1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % SDSS J1251+2935
4: %
5: % Time-stamp: <2007-07-02 16:11:11 kayo>
6: %
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \slugcomment{}
11: %
12: \shorttitle{Lensed QSO SDSS~J1251+2935}
13: \shortauthors{}
14: %
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: \begin{document}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \title{A New Quadruply Lensed Quasar: SDSS~J125107.57+293540.5}
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \author{
22: Issha Kayo\altaffilmark{1},
23: Naohisa Inada\altaffilmark{2,3},
24: Masamune Oguri\altaffilmark{4,5},
25: Patrick B. Hall\altaffilmark{6},
26: Christopher S. Kochanek\altaffilmark{7},
27: Gordon T. Richards\altaffilmark{8,9},
28: Donald P. Schneider\altaffilmark{10},
29: Donald G. York\altaffilmark{11},
30: and
31: Kaike Pan\altaffilmark{12}
32: }
33:
34: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astrophysics, Nagoya
35: University, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan.}
36: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute of Astronomy, Faculty of Science, University
37: of Tokyo, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0015, Japan.}
38: \altaffiltext{3}{Cosmic Radiation Laboratory, RIKEN (The Physical and Chemical
39: Research Organization), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198,
40: Japan.}
41: \altaffiltext{4}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and
42: Cosmology, Stanford University, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park,
43: CA 94025, USA}
44: \altaffiltext{5}{Princeton University Observatory, Peyton Hall,
45: Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}
46: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University,
47: 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada}
48: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 4055 McPherson Lab, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA}
49: \altaffiltext{8}{Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA}
50: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Physics, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA}
51: \altaffiltext{10}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The
52: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
53: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University
54: of Chicago, Enrico Fermi Institute, 5640 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago,
55: IL 60637, USA}
56: \altaffiltext{12}{Apache Point Observatory, New Mexico State Univ., P. O. Box 59, Sunspot, NM 88349, USA}
57:
58:
59:
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We report the discovery of a quadruply imaged quasar,
62: SDSS~J125107.57+293540.5, selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
63: Follow-up imaging reveals that the system consists of four blue
64: point-like components in a typical cusp lens geometry surrounding a
65: central red galaxy. The source redshift is $0.802$ and the lens redshift
66: is $0.410$. The maximum image separation between the lensed components
67: is $1\farcs79$. While the image configuration is well reproduced by
68: standard mass models with reasonable parameter values,
69: the flux ratios predicted by these models differ from
70: the observed ratios in all bands. This is suggestive of small-scale
71: structures in this lens, although the definitive identification of the
72: anomaly requires more accurate photometry and astrometry.
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: \keywords{gravitational lensing ---
76: quasars: individual (SDSS~J125107.57+293540.5)}
77:
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81:
82: Nearly one hundred gravitationally lensed quasars have been found to
83: date \citep[see the review by][]{kochanek06}, and they have become a
84: unique astronomical and cosmological tool. Their usefulness is
85: particularly enhanced by constructing a statistical sample with a
86: well-understood selection function with the help of extensive and
87: homogeneous surveys such as the HST Snapshot Survey \citep{maoz93} or
88: the Cosmic Lens All Sky Survey \citep[CLASS;][]{myers03, browne03}.
89: However, the number of strongly lensed quasars in systematic surveys is
90: still limited. To construct a larger lens sample, we are conducting the
91: SDSS Quasar Lens Search \citep[SQLS;][]{oguri+06} based on spectroscopic
92: quasar catalogs \citep{schneider05, schneider07} produced by the Sloan
93: Digital Sky Survey \citep[SDSS;][]{york00}. Thus far, it has discovered
94: 16 galaxy-scale and 2 cluster-scale lensed quasars
95: \citep{inada03a,inada03b,inada05,inada06a,inada06b,
96: inada07,johnston03,morgan03,pindor04,pindor06,oguri04,oguri05,morokuma07}
97: and re-discovered 8 previously known lensed quasars \citep{walsh79,
98: weymann80,surdej87,magain88,bade97,oscoz97,schechter98,morgan01}. A
99: significant fraction of our lens candidates still require follow-up
100: observations, so we expect to discover more lensed quasars in the coming
101: years.
102:
103: In this paper, we report the discovery of a quadruply lensed quasar,
104: SDSS~J125107.57+293540.5 (SDSS~J1251+2935), in the course of the SQLS.
105: Quadruple lenses, which constitute roughly one-third of all lensed
106: quasars, are not only visually interesting objects due to their
107: characteristic morphologies but also scientifically important and useful
108: objects. Four image lenses provide many more constraints on the mass
109: distribution of the lens. In particular, the image flux ratios expected
110: for smooth, central potentials are relatively well-defined and the
111: differences between the observed and model flux ratios can be used to
112: study gravitational substructures \citep[e.g.,][]{mao98}. Anomalous
113: flux ratios, where the observed and model image fluxes are in
114: significant disagreement are fairly common and are due to the combined
115: effects of the stars in the lens galaxy and satellite halos. In radio
116: lenses this has been used to argue that the abundance of satellite halos
117: is consistent with the predictions of standard CDM models
118: \citep[e.g.,][]{metcalf01,chiba02,kochanek04}, while in
119: optical lenses the effects of substructure and microlensing by the stars
120: must be disentangled \citep[e.g.,][]{chiba05,keeton06,morgan06}.
121:
122: In the next section, we briefly describe our algorithm for candidate
123: selection from the SDSS data. Details of follow-up imaging using the
124: University of Hawaii 2.2-meter (UH88) telescope are provided in
125: \S~\ref{sec:image}. We investigate mass models of the system in
126: \S~\ref{sec:model}, and summarize our results in
127: \S~\ref{sec:sum}. Throughout the paper we assume a cosmological model
128: with matter density $\Omega_M=0.27$, cosmological constant
129: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$, and Hubble constant $h=H_0/(100 {\rm km}~{\rm
130: s}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1})=0.7$ \citep{spergel03}.
131:
132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
133: \section{SDSS Data}\label{sec:sdss}
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135:
136: The SDSS is conducting both a photometric survey
137: \citep{gunn98,lupton99,stoughton02,tucker06} in five broad-band optical
138: filters \citep{fukugita96} and a spectroscopic survey with a multi-fiber
139: spectrograph covering 3800{\,\AA} to 9200{\,\AA} at a resolution of
140: $\hbox{R}\sim1850$. The SDSS uses a dedicated wide-field ($3^{\circ}$
141: field of view) 2.5-m telescope \citep{gunn06} at the Apache Point
142: Observatory in New Mexico, USA, covering 10,000 square degrees of the
143: sky approximately centered on the North Galactic Cap. The imaging data
144: are processed by the photometric pipeline \citep{lupton01}, and
145: spectroscopic quasar targets are selected from the imaging data
146: according to the algorithm described by \cite{richards02}. Fibers for
147: the spectroscopic observations are assigned according to the tiling
148: algorithm of \citet{blanton03}. The imaging data have an astrometric
149: accuracy better than about $0\farcs1$ rms per coordinate \citep{pier03}
150: and photometric zeropoint errors less than about 0.03 magnitude over the
151: entire survey area \citep{hogg01,smith02,ivezic04}. SDSS~J1251+2935 is
152: contained in Data Release 5 \citep[for the imaging data;][]{adelman07}
153: and later (for the spectroscopic data).
154:
155: SDSS~J1251+2935 was selected as a lensed quasar candidate using the
156: morphological selection algorithm described in \cite{oguri+06}. The
157: algorithm uses the SDSS morphological classification parameter {\tt
158: objc\_type} and likelihood {\tt star\_L} that an object is fitted by a point-spread function (PSF).
159: Although lensed quasar systems with small image separations are
160: classified as single objects in the SDSS data, the profiles are extended
161: and are not consistent with either PSF profiles or simple galaxy
162: profiles. Therefore, small separation lensed quasar candidates are
163: selected as objects that have very small values of {\tt star\_L}. In
164: addition, SDSS~J1251+2935 satisfies additional selection requirements
165: based on fits to the image with GALFIT \citep{peng02} which are applied
166: to exclude false positives by single quasars. While some single quasars
167: can pass the initial selection step, fits to such
168: systems using two PSFs lead to either very large magnitude differences
169: or very small image separations that are indicative of systematic errors
170: rather than a gravitational lens (see \S~5 of \cite{oguri+06}).
171:
172:
173: The SDSS $i$-band image of SDSS~J1251+2935 is shown in
174: Figure~\ref{fig:sdssimg}.
175: The PSF magnitudes of SDSS~J1251+2935 (after
176: correcting for Galactic extinction) are $19.83\pm0.04$, $19.38\pm0.02$,
177: $19.13\pm0.03$, $18.85\pm0.03$, and $18.42\pm0.04$ in $u$, $g$, $r$,
178: $i$, and $z$, respectively. SDSS~J1251+2935 is spectroscopically
179: confirmed as a quasar at $z=0.802$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:spec} for the
180: SDSS spectrum). In this spectrum, we can also see a series of
181: absorption lines that indicate the presence of a bright early-type
182: galaxy at $z=0.410\pm0.001$. The presence of both components is a
183: strong indication that this system is a gravitational lens.
184:
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: \section{Imaging Follow-up Observations}\label{sec:image}
187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
188:
189: Deeper and higher-resolution optical images of SDSS~J1251+2935 were
190: obtained on 2006 April 25 (0\farcs8 seeing) and 2006 May 3
191: (1\farcs0 seeing) using the 8k mosaic CCD camera (UH8k, pixel scale of
192: $0\farcs232$ pixel$^{-1}$) and the Orthogonal Parallel Transfer Imaging
193: Camera (Optic, pixel scale of $0\farcs137$ pixel$^{-1}$) at the UH88
194: telescope, respectively. We took $V$- and $I$-band images (270 sec
195: exposure for each band) with the UH8k, and $B$-, $R$-, and $I$-band
196: images (400 sec exposure for each band) with the Optic. Because the
197: night of UH8k imaging was not photometric, we did not photometrically
198: calibrate the UH8k images. We binned ($2\times2$) the Optic images
199: and used them for the astrometry and photometry of the system.
200: The $2\times 2$ binned Optic images ($BRI$) and the original UH8k image
201: ($V$) are shown in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:image_sub} and the
202: upper panels of Figure~\ref{fig:images}.
203:
204: We used GALFIT to model these images with a series of models of
205: increasing complexity. The only model that works well consists of 4
206: point sources and a central galaxy modeled with a S\'{e}rsic profile.
207: In Figure~\ref{fig:image_sub}, we demonstrate that subtracting 4 fitted
208: PSFs from the Optic $I$-band image leaves an extended object or vice
209: versa. If we further subtract the galaxy component, there remains
210: virtually no residual. The lower panels of Figure~\ref{fig:images}
211: summarize the residuals after subtracting the best models for each
212: band's image. The galaxy flux is well-determined only in the $R$ and
213: $I$-band images, so we neglected this component in the $B$ and $V$-band
214: fits even though there are hints of its presence in the $V$-band
215: residuals. We label the 4 point sources A--D in order of increasing
216: $I$-band magnitudes and the central galaxy as G. We estimated that the
217: galaxy has an effective radius of $1\farcs11\pm0\farcs38$, ellipticity
218: of $0.28\pm0.09$, the S\'{e}rsic index of $2.4\pm 1.1$, and a major axis
219: position angle of $26^\circ\pm 5^\circ$. The $R-I$ color of G,
220: $0.89\pm0.30$, is consistent with an early-type galaxy at the measured
221: redshift \citep{fukugita95}. Table~\ref{tbl:astro} summarizes the
222: relative astrometry and photometry of the system, where we defined the
223: errors from the scatter between the fits using 6 different PSF templates
224: rather than the smaller statistical uncertainties of the individual
225: fits. The errors are an order of magnitude larger than other
226: systems where images are resolved even by visual inspection. We plot the color-color
227: diagram ($B-R$ and $R-I$) of the 4 point-like components in
228: Figure~\ref{fig:color} and the flux ratios between the point-like
229: components in Figure~\ref{fig:flux}. Although the colors (and flux
230: ratios) of the lensed images have large scatter among the images, they
231: are consistent with each other given the large uncertainties.
232:
233: In Figure~\ref{fig:sdssimg}, we also labeled the nearby galaxies by
234: their $R-I$ colors as measured using
235: SExtractor \citep{bertin96}.
236: There are several galaxies with colors similar to the lens galaxy to the
237: Southwest ($1.0<R-I<1.1$), and a larger group of generally bluer
238: galaxies ($0.6<R-I<1.0$) $\sim 40''$ to the North.
239: This suggests that the lens is associated with a group,
240: as is quite common among lensed quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{fassnacht02,
241: oguri05b, oguri06, williams06}.
242:
243:
244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
245: \section{Mass Modeling}\label{sec:model}
246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
247:
248: We modeled the system using the {\it lensmodel} package \citep{keeton01}
249: to determine whether reasonable mass distributions can reproduce the
250: observations. We first used the 7 parameter singular isothermal
251: ellipsoid model (SIE; the Einstein radius $R_{\rm E}$, the ellipticity
252: $e$ and its position angle $\theta_e$, and the positions of the galaxy
253: and the source quasar) to fit the relative positions of the A--D and G
254: components measured from the $R$-band image. The model fits the data
255: well with $\chi^2_{\rm red}\equiv\chi^2/{\rm dof}=1.1$ for ${\rm dof}=3$
256: degrees of freedom. The model parameters are presented in
257: Table~\ref{tbl:chi2} and the fit is illustrated in
258: Figure~\ref{fig:model}. The predicted position angle of the lens galaxy,
259: $19^\circ$, is reasonably consistent with the measured position angle of
260: $26^\circ\pm5^\circ$, which is typical for gravitational lenses
261: \citep{keeton98, koopmans06}. Based on the Einstein radius of the model,
262: the Faber-Jackson relations for gravitational lenses
263: measured by \citet{rusin03} predict a lens galaxy apparent magnitude of
264: $R=19.24$ ($I=18.57$) that agrees well with the measurement of
265: $R=19.32\pm 0.16$ ($I=18.43\pm0.25$).
266:
267:
268: Good fits to quadruple lenses generally require both the ellipticity of
269: the lens and an external shear \citep{keeton97}, so for our second model
270: we added a shear to the SIE model (the shear amplitude $\gamma$ and its
271: position angle $\theta_\gamma$). In this case, the best fit model
272: overfits the data ($\chi^2_{\rm red}=0.062$ for ${\rm dof}=1$).
273: Although the resulting large amplitude of the external shear is not
274: inconsistent with N-body simulations \citep[e.g.,][]{holder03}, the lens
275: galaxy position angle is misaligned with respect to the observations.
276: Moreover, the large ellipticity and external shear cross almost
277: perpendicularly, which indicates that the model may not be
278: realistic. If we add weak constraints to match the axis ratio and
279: position angle of the SIE component to the visible galaxy
280: ($e=0.28\pm0.15$ and $\theta_e=26^\circ\pm10^\circ$), then we obtain a
281: good fit ($\chi^2_{\rm red}=1.2$ for dof=3) with a small external shear
282: ($\gamma=0.02$). This suggests that external shear is not important for
283: fitting the image positions despite the possible existence of nearby
284: groups.
285:
286: In all these models, the predicted flux ratios differ from the observed
287: flux ratios (see Table~\ref{tbl:chi2} and Figure~\ref{fig:flux}). This
288: remains the case if we add the flux ratios and their measurement errors
289: as model constraints. The cusp relation \citep[see][]{keeton03}
290: provides a means of determining whether the flux ratios of the three
291: cusp images are consistent with any smooth mass distribution. In this
292: case we find $R_{\rm cusp}=0.13$ and $d/R_E=1.25$ based on the $R$-band
293: flux ratios and the SIE model, which is marginally consistent with the
294: range of distributions found for smooth lens models. The origin of the
295: problem is presumably substructure in the gravitational potential of the
296: lens due to either microlensing by the stars or sub-halos,
297: since the observed flux ratios show no significant wavelength
298: dependence. We note, however, that evidence for anomalous flux ratios is
299: not conclusive, mainly because of large astrometric and photometric
300: errors.
301:
302:
303:
304:
305:
306:
307:
308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
309: \section{Summary}\label{sec:sum}
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311:
312: We report the discovery of the quadruply imaged quasar
313: SDSS~J1251+2935. The lensing hypothesis is confirmed by the facts that
314: i) the SDSS spectrum of the system shows the emission lines of a quasar
315: at $z_s=0.802$ and the absorption lines of a galaxy at $z_l=0.410$, ii)
316: the UH8k and Optic images confirm that the system consists of 4 blue
317: point-like components and an extended object whose color is consistent
318: with an elliptical galaxy at $z\sim 0.4$, iii) the geometry of the
319: system is that of a typical cusp lens and can be well reproduced by a
320: SIE model with reasonable parameter values, and iv) the luminosity of
321: the lens galaxy is consistent with the expected luminosity from the
322: Faber-Jackson relation. This system is the second lowest redshift
323: lensed quasar after RXJ1131-1231 \citep{sluse03} at $z_s=0.66$.
324: The flux ratios of the three cusp images of the lens show a modest flux
325: ratio anomaly, whose origins could be better constrained with higher
326: resolution images under better observing conditions.
327:
328: \acknowledgments
329:
330: We thank Atsunori Yonehara for many useful comments and the anonymous
331: referee for suggestions to improve the manuscript.
332: Use of the UH 2.2-m telescope for the observations is supported by NAOJ.
333: I.~K. acknowledges the support from Ministry of Education, Culture,
334: Sports, Science, and Technology, Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young
335: Scientists (No. 17740139).
336: N.~I. acknowledges supports from the Japan Society for the Promotion of
337: Science and the Special Postdoctral Researcher Program of RIKEN.
338: This work was supported in part
339: by Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.
340:
341: Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been
342: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating
343: Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the
344: National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Japanese
345: Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site is
346: http://www.sdss.org/.
347:
348: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
349: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
350: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
351: University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve
352: University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the
353: Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns
354: Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the
355: Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean
356: Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos
357: National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the
358: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
359: University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University
360: of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval
361: Observatory, and the University of Washington.
362:
363: \begin{thebibliography}{}
364:
365: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy(2007)]{adelman07}
366: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al. 2007,
367: \apjs, submitted
368:
369: \bibitem[Bade et al.(1997)]{bade97}
370: Bade, N., Siebert, J., Lopez, S., Voges, W., \&
371: Reimers, D. 1997, A\&A, 317, L13
372:
373: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{bertin96}
374: Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
375:
376: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{blanton03}
377: Blanton, M. R., Lin, H., Lupton, R. H., Maley, F. M., Young, N.,
378: Zehavi, I., \& Loveday, J. 2003, \aj, 125, 2276
379:
380: \bibitem[Browne et al.(2003)]{browne03}
381: Browne, I. W. A., et al. 2003, \mnras, 341, 13
382:
383: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1989)]{cardelli89}
384: Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., \& Mathis, J. S. 1989, \apj, 345, 245
385:
386: \bibitem[Chiba(2002)]{chiba02}
387: Chiba, M. 2002, \apj, 565, 17
388:
389: \bibitem[Chiba et al.(2005)]{chiba05}
390: Chiba, M., Minezaki, T., Kashikawa, N., Kataza, H., \& Inoue, K.~T.\ 2005, \apj, 627, 53
391:
392: \bibitem[Fassnacht \& Lubin(2002)]{fassnacht02}
393: Fassnacht, C. D. \& Lubin, L. M. 2002, \aj, 123, 627
394:
395: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{fukugita96}
396: Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., Doi, M.,
397: Shimasaku, K., \& Schneider, D. P. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
398:
399: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1995)]{fukugita95}
400: Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, \pasp, 107, 945
401:
402: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{gunn98}
403: Gunn, J. E., et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 3040
404:
405: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{gunn06}
406: Gunn, J.~E., et al. 2006, \aj, 131, 2332
407:
408: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2001)]{hogg01}
409: Hogg, D. W., Finkbeiner, D. P., Schlegel, D. J.,
410: \& Gunn, J. E. 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
411:
412: \bibitem[Holder \& Schechter(2003)]{holder03}
413: Holder, G. P., \& Schechter, P. L. 2003, \apj, 589, 688
414:
415: \bibitem[Inada et al.(2007)]{inada07}
416: Inada, N., et al. 2007, \aj, 133, 206
417:
418: \bibitem[Inada et al.(2006a)]{inada06a}
419: Inada, N., et al. 2006a, \aj, 131, 1934
420:
421: \bibitem[Inada et al.(2006b)]{inada06b}
422: Inada, N., et al. 2006b, \apj, 653, L97
423:
424: \bibitem[Inada et al.(2005)]{inada05}
425: Inada, N., et al. 2005, \aj, 130, 1967
426:
427: \bibitem[Inada et al.(2003a)]{inada03a}
428: Inada, N., et al. 2003a, \aj, 126, 666
429:
430: \bibitem[Inada et al.(2003b)]{inada03b}
431: Inada, N., et al. 2003b, \nat, 426, 810
432:
433: \bibitem[Ivezi\'{c} et al.(2004)]{ivezic04}
434: Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., et al. 2004, AN, 325, 583
435:
436: \bibitem[Johnston et al.(2003)]{johnston03}
437: Johnston, D. E., et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 2281
438:
439: \bibitem[Keeton et al.(2006)]{keeton06} Keeton, C.~R., Burles,
440: S., Schechter, P.~L., \& Wambsganss, J.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 1
441:
442: \bibitem[Keeton et al.(2003)]{keeton03}
443: Keeton, C. R., Gaudi, B. S., \& Petters, A. O. 2003, \apj, 598, 138
444:
445: \bibitem[Keeton(2001)]{keeton01}
446: Keeton, C.~R. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0102340)
447:
448: \bibitem[Keeton et al.(1998)]{keeton98}
449: Keeton, C. R., Kochanek, C. S., \& Falco, E. E. 1998, \apj, 509, 561
450:
451: \bibitem[Keeton et al.(1997)]{keeton97}
452: Keeton, C. R., Kochanek, C. S., \& Seljak, U. 1997, \apj, 482, 604
453:
454: \bibitem[Kochanek(2006)]{kochanek06}
455: Kochanek, C.S., 2006, in Gravitational Lensing: Strong
456: Weak and Micro, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 33, G. Meylan,
457: P. North, P. Jetzer, eds., (Springer: Berlin) 91 (astro-ph/0407232)
458:
459: \bibitem[Kochanek \& Dalal(2004)]{kochanek04}
460: Kochanek, C. S., Dalal, N. 2004, \apj, 610, 69
461:
462: \bibitem[Koopmans et al.(2006)]{koopmans06}
463: Koopmans, L. V. E., Treu, T., Bolton, A. S., Burles, S., Moustakas,
464: L. A. 2006, \apj, 649, 599
465:
466: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{landolt92}
467: Landolt, A. U. 1992, \aj, 104, 340
468:
469: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(2001)]{lupton01}
470: Lupton, R., Gunn, J. E., Ivezi\'c, Z., Knapp, G. R.,
471: Kent, S., \& Yasuda, N. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 238,
472: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X,
473: ed. F. R. Harnden, Jr., F. A. Primini, and H. E. Payne
474: (San Francisco: Astr. Soc. Pac.), p. 269 (astro-ph/0101420)
475:
476: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(1999)]{lupton99}
477: Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., \& Szalay, A. S. 1999, \aj, 118, 1406
478:
479: \bibitem[Magain et al.(1988)]{magain88}
480: Magain, P., Surdej, J., Swings, J. -P., Borgeest, U., \& Kayser,
481: R. 1988, \nat, 334, 325
482:
483: \bibitem[Maoz et al.(1993)]{maoz93}
484: Maoz, D., Bahcall, J. N., Schneider, D. P., Bahcall, N. A., Djorgovski,
485: S., Doxsey, R., Gould, A., Kirhakos, S.,
486: Meylan, G., Yanny, B. 1993, \apj, 409, 28
487:
488: \bibitem[Mao \& Schneider (1998)]{mao98}
489: Mao, S., \& Schneider, P. 1998, \mnras, 295, 587
490:
491: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Madau(2001)]{metcalf01}
492: Metcalf, R. B., \& Madau, P. 2001, \apj, 563, 9
493:
494: \bibitem[Morgan et al.(2006)]{morgan06}
495: Morgan, C.~W., Kochanek, C.~S., Morgan, N.~D., \& Falco, E.~E.\ 2006,
496: \apj, 647, 874
497:
498: \bibitem[Morgan et al.(2003)]{morgan03}
499: Morgan, N. D., Snyder, J. A., \& Reens, L. H. 2003,
500: \aj, 126, 2145
501:
502: \bibitem[Morgan et al.(2001)]{morgan01}
503: Morgan, N. D., Becker, R. H., Gregg, M. D., Schechter, P. L., \& White, R. L. 2001,
504: \aj, 121, 611
505:
506: \bibitem[Morokuma et al.(2007)]{morokuma07}
507: Morokuma, et al. 2007, \aj, 133, 214
508:
509: \bibitem[Myers et al.(2003)]{myers03}
510: Myers, S. T., et al. 2003, \mnras, 341, 1
511:
512: \bibitem[Oguri(2006)]{oguri06}
513: Oguri, M., 2006, \mnras, 367, 1241
514:
515: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2006)]{oguri+06}
516: Oguri, M., et al. 2006, \aj, 132, 999
517:
518: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2005)]{oguri05}
519: Oguri, M., et al. 2005, \apj, 622, 106
520:
521: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2005)]{oguri05b}
522: Oguri, M., Keeton, C. R., Dalal, N. 2005, \mnras, 364, 1451
523:
524: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2004)]{oguri04}
525: Oguri, M., et al. 2004, \pasj, 56, 399
526:
527: \bibitem[Oscoz et al.(1997)]{oscoz97}
528: Oscoz, A., Serra-Ricart, M., Mediavilla, E., Buitrago, J.,
529: \& Goicoechea, L. J. 1997, \aj, 491, L7
530:
531: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2002)]{peng02}
532: Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., \&
533: Rix, H.-W. 2002, \aj, 124, 266
534:
535: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{pier03}
536: Pier, J. R., Munn, J. A., Hindsley, R. B., Hennessy, G. S.,
537: Kent, S. M., Lupton, R. H., \& Ivezi\'{c}, \'{Z}. 2003,
538: \aj, 125, 1559
539:
540: \bibitem[Pindor et al.(2004)]{pindor04}
541: Pindor, B., et al. 2004, \aj, 127, 1318
542:
543: \bibitem[Pindor et al.(2006)]{pindor06}
544: Pindor, B., et al. 2006, \aj, 131, 41
545:
546: \bibitem[Richards et al.(2002)]{richards02}
547: Richards, G. T., et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 2945
548:
549: \bibitem[Rusin et al.(2003)]{rusin03}
550: Rusin, D., Kochanek, C. S., Falco, E. E., Keeton, C. R., McLeod, B. A.,
551: Impey, C. D., Leh\'ar, J., Mu\~noz,
552: J. A., Peng, C. Y., \& Rix H.-W. 2003, \apj, 587, 143
553:
554: \bibitem[Schechter et al.(1998)]{schechter98}
555: Schechter, P. L., Gregg, M. D., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., \& White, R. L. 1998,
556: \aj, 115, 1371
557:
558: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2007)]{schneider07}
559: Schneider, D.~P., et al.\ 2007, \aj, 134, in press
560:
561: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2005)]{schneider05}
562: Schneider, D.~P., et al.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 367
563:
564: \bibitem[Sluse et al.(2003)]{sluse03}
565: Sluse, D., Surdej, J., Claeskens, J.-F., Hutsem\'ekers, D., Jean, C.,
566: Courbin, F., Nakos, T., Billeres, M., \& Khmil, S. V. 2003,
567: \aap, 406, L43
568:
569: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{smith02}
570: Smith, A., et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
571:
572: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{spergel03}
573: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
574:
575: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{stoughton02}
576: Stoughton, C., et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 485
577:
578: \bibitem[Surdej et al.(1987)]{surdej87}
579: Surdej, J., Swings, J.-P., Magain, P., Courvoisier, T. J.-L.,
580: \& Borgeest, U. 1987, \nat, 329, 695
581:
582: \bibitem[Tucker et al.(2006)]{tucker06}
583: Tucker, D. L., et al. 2006, AN, 327, 821
584:
585: \bibitem[Walsh et al.(1979)]{walsh79}
586: Walsh, D., Carswell, R. F., \& Weymann, R. J. 1979, \nat, 279, 381
587:
588: \bibitem[Weymann et al.(1980)]{weymann80}
589: Weymann, R. J., et al. 1980, \nat, 285, 641
590:
591: \bibitem[Williams et al.(2006)]{williams06}
592: Williams, K. A., Momcheva, I., Keeton, C. R., Zabludoff, A. I.,
593: Leh\'{a}r, J. 2006 \apj, 646, 85
594:
595: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{york00}
596: York, D. G., et al. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
597:
598: \end{thebibliography}
599:
600: \clearpage
601:
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: \begin{figure}
604: \epsscale{.7}
605: \plotone{f1.eps}
606: \caption{
607: SDSS $i$-band image of the SDSS~J1251+2935 field (1\farcs2 seeing, 54 sec
608: exposure). The pixel scale is $0\farcs396$ pixel$^{-1}$, North is up
609: and East is left. An expanded view of SDSS~J1251+2935 is shown in the
610: inset at lower left. Small numbers beside galaxies are $R-I$ colors from
611: the Optic images.
612: \label{fig:sdssimg}}
613: \end{figure}
614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
615:
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: \begin{figure}
618: \plotone{f2.eps}
619: \caption{
620: SDSS spectrum of SDSS~J1251+2935 with a resolution of $\sim1800$.
621: The quasar emission lines (\ion{Mg}{2}, [{\ion{O}{2}}], and H${\gamma}$)
622: redshifted to $z=0.802$ are marked by the dashed lines and the galaxy
623: absorption lines (Ca H\&K, G-band, Mg, and Na) redshifted to $z=0.410$
624: are marked by the dotted lines. The galaxy absorption lines indicate the
625: existence of a bright lensing galaxy.
626: \label{fig:spec}}
627: \end{figure}
628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
629:
630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
631: \begin{figure}
632: \epsscale{.85} \plotone{f3.eps}
633: \caption{Optic $I$-band image of SDSS~J1251+2935. The upper-left panel
634: is the original data. The galaxy-like extended object in the upper-right
635: panel is the residual after subtracting only 4 point-like components,
636: and vice versa in the lower-left (overplotted with contours). There are
637: no residuals after subtracting a galaxy and 4 PSFs, as shown in the
638: lower-right panel. The images and contours are scaled by the
639: square-root of the counts.\label{fig:image_sub}}
640: \end{figure}
641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
642:
643: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
644: \begin{figure}
645: \epsscale{.85}
646: \plotone{f4.eps}
647: \caption{Original Optic
648: ($BRI$) and UH8k ($V$) images of SDSS~J1251+2935 (upper panels) and the
649: residuals after subtracting the best models (lower panels). The best
650: models consist of 4 PSFs for the Optic $B$-band and UH8k $V$-band,
651: and 4 PSFs plus a galaxy for Optic $R$ and $I$-bands. The pixel scales of
652: Optic and UH8k are $0\farcs 274$ pixel$^{-1}$ (2${\times}$2 binned) and
653: $0\farcs 232$ pixel$^{-1}$, respectively. Although there are some
654: residuals in the $V$-band image due to the galaxy, its flux is too small
655: to be measured accurately.\label{fig:images}}
656: \end{figure}
657: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
658:
659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
660: \begin{figure}
661: \plotone{f5.eps}
662: \caption{
663: Color-color diagram ($B-R$ and $R-I$)
664: of the 4 point-like components.
665: The arrow upper-left indicates the extinction direction
666: for a \citet{cardelli89} extinction law with $R_V=3.1$ and $\Delta(B-V)=0.3$.
667: \label{fig:color}}
668: \end{figure}
669: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
670:
671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
672: \begin{figure}
673: \epsscale{.5} \plotone{f6.eps}
674: \caption{ Flux ratios of the 4 point-like components. The flux ratios
675: predicted by the SIE model (without flux ratio constraints) and the
676: SIE plus external shear model (with the $R$-band flux ratio constraints
677: and the weak constraints on the ellipticity and the position angle of the
678: lens galaxy) in \S\ref{sec:model} are plotted as {\it dashed} and {\it
679: dotted} lines, respectively. Note that the latter model fits the
680: observation with $\chi^2_{\rm red}=2.5$. \label{fig:flux}}
681: \end{figure}
682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
683:
684: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
685: \begin{figure}
686: \epsscale{1.0}
687: \plotone{f7.eps}
688: \caption{ Predicted and observed positions of components A--D and G.
689: The filled circles with error bars represents the observed positions,
690: and the gray filled triangles represent the positions predicted by the
691: SIE model. The critical curve ({\it black line}) and the caustics
692: ({\it gray line}) are also plotted. The gray filled triangle on the
693: caustics is the predicted source plane position of the
694: quasar. \label{fig:model}}
695: \end{figure}
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697:
698: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
699: \begin{deluxetable}{crrrrrr}
700: \rotate
701: \tablewidth{0pt}
702: \tablecaption{ASTROMETRY AND PHOTOMETRY OF SDSS~J1251+2935\label{tbl:astro}}
703: \tablehead{\colhead{Object} & \colhead{$x$[arcsec]\tablenotemark{a}} &
704: \colhead{$y$[arcsec]\tablenotemark{a}} &
705: \colhead{$B$\tablenotemark{b}} &
706: \colhead{$R$\tablenotemark{b}} &
707: \colhead{$I$\tablenotemark{b}}}
708: \startdata
709: A & $-1.40\pm0.03$ & $-1.00\pm0.02$
710: & $20.67\pm0.22$ & $20.05\pm0.23$ & $19.41\pm0.10$ \\
711: B & $-1.67\pm0.05$ & $-0.65\pm0.02$
712: & $21.06\pm0.31$ & $20.07\pm0.25$ & $19.72\pm0.27$ \\
713: C & $-1.77\pm0.07$ & $0.04\pm0.04$
714: & $22.26\pm0.30$ & $21.48\pm0.28$ & $20.38\pm0.14$ \\
715: D & $0.00\pm0.04$ & $0.00\pm0.04$
716: & $21.97\pm0.16$ & $21.33\pm0.16$ & $20.51\pm0.14$ \\
717: G & $-1.04\pm0.09$ & $-0.23\pm0.07$
718: & \nodata & $19.32\pm0.16$ & $18.43\pm0.25$ \\
719: \enddata
720: \tablenotetext{a}{Measured in the Optic $R$-band image using GALFIT. The
721: positive directions of $x$ and $y$ are West and North,
722: respectively. Errors indicate the dispersions from 6 different PSF
723: templates.} \tablenotetext{b}{Measured in the Optic images using
724: GALFIT. The errors are the dispersions from 6 different PSF templates,
725: and they do not include the absolute calibration uncertainties. The
726: magnitudes are calibrated using the standard star PG0918+029
727: \citep{landolt92}.}
728: \end{deluxetable}
729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
730:
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrcccccl}
733: \rotate
734: \tablewidth{0pt}
735: \tablecaption{SDSS~J1251+2935: MASS MODELS\label{tbl:chi2}}
736: \tablehead{\colhead{Model} &
737: \colhead{Data\tablenotemark{a}} &
738: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\rm tot}$/dof\tablenotemark{b}} &
739: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\rm flux}$\tablenotemark{c}} &
740: \colhead{$R_{\rm E}$[arcsec]} &
741: \colhead{$e$} &
742: \colhead{$\theta_e$[deg]} &
743: \colhead{$\gamma$} &
744: \colhead{$\theta_\gamma$[deg]} &
745: \colhead{comments}}
746: \startdata
747: SIE & pos & 3.3/3 & (20) & 0.88 & 0.19 & 19
748: & \nodata & \nodata
749: & bad flux\\
750: SIE+shear & pos & 0.062/1 & (18) & 0.79 & 0.66 & 10
751: & 0.21 & $-80$
752: & large misalignment \\
753: SIE+shear & pos+shape & 3.7/3 & (16) & 0.87 & 0.21 & 25
754: & 0.018 & $-8.7$
755: & bad flux \\
756: SIE & pos+flux & 17/6 & 8.8 & 0.80 & 0.46 & 18
757: & \nodata & \nodata
758: & poor fitting \\
759: SIE+shear & pos+flux & 8.9/4 & 1.1 & 0.76 & 0.67 & 53
760: & 0.28 & $-32$
761: & large misalignment \\
762: SIE+shear & pos+flux+shape & 15/6 & 6.3 & 0.83 & 0.38 & 34
763: & 0.074 & $-15$
764: & poor fitting \\
765: \enddata
766: \tablecomments{Results of various mass models constrained by $R$-band
767: data. The position angles are measured East of North. The time
768: delay between images A and D in the SIE model is $\Delta t_{AD}\sim 17$
769: $h^{-1}$day.}
770: \tablenotetext{a}{Data used to constrain the models; pos: positions of
771: the 4 images and the galaxy, flux: fluxes of the 4 images, and
772: shape: weak constraints on the ellipticity and position angle of
773: the lens galaxy ($e=0.28\pm0.15$ and $\theta=26^\circ\pm10^\circ$).}
774: \tablenotetext{b}{Total $\chi^2$ and the degree of freedom.}
775: \tablenotetext{c}{Contribution of fluxes to the $\chi^2$. The values
776: in parentheses are not included in $\chi^2_{\rm tot}$.}
777: \end{deluxetable}
778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
779:
780:
781:
782:
783: \end{document}
784: