results}
294: \label{sec:result}
295:
296: We divide our discussion of the results into three subsections. First, we present the results for the
297: individual galaxies. Next, we discuss the homogeneity of the structural properties of the galaxies.
298: Finally, we estimate the stellar mass fraction, mass-to-light ratios and the rate of galaxy evolution.
299:
300: \subsection{Properties of Individual Galaxies}
301: \label{sec:indiv}
302:
303: Figure ~\ref{fig:figure1} shows contours for the goodness of fit of the models to
304: the velocity dispersion, measured for each galaxy as a function of the stellar mass fraction $f_*$ and the
305: concentration $c$ once we have normalized the mass inside the Einstein radius. For these calculations, we
306: have included our estimates of the systematic errors in the velocity dispersions but used the stated
307: uncertainties in the luminosities.
308: Note that the dispersion measurements cannot determine the halo
309: concentrations but the goodness of fit contours always pass through the region set by our prior on the
310: concentration. The permitted stellar mass fractions vary widely between objects. Three of the 22 objects,
311: SDSS J$0737+321$, SDSS J$1250+052$ and PG$1115+080$, appear to require mass distributions that are more
312: centrally concentrated than the stars, in the sense that the best fits for $f_* \leq 1$ have $\chi^2>2$.
313: This is also seen in the LSD models for PG$1115+080$ \citep{tk02a}, where the only models consistent
314: with both the lensing constraint and the estimated velocity dispersion are more centrally concentrated
315: than the stars. A fourth lens, SDSS J1627$-$005, is only marginally consistent with $f_* \leqslant 1$ .
316: Of the remaining 18 galaxies, eleven are consistent with $f_* = 1$ ($\Delta\chi^2<1$), and seven are not.
317: Four of these eleven galaxies have enormous parameter uncertainties. One problem for many SLACS lenses is that
318: the scales of the velocity dispersion aperture/effective radius differ little from the observed Einstein
319: radius, which limits the leverage for constraining the mass profile.
320:
321: Figure~\ref{fig:figure3} shows the goodness of fit to the mass-to-light ratio of each galaxy given the
322: best fit model for the average evolution of the sample. Most of the galaxies are consistent with this
323: best fit model for the mass-to-light ratio and its
324: evolution (\S\ref{sec:barma}). The mass-to-light ratios of the sample appear to be more uniform than the
325: dynamical properties, probably for the same reasons that there is little scatter in the fundamental plane
326: (see \citealt{bernardi03b}). However, there are three 3$\sigma$ outliers in the sample, SDSS J1420+602,
327: SDSS J1250+052 and H1543+535, all of which have very low M/L ratios compared to the other galaxies.
328: Note that only one of these, SDSS J1250+052, is also an outlier in the dynamical fits. This is not unique
329: to our approach, since our mass-to-light ratio for H1543+535 is comparable to that in \citet{tk04}. In
330: Figure 6 of \citet{tkbbm06}, they also find significantly lower mass-to-light ratios for SDSS J1420+602
331: and SDSS J1250+052 than they do for the other SLACS members. One possible solution is that the lens masses
332: are significantly mis-estimated due to contamination from a group or cluster halo, but only H1543+535 has
333: a neighboring, bright galaxy and it is sufficiently distant to only modestly perturb the estimated mass.
334:
335: %================================== The new inserted subsection ==============================================================================
336: \subsection{Homogeneity}
337: \label{sec:hom}
338:
339: The broad uncertainties and occasional outliers mean that it is important to have
340: a quantitative approach to determining the homogeneity of the sample and to appropriately
341: weight each object when determining mean
342: properties. This is why we introduced the Bayesian frameworks of \S\ref{sec:method}.
343: Fig.~\ref{fig:figure6} shows our estimates of the fractional systematic errors from our
344: first analysis method (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:e1e2}). The best fit estimates for the fractional
345: systematic errors in the velocity dispersion and luminosity are $e_\sigma \simeq 0.1$
346: and $e_L\simeq 0.18$. The reported measurement errors lie well outside the 99.7\%
347: likelihood region. For the dynamical errors, the best fit systematic errors are
348: quite consistent with our prior estimates based on simple considerations about the
349: dynamical data.
350:
351: Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5} shows that the results for the homogeneity of the sample are very sensitive to the assumed
352: uncertainties. If we simply used the stated measurement errors, then the probability that the sample is
353: homogeneous in its dynamical properties
354: (i.e. that the ``good'' uncertainty estimates are correct and the scatter is due only to measurement error) is
355: $p_\sigma \le{24\%}$ and that it is homogeneous in mass-to-light ratio
356: evolution is $p_L \le{14\%}$. Many objects have low probabilities of belonging to either a
357: homogeneous dynamical subset (SDSS J1627--0053 with $p_\sigma = 0.005$, SDSS J1250+0523 with $p_\sigma = 0.010$,
358: SDSS J0737+321 with $p_\sigma = 0.010$, PG1115+080 with $p_\sigma = 0.029$, and SDSS J1420+602 with $p_\sigma = 0.042$)
359: or a homogeneous evolutionary subset
360: (SDSS J1250+0523 $p_L \approx 0$, H1543+535 $p_L \approx 0$, SDSS J0912+002 $p_L = 0.001$, SDSS J1420+602 $p_L = 0.001$ and
361: MG1549+305 $p_L = 0.001$).
362: Not surprisingly, these objects are also
363: outliers in the individual fits from the previous section. If we include our estimates of the
364: systematic errors in interpreting the dynamical measurements, then the probability that the sample
365: is homogeneous in its dynamical properties rises to $p_\sigma \ge 40\%$, but the probability of
366: a homogeneous evolutionary population remains small at $p_L\le{14\%}$.
367: With the inclusion of the systematic error estimates, the objects with the lowest probabilities of belonging
368: to the homogeneous dynamical subset are PG1115+080 (with $p_\sigma = 0.48$),
369: SDSS J1250+0523 (with $p_\sigma = 0.49$), SDSS J1627--0053 (with $p_\sigma = 0.52$),
370: SDSS J0737+321 (with $p_\sigma = 0.52$), and H1417+526 (with $p_\sigma = 0.55$).
371: These estimates strongly indicate that either the SLACS/LDS lens populations are inhomogeneous or
372: that the measurement errors underestimate the true uncertainties. In a few cases, these problematic
373: lenses show some evidence for disks (SDSS J1420+602, MG1549+305).
374:
375: In sum, the SLACS/LDS galaxies are homogeneous in neither their dynamical nor their evolutionary
376: properties if we take the measurement errors at face value. It is likely that most of the
377: problem for the dynamical measurements is that the systematic errors in interpreting velocity
378: dispersions are significant and need to be included in any analysis
379: of the dynamics of lenses. One of these systematic errors, surface density contributions from
380: structures other than the lens galaxy, also produces systematic errors in the mass-to-light
381: ratio, with $\sigma_M = \sigma_\kappa \simeq 0.05$, but this is much too small to explain
382: the spread in the mass-to-light ratios. This problem is probably caused by a combination of underestimated uncertainties
383: in the luminosities and true variance in the evolutionary history of early-type galaxies.
384: Rusin \& Kochanek (2005) and \citet{tkbbm06} had found earlier that the lens sample was better fit by allowing
385: a range for the mean redshift at which the stars formed than by assuming a single value,
386: and in this analysis a range of formation redshifts would lead to non-zero systematic errors
387: in the mass-to-light ratio.
388:
389:
390: \subsection{The Stellar Mass Fraction and Mass-to-Light Ratio}
391: \label{sec:barma}
392:
393:
394: We can combine the galaxies to make joint estimates of the stellar mass fraction $f_*$, the mass-to-light
395: ratio $M_{\ast}/L$ at $z=0$ and its evolution. We considered both Bayesian frameworks so that
396: either the uncertainties are broadened to make the results consistent with all the lenses
397: (method 1, Eqn.~\ref{eqn:e1e2}) or the
398: outliers in the sample are properly down weighted in the analysis (method 2, Eqn.~\ref{eqn:p1})
399: The two methods give similar results, so we only present the detailed results from the second
400: Bayesian method.
401: Fig.~\ref{fig:figure7}, shows the estimated stellar mass fraction $f_*$ for both the individual galaxies
402: and the sample as a whole, and for orbital anisotropies of $\beta=-1/3, 0$ and 1/3, where
403: $\beta=1-{{\sigma_t}^2/{\sigma_r}^2}$ is related to the ratio of the tangential $\sigma_t$
404: and radial $\sigma_r$ velocity dispersions. For isotropic, adiabatically compressed models, we find
405: $f_*=0.056\pm0.011$, and like \citet{ktbbm06}, we find that that the isotropy has little effect on
406: the inferred mass distribution. The stellar mass fraction is significantly
407: lower than the global baryon fraction of $0.176^{+0.006}_{-0.019}$ from the WMAP CMB anisotropy
408: measurements \citep{spergel06}. If we do not include the adiabatic compression of the halo,
409: the stellar mass fraction drops to $0.026\pm0.006$, again with little dependence on the isotropy $\beta$.
410: While the uncompressed models have less dark matter in the central regions, the total halo mass
411: is much larger than in the compressed models.
412: To the extent that adiabatic compression occurs, but the \citet{blumenthal86} model exaggerates its degree
413: \citep{gnedin04}, reality is intermediate to these two extremes.
414:
415: We also fit the mass-to-light ratio as $\log(M_{\ast}/L)=\log a+bz$, where $a=(M_{\ast}/L)_{0}$ is the
416: mass-to-light ratio at $z=0$ and $b=d(\log(M_{\ast}/L))/dz$ is its evolution with redshift.
417: Fig.~\ref{fig:figure8}, shows the likelihood contours for these two parameters for both compressed and
418: uncompressed models. For the compressed isotropic models, we find $a=(7.2 \pm 0.5) M_{\sun}/L_{\sun}$
419: and $b=-0.72\pm 0.08$. This agrees with the local value of $a = (7.3\pm 2.1) M_{\sun}/L_{\sun}$
420: from \citet{gerhard01} that was used by \citet{tkbbm06}. It also agrees with the \citet{tkbbm06} estimate
421: for the rate of the evolution $b=-0.69\pm 0.08$.
422: Changing the isotropy over the range $\beta=-1/3, 0, 1/3$ has little effect, while the model without
423: adiabatic compression requires higher normalizations for the mass-to-light ratio ($10.0\pm0.3$) and
424: slightly slower rates of evolution. Our analysis includes 2 lenses (PG1115+080 and H1543+535) that
425: were not used by \cite{tkbbm06}, but excluding them from the analysis has little effect on the mass-to-light
426: ratios. There are no significant changes in $(M_{\ast}/L)_0$ and $d\log(M_{\ast}/L)/dz$ if we neglect these two lenses.
427:
428:
429: \section{Discussion}
430: \label{sec:dis}
431:
432: We reanalyzed the data from the SLACS and LSD surveys of gravitational lenses with velocity dispersion
433: measurements. Our mass distribution consists of a Hernquist model for the luminous galaxy embedded in a
434: theoretically constrained NFW halo model. We investigated the homogeneity of the sample, the stellar mass
435: fraction $f_*$, the local ($z=0$) stellar mass-to-light ratio $(M_{\ast}/L)_0$ and its evolution
436: $d(\log(M_{\ast}/L))/dz$. As in the earlier study by \citet{ktbbm06}, we found that the effects of orbital
437: anisotropy on both the stellar mass fraction and the mass-to-light ratio are small.
438:
439: In most cases, a central velocity dispersion measurement provides only weak a constraint on halo structure in
440: the physically interesting region. Typical limits on the mass fraction represented by the stars have logarithmic
441: errors of order 0.5 dex. While this appears to contradict the conclusions of (for example) \citet{ktbbm06}, this is not the
442: case. \citet{ktbbm06} fit mass models where $\rho\varpropto r^{-\gamma}$, and find values in the range
443: $1.8<\gamma<2.3$. Fig.~\ref{fig:figure9} shows the expected range of this slope for our models of
444: SDSS~J0037--0942, where we estimated the slope by fitting the $\rho\varpropto r^{-\gamma}$ power law model
445: to the projected mass distribution over a radial baseline of $R_e/8$ to $R_E$ that approximates
446: the leverage in using stellar dynamics combined with gravitational lensing to determine halo
447: structure. For this typical lens, the variations in $\gamma$ of $1.6 \la \gamma \la 2.06$ are comparable
448: to the system-to-system spread in $\gamma$ observed for the SLACS systems (\citet{ktbbm06}).
449: Thus, the spread in $\gamma$ observed for individual SLACS/LSD lenses is comparable to the range
450: of values found in our halo models, so strong conclusions about
451: halo structure from these system will depend on averages over the samples rather than the results for
452: individual lenses.
453:
454: The critical issue for determining the sample average properties is the degree to which the populations
455: are homogeneous. A heterogeneous sample cannot easily be averaged to determine mean properties. We
456: find the probability of homogeneity is very sensitive to the uncertainties in both the velocity
457: dispersion and the luminosity. If take the measurement errors at face value, there is a low
458: probability of homogeneity in either dynamical structure ($p_\sigma\le{20\%}$) or evolutionary history
459: ($p_L\le{15\%}$). Many lenses such as SDSS J1250+052, H1543+535, SDSS J1420+601, SDSS J0912+002,
460: MG2016+112, and MG1549+305 have low ($<10\%$) likelihoods
461: of belonging to a homogeneous sample. The primary problem is probably that there are significant systematic
462: uncertainties that must be included with the measurement errors. Simple considerations show that
463: typical systematic errors in interpreting the velocity dispersions should be large compared to the
464: measurement errors, 8\% versus 5\%, and adding these estimated systematic uncertainties greatly increases the likelihood of
465: dynamical homogeneity. Sources of systematic error in the mass-to-light ratio are less amenable
466: to simple arguments, but should certainly include the dispersion in the average star formation epoch
467: of early-type galaxies found in an earlier analyses of galaxy evolution with lenses by Rusin \& Kochanek
468: (2005) and \citet{tkbbm06}. If we simply analyze the data to determine the most likely systematic errors, we find that
469: we must include fractional systematic errors of approximately 10\% in the velocity dispersion estimates
470: and 19\% in the mass-to-light ratio estimates in order to make the sample consistent with the
471: hypothesis of homogeneity.
472:
473: Once we account for the inhomogeneity or systematic errors in the sample, we can evaluate sample averages
474: that properly account for these problems. We find that the halo mass fraction represented by the baryons in
475: stars is $f_* = 0.056\pm0.011$ if we adiabatically compress the dark matter and $f_* = 0.026\pm0.006$ if we
476: do not. These results are comparable to similar the range of estimates that relied
477: on stellar population models to estimate the stellar mass. For example, \citet{lfl06} obtained a stellar mass
478: fraction of $\backsim 8\%$ by fitting monolithic collapse models to 2000 SDSS galaxies, \citet{hhylg05} found
479: $f_* = 0.065^{+0.010}_{-0.008}$ using weak lensing, and Mandelbaum et al. (2006) found $f_*=0.03^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$\%
480: using weak lensing. The results in these studies depend on the assumed IMF -- the \citet{hhylg05} estimate
481: drops to $f_* = 0.035^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ if the initial mass fraction of the stars is changed from a standard
482: Salpeter IMF to a scaled Salpeter IMF. Our results probably bound the stellar mass fraction since the
483: Blumenthal et al. (1986) model we used may overestimate the amount of adiabatic compression (Gnedin et al. 2004).
484: In all our models, the stellar mass fraction is much smaller than the cosmological baryon mass fraction
485: $\Omega_b/\Omega_m=0.176^{+0.006}_{-0.019}$ from WMAP \citep{spergel06}, which means that the star
486: formation efficiency ($f_* \Omega_m/\Omega_b$) of early-type galaxies is only 15--30\%. The remaining
487: baryons must remain as gas distributed on the scale of the halo or its parent (group) halo. This discrepancy
488: appears to be a common problem for any baryon accounting for normal galaxies (e.g. \citealt{fukugita04}) and a
489: significant constraint on star formation efficiency.
490:
491: Analysis of the evolution of early-type galaxies with redshift, whether using the fundamental plane
492: (e.g. \citealt{jorgen99,franx00,tkbbm06}), dynamical mass estimates (e.g. \citealt{md06}), or gravitational
493: lens data alone (e.g. \citealt{rk05}), have consistently observed a steady brightening of early-type galaxies
494: with look-back time, albeit with modest disagreements as to the rate. Here we use a hybrid method, fitting
495: the stellar mass-to-light ratios inferred from mass models of gravitational lenses with
496: stellar dynamical data, to find that $(M_{\ast}/L)_0 = (7.2 \pm 0.5) M_{\sun}/L_{\sun}$ and
497: $d(\log(M_{\ast}/L))/dz = -0.72\pm 0.08$ for the compressed models. The mass-to-light ratio is comparable to the
498: local value of $(M_{\ast}/L)_0 = (7.3\pm 2.1) M_{\sun}/L_{\sun}$ from \citet{gerhard01} which was
499: adopted by \citet{tkbbm06} in their analysis of this data. The mass-to-light ratio evolution rate is also
500: close to the value $d\log(M_{\ast}/L)/dz=0.69\pm0.08$ from \citet{tkbbm06}, and marginally larger than
501: the estimates by \citet{rk05} and \citet{md06}. As pointed out by \citet{rk05}, the differences in
502: evolution rates are partly due to different approaches to weighting the contribution of each lens
503: to the analysis, but at least our Bayesian approach
504: carries out these weightings in an objective fashion.
505:
506: In our basic analysis we cannot distinguish between the adiabatically compressed
507: and uncompressed models. In essence, we can obtain the same mass distribution either using a high
508: stellar mass-to-light ratio and a more extended halo or the reverse. If we impose the locally estimated
509: mass-to-light ratio as a constraint, then the adiabatically compressed model is favored (6 to 1).
510: We can also use mass measurements on much larger scales to distinguish
511: the two models because the total halo mass is larger in the uncompressed model. In particular,
512: we can calculate the weak lensing $\Delta\Sigma$ and compare it to the measurement by Gavazzi
513: et al. (2007, also see Mandelbaum et al. 2006) for an overlapping sample of SLACS lenses where they
514: found that
515: $\Delta \Sigma = (100\pm30)h M_\odot$~pc$^{-2}$ on scales of $94h^{-1}$~kpc. With this constraint the
516: adiabatically compressed models are again strongly favored (by 1000 to 1). In general, any third
517: constraint that is dominated by the contribution from one mass component will break the degeneracy and
518: lead to constraints on the degree of adiabatic compression or an additional structural variable
519: such as the inner slope of the dark matter density distribution.
520:
521: The sample of lenses available for such analyses will continue to grow and can include lenses with time delay
522: measurements (which constrain the halo structure by measuring the surface density near the lensed images,
523: Kochanek 2002) as well as those with velocity dispersions. With larger samples it should be possible to explore
524: additional correlations such as the scaling of the stellar mass fraction and mass-to-light ratios with halo mass
525: and the dependence
526: of the evolution rate on halo mass. In the Mandelbaum et al. (2006) and Padmanabhan (2004) analyses of early-type
527: galaxies in the SDSS, the changes in the mass-to-light ratio with halo mass are due to an increasing dark matter
528: fraction with mass rather than changes in the stellar populations, but their results depend on population
529: synthesis models to correctly estimate the stellar masses. In a larger sample of lenses, this could be tested
530: directly. \citet{md06} and \citet{tkbbm06} see some evidence for differential evolution with mass, but significantly
531: larger samples will be needed to test this given the sensitivity of even the present results to sample weighting.
532:
533: \acknowledgements
534:
535: We would like to that L. Koopmans, L. Moustakas, E. Rozo and T. Treu for their comments
536: and R. Mandelbaum for discussions of weak lensing.
537:
538: \begin{thebibliography}{}
539:
540: \bibitem[Barnabe \& Koopmans (2007)]{Barnabe07}
541: Barnabe, M., \& Koopmans, L.V.E., 2007, ApJ submitted [astro-ph/0701372]
542:
543: %\bibitem[Bertin et al.(2002)]{bertin02}
544: %Bertin, G., Ciotti, L., \& Principe, M. D., 2002, \aap, 386, 149
545:
546: \bibitem[Bender, Saglia \& Gerhard(1994)]{bsg94}
547: Bender, R., Saglia, R.P., \& Gerhard, O.E., 1999, \mnras, 269, 785
548:
549: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003a)]{bernardi03a}
550: Bernardi, M., et al., \aj, 2003, 125, 1817
551:
552: \bibitem[Bernardi et al.(2003b)]{bernardi03b}
553: Bernardi, M., et al., \aj, 2003, 125, 1866
554:
555: %\bibitem[Bertin et al.(1994)]{bertin94}
556: %Bertin et al., 1994, \aap, 292, 381
557:
558: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine(1987)]{bs87}
559: Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics, (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press), 195
560:
561: %\bibitem[Borriello et al.(2003)]{borriello03}
562: %Borriello, A. et al., 2003, \mnras, 341, 1109B
563:
564: %\bibitem[Bolton et al.(2006)]{bolton06}
565: %Bolton, A.S., et al., 2006, \apj, 638, 703
566:
567: \bibitem[Blumenthal et al.(1986)]{blumenthal86}
568: Blumenthal, G., Faber, S., Flores, R., \& Primack, J., 1986, \apj, 301, 27
569:
570: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{bullock01}
571: Bullock, J.S., et al., 2001, \mnras, 321, 559
572:
573: %\bibitem[Cappellari et al.(2006)]{cappellari06}
574: %Cappellari, M., et al., 2006, \mnras, 366, 1126
575:
576: %\bibitem[Chae(2003)]{chae03}
577: %Chae, K., 2003, \mnras, 346, 746
578:
579: %\bibitem[Clowe et al.(2006)]{clowe06}
580: %Clowe, D., et al., 2006, \apjl, 648, 109
581:
582: %\bibitem[Dressler et al.(1987)]{dressler87}
583: %Dressler, A., et al., 1987, \apj, 313, 42
584:
585: %\bibitem[Foltz et al.(1992)]{fhwl92}
586: %Foltz, C. B., et al., 1992, \apj, 386, L43
587:
588: %\bibitem[Franx(1993)]{franx93}
589: %Franx, M., 1993, \pasp, 105, 1058
590:
591: \bibitem[Franx et al.(2000)]{franx00}
592: Franx, M., 2000, ASPC, 197, 231
593:
594: %\bibitem[Freedman et al.(2001)]{freedman01}
595: %Freedman, W.L., et al., 2001, \apj, 553, 47
596:
597: \bibitem[Fukugita(2004)]{fukugita04}
598: Fukugita, M., 2004, IAUS, 220, 227
599:
600: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.(2007)]{gt07}
601: Gavazzi, R., et al., 2007, astro-ph/0701589
602:
603: \bibitem[Gerhard et al.(2001)]{gerhard01}
604: Gerhard, O., et al., \aj, 2001, 121, 1936
605:
606: \bibitem[Gnedin et al.(2004)]{gnedin04}
607: Gnedin, O., et al., \apj, 2004, 616, 16
608:
609: \bibitem[Hernquist(1990)]{hern90}
610: Hernquist, L., 1990, \apj, 356, 359
611:
612: %\bibitem[Humphrey(2006)]{humphrey06}
613: %Humphrey, P.J. et al., 2006, \apj, 646, 899
614:
615: \bibitem[Hoekstra et al.(2005)]{hhylg05}
616: Hoekstra, H., et al., 2005, \apj, 635, 73
617:
618: \bibitem[J\o rgensen et al.(1999)]{jorgen99}
619: J\o rgensen, I., et al., 1999, \mnras, 197, 231
620:
621: \bibitem[Keeton(2001)]{keeton01}
622: Keeton, C. R., 2001, \apj, 561, 46
623:
624: \bibitem[Keeton et al.(1998)]{kkf98}
625: Keeton, C. R., Kochanek, C. S., \& Falco, E. E., 1998, \apj, 509, 561
626:
627: \bibitem[Kleinheinrich et al.(2006)]{klein06}
628: Kleinheinrich, M., et al., 2006, \aap, 455, 441
629:
630: %\bibitem[Kochanek(1996)]{kochanek96}
631: %Kochanek, C.S., 1996, \apj, 466, 638
632:
633: \bibitem[Kochanek(2002)]{kochanek02}
634: Kochanek, C.S., 2002, \apj, 578, 25
635:
636: %\bibitem[Kochanek(2003)]{kochanek03}
637: %Kochanek, C.S., 2003, \apj, 583, 49
638:
639: %\bibitem[Kochanek(2004)]{kochanek04}
640: %Kochanek, C.S., Schneider, P., \& Wambsganss, J. 2004, in Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak, and Micro:
641: %Proc. 33rd Saas-Fee Advanced Course, ed. G. Meylan, P. Jetzer, \& P. North (Berlin: Springer)
642: %2004, astro-ph/0407232
643:
644: %\bibitem[Kochanek et al.(2006)]{kochanek06}
645: %Kochanek, C.S. et al., 2006, \apj,
646:
647: %\bibitem[Kolatt \& Matthias(1998)]{km98}
648: %Kolatt, S.T. \& Bartelmann, M., 1998, \mnras, 296, 763
649:
650: \bibitem[Koopmans \& Treu(2002)]{kt02}
651: Koopmans, L. V. E. \& Treu, T., 2002, \apj, 568, L5
652:
653: \bibitem[Koopmans \& Treu(2003)]{kt03}
654: Koopmans, L. V. E. \& Treu, T., 2003, \apj, 583, 606
655:
656: \bibitem[Koopmans et al.(2006)]{ktbbm06}
657: Koopmans, L. V. E., et al. 2006, 649, 599
658:
659: \bibitem[Leh\'ar et al.(1993)]{llslb93}
660: Leh\'{a}r, J., et al., 1993, \aj, 105, 847
661:
662: \bibitem[Leh\'ar et al.(1996)]{lclsl96}
663: Leh\'{a}r, J., et al., 1996, \aj, 111, 1812L
664:
665: \bibitem[Lintott, Ferreras \& Lahav(2006)]{lfl06}
666: Lintott, C.J., Ferreras, I., \& Lahav, O., 2006, \apj, 648, 826
667:
668: \bibitem[Mandelbaum et al. (2006)]{mandel06}
669: Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., Hirata, C.M., \& Brinkmann, J., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 715
670:
671: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1996)]{nfw96}
672: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., \& White. S.D.M., 1996, \apj, 462, 563
673:
674: %\bibitem[Ohyama et al.(2002)]{ohy02}
675: %Ohyama, Y., et al., 2002, \aj, 123, 2903
676:
677: %\bibitem[O\~{n}orbe et al.(2006)]{od06}
678: %O\~{n}orbe, J., et al., 2006, \iaus, 235, 302
679:
680: \bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2004)]{padman04}
681: Padmanabhan, N., et al., 2004, New Astronomy, Volume 9, Issue 5, 329
682:
683: \bibitem[Pierce et al.(2006)]{pierce06}
684: Pierce, M., 2006, \mnras, 366, 1253
685:
686: \bibitem[Press(1997)]{bo97}
687: Press, W.T., 1997, in Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics,
688: eds. Bahcall, J. N., \& Ostriker, J. P.,
689: (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press), 49
690:
691: %\bibitem[Romanowsky \& Kochanek (1999)]{rk99}
692: %Romanowsky, A.J., \& Kochanek, C.S., 1999, \apj, 516, 18
693:
694: \bibitem[Romanowsky et al.(2003)]{romanowsky03}
695: Romanowsky, A.J., et al., 2003, Science, 301, 1696
696:
697: %\bibitem[Rubin et al.(1980)]{rubin80}
698: %Rubin, V.C., Thonnard, N., \& Ford, W.K., 1980, \apj, 238, 471
699:
700: %\bibitem[Rusin et al. (2003)]{rusin03}
701: %Rusin, D., et al., 2003, \apj, 587,143
702:
703: \bibitem[Rusin \& Kochanek(2005)]{rk05}
704: Rusin, D., \& Kochanek, C. S., 2005, \apj, 623, 666
705:
706: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{spergel06}
707: Spergel, D.N., et al., 2006, astro-ph/0603449
708:
709: \bibitem[Takada \& Hamana(2003)]{th03}
710: Takada, M., Hamana, T., 2003, \mnras, 346, 949
711:
712: \bibitem[Tonry(1998)]{tonry98}
713: Tonry, J.L., 1998, \aj, 115, 1
714:
715: %\bibitem[Toomre \& Toomre(1972)]{toto72}
716: %Toomre, A., \& Toomre, J., 1972, \apj, 178, 623
717:
718: \bibitem[Treu(2001)]{treu01}
719: Treu, T., 2001, AAS, 198, 2005T
720:
721: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2006)]{tkbbm06}
722: Treu, T., et al. 2006, \apj, 640, 662
723:
724: \bibitem[Treu \& Koopmans(2003)]{tk03}
725: Treu, T. \& Koopmans, L. V. E., 2003, \mnras, 343L, 29T
726:
727: \bibitem[Treu \& Koopmans(2004)]{tk04}
728: Treu, T. \& Koopmans, L. V. E., 2004, \apj, 611, 739
729:
730: \bibitem[Treu \& Koopmans(2002a)]{tk02a}
731: Treu, T. \& Koopmans, L. V. E., 2002, \mnras, 337, L6
732:
733: %\bibitem[Treu \& Koopmans(2002b)]{tk02b}
734: %Treu, T. \& Koopmans, L. V. E., 2002, \apj, 575, 87T
735:
736: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2003)]{tksse03}
737: Treu, T., et al., 2003, astro-ph/0311052
738:
739: %\bibitem[van Der Marel \& Franx(1993)]{rf93}
740: %van Der Marel, R., \& Franx, M., 1993, \apj, 405, 525
741:
742:
743: %\bibitem[van Dokkum \& Franx(2001)]{vanf01}
744: %van Dokkum, P.G., \& Franx, M., 2001, \apj, 553, 90
745:
746: \bibitem[van Dokkum \& Franx(1996)]{vanf96}
747: van Dokkum, P.G., \& Franx, M., 1996, \mnras, 281, 985
748:
749: %\bibitem[van Dokkum \& Standford(2003)]{vs03}
750: %Vvan Dokkum, P.G., \& Stanford, S.A., 2003, \apj, 585, 78
751:
752: %\bibitem[van Albada \& Sancisi(1986)]{vanalbada86}
753: %van Albada, T.S., \& Sancisi, K., 1986, Royal Society of London Philosophical
754: %Transactions Series A., 320, 447
755:
756: \bibitem[van der Marel, van Dokkum \& Franx(2003)]{vf03}
757: van de Ven, G., van Dokkum, P.G., \& Franx, M., 2003, \mnras, 344, 924
758:
759: \bibitem[van der Marel \& van Dokkum(2006)]{md06}
760: van der Marel, R.P. \& van Dokkum, P.G., 2006, astro-ph/0611577
761:
762: %\bibitem[White \& Rees(1978)]{wr78}
763: %White, S.D.M., \& Rees, M.J., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341
764:
765: \bibitem[Kauffmann(1996)]{kauffmann96}
766: Kauffmann, G., 1996, \mnras, 281, 487
767:
768: %\bibitem[Zhao et al.(2003)]{zhao03}
769: %Zhao, D.H., et al., \apj, 597, L9
770:
771: \end{thebibliography}
772:
773: \clearpage
774:
775: %\begin{figure}
776:
777: %\end{figure}
778: %\clearpage
779:
780: %\begin{landscape}
781:
782: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccclcccc}
783: \rotate
784: \tablewidth{\vsize}
785: \tablecaption{Lens data}
786: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
787: \startdata
788: \hline
789: \hline
790: $\rm {Objects}$ & $z_{\rm l}$ & $z_{\rm s}$ & ${\rm R}_{\rm e}$ & ${\rm R}_{\rm E}$ & ${\rm M}_{\rm E}$ & $\sigma_{\rm ap}$
791: & ${\rm L}_{\rm B}$ & $\rm Aperture$ & $\rm seeing$ & $f_{dm}(<R_E)$ & $f_{dm}(<R_E)$ &$\rm {reference}$ \\
792: & & & $('')$ & $(\rm {kpc})$ & $(10^{10})$\msun & $(\rm {km\,s^{-1}})$ & $(10^{11})$\lsun & $('')$ & $('')$ & ${\rm compr}$ &
793: ${\rm no compr}$ & \\
794: \hline
795:
796: SDSS J0037$-$0942 & 0.1955 & 0.6322 & 2.38 & 4.77 & 27.3 & 265$\pm$10(30) & 1.24$\pm$0.11 & 1.5 & 1.76 & 0.42 & 0.22 &1,2\\
797: SDSS J0216$-$0813 & 0.3317 & 0.5235 & 3.37 & 5.49 & 48.2 & 332$\pm$23(37) & 2.60$\pm$0.39 & 1.5 & 2.73& 0.52 & 0.35 &1,2\\
798: SDSS J0737+3216 & 0.3223 & 0.5812 & 3.26 & 4.83 & 31.2 & 310$\pm$15(30) & 2.13$\pm$0.16 & 1.5 & 2.33 & 0.42 & 0.25 &1,2\\
799: SDSS J0912+0029 & 0.1642 & 0.3240 & 4.81 & 4.55 & 39.6 & 313$\pm$12(29) & 1.63$\pm$0.20 & 1.5 & 1.49 & 0.50 & 0.32 &1,2\\
800: SDSS J0956+5100 & 0.2405 & 0.4700 & 2.60 & 5.02 & 37.0 & 299$\pm$16(30) & 1.25$\pm$0.18 & 1.5 & 1.63 & 0.43 & 0.24 &1,2\\
801: SDSS J0959+0410 & 0.1260 & 0.5349 & 1.82 & 2.25 & 7.7 & 212$\pm$12(21) & 0.27$\pm$0.06 & 1.5 & 1.58 & 0.39 & 0.20 &1,2\\
802: SDSS J1250+0523 & 0.2318 & 0.7950 & 1.77 & 4.26 & 18.9 & 254$\pm$14(25) & 1.13$\pm$0.06 & 1.5 & 1.48 & 0.36 & 0.16 &1,2\\
803: SDSS J1330$-$0148 & 0.0808 & 0.7115 & 1.23 & 1.30 & 3.2 & 178$\pm$9(17) & 0.09$\pm$0.06 & 1.5 & 1.84 & 0.29 & 0.10 &1,2\\
804: SDSS J1402+6321 & 0.2046 & 0.4814 & 3.14 & 4.66 & 30.3 & 275$\pm$15(28) & 1.06$\pm$0.23 & 1.5 & 1.83 & 0.44 & 0.25 &1,2\\
805: SDSS J1420+6019 & 0.0629 & 0.5352 & 2.60 & 1.27 & 3.9 & 194$\pm$5(17) & 0.28$\pm$0.09 & 1.5 & 2.37 & 0.33 & 0.13 &1,2\\
806: SDSS J1627$-$0053 & 0.2076 & 0.5241 & 2.14 & 4.11 & 22.2 & 275$\pm$12(26) & 0.75$\pm$0.07 & 1.5 & 1.87 & 0.34 & 0.15 &1,2\\
807: SDSS J1630+4520 & 0.2479 & 0.7933 & 2.02 & 7.03 & 50.8 & 260$\pm$16(29) & 1.15$\pm$0.33 & 1.5 & 1.52 & 0.57 & 0.42 &1,2\\
808: SDSS J2300+0022 & 0.2285 & 0.4635 & 1.80 & 4.56 & 30.4 & 283$\pm$18(30) & 0.72$\pm$0.13 & 1.5 & 1.87 & 0.40 & 0.20 &1,2\\
809: SDSS J2303+1422 & 0.1553 & 0.5170 & 4.20 & 4.41 & 27.5 & 260$\pm$15(26) & 1.09$\pm$0.22 & 1.5 & 1.65 & 0.50 & 0.32 &1,2\\
810: SDSS J2321$-$0939 & 0.0819 & 0.5324 & 4.47 & 2.43 & 11.7 & 236$\pm$17(21) & 0.76$\pm$0.12 & 1.5 & 2.09 & 0.44 & 0.25 &1,2\\
811: 0047$-$281 & 0.484 & 3.595 & 0.82 & 12.43 & 58.0 & 250$\pm$30(41) & 1.20$\pm$0.08 & 1.5$\times$4.3& 0.7& 0.59 &0.44 &3,4\\
812: C0302+006 & 0.938 & 2.941 & 1.6 & 10.6 & 67.0 & 256$\pm$19(31) & 3.25$\pm$0.45 & 0.5$\times$1.25&0.8& 0.29 &0.11 &8,9\\
813: PG1115+080 & 0.310 & 1.722 & 0.85 & 4.74 & 17.0 & 281$\pm$25(36) & 0.35$\pm$0.02 & 1.0$\times$1.0 & 0.8 &0.83 &0.78 &5,6\\
814: H1417+526 & 0.810 & 3.399 & 1.06 & 11.4 & 70.8 & 212$\pm$18(26) & 2.42$\pm$0.23 & 0.32$\times$1.25 & 0.75&0.62 &0.49 &9,10 \\
815: H1543+535 & 0.497 & 2.092 & 0.41 & 2.4 & 3.4 & 108$\pm$14(17) & 0.28$\pm$0.04 & 0.3$\times$1.25 & 0.8 &0.84 &0.78 &9\\
816: MG1549+305 & 0.111 & 1.170 & 0.82 & 2.33 & 12.0 & 227$\pm$18(28) & 0.17$\pm$0.02 & 1.0$\times$4.3 & 0.65 &0.60 &0.46 & 11,12\\
817: MG2016+112 & 1.004 & 3.263 & 0.31 & 13.70 & 110.0 & 304$\pm$27(47) & 1.60$\pm$0.08 & 0.65 & 0.7 &0.44 &0.26 & 7\\
818: \enddata
819: \tablecomments{\label{tab:tab1}
820: $z_{\rm l}$
821: and $z_{\rm s}$ are the lens and source redshifts, ${\rm R}_{\rm e}$ is the lens effective radius, ${\rm R}_{\rm E}$ and ${\rm M}_{\rm E}$
822: are the lens Einstein radius and Einstein mass, $\sigma_{\rm ap}$ is the measured velocity dispersion. We include both the measurement
823: errors inside the listed aperture
824: and our estimated systematic uncertainties are in (brackets).
825: We lacked the seeing FWHM for SDSS J1627$-$0053 and SDSS J2300+0022 and simply used the average value for the other SDSS objects.
826: $f_{dm}(<R_E)$ is the projected dark matter fraction inside the Einstein radius for adiabatically compressed (``compr") or not compressed
827: (``no compr") models.\\
828: \citet{tkbbm06}(1), \citet{ktbbm06}(2), \citet{tksse03}(3), \citet{kt03}(4) \\ \citet{tonry98}(5), \citet{tk02a}(6)
829: , \citet{kt02}(7) \\ \citet{tk03}(8), \citet{tk04}(9) , \citet{kkf98}(10), \citet{llslb93}(11) \\ \citet{lclsl96}(12) }
830: \end{deluxetable}
831: \clearpage
832:
833: \begin{figure}
834: \epsscale{.80}
835: \plotone{f1.eps}
836: \caption{\label{fig:figure1}
837: The goodness of fit to
838: the velocity dispersion as a function of stellar mass fraction
839: $f_*$ and concentration $c$. The solid curves are drawn at $\Delta\chi^2 = 1 (1\sigma)$
840: for the fit to the velocity dispersion and the dotted lines are drawn at $\Delta\chi^2 = 4$, 9 and 16 (2, 3, and 4 $\sigma$). When there is no region with
841: $\Delta\chi^2 < 1$, we label the lowest contour present.
842: The roughly vertical pair of solid lines indicate the $1\sigma$ range of concentrations given the halo mass at each
843: point. The inset text identifies the object, the measured velocity dispersion and the $\chi^2$ of the best fit. These are the isotropic ($\beta=0$)
844: adiabatically compressed models that include our estimate of the systematic uncertainties in the stellar dynamical measurements.
845: }
846: \end{figure}
847: \clearpage
848:
849: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
850:
851: \begin{figure}
852: \epsscale{.80}
853: \plotone{f2.eps}
854: \caption{continued
855: }
856: \end{figure}
857: \clearpage
858:
859: \begin{figure}
860: \epsscale{.80}
861: \plotone{f3.eps}
862: \caption{\label{fig:figure3}
863: The goodness of fit to the mean trend in the stellar mass-to-light ratio as a function of the stellar mass fraction and the concentration $c$.
864: The solid curves are drawn at $\Delta\chi^2 = 1$ $(1\sigma)$
865: for the fit to the mass-to-light ratio and the dotted lines are drawn at $\Delta\chi^2 = 4$, 9 and 16 (2, 3, and 4 $\sigma$).
866: The inset text identifies the object. These are the isotropic ($\beta=0$)
867: adiabatically compressed models that include our estimates of the systematic uncertainties in the stellar dynamical measurements.
868: For these figures, we use the best fit evolution
869: model -- the fits would improve if we included the measurement errors in the evolution model.
870: }
871: \end{figure}
872: \clearpage
873:
874: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}
875:
876: \begin{figure}
877: \epsscale{.80}
878: \plotone{f4.eps}
879: \caption{continued
880: }
881: \end{figure}
882: \clearpage
883:
884: \begin{figure}
885: \epsscale{.80}
886: \plotone{f5.eps}
887: \caption{\label{fig:figure6}
888: The probability distribution of the fractional systematic errors $e_\sigma$ and $e_L$ in the velocity
889: dispersion and mass-to-light ratio. The contours encompass $68\%$, $95\%$ and
890: $99.7\%$ of the probability starting from the maximimum likelihood solution indicated
891: by the triangle. The crosses indicate the measurement errors from
892: from \citet{tkbbm06} and \citet{ktbbm06}.
893: }
894: \end{figure}
895: \clearpage
896:
897: \begin{figure}
898: \epsscale{.80}
899: \plotone{f6.eps}
900: \caption{\label{fig:figure5}
901: The likelihood distributions for the probability that the galaxy sample is homogeneous in its dynamics ($p_\sigma$)
902: or its evolution ($p_L$). The contours encompass 68\%, 95\% and 99.7\% of the probability.
903: The solid contours use
904: the measurement errors for the dynamical uncertainties while the dashed contours include our estimate
905: of the systematic uncertainties in the dynamical measurements. In both cases we used an adiabatically
906: compressed, isotropic ($\beta=0$) model.
907: }
908: \end{figure}
909: \clearpage
910:
911:
912: \begin{figure}
913: \epsscale{.80}
914: \plotone{f7.eps}
915: \caption{\label{fig:figure7}
916: The probability distribution for the stellar mass fraction $f_*$
917: for tangentially anisotropic ($\beta=-0.33$, top panel), isotropic ($\beta=0$, middle),
918: and radially anisotropic ($\beta=0.33$, bottom) dynamical models.
919: The thin lines in each panel show the weak constraints found for the individual galaxies,
920: and the thick solid line corresponds
921: to the joint probability from combining the sample. These models are adiabatically compressed using the modified errors and include
922: the fit to the mass-to-light ratios.
923: The thick dashed line in the middle panel shows the effect of not including the adiabatic compressions.
924: }
925: \end{figure}
926: \clearpage
927:
928: \begin{figure}
929: \epsscale{.80}
930: \plotone{f8.eps}
931: \caption{
932: \label{fig:figure8}
933: The probability distributions for the local mass-to-light ratio $(M_{\ast}/L)_0$ and its evolution
934: $d\log(M_{\ast}/L)/dz$ in the adiabatically compressed (top) and uncompressed (bottom) models. The contours show the $68\%$, $95\%$, and $99.7\%$
935: enclosed probability contours for the isotropic models. The estimated evolution rate is marginally inconsistent with the
936: estimated of $d\log(M_{\ast}/L)/dz=-0.50\pm0.19$ from \citet{rk05} which is shown by the horizontal band
937: of solid and dashed lines. The three triangles in each panel show the effect of changing the isotropy on
938: the likelihood peak, with $\beta=-0.33$, $\beta=0$, and $\beta=0.33$ as we move from upper left to lower right.
939: The squares with error bars are the results from \citet{tkbbm06} for the same galaxies.
940: }
941: \end{figure}
942: \clearpage
943:
944: \begin{figure}
945: \epsscale{.80}
946: \plotone{f9.eps}
947: \caption{
948: \label{fig:figure9}
949: The range for the density slope exponent $\gamma$, where $\rho\varpropto r^{-\gamma}$, for the typical lens SDSS J0037--0942.
950: We estimated $\gamma$ by fitting the projected mass distribution as a power law between $R_e/8$ and $R_E$. Note that the variation of
951: $\gamma$ over the physically interesting regime is comparable to the scatter observed by \citet{ktbbm06} of
952: $1.8\la \gamma \la 2.3$.}
953: \end{figure}
954:
955:
956: \end{document}
957:
958: