1: %% The command below calls the preprint style
2: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6:
7: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
8: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
9:
10: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
11: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
12: %% use the longabstract style option.
13: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
14:
15: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \shorttitle{Dark Energy and Strong Gravitational Lenses}
18: \shortauthors{Djorgovski et al.}
19:
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
24: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
25: %% you desire.
26: \title{ Constraining Dark Energy From Splitting Angle Statistic of Strong Gravitational Lenses }
27: \author{Qing-Jun Zhang, Ling-Mei Cheng, and Yue-Liang Wu}
28: \affil{\rm Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China, Institute of Theoretical
29: Physics, \\
30: Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100080, P.R. China}
31: \email{ylwu@itp.ac.cn}
32:
33: %% -----------------------------------------------------------------------
34: \begin{abstract}
35: Utilizing the CLASS statistical sample, we investigate the
36: constraint of the splitting angle statistic of strong gravitational
37: lenses(SGL) on the equation-of-state parameter $w=p/\rho$ of the
38: dark energy in the flat cold dark matter cosmology. Through the
39: comoving number density of dark halos described by Press-Schechter
40: theory, dark energy affects the efficiency with which dark-matter
41: concentrations produce strong lensing signals. The constraints on
42: both constant $w$ and time-varying $w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)$ from the
43: SGL splitting angle statistic are consistently obtained by adopting
44: a two model combined mechanism of dark halo density profile matched
45: at the mass scale $M_c$. Our main observations are: (a) the
46: resulting model parameter $M_c$ is found to be $M_c \sim 1.4$ for
47: both constant $w$ and time-varying $w(z)$, which is larger than $M_c
48: \sim 1$ obtained in literatures; (b) the fitting results for the
49: constant $w$ are found to be $w =-0.89^{+0.49}_{-0.26}$ and $w
50: =-0.94^{+0.57}_{-0.16}$ for the source redshift distributions of the
51: Gaussian models $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ respectively, which are
52: consistent with the $\Lambda \rm CDM$ at 95\% C.L; (c) the
53: time-varying $w(z)$ is found to be for $\sigma_8 = 0.74$: $(M_c;
54: w_0, w_a)=(1.36; -0.92, -1.31)$ and $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.38; -0.89,
55: -1.21)$ for $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ respectively, the influence of
56: $\sigma_8$ is investigated and found to be sizable for $\sigma_8 =
57: 0.74\sim 0.90$. After marginalizing the likelihood functions over
58: the cosmological parameters $(\Omega_M, h, \sigma_8)$ and the model
59: parameter $M_c$, we find that the data of SGL splitting angle
60: statistic lead to the best fit results $(w_0,
61: w_a)=(-0.88^{+0.65}_{-1.03},
62: -1.55^{+1.77}_{-1.88})$ and $(w_0, w_a)=(-0.91^{+0.60}_{-1.46},
63: -1.60^{+1.60}_{-2.57})$ for $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ respectively.
64: \end{abstract}
65: %% -----------------------------------------------------------------------
66:
67: %%\keywords{Dark Energy, Strong Gravitational Lensing, Dark Halos,
68: %%Splitting Angle Statistic}
69:
70: \keywords{cosmological parameters---cosmology:
71: observations---cosmology: theory---gravitational
72: lensing---quasars: general}
73:
74: \section{INTRODUCTION}
75:
76: Since the direct confirmation of the presence of dark energy by
77: Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) observation (Riess et.al $1998$), the
78: investigation of its property is one of the most important object
79: in cosmology. Many theoretical models have been developed to
80: explain or describe dark energy, which is widely believed as the
81: main component of the cosmological energy today. By now one key to
82: the question seems to be the precise measurement to the
83: equation-of-state parameter $w=p/\rho$ of the dark energy(see a
84: review paper, Peebles \& Ratra 2002). Compared with the data, the
85: limit to the value of parameter $w$ is continuously improved by
86: many experimental groups, including the type Ia supernova(Riess et
87: al. 2004), the Cosmic Microwave Background(CMB)(spergel et al.
88: 2006), and the weak gravitational lenses(WGL)(Weinberg \&
89: Kamionkowski 2002). As a complement to these observations, we
90: shall utilize the splitting angle statistic of strong
91: gravitational lenses(SGL) to quantificationally investigate its
92: constraint on the parameter $w$.
93:
94: Light lines traversing in the universe are attracted and refracted
95: by the gravitational force of the galaxies on its path, which
96: bring us the signal of the SGL effect, one of which is the
97: multiple images of a single far galaxy. Through comparing the
98: observed number of lenses with the theoretical expected result as
99: a function of image separation and cosmological parameters, it
100: enables us to determine the allowed range of the parameter $w$.
101: Linder (2004) demonstrated that with the addition of strong
102: lensing image separation measurements, the estimates for
103: time-varying $w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)$ from CMB, SNe Ia, and WGL could
104: be improved modestly. To see that, we shall carefully in this note
105: investigate the analytic process and the power of SGL data only.
106: There are numerous works studying on the relation between DE and
107: SGL splitting angle statistic (e.g., Porciani \& Madau 2000; Li \&
108: Ostriker 2002; Kuhlen, Keeton \& Madau 2004), but the exact mass
109: density profile of dark halos is unknown yet, which produces the
110: most theoretical uncertainty of the analytic process. The two most
111: widely-used density profiles are the singular isothermal sphere
112: (SIS) profile and the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile. Some
113: analyses were based solely on the SIS model (e.g., Chae et al.
114: 2002). While from the analyzes by Li \& Ostriker (2002, 2003), and
115: also by Sarbu, Rusin \& Ma (2001), it gave a convictive
116: illumination that a combined mechanism of at least two models can
117: effectively reproduce the observed curve of the lensing
118: probability $P(>\theta)$ to the image splitting angle $\theta$. To
119: achieve this, an additional parameter $\rm M_c$ is introduced to
120: divide the mass scale of dark halos into different parts as a
121: certain density profile is thought to work only on each part.
122:
123: The rate of structure growth, which determines the number density
124: of dark halos as the SGL lenses, is very sensitive to the
125: normalization parameter of the matter power spectrum, $\sigma_8$.
126: The value of $\sigma_8$ is often related to the matter density
127: $\Omega_M$ and constrained by the $\rm CMB$ or cluster abundance
128: observation. Several years ago, in the $\Lambda \rm CDM$ universe
129: with $\Omega_M =0.27$, $\sigma_8$ was found to be larger than 0.9
130: (e.g., Spergel et al. 2003; Wang \& Steinhardt 1998). Then the
131: data of Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year
132: (Spergel et al. 2007) provided a noticeably smaller value
133: $\sigma_8 = 0.74\pm0.05$ in comparison with the first-year data
134: $\sigma_8 = 0.92\pm0.10$. By utilizing the recent clustering
135: results of XMM-Newton soft (0.5-2 keV) X-ray sources, the X-ray
136: clustering, and SNIa data, Basilakos and Plionis (2007) showed
137: that the $\sigma_8\approx0.73$ for $\Omega_M =0.26$ and $w =-
138: 0.90$, which is consistent with the new result. A smaller
139: $\sigma_8$ implies less structure growth at late times and less
140: lensing probability for a single source.
141:
142:
143: In this paper, by using the CLASS statistical sample (Browne et
144: al.2003), we are going to show how the constraint on the dark energy
145: equation of state parameters $w(z)$ can reliably be obtained for the
146: cases with the assumption of constant $w$ and the time-varying
147: parameterization $w(z) = w_0 + w_a \, z / (1 + z)$, respectively. We
148: highlight three issues which have not previously been investigated.
149: First, we investigate the influences of parameter $w$ on the every
150: step of the lensing process to find the most important point where
151: the change of parameter $w$ shows its effect. Second, by comparing
152: the results for different distributions of sources redshift which
153: have been used in previous works(e.g., Chae et al. 2002; Li \&
154: Ostriker 2002), we illustrate the quantitative influence that is
155: introduced by the uncertainty of the source distribution. Third, we
156: focus on the constraint of the data on the time-varying
157: parameterization $w(z)$. Our paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2
158: outlines the cosmological model, the mass fluctuations, and the
159: Press-Schechter function used in our calculation. Sect. 3 describes
160: the density profiles and the lensing probabilities. Sect. 4 gives
161: our data analysis and numerical results. The conclusions are
162: presented in the last section.
163:
164:
165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
166: \section{BASIC CONSIDERATIONS}
167:
168: In this section we shall describe some ingredients used in our
169: calculations.
170:
171: \subsection{Cosmological Model and Mass Fluctuations}
172: % cited
173:
174: During the last two decades more and more
175: observational evidence suggests that our universe at present is
176: accelerated expanding and dominated by a spatially smooth
177: component with negative pressure, so called dark energy. Besides
178: the common cosmological constant supposition, an attractive
179: alternative candidate for dark energy is the potential energy of a
180: slow-varying scalar field, which is conveniently parameterized
181: through $w = p/\rho$. The conventional scalar field models, i.e.
182: quintessence models, with a positive kinetic energy term in the
183: field Lagrangian require $w \geq -1$ (e.g., Ratra \& Peebles 1988;
184: Caldwell, Dav{\'e}, \& Steinhardt 1998), and phantom dark energy ,
185: adopting alternatively a negative kinetic energy term, gives the
186: parameter space $w < -1$ (e.g., Caldwell 2002; Carroll, Hoffmann,
187: \& Trodden 2003; Cline, Jeon, \& Moore 2003 ). To fit the data of
188: the observation and give the allowed parameter space, we use two
189: typical parameterizations, i.e., constant $w$ and time-varying
190: $w(z)$, as follows:
191: \begin{eqnarray*}
192: & & {\rm Case I }:\ \ w = constant \\
193: & & {\rm Case II}:\ w(z) = w_0 + w_a \, z / (1 + z), \quad w_a =
194: d w(z) / d z |_{z=0}.
195: \end{eqnarray*}
196: The simple form $w(z) = w_0 + w_1 \, z$ is not favored because the
197: value of $w(z)$ runs to infinite when redshift $z$ goes to be
198: infinite. Throughout this paper, we assume a flat cold dark matter
199: universe with present matter density relative to critical density
200: $\Omega_M=0.24$ and the Hubble parameter $h = 0.73$ (Spergel et
201: al. 2007).
202:
203: Dark halos of galaxies and galaxy clusters are formed through
204: linear growth and nonlinear collapse of primordial fluctuations of
205: matter in the early universe. The time-varying state-of-equation
206: parameter $w(z)$ is usually realized by models with slow-varying
207: scalar fields, while these scalar fields of dark energy begin to
208: cluster gravitationally and contribute to the perturbation
209: spectrum only at the very large spatial scale $L>100\rm Mpc$,
210: which corresponds to a very small wavenumber $k<0.01\rm Mpc^{-1} $
211: (e.g., Ma et al. 1999). In our present considerations, the most
212: concerned length scale $l<1\rm Mpc$ is far less than the length
213: scale $L$ and the concerned fluctuations are obtained by
214: integrating the mass power spectrum $k^2 P(k)$ up to a larger
215: value of the wavenumber $k > 1.0 \rm Mpc^{-1}$. Noticing the fact
216: that the increasing function $k^2 P(k) \propto k^3$ when $k<<1.0
217: \rm Mpc^{-1}$, so the contributions from the integral region
218: $k<0.01\rm Mpc^{-1}$ are very small, namely the contribution of
219: the dark energy cluster to mass fluctuations can be neglected.
220: Thus we can directly utilize the mass power spectrum of $\Lambda
221: \rm CDM$ cosmology. In our calculation, the linear CDM power
222: spectrum is computed by adopting the fitting formulae given by
223: (Eisenstein \& Hu 1999)
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: \Delta_k(k,z)\equiv {k^3\over 2\pi^2} P(k,z) = \delta_H^2 \left({ck\over
226: H_0}\right)^{3+n} T^2(k)\, {{\cal D}^2(z)}\,,
227: \label{cdm_pow}
228: \end{eqnarray}
229: The initial power spectrum index $n$ is fixed to be $n \equiv 1$.
230: $T$ is the transfer function
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: T &=& {L\over L + C q_{eff}^2}\,,
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: with
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: L &\equiv& \ln \left(e + 1.84 q_{eff}\right)\,, \hspace{1cm}
237: q_{eff}\equiv {k\over \Omega_M h^2\, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}}\,,\\
238: C &\equiv& 14.4 + {325\over 1+ 60.5 q_{eff}^{1.11}}\,.
239: \end{eqnarray}
240:
241: The parameter $\delta_H$ is the amplitude of perturbations on the
242: horizon scale today and related to the rms density fluctuations in
243: spheres of radius $r_8 = 8 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$, so called $\sigma_8$
244: by:
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: \delta_H = \frac{\sigma_8}{ \left[\int_0^{\infty} {dk\over k} \Delta_k(k,0) W^2(kr_8)\right]^{1/2} }
247: = {\sigma_8 \over \left[\int_0^{\infty} {dk\over k}
248: \left({ck\over H_0}\right)^{3+n} T^2 \left(k\right) W^2
249: \left(k r_8\right)\right]^{1/2}}
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: where $W(kr)$ is the top-hat window function:
252: $W(kr)=3\left[{sin(kr)\over(kr)^3} -{cos(kr)\over(kr)^2} \right].$
253: To show the power of SGL data only, we don't use any analytic
254: fitted form of the parameter $\sigma_8$, expressed by $\Omega_M$
255: and $w$. Alternatively , unless special clarification we choose to
256: normalize the power spectrum to $\sigma_8 = 0.74$, the best-fit
257: value given by WMAP Three Year data (spergel et al. 2006).
258:
259:
260: The linear growth function ${\cal D}(z)$ is proportional to the
261: linear density perturbation $\delta = \delta \rho_M/\rho_M$. The
262: evolution of linear perturbation is:
263: \beq
264: \ddot{\delta} + 2{\dot{a}\over a} \dot{\delta} = 4 \pi G \rho_M
265: \delta
266: \eeq
267: where $a$ is the scale factor $a=(1+z)^{-1}$, dot means derivative
268: with respect to physical time $t$, the background matter density
269: $\rho_M = \rho_0 (1+z)^3$, $\rho_0=\Omega_M \rho_{\rm crit,0}$ and
270: $\rho_{{\rm crit},0}=3 H_0^2/(8\pi G)$ is today's critical mass
271: density in the universe. Then with the definition $D(z) \equiv
272: \delta(z)/\delta(z=0)$, we can obtain the equation of ${\cal
273: D}(a)$:
274: \beq
275: {d^2 {\cal D} \over da^2} = {3 \over 2}{\Omega \over a^2} {\cal
276: D} - {3 \over 2 a}{d {\cal D} \over da}[1-w(a)(1-\Omega)]
277: \label{df}
278: \eeq
279: where $\Omega$ is the matter density parameter $\Omega = \Omega_M
280: (1+z)^3 / (H/H_0)^2$ and
281: \[ {H \over H_0} = {\dot{a} \over a H_0} = \sqrt{\Omega_M(1+z)^3+ \Omega_{DE} \,{\rm
282: Exp}\left( \int^z_0 dz' \,3[1+w(z')]/(1+z')\right) }\]
283: Here $H_0$ is the present Hubble constant $H_0=100h \,\rm km
284: \,s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{DE}=(1-\Omega_M)$ for a flat
285: universe. With two boundary conditions: ${\cal D}(a)|_{a=0}=0$ and
286: ${\cal D}(a)|_{a=1}=1$, Equation (\ref{df}) can be calculated out
287: numerically. The second boundary condition means ${\cal D}(a)$ is normalized
288: to ${\cal D}(a=1)=1$.
289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
290: \subsection{Mass Function and Spherical Collapse Approximation}
291:
292: According to the Press-Schechter theory, the comoving number
293: density of dark halos virialized by redshift $z$ with mass in the
294: range $(M,M+dM)$ is given by
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: n(M,z)\,dM = {\rho_0\over M}\, f(M,z)\, dM\,. \label{p-s0}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: $f(M,z)$ is the Press-Schechter function. We utilize the modified
299: form by Sheth $\&$ Tormen (1999)
300: \begin{eqnarray}
301: & & f(M,z) = - {0.383\over \sqrt{\pi}} {\delta_c\over \Delta^2} {d\Delta\over dM}
302: \left[1+\left({\Delta^2\over0.707 \delta_c^2 }\right)^{0.3} \right] \times {\rm
303: exp} \left[- {0.707\over2} \left({\delta_c\over
304: \Delta}\right)^2\right]\,,
305: \label{p-s} \\
306: & & \Delta^2 (M,z) = \int_0^{\infty} {dk\over k} \Delta_k(k,z) W^2(kr)
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: where $\Delta$ is the variance of the fluctuations in a sphere
309: containing a mean mass $M$, and $M$ is related to the length scale
310: $r$ via
311: \[ M= \frac{4\pi}{3} r^3 \rho_{M}. \]
312: The parameter $\delta_c (z)$ is the linear overdensity threshold
313: for a spherical collapse by redshift $z$. The matter with the
314: overdensity in a certain scale of the early universe would undergo
315: the density growth and the spatial scale reducing. When its
316: average matter density reaches $\delta_c (z)$, virialization
317: starts and then a dark halo is formed. In this paper we follow
318: Wang \& Steinhardt (1998) and Weinberg \& Kamionkowski (2003) to
319: calculate the $\delta_c (z)$. Under the approximation of spherical
320: tophat collapse and labeling $R$ as the spatial length scale for a
321: halo with a certain mass, the collapse process is determined by
322: the Friedmann equation
323: \beq
324: \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho_M +
325: \rho_{DE})\, , \label{stoph1}
326: \eeq
327: and the time-time component of the Einstein equations
328: \beq
329: \frac{\ddot{r}}{r} = -4\pi G\left[\left(w+\frac13\right)\rho_{DE}
330: + \frac13\rho_{halo}\right] , \label{stoph2}
331: \eeq
332: where $\rho_{DE}$ is the energy density of dark energy and
333: $\rho_{halo}$ is the uniform matter density in the scale $r$ .
334: When the scale factor $a(z)$ is very small, i.e., $a(z) \to 0$ or
335: $z \sim z_0 \to \infty $, the equivalent linear overdensity
336: threshold $\delta_c(z)$ at $z_0$ can approximately be evaluated
337: through the dark halo density $\rho_{halo}$ and the background
338: matter density $\rho_M$, i.e., $\delta_c(z_0) \simeq (\rho_{halo}
339: / \rho_M -1)$. Then utilizing the two boundary conditions:
340: $r(a)|_{a=0}=0$ and $dr/da|_{a=a_{ta}} = 0$ with $a_{ta}$ the
341: scale factor at the turn-around time, the function $\delta_c (z)$
342: can be calculated out numerically as follows
343: \[
344: \delta_c (z) =\delta_c(z_0) D(z)/D(z_0),\quad \delta_c(z_0)\simeq
345: \left(\rho_{halo}/ \rho_M -1 \right)
346: \]
347: Note that the turn-around time $t_{ta}$ is determined through the
348: virial time $t_{vir}$ when the overdensity matter starts to form
349: dark halos, i.e., $t_{ta} = t_{vir}/2$, which is corresponding to
350: virial redshift $z$ according to the Press-Schechter theory. In
351: this sense, the boundary condition $dr/da|_{a=a_{ta}} = 0$ is
352: related to the virial redshift $z$, so the resulting scale $r(a)$
353: of dark halos will depend on the virial redshift $z$. As a
354: consequence, the dark halo density $\rho_{halo}$ actually relies
355: on the virial redshift $z$.
356:
357: Denote $\Delta_{vir} \equiv \rho_{halo}/\rho_M$ the ratio of the
358: cluster to the background density. Then the nonlinear overdensity
359: $\Delta_{vir}(z)$ can also be calculated out directly from the
360: Eq.(\ref{stoph1}) and Eq.(\ref{stoph2}) with their two boundary
361: conditions and the $\delta_c(z_0)$ given above.
362:
363:
364: In Fig. 1, we plot the Press-Schechter function
365: $f$ against the mass $M (10^{15} h^{-1} M_{\odot})$ of dark halos
366: at redshift $z = 0.0$, $1.5$, and $3.0$, respectively. The dash,
367: solid, dot, and dash dot curves are for the typical cases of $w =
368: -0.5$, $w = -1.0$, $w = -1.5$, and $w(z) = -1.0 - z/(1+z)$. Fig. 2
369: shows the P-S function $f$ as a function of the redshift $z$ with
370: the dark halo mass $M(10^{15}h^{-1} M_{\odot})$ $=0.001$, $0.1$,
371: and $10$ , respectively. Notice the differences of the ordinate
372: length scales. From the two figures, we can see that for larger
373: $M$ and smaller $z$, the P-S function $f$ is more sensitive to the
374: change of the parameter $w$. The explanation is clear: (1) more
375: time passed for the fluctuations to evolve and form dark halos of
376: larger mass, so larger $M$ corresponds to later time; (2) in the
377: early time, the relative proportions of dark energy in the total
378: energy of universe was small and so is its influence on the
379: spatial-time geometry. We can see that even for a small $M \sim
380: 0.001$, the change of $w$ can bring somewhat significant shift of
381: function $f$ in the most range of redshift $z$. This produces the
382: most power of SGL data to constrain the parameter $w$.
383:
384: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
385: \section{DENSITY PROFILE AND LENSING PROBABILITY}
386:
387: The SGL lensing efficiency is very sensitive to the density
388: profile of dark halos: under the same conditions, the efficiency
389: of SIS model is larger, at least by one order of magnitude, than
390: that of NFW model for the image separation angle $\delta \theta <
391: 30''$. In this section, we shall discuss the influence of
392: different $w$ on the lensing probability $P(>\Delta \theta_0)$ for
393: SIS profile and NFW profile, respectively.
394:
395:
396: \subsection{SIS Profile as a Lens}
397:
398: \hspace{0.55cm}The SIS profile has a simple spherically symmetric form
399: (Schneider, Ehlers, \& Falco 1992)
400: \beq
401: \rho(r) = {\sigma_v^2\over 2\pi G}\,{1\over r^2}\,,
402: \label{rho}
403: \eeq
404: where $\sigma_v$ is the velocity dispersion, which can be related
405: to the mass $M$ of a dark halo via $\sigma_{\nu}^2 = GM/2
406: \;r_{vir}$ after integrating the density function $\rho(r)$ from
407: $r=0$ to $r=r_{vir}$. Here $r_{vir}$ is the viral radius of a dark
408: halo, which is commonly defined by demanding that the mean density
409: within the virial radius of the halo be a factor $\Delta_{vir}$
410: times larger than the background density, $\rho_M$, i.e. $M = {4
411: \pi \over 3} \Delta_{vir} \rho_{cr} r_{vir}^3$. Eliminating the
412: dependance on the $r_{vir}$, we get
413: \beq M = {\sigma_v^3\over G}\left({6\over \pi\Delta_{vir} G
414: \rho_{cr}}\right)^{1/2}
415: \label{msigmav}.
416: \eeq
417:
418: This profile is supported by the observed flat rotation curves of
419: the spiral galaxies and is widely utilized in the gravitational
420: lensing anslysis. Due to its symmetry, the lensing analysis is
421: quite easy. Integrate the density component along the line of
422: sight and then we get its surface mass density
423: \beq
424: \Sigma(\xi) = {\sigma_v^2\over 2G}\,{1\over\xi}\,,
425: \label{sig}
426: \eeq
427: where $\xi \equiv|${\boldmath ${\xi}|$} and {\boldmath ${ \xi}$}
428: is the position vector in the lens plane. The lensing equation is
429: given by
430: \begin{eqnarray}
431: \mbox{\boldmath $\eta$} = \frac{D^A_S}{D^A_L} \mbox{\boldmath
432: $\xi$} - D^A_{LS} \mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$} (\mbox{\boldmath
433: $\xi$}) \;,
434: \end{eqnarray}
435: where {\boldmath ${\eta}$} is the source position. $D^A_S$,
436: $D^A_L$, and $D^A_{LS}$ are the angular-diameter distances from
437: the observer to the source, from the observer to the lens and from
438: the lens to the source. The angle {\boldmath ${
439: \alpha}$}({\boldmath $\xi$}) is the gravitational deflection
440: angle. For a circularly-symmetric surface mass density,
441: $\Sigma(${\boldmath $\xi$})$=\Sigma(\xi)$, images appear on the
442: plane defined by the observer point, the lens center, and the
443: source position, and the angle $\alpha(\xi)$ is given by
444: \begin{eqnarray}
445: \alpha(\xi) = {8 \pi G \over c^2 \xi } \,\int^{\xi}_0 \xi'
446: \Sigma(\xi')\,d\xi'
447: \end{eqnarray}
448: To simplify the lensing equation, we define the length scales in
449: the lens plane and the source plane as
450: \begin{eqnarray}
451: \xi_0 = 4\pi \left({\sigma_v \over c} \right)^2\,
452: {D^A_L D^A_{LS}\over D^A_S}\,,
453: \hspace{1 cm}
454: \eta_0 = \xi_0\,{D^A_S\over D^A_L}\,,
455: \label{xi0}
456: \end{eqnarray}
457: Then the position vector of a point in the lens plane or source
458: plane is {\boldmath $\xi$} $= {\bf x} \xi_0$ or {\boldmath $\eta$}
459: $= {\bf y} \eta_0$. After the reduction, the lensing equation for
460: an SIS lens is given by
461: \begin{eqnarray}
462: y = x - {|x|\over x}\,.
463: \label{lens1}
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: It is easy to see that when $|y|\le 1$, i.e. $|x|\le 1$, a single
466: source has double images with the separation $\Delta x \equiv 2$
467: and the splitting angle \beq
468: \Delta\theta = {\xi_0\over D^A_L} \Delta x = 8\pi\left({\sigma_v \over c} \right)^2
469: {D^A_{LS}\over D^A_S} = {8 \pi G \over c^2} {D^A_{LS}\over D^A_S}
470: \left({ \pi M^2 \rho_M \Delta_{vir} \over 6}\right)^{1/3}\,.
471: \label{ds1}
472: \eeq
473: Hence the cross section for two images with a splitting angle
474: $\Delta\theta > \Delta\theta_0$ is given by \beq
475: \sigma = \pi \xi_0^2\, \vartheta\left(\Delta\theta -
476: \Delta\theta_0\right)
477: = \pi \xi_0^2\, \vartheta\left(M-M_0\right)\,,
478: \label{sig1}
479: \eeq where $\vartheta$ is the step function, and $\rm M_0$ related
480: with $\Delta\theta_0$ can be solved from the equation(\ref{ds1})
481:
482: The probability for a source at redshift $z_s$ undergoing a
483: lensing event on account of the galaxies distribution from the
484: source to the observer can be obtained by dividing the total
485: lensing cross-section by the area $A(z)$ of the lens plane,
486: (Schneider et al. 1992) \beq P = \int_0^{z_s}\int_0^{\infty} {d
487: D_L\over dz} (1+z)^3 n(M,z)\sigma(M,z)\ dM dz\,,
488: \label{lp} \eeq
489: where $D_L$ is the proper distance from the observer to the lens.
490:
491: Inserting equation (\ref{p-s0}) and (\ref{sig1}) into equation
492: (\ref{lp}), we have for the SIS case (Li \& Ostriker 2002) \beq
493: {dP(>\Delta\theta_0) \over dz} = 16\pi^3 \rho_{{\rm crit},0}\Omega_M
494: (1+z)^3\, {d D_L\over dz}\left({D^A_L D^A_{LS}\over
495: D^A_S}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
496: \times \int^{\infty}_0 {f(M,z )\over M} \left({\sigma_v \over c}\right)^4
497: \vartheta(M-M_0) dM .
498: \label{dpz2}
499: \eeq Differentiate
500: this expression with respect to $\Delta
501: \theta_0$, we can obtain the
502: probability density for a source to
503: have a double image with splitting angle $\Delta \theta = \Delta
504: \theta_0$:
505: \beq
506: {d^2 P(>\Delta\theta_0)\over d\Delta\theta_0 dz} &=& 16\pi^3 \rho_{{\rm crit},0}\Omega_M
507: (1+z)^3\, {d D_L\over dz}\left({D^A_L D^A_{LS}\over
508: D^A_S}\right)^2 {f(M_0,z) \over M_0}\left({\sigma_v(M_0) \over c}\right)^4
509: {dM_0 \over
510: d\Delta\theta_0} \, ,\nonumber \\
511: {dM_0 \over d\Delta\theta_0} &=& {3 c^2\over16 \pi G} \; \left({
512: \pi \rho_M \Delta_{vir} \over 6}\right)^{2/ 3} {D_S^A \over
513: D_{LS}^A} M_0^{1/3} .
514: \label{dpdtSIS}
515: \eeq
516:
517: The proper distance $D^L$ and the angular-diameter distance $D^A$
518: from the redshift $z_1$ to $z_2$ are calculated via
519: \begin{eqnarray}
520: D^L(z_1,z_2) = \int^{z_2}_{z_1} { dz \over (1+z) H(z)} \;, \quad
521: D^A(z_1, z_2) = {1\over1+z_2}\int^{z_2}_{z_1}{dz \over H(z)}\;.
522: \end{eqnarray}
523:
524:
525:
526:
527:
528: \subsection{NFW Profile as a Lens}
529:
530: The NFW profile, based on the N-body numerical
531: simulation of cold dark matter, is a very important approach for
532: understanding the formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies
533: (e.g., Zhao 1996; Hanyu \& Habe 2001). Its mass density is given
534: by (Navarro, Frenk \& White, 1995, 1996, 1997) \beq
535: \rho_{\rm NFW}(r) = {\rho_s r_s^3 \over r(r+r_s)^2}\,,
536: \label{nfw}
537: \eeq where $\rho_s$ and $r_s$ are constants:
538: \begin{eqnarray}
539: \rho_s = {\rho_M \Delta_{vir}\over 3}{c_1^3\over
540: f(c_1)} \;,\quad
541: r_s = {1\over c_1}\,\left({3 M\over 4 \pi \rho_M \Delta_{vir}
542: }\right)^{1/3} \;,
543: \label{rs}
544: \end{eqnarray} with $f(c_1) = {\rm ln}(1+c_1) - c_1/(1+c_1)$. For
545: the concentration parameter $c_1$, we adopt the fitting formulae
546: given by Bullock et al. (2001): $c_1 = 9(1+z)^{-1}({\rm
547: M}/1.5\times10^{13}h^{-1}{\rm M}_{\odot})^{-0.13}$.
548:
549:
550: Similar to the case of SIS, we define the position vector in the
551: lens plane and the source plane as {\boldmath $\xi$} $= {\bf x}
552: r_s$ and {\boldmath $\eta$} $= {\bf y}\, r_s D^A_S/D^A_L$,
553: respectively. The surface mass density for the NFW profile is
554: given by(Li \& Ostriker 2002)
555: \beq
556: \Sigma(x) = 2 \rho_s r_s
557: \int^{\infty}_0 (x^2+z^2)^{-1/2}[(x^2+z^2)^{1/2}+1]^{-2}dz
558: \eeq
559: Then the reduced lensing equation is
560: \begin{eqnarray}
561: y = x - \mu_s {s(x)\over x}\,,
562: \label{le1}
563: \end{eqnarray}
564: where \begin{eqnarray}
565: & & \mu_s \equiv 4 \rho_s r_s / \Sigma_{\rm cr}, \nonumber \\
566: & & \Sigma_{\rm cr} \equiv {1\over 4\pi G}\,{D^A_S\over D^A_L
567: D^A_{LS}}, \nonumber \\
568: & & s(x) \equiv \int_0^x u du \int_0^{\infty} \left(u^2 +
569: z^2\right)^{-1/2} \left[\left(u^2+z^2\right)^{1/2} +
570: 1\right]^{-2} dz\,,
571: \label{gx}
572: \end{eqnarray} The dimensionless parameter $\mu_s$ determines the size of the
573: lensing cross-section $\sigma$ for a NFW halo to produce multiple
574: images: larger $\mu_s$, smaller $\sigma$. The curve of y to x runs
575: through the coordinate origin and has a extremum point
576: central-symmetrically on each side, whose coordinates
577: ($x_{cr}$,$y_{cr}$) are determined by $dy/dx|_{x_{cr}}=0$ and
578: $y_{cr}=y(x_{cr})$. Thus a single source with a certain $y$ has
579: multiple images when $|y|\leq y_{\rm cr}$. Once more than two
580: images are formed, we shall only consider the splitting angle
581: $\Delta \theta$ between the two outside images. According to Li \&
582: Ostriker 2002, we shall neglect the variety of $\Delta \theta$
583: caused only by the movement of y and get $ \Delta x\,(y) \approx
584: \Delta x\,(y=0) = 2 x_0 $, where $x_0$ is the positive root of
585: $y(x) = 0$. Then the splitting angle $\Delta\theta$ is given by
586: \begin{eqnarray}
587: \Delta\theta = {r_s\over D^A_L} \Delta x \approx
588: {2 x_0 r_s\over D^A_L}\,.
589: \label{deth}
590: \end{eqnarray} and the cross-section for forming multiple images with
591: $\Delta\theta>\Delta\theta_0$ is
592: \begin{eqnarray}
593: \sigma\left(>\Delta\theta_0,M,z\right) \approx \pi y_{\rm cr}^2
594: r_s^2\,\vartheta\left(\Delta\theta - \Delta\theta_0\right)\,.
595: \label{signfw}
596: \end{eqnarray}
597:
598:
599: Fig. 3 shows the splitting angle $\Delta \theta$ as the function
600: of $M(10^{15} h^{-1} M_{\odot})$ in SIS and NFW cases for $w =
601: -0.5$, $w = -1.0$, $w = -1.5$, and $w(z) = -1.0 - z/(1+z)$. The
602: source object is at $z_s = 1.5$, and the lens object is at $z =
603: 0.3$. In Fig. 4 we plot the $\Delta \theta$ against the redshift
604: of lens $z$ for $M=0.01$, $1.0$, and $100$, respectively. The
605: source object is at $z_s = 1.5$. The curves of $w(z)$ and $w=-1.0$
606: almost overlap in both figures. We can see that the $\Delta
607: \theta$ produced by a NFW lens is more sensitive to the parameter
608: $w$ than that of an SIS lens, especially for small $M$. For SIS
609: case, There are only quite small changes of $\Delta \theta$ for
610: our different selections of $w$ in both Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
611:
612:
613: Fig. 5 gives the cross section $\sigma$ against the redshift of
614: lens $z$ for $M(10^{15}h^{-1} M_{\odot})=0.01$, $1.0$, and $100$,
615: respectively. The source object is at $z_s = 1.5$. For SIS case,
616: There are not visible changes of $\Delta \theta$ for our different
617: selections of $w$. For NFW case, the cross section is more
618: sensitive to the parameter $w$ for smaller $M$ and somewhat
619: smaller $z$.
620:
621:
622: Using equations (\ref{p-s0}) , (\ref{lp}), and (\ref{signfw}), we
623: then get the differential lensing probability for the NFW case (Li
624: \& Ostriker 2002) \begin{eqnarray}
625: {dP(>\Delta\theta_0)\over dz} &=& \pi \rho_{crit,0}\,\Omega_M (1+z)^3\,
626: {dD_L\over dz}\int^{\infty}_0{f\left(M,z\right)\over M}
627: y_{\rm cr}^2 r_s^2
628: \vartheta(M-M_0) dM\,.
629: \label{dpznfw}
630: \end{eqnarray} Differentiate this expression with respect to $\Delta
631: \theta_0$, we can obtain the
632: probability density for a source to
633: have a double image with splitting angle $\Delta \theta = \Delta
634: \theta_0$: \beq
635: {d^2 P(>\Delta\theta_0)\over d\Delta\theta_0 dz} &=& \pi \rho_{crit,0}\,\Omega_M (1+z)^3\,
636: {dD_L\over dz} {f\left(M_0,z\right)\over M_0}
637: y_{\rm cr}^2(M_0) r_s^2(M_0)
638: {dM_0 \over
639: d\Delta\theta_0} \, ,\nonumber \\
640: {dM_0 \over d\Delta\theta_0} &=& {D_L^A\over2} \left( r_s(M_0)
641: {dx_0
642: \over dM_0} + x_0(M_0) r_s(M_0){1/3+0.13 \over M_0}\right)^{-1} , \nonumber \\
643: {dx_0 \over dM_0} &=& {g(x_0) / x_0 \; \; \;d \mu_s / dM_0 \over 1
644: - \mu_s(M_0) (g'(x_0)/x_0 - g(x_0)/x_0^2)} \,, \nonumber \\
645: {d\mu_s \over dM_0} &=& {4 r_s \rho_s \over M_0
646: \Sigma_{cr}}\left(0.07+ {0.13 c_1^2\over (1+c_1)^2 f(c_1) }\right)
647: \nonumber \\
648: g'(x_0) &=& x_0 \int_0^{\infty} \left(x_0^2 +
649: z^2\right)^{-1/2} \left[\left(x_0^2+z^2\right)^{1/2} +
650: 1\right]^{-2} dz\,,
651: \label{dpdtNFW}
652: \eeq
653:
654: \section{DATA ANALYSIS AND NUMERICAL RESULTS}
655:
656: The CLASS statistical sample provided a well-defined statistical
657: sample with $N=8958$
658: sources. Totally $N_l=13$
659: multiple image gravitational lenses have been discovered and all have image
660: separations $\Delta\theta<3^{\prime\prime}$ (Browne et al. 2003).
661: The data informations of the $13$ observed lens systems are not
662: entire: the source redshift $z_s$ and lens redshift $z$ are both
663: unknown for $1$ lens systems, only $z_s$ unknown for $4$ lens
664: systems and only $z$ unknown for $1$ system.
665:
666: \subsection{Basic Preparations}
667:
668: The CLASS statistical sample use the flux density ratio $q_r$ of the
669: multiple lensing images as a selection criterion of a sample:
670: $q_r=|\mu_+/\mu_-|\leq10$ (Chae et al.2002; Chen 2003a, 2003b),
671: where the $\mu_+$ and $\mu_-$ are the magnifications of two
672: (outside) images, respectively. The magnification of a image is
673: determined by $\mu = \left[ {y \over x}{dy \over dx}\right]^{-1}$.
674: The parameter $q_r$ reduces the lensing cross section $\sigma$. For
675: a NFW case, the influence of $q_r$ on $\sigma$ is very small and can
676: be neglected. For an SIS lens, it needs to multiply the $\sigma$ by
677: a factor $(9/11)^2$.
678:
679:
680: As the exact redshift distribution of the CLASS statistical sample
681: is unknown, Chae et al.(2002) utilized a Gaussian model with mean
682: redshift $\langle z_s \rangle = 1.27$ given by Marlow et al. (2000)
683: to describe the redshift distribution for the unlensed sources of
684: the CLASS statistical sample. Denote this Gaussian model as
685: $g^c(z_s)$, its distribution was explicitly plotted in Figure 5 of
686: Chae (2003), which was obtained from describing the redshift
687: distribution of the flat-spectrum sources as shown in that Figure 5.
688: Note that as such an Gaussian model has a physical cut at the point
689: $z_s = 0$, it is no longer to have the standard form. Unlike the
690: Gaussian model $g^c(z_s)$ by Chae (2003), here we shall take an
691: alternative Gaussian model by directly fitting the redshift
692: distribution of the subsample of CLASS statistical sample given by
693: Marlow et al. (2000) instead of fitting the redshift distribution of
694: the flat-spectrum sources in Chae (2003). Taking the general form of
695: Gaussian model
696: \beq
697: g(z_s) = {N_s \over \sqrt{2 \pi} \lambda } {\rm exp} \left[- {(z_s-a)^2}\over 2 \lambda^2\right]
698: \eeq
699: with $N_s$ being the normalization parameter $\int^\infty_0
700: f(x)dx\equiv1$, and requiring the mean value $\int^\infty_0 x
701: f(x)dx\equiv1.27$ given by Marlow et al. (2000), we then only need
702: to fit the remaining one parameter. The best fit results are found
703: to be
704: \begin{equation}
705: N_s=1.6125; \; a=0.4224; \; \lambda=1.3761
706: \end{equation}
707: For comparison, we also present some results based on two treating
708: methods appearing in literatures by using the CLASS statistical
709: sample: the redshift distributions of sources are the average
710: redshift value $d(z_s) = \delta(z_s - 1.27)$ (see, e.g., Li \&
711: Ostriker 2001) and $f(z_s) = 0.204 + 0.2979 z_s - 0.1121 z_s^2 +
712: 0.001584 z_s^3 $(see, e.g., Sarbu et al. 2001). Fig. 6 gives curves
713: of four models as a function of $z_s$ and the histogram of 27 CLASS
714: subsample from Marlow et al. (2000).
715:
716: Before comparing with the CLASS statistical sample, we should consider the
717: effect of magnification bias $B$, which causes the
718: overrepresentation of the lensed objects in a flux-limited survey.
719: The flux distribution of the CLASS statistical sample is
720: well-described by $N(f)\propto(f/f_0)^\eta$ with $\eta = 2.07 \pm
721: 0.02(1.97 \pm 0.14)$ for $f\geq f_0$($f\leq f_0$) and $f_0=30mJy$
722: (Chae et al.2002). The analysis process of magnification bias is
723: determined by the lensing equation and following equations
724: \beq
725: B &=& {\int_{A_m}^\infty {dA\over A} \; p(A)\; \int_{f_0}^\infty
726: N(f/A)df \over \int_{f_0}^\infty df N(f) } \nonumber \\
727: A &=& \Sigma A_i \nonumber \\
728: &=& \Sigma {x_i dx \over y dy} = \Sigma {x_i/y \over
729: dy/dx|_i} \\
730: p(A) &=&{ p(y) \over |dA/dy|} ; \,\,\, p(y) = \alpha y;
731: \,\,\,\int^{y_{max}}_0 p(y)dy = 1,
732: \eeq where $x$ and $y$ are the position parameters on the lens
733: plane, $A$ is the total amplification of the multiply-imaged
734: sources, $A_m$ is the minimum value of $A$ and $p(A)$ is the
735: probability density for the amplification $A$, $y_{max}$ is the maximum
736: value of a source' position on the lens plane.
737: $\alpha$ is the normalization constant of probability function $p(y)$:
738: for the SIS case $y_{max}=1$, $\alpha = 2$ and for the NFW case
739: , it can be calculated out numerically by using $dy/dx|_{y_{max}}=0$. Then for the SIS case,
740: after considering the influence of flux density
741: ratio $q_r$, one needs only multiply the lensing probability by a
742: constant factor $3.36$. For the NFW case, B can be obtained from
743: the numerical calculation. $P_{\rm obs}(>\Delta\theta )$ and
744: $dP_{\rm obs}(>\Delta\theta )/d \Delta \theta $ are related to $P$
745: by an integration
746: \begin{eqnarray}
747: p(w) \equiv P_{\rm obs}(>\Delta\theta ) = \int\int B\, {d P(>\Delta\theta )\over
748: dz}\, \varphi(z_s) dz dz_s\,,
749: \label{pobs}
750: \end{eqnarray}
751: and
752: \begin{eqnarray}
753: q(w) \equiv {dP_{\rm obs}(>\Delta\theta ) \over d\Delta \theta } = \int\int B\, {d^2 P(>\Delta\theta )\over
754: d\Delta\theta dz}\, \varphi(z_s) dz dz_s\,,
755: \label{pobs2}
756: \end{eqnarray}
757: with $\varphi(z_s)$ is the redshift
758: distribution of sources.
759:
760:
761: We shall compare the theoretical results of the SIS case and NFW
762: case with the CLASS statistical sample. Fig. 7 shows the lensing
763: probability $P(>\Delta \theta)$ as a function of the splitting
764: angle $\Delta \theta$ for the source redshift distribution
765: $d(z_s)$, $f(z_s)$, $g^c(z_s)$ and $g(z_s)$. The thickest line in
766: each panel is induced from the $13$ observed lensing data. It is
767: seen that the lensing probability $P(>\Delta \theta)$ of SIS case
768: and NFW case are both sensitive to the parameter $w$, especially
769: for NFW case. When parameter $w$ increases, the values of
770: $P(>\Delta \theta)$ for both SIS and NFW cases clearly increase in
771: the whole concerned ragion of $\Delta \theta$. Thus it is feasible
772: to constrain the parameter $w$ from the SGL splitting angle data.
773: The figure shows that the SIS model can only reproduce the data
774: curve at small $\Delta \theta < 1.5''$. When consider the rapid
775: decline of $P(>\Delta \theta)$ from the data line at large $\Delta
776: \theta$, a combined mechanism of SIS and NFW model is needed to
777: explain the whole experimental curve. Define a new model parameter
778: $M_c$ as Li \& Ostriker (2001): lenses with mass $M<M_c$ have the
779: SIS profile, while lenses with mass $M > M_c$ have the NFW
780: profile. Then the differential probability
781: \[ dP/dM =
782: dP_{SIS}/dM\, \vartheta(M_c - M) + dP_{NFW}/dM\,\vartheta(M -
783: M_c)\] where $\vartheta$ is the step function, $\vartheta(x-y)=1$,
784: if $x>y$ and 0 otherwise. Because the splitting angle $\Delta
785: \theta$ is directly proportional to the mass $M$ of lens halos,
786: the contribution to large $\Delta \theta$ of SIS profile is
787: depressed by $M_c$. The lens data require a mass threshold $M_c
788: \sim 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, which is consistent with the halo
789: mass whose cooling time equals the age of the universe today. In
790: this note we shall use such a two-model combined mechanism to
791: calculate lensing probabilities.
792:
793: In Fig. 7, One can also find the influences of different source
794: distributions on the lensing probability $P(>\Delta \theta)$: the
795: patterns of the function curves are hardly changed, but the
796: function values for the same $\Delta \theta$ slightly increase
797: from $d(z_s)$ to $f(z_s)$.
798:
799:
800: \subsection{Constraint on $w$}
801:
802: We now come to our main purpose i.e., utilizing the SGL splitting angle
803: statistic data from strong gravitational lenses to constrain the
804: equation-of-state parameter $w$ of dark energy. For that, we define
805: the likelihood function as \beq {\rm L}(w) =
806: (1-p(w))^{N-N_l}\prod_{i=1}^{N_l} q_i(w). \label{likh}\eeq $p(w)$
807: represents the model-predicted lensing probabilities $P(>0.3'')$ of
808: a source with the redshift distribution $\varphi(z_s)$ and can be
809: calculated by using equations (\ref{dpz2}), (\ref{dpznfw}), and
810: (\ref{pobs}). Here $\Delta \theta \geq 0.3''$ is an observational
811: selection criteria. $q_i(w)$ is the model-predicted differential
812: lensing probabilities $dP(> \Delta \theta_i )/d \Delta \theta_i$ of
813: $i^{th}$ observed lens system with the splitting angle $\Delta
814: \theta_i$ and can be calculated by using equations (\ref{dpdtSIS}),
815: (\ref{dpdtNFW}), and (\ref{pobs2}). To utilize the data
816: informations adequately, we multiply the equation (\ref{pobs}) by
817: $\delta(z-z^i)$ or/and $\delta(z_s-z_s^i)$(replace $\varphi(z_s)$)
818: for the $i^{th}$ observed lens system whose lens redshift $z^i$
819: or/and source redshift $z_s^i$ is/are known. For the unknown $z^i$
820: or $z_s^i$, we just integrate it out. Compared with utilizing the
821: curve of lensing probability $P(>\Delta \theta)$ as a function of
822: the splitting angle $\Delta \theta$ in the last subsection, which is
823: introduced from lensed signals only, by using the likelihood
824: function equation (\ref{likh}), the unlensed signals are utilized
825: and their influences are quite important due to the large
826: exponential number $(N-N_L)=8945$.
827:
828:
829: Firstly we discuss the possible constraints on the model parameter
830: $M_c$ and the constant $w$. Under the given cosmological
831: parameters $(\Omega_M, h, \sigma_8) = (0.24, 0.73, 0.74)$, Fig. 8
832: shows the 68\% C.L. and 95\% C.L. allowed regions from the CLASS
833: statistical sample for the source redshift distribution $g(z_s)$,
834: $g^c(z_s)$, $d(z_s)$ and $f(z_s)$, respectively. The crosshairs in
835: three panels mark the best-fit points $(w, M_c)=(-0.89, 1.37)$,
836: $(-0.94, 1.36)$, $(-1.4, 1.68)$ and $(-0.73, 1.27)$ from left to
837: right, where the unit of $M_c$ is $10^{13} h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. The
838: source redshift distributions $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ give nice
839: constraints, while $d(z_s)$, which is not proper redshift
840: distributions, provides somewhat strange unexpected results. The
841: redshift distribution $f(z_s)$, which has a larger part of
842: galaxies at high redshift, prefers a larger $w$ and smaller $M_c$.
843: From now on we will only consider the $g(z_s)$ case and $g^c(z_s)$
844: case, which are extracted from the subsample of the CLASS
845: statistical sample (Marlow et al. 2000). Our best fit result of
846: $M_c \approx 1.40$ for both $g(z_s)$ case and $g^c(z_s)$ case is
847: larger than the value $M_c\approx1.0$ obtained by Li \& Ostriker
848: 2002. The $95\%$ C.L. allowed regions of parameter $w$ for
849: $g(z_s)$ case and $g^c(z_s)$ case are from $-0.18$ to $-1.45$ and
850: from $-0.11$ to $-1.85$, which are consistent with the $\Lambda
851: \rm CDM$ cosmology. The Fig.2 in Chae (2007) shows a much negative
852: result of the parameter $w$. Our consideration here is based on
853: the specially selected cosmological parameters, and also we have
854: used the two-model combined mechanism, namely the utilization of
855: model parameter $M_c$. As a consequence, our results avoid the
856: large absolute value of parameter $w$.
857:
858:
859:
860: In Fig. 9, we show the constraint for the parameters $(w_0, w_a)$
861: appearing in a time-varying equation-of-state $w(z)=w_0+w_a
862: z/(1+z)$ under the given cosmological parameters $(\Omega_M, h) =
863: (0.24, 0.73)$ for both $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ cases, and with two
864: different values of $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ and $\sigma_8 =0.90$. The
865: crosshairs mark the best-fit points $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.36; -0.92,
866: -1.31)$ for $g(z_s)$ case and $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.38; -0.89,
867: -1.21)$ for $g^c(z_s)$ case when $\sigma_8 = 0.74$, and $(M_c;
868: w_0, w_a)=(1.56; -0.81, -2.5)$ for $g(z_s)$ case and $(M_c; w_0,
869: w_a)=(1.54; -0.83, -2.22)$ for $g^c(z_s)$ case when $\sigma_8 =
870: 0.90$. The parameter $\sigma_8$ has significant influences on the
871: mass power spectrum and the number density of dark halos, and our
872: results show that the best fit $(w_0, w_a)$ are changed for the
873: different selections of the parameter $\sigma_8$: when $\sigma_8$
874: increases from $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ to $\sigma_8 = 0.9$, the best fit
875: parameters $w_0$ increase moderately and the best fit parameters
876: $w_a$ have a sizable decrease for both the $g(z_s)$ and the
877: $g^c(z_s)$ cases.
878:
879:
880:
881: After marginalizing the cosmological parameters $(\Omega_M, h,
882: \sigma_8)$ and the critical mass parameters $M_c$ by Monte Carlo
883: method, we obtain the constraint on $(w_0, w_a)$ in Fig. 10.
884: For the three cosmological parameters, we assume the
885: Gaussian prior distributions induced from the results of WMAP Three Year Data:
886: $(\Omega_M \pm \sigma_m, h \pm \sigma_h, \sigma_8 \pm \sigma_{\sigma_8}) =
887: (0.238\pm0.019, 0.73\pm0.03, 0.74\pm0.06)$. For the model
888: parameter $M_c$, we integrate it from $1.0$ to $4.0$. The crosshairs mark
889: the best-fit point $(w_0, w_a)=(-0.88,
890: -1.55)$ for $g(z_s)$ case and $(w_0, w_a)=(-0.91,
891: -1.60)$ for $g^c(z_s)$ case. At the $95$\% C.L., our fitting results are
892: consistent with that of Barger et al. (2006), and the SGL
893: splitting angle statistic with the source redshift distribution
894: $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ gives somewhat more negative values for
895: the parameter $w_a$.
896:
897:
898: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
899:
900: From the above analyzes, we have shown how the SGL splitting angle
901: statistic can be used to quantitatively constrain the
902: equation-of-state parameter $w$ of dark energy. Though due to the
903: limited space-time, the difference of the parameter $w$ has few
904: influences on the splitting angle $\Delta \theta$ and lensing cross
905: section $\sigma$, while through the comoving number density of dark
906: halos as sources and lenses described by Press-Schechter theory,
907: dark energy can affect the efficiency with which dark-matter
908: concentrations produce strong lensing signals. With a two model
909: combined mechanism of dark halo density profile, which introduces a
910: model parameter $M_c$, we have carefully investigated the
911: constraints on constant $w$ and time-varying $w(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)$.
912: We find the best fit value $M_c \approx 1.4 $ for both $w$ and
913: $w(z)$, such a value is larger than the value $M_c\approx 1$
914: obtained by Li \& Ostriker 2002. This is mainly because in our
915: analyzes both the lensed and unlensed signals have been utilized in
916: the likelihood function equation (\ref{likh}), while in the analyzes
917: by Li \& Ostriker 2002, only the lensed signals were be used. The
918: transition from SIS to NFW characterized by the parameter $M_c$ is
919: also motivated by the process of baryonic cooling (e.g., Kochanek \&
920: White 2001), where the parameter $M_c$ was introduced to divide the
921: cooled(SIS) and uncooled(NFW) halos. The estimated value by Kochanek
922: \& White (2001) for $h=0.67$ is $M_c \approx 1 \times 10^{13}
923: M_{sun}$ for the model without a bulge, which is also smaller than
924: our fitting result. There are several differences between our
925: calculations and theirs. Firstly, we use a larger Hubble constant $h
926: = 0.73 > h = 0.67$ and in our Figure 9, we show that for a larger h,
927: we have a larger fit $M_c$. Secondly, the SIS model used by us has a
928: larger relative lensing cross section than the exponential disk used
929: by Kochanek \& White (2001), which gives a larger $M_c$. Thirdly,
930: the ratio of the cluster to the background density
931: $\Delta_{vir}=\rho_{halo}/\rho_M > 150$ used by us is much larger
932: than the value $\Delta \approx 100$ used by Kochanek \& White
933: (2001), which could also have some influences on the results.
934: Nevertheless, all the fitting results for $M_c$ are consistent with
935: appropriate considerations.
936:
937:
938: With the given cosmological parameters $(\Omega_M, h, \sigma_8) =
939: (0.24, 0.73, 0.74)$, we have compared the results of constant $w$
940: corresponding to four kinds of source redshift distributions. It
941: has been shown that $d(z_s)$ is not suitable for the SGL data
942: analysis. For the redshift distributions of normalized
943: Gaussian-type model $g(z_s)$ and Gaussian model $g^c(z_s)$, the
944: fitting results are $(w, M_c)=(-0.89^{+0.49}_{-0.26},
945: 1.37^{+0.47}_{-0.33})$ and $(w, M_c)=(-0.94^{+0.57}_{-0.16},
946: 1.36^{+0.47}_{-0.34})$ respectively, and the fitting results for
947: the constant $w$ are consistent with the $\Lambda \rm CDM$ at 95\%
948: C.L.. For the time-varying $w(z)$, we have firstly investigated
949: the influence of $\sigma_8$ with the redshift distributions
950: $g(z_s)$ and $g^c(z_s)$ and found that the fitting results of the
951: double parameters $(w_0, w_a)$ are changed when $\sigma_8$
952: increases from $\sigma_8=0.74$ to $\sigma_8=0.9$. With the above
953: given cosmological parameters, the best fitting results for the
954: $g(z_s)$ case are $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.36; -0.92, -1.31)$ for
955: $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ and $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.56; -0.81, -2.5)$ for
956: $\sigma_8 = 0.9$; and for $g^c(z_s)$ case, the best fit results
957: are $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.38; -0.89, -1.21)$ for $\sigma_8 = 0.74$
958: and $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.54; -0.83, -2.22)$ for $\sigma_8 = 0.9$.
959:
960: After marginalizing our likelihood functions over the
961: cosmological parameters $(\Omega_M, h, \sigma_8)$ (by using the
962: prior probabilities induced from the WMAP Three Year data) and the
963: model parameter $M_c$, we have obtained a reliable constraint on
964: the parameters $(w_0, w_a)$. Within the allowed uncertainties, the
965: results for $w_0$ are consistent with the constraints obtained
966: from the Type Ia supernovae data (Barger, Guarnaccia \& Marfatia
967: 2006). Our fit results are $(w_0, w_a)=(-0.88^{+0.65}_{-1.03},
968: -1.55^{+1.77}_{-1.88})$ for $g(z_s)$ case and $(w_0,
969: w_a)=(-0.91^{+0.60}_{-1.46}, -1.60^{+1.60}_{-2.57})$ for
970: $g^c(z_s)$ case. It is noticed that the best fitting results based
971: on the SGL splitting angle statistic favor negative values for the
972: parameter $w_a$, which differs from the best fitting values
973: obtained based on the Type Ia supernovae data, where the best
974: fitting results favor positive values for the parameter $w_a$
975: (Barger, Guarnaccia \& Marfatia 2006). A combining constraint is
976: interesting and will be investigated elsewhere.
977:
978:
979: In conclusion, the quantitative investigation has shown that the
980: SGL splitting angle statistic can lead to a consistent constraint
981: on the constant $w$ and the double parameters $(w_0, w_a)$ of the
982: time-varying dark energy equation of state $w(z)=w_0+w_a z/(1+z)$.
983: Especially for the allowed range of parameters $(w_0, w_a)$, the
984: SGL splitting angle statistic does give an interesting bound. It
985: can be seen from Fig.8 to Fig.10 that the normalized Gaussian-type
986: source redshift distribution $g(z_s)$ leads to the most stringent
987: constraints. Though it does not yet allow to obtain a more
988: accurate constraint, while it can provide a complementarity to
989: other constraints from Supernovae, cosmic microwave background,
990: weak lensing.
991:
992:
993: \section*{Acknowledgments}
994: %%\acknowledgments
995: The authors would like to thank R.G. Cai, X.M. Zhang, and Z.H. Zhu for useful
996: discussions. The authors also acknowledge the useful comments from
997: referee. This work was supported in part by the National Science
998: Foundation of China (NSFC) under the grant \# 10821504,10475105,
999: 10491306 and the Project of Knowledge Innovation Program (PKIP) of
1000: Chinese Academy of Science.
1001:
1002: %% ***********************************************************************************
1003:
1004: \newpage
1005: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1006: \bibitem{barger2005}
1007: Barger, V. Guarnaccia, E \& Marfatia, D. 2006, Phys.Lett. B635
1008: 61-65
1009: \bibitem{Basilakos}
1010: Basilakos, S. \& Plionis, M. 2006, ApJ 650 L1
1011: \bibitem{browne1}
1012: Browne, IW.A., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 13
1013: \bibitem{bullo2001} Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., et
1014: al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559
1015: \bibitem{caldw98} Caldwell, R. R, Dave, R., \& Steinhardt P. J.
1016: 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 1582
1017: \bibitem {chae2002a} Chae, K.-H. et al. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett.,
1018: 89, 15
1019: \bibitem {chae2002b} Chae, K.-H. et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346,746C
1020: \bibitem {chae2007} Chae, K.-H. 2007, ApJ, 658, 71
1021: \bibitem{chena} Chen, D. -M. 2003a, A\&A, 397, 415
1022: \bibitem{chenb} Chen, D. -M. 2003b, ApJ, 587, L55
1023: \bibitem{eisen99} Eisenstein, D. J., \& Hu, W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 5
1024: \bibitem{fedeli}
1025: Fedeli, C., \& Bartelmann, M. 2007, A\&A, 461, 49
1026: \bibitem{hh2001}
1027: Hanyu, C. \& Habe, A. 2001, ApJ, 554,1268
1028: \bibitem{henstock}
1029: Henstock, D., Browne, I., Wilkinson, P., \& McMahon, R. 1997,
1030: MNRAS, 290, 380
1031: \bibitem{ko2001}
1032: Kochanek, C. S. \& White, M. 2001, ApJ, 559, 531
1033: \bibitem{kuhlen2004}
1034: Kuhlen, M., Keeton, C. R. and Madau, P. 2004, ApJ, 601, 104
1035: \bibitem{li02}
1036: Li, L. -X., \& Ostriker, J.P. 2002, ApJ, 566, 652
1037: \bibitem{li2003}
1038: Li, L. -X., \& Ostriker, J.P. 2003, ApJ, 595, 603
1039: \bibitem{linder2004}
1040: Linder, E. 2004, Phys.Rev. D, 70, 043534
1041: \bibitem{ma99}
1042: Ma, C. P., Caldwell, R. R. \& Wang, L. M. 1999 ApJ, 521, 1
1043: \bibitem{marlow00} Marlow, D. R., Rusin, D., Jackson, N.,
1044: Wilkinson, P. N., \& Browne, I. W. A. 2000, AJ, 119, 2629
1045: \bibitem{nfw95}
1046: Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., \& White S. D., M. 1995, MNRAS, 275,
1047: 720
1048: \bibitem{nav96} Navarro, J. F., Frenk,
1049: C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
1050:
1051: \bibitem{nav97} Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C.
1052: S., \& White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
1053: \bibitem{peebles 2002}
1054: Peebles P. J. E., \& Ratra, B. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559
1055: \bibitem{phillips2001b}
1056: Phillips, P. M., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1001
1057: \bibitem{porci00}
1058: Porciani, C., \& Madau, P. 2000, ApJ, 532, 679
1059: \bibitem{riess98}
1060: Riess, A. G., et al. 1998b, AJ, 116, 1009
1061: \bibitem{riess 04}
1062: Riess, A. G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
1063: \bibitem{rusin2001} Rusin, D., \& Ma, C. -P. 2001, ApJ, 549,
1064: L33
1065: \bibitem{sarbu}
1066: Sarbu, N., Rusin, D., \& Ma, C.-P. 2001, ApJ, 561, L147
1067: \bibitem{schne92}
1068: Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., \& Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational
1069: Lenses (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)
1070: \bibitem{Smail}
1071: Smail, I., Hogg, D. W., Yan, L., \& Cohen, J. G. 1995, ApJ, 449,
1072: L105
1073: \bibitem{spergel2003}
1074: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148 , 175
1075: \bibitem{spergel2006}
1076: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 335
1077: \bibitem{wang98}
1078: Wang, L. \& Steinhardt, P.J. 1998, ApJ, 508, 483
1079: \bibitem{weinberg 2002}
1080: Weinberg, N. N., \& Kamionkowski, M. 2002, MNRAS, 000, 1
1081: \bibitem{zhao02} Zhao, H. S., Haehnelt, M. G., \& Rees, M. J. 2002,
1082: New Astronomy, 7, 385
1083: \end{thebibliography}
1084:
1085: \clearpage
1086: %% ***********************************************************************************
1087:
1088:
1089:
1090: \begin{figure}
1091: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f1.eps}
1092: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f1.eps}
1093: \figcaption{\small Press-Schechter function $f$ against the mass
1094: $M(10^{15} h^{-1} M_{\odot})$ of dark halos at redshift $z = 0.0$,
1095: $1.5$, and $3.0$, respectively. The dash, solid, dot, and dash dot
1096: curves
1097: are for the cases of $w = -0.5$, $w = -1.0$, $w = -1.5$, and $w(z) = -1.0 - z/(1+z)$.}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102: %2
1103: \begin{figure}
1104: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f2.eps}
1105: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f2.eps}
1106: \figcaption{\small Press-Schechter function $f$ against the
1107: redshift $z$ for
1108: different mass $M(10^{15} h^{-1} M_{\odot})$ of dark halos $M=0.01$, $M =1.0$, and $M=100$. The dash(solid, dot or dash dot) curve
1109: is for the case of $w = -0.5$ ($w = -1.0$, $w = -1.5$ or $w(z) = -1.0 - z/(1+z))$.}
1110: \end{figure}
1111:
1112: %3
1113: \begin{figure}
1114: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f3.eps}
1115: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f3.eps}
1116: \figcaption{\small Splitting angle $\Delta \theta$ as the function
1117: of $M(10^{15} h^{-1} M_{\odot})$ in SIS and NFW cases for $w =
1118: -0.5$, $w = -1.0$, $w = -1.5$, and $w(z) = -1.0 - z/(1+z)$. The
1119: source object is at $z_s = 1.5$, and the lens object is at $z =
1120: 0.3$. The thick and thin lines show the splitting angle produced
1121: by a NFW lens and an SIS lens, respectively. The dash, solid, dot
1122: or dash dot curve
1123: is for the case of $w = -0.5$, $w = -1.0$, $w = -1.5$ or $w(z) = -1.0 - z/(1+z)$. }
1124: \end{figure}
1125:
1126:
1127: \newpage
1128:
1129: %4
1130: \begin{figure}
1131: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f4.eps}
1132: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f4.eps}
1133: \figcaption{\small Splitting angle $\Delta \theta$ as the function
1134: of the redshift of lens $z$ for $M=0.01$, $M=1.0$, and $M=100$,
1135: respectively. The source object is at $z_s = 1.5$. }
1136: \end{figure}
1137:
1138: %5
1139: \begin{figure}
1140: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f5.eps}
1141: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f5.eps}
1142: \figcaption{\small Cross section $\sigma$ against the redshift of
1143: lens $z$ for $M=0.01$, $M=1.0$, and $M=100$, respectively. The
1144: source object is at $z_s = 1.5$.} \end{figure}
1145:
1146:
1147:
1148: %6
1149: \begin{figure}
1150: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f6.eps}
1151: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f6.eps}
1152: \figcaption{\small The source redshift distribution functions
1153: against the $z_s$ and the histogram of 27 CLASS subsample from
1154: Marlow et al. (2000). }
1155: \end{figure}
1156:
1157:
1158: %7
1159:
1160: \begin{figure}
1161: \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f7.eps}
1162: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f7.eps}
1163: \figcaption{\small Comparison of the theoretical results of SIS
1164: case and NFW case with the CLASS statistical sample for the four
1165: source redshift distributions, respectively. The CLASS statistical
1166: sample is shown as the thickest line.}
1167: \end{figure}
1168:
1169:
1170: %8
1171: \begin{figure}
1172: \epsscale{0.9} \plotone{f8.eps}
1173: %% \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f8.eps}
1174: \figcaption{\small 68\% C.L. and 95\% C.L. allowed regions from
1175: the CLASS statistical sample for the source redshift distribution
1176: $g(z_s)$, $g^c(z_s)$, $d(z_s)$ and $f(z_s)$, respectively. The
1177: crosshairs in three panels mark the best-fit points $(w,
1178: M_c)=(-0.89, 1.37)$, $(-0.94, 1.36)$, $(-1.4, 1.68)$ and $(-0.73,
1179: 1.27)$ from left to right. }
1180: \end{figure}
1181:
1182:
1183: %9
1184: \begin{figure}
1185: \epsscale{0.8} \plotone{f9.eps}
1186: %% \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f9.eps}
1187: \figcaption{\small 68\% C.L. and 95\% C.L. allowed regions from
1188: the CLASS statistical sample for the $f(z_s)$ redshift
1189: distribution with different $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ and $0.9$,
1190: respectively. The crosshairs mark the best-fit points: for the
1191: $g(z_s)$ case are $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.36; -0.92, -1.31)$ for
1192: $\sigma_8 = 0.74$ and $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.56; -0.81, -2.5)$ for
1193: $\sigma_8 = 0.9$; and for $g^c(z_s)$ case, the best fit results
1194: are $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.38; -0.89, -1.21)$ for $\sigma_8 = 0.74$
1195: and $(M_c; w_0, w_a)=(1.54; -0.83, -2.22)$ for $\sigma_8 = 0.9$;}
1196: \end{figure}
1197:
1198:
1199: %10
1200: \begin{figure}
1201: \epsscale{0.9} \plotone{f10.eps}
1202: %%\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f10.eps}
1203: \figcaption{\small 68\% C.L. and 95\% C.L. allowed regions from the
1204: CLASS statistical sample for the source redshift distribution
1205: $f(z_s)$. The crosshirs mark the best-fit points $(w_0,
1206: w_a)=(-0.88,
1207: -1.55)$ for $g(z_s)$ case and $(w_0,
1208: w_a)=(-0.91,
1209: -1.60)$ for $g^c(z_s)$ case . The cosmological parameters
1210: $(\Omega_M, h, \sigma_8)$ and the model parameter $M_c$ have been
1211: marginalized}
1212: \end{figure}
1213:
1214:
1215: \end{document}
1216: