1: 

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %==== CUSTOMIZED LATEX MACROS ========================================

4: % Italic bold font

5: 

6: \newcommand{\thetavec}{\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}}

7: \newcommand{\alphavec}{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}

8: \newcommand{\uvec}{\mbox{\boldmath$u$}}

9: \newcommand{\svec}{\mbox{\boldmath$s$}}

10: \newcommand{\Svec}{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}

11: \newcommand{\rvec}{\mbox{\boldmath$r$}}

12: \newcommand{\aprvec}{\mbox{\boldmath$r'$}}

13: \newcommand{\Rvec}{\mbox{\boldmath$R$}}

14: \newcommand{\Rvecone}{\mbox{\boldmath$r_1$}}

15: \newcommand{\nablavec}{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}

16: 

17: %=======================================================================

18: 

19: 

20: 

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: 

24: 

25: \title{Microlensing under Shear}

26: \lefthead{Park & Ryu} \righthead{Microlensing under the Shear}

27: 

28: 

29: \author{Yoon-Hyun Ryu and Myeong-Gu Park}

30: \affil{Department of Astronomy and Atmospheric Sciences, Kyungpook

31: National University, Daegu 702-701, Korea}

32: 

33: \email{yhryu@knu.ac.kr, mgp@knu.ac.kr}

34: 

35: \begin{abstract}

36: Over two thousand Galactic microlensing events have been discovered

37: so far. All of them can be explained by events caused by  single or

38: multiple lenses (including binaries and planetary companions).

39: However, when a microlensing event occurs in highly dense star

40: fields such as in the Galactic bulge or in a globular cluster, it is

41: necessarily affected by the shear from the global distribution of

42: mass near the lens star. We investigate the distortions due to this

43: shear in the microlensing light curves and in the astrometric

44: microlensing centroid shift trajectories. As expected, the light

45: curve deviation increases as the shear increases and the impact

46: parameter decreases. Although the light curve in the presence of a

47: small shear is similar to the simple Paczy\'nski curve with a

48: slightly smaller impact parameter, the detailed difference between

49: the light curve with and without shear reflects the direction and

50: the magnitude of the shear. The centroid shift trajectory also

51: deviates from a simple ellipse in the presence of shear. The

52: distortion of the centroid shift trajectory increases as the impact

53: parameter decreases, and the shape of the trajectory becomes

54: complicated when the impact parameter becomes small enough. The

55: magnitude of the maximum distortion depends on the magnitude and the

56: direction of the shear. For a source trajectory in a given

57: direction, the time of the maximum distortion depends mostly on the

58: impact parameter and hardly on the shear. It is possible to

59: determine the magnitude of the shear and its direction if both the

60: time and the magnitude of the maximum astrometric distortion are

61: measured. The magnitude of the shear produced by the Galactic bulge

62: or a globular cluster falls in the range \(10^{-6}\)--\(10^{-4}\) in

63: normalized units. Although the actual determination of the shear

64: from the Galactic sub-structures will not be easy due to

65: complications such as binary companion, future large scale

66: microlensing experiments may enable us to determine the shear in

67: some high amplification events, leading eventually to mapping the

68: Galactic mass distribution.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: 

72: 

73: \keywords{gravitational lensing --- Galaxy: bulge --- globular

74: clusters: general}

75: 

76: 

77: 

78: 

79: \section{Introduction}

80: Since Paczy\'nski (1986; see also Gott 1981) first proposed

81: gravitational microlensing as a tool to detect massive astronomical

82: compact objects (MACHOs) in the Galactic halo, three groups (OGLE,

83: Udalski et al. 1992; EROS, Aubourg et al. 1993; MACHO, Alcock et al.

84: 1993) independently discovered the first microlensing events, and

85: subsequent observations detected by now more than two thousand

86: microlensing events.

87: 

88: Gravitational microlensing has been applied to various fields of

89: astronomy, such as the studies of Galactic structure and stellar

90: populations and the search for extra-solar planets.   With

91: increasing potential of microlensing as a versatile astrophysical

92: tool, more advanced microlensing experiments such as highly precise

93: follow-up observations and pixel lensing observations are currently

94: being carried out, and next generation microlensing experiments such

95: as astrometric microlensing observations by using the \textit{Space

96: Interferometry Mission} $(\textit{SIM})$ and Keck and VLT

97: interferometers have been proposed.

98: 

99: Microlensing experiments are conducted toward very dense star fields

100: such as the Galactic bulge and the Magellanic clouds. When a

101: microlensing event occurs in these crowded fields, it is necessarily

102: affected by the  shear caused by the global distribution of mass

103: around the lens star. \citet{cha79,cha84} have discussed the effect

104: of a star on the macro-lensed image produced by the galaxy as a

105: whole, often referred to as the `Chang $\&$ Refsdal lens'. Their

106: lens model is characterized by `convergence' and `shear': the former

107: depends on the mass density within the beam and determines the

108: magnification of the image, while the latter depends on the mass

109: distribution outside of the beam and determines the distortion of

110: the image \citep[see e.g.][]{sch92}. They pointed out that the

111: configurations and the observational characteristics of macro-lensed

112: images can be significantly affected by a single star. However,

113: their work considered quasar lensing under shear, and focused only

114: on the image configurations. In this paper, we investigate how the

115: shear affects the stellar microlensing light curves and the

116: astrometric centroid shift trajectories.

117: 

118: The paper is organized as follows. We first introduce a single

119: point-mass microlensing in $\S$2 to compare with the point-mass

120: lensing with shear in $\S$3.1. In $\S$3.2 and $\S$3.3, we discuss

121: the distortions in the micro-lensed light curves and centroid shift

122: trajectories in the presence of the shear. In $\S$4, we discuss

123: possible applications to Galactic microlensing experiments. In

124: $\S$5, we summarize the results and conclude.

125: 

126: \section{Single Point Mass Microlensing}

127: Microlensing occurs when a lensing mass passes very close to the

128: line of sight to a background source star. When the lensing mass is

129: a single point mass, the source star splits into two images. The

130: separation between the two images is of the order of the Einstein

131: radius, which is related to the physical parameters of the lens

132: system by

133: \begin{equation}

134: \theta_E=\sqrt{\frac{4Gm}{c^2}\frac{D_{ls}}{D_l D_s}}\;,

135: \end{equation}

136: where $m$ is the mass of the lens, $D_l$ and $D_s$ the distances

137: from the observer to the lens and source, respectively, and $D_{ls}$

138: the distance from the lens to the source.  The angular positions of

139: the images with respect to the lens are

140: \begin{equation}

141: \thetavec_\pm = \frac{1}{2}\:

142: \bigg(\uvec\pm\sqrt{u^2+4}\;\frac{\uvec}{u}\bigg) \theta_E,

143: \end{equation}

144: where

145: \begin{equation}

146: \uvec = \left(\frac{t-t_0}{t_E}\right)\hat{x}+u_0\hat{y}

147: \end{equation}

148: is the projected lens-source separation vector in units of the

149: $\theta_E$, $u_0$ the impact parameter, $t_0$  the time of maximum

150: amplification. The Einstein ring radius crossing time or the

151: Einstein time scale, $t_E$, is given by \citep[see e.g.][]{gou00},

152: \begin{equation}

153: t_E=\frac{\theta_E}{\mu_{rel}}\;,

154: \end{equation}

155: where

156: \begin{displaymath}

157: \theta_E=\sqrt{\frac{4Gm}{c^2}\frac{\pi_{rel}}{AU}},\;\;\;\pi_{rel}=\frac{1}{D_l}-\frac{1}{D_s}\;,

158: \end{displaymath}

159: $\pi_{rel}$ and $\mu_{rel}$ are the relative source-lens parallax

160: and proper motion, respectively. The magnification of each

161: individual image is given by

162: \begin{equation}

163: A_{0,\pm} =

164: \frac{1}{2}\:\left[\frac{u^2+2}{u\sqrt{u^2+4}}\pm1\right],

165: \end{equation}

166: where $A_{0,+}$ and $A_{0,-}$ are the magnification factors of the

167: major and minor images, respectively. The position of the center of

168: light (centroid) corresponds to the magnification-weighted mean of

169: image positions, i.e.

170: \begin{equation}

171: \thetavec_0 = \frac{A_{0,+}\thetavec_++A_{0,-}\thetavec_-}{A_0}

172: \end{equation}

173: with $A_0=A_{0,+}+A_{0,-}$ is the total magnification. The centroid

174: shift $\delta\thetavec_0$ is defined as the difference between the

175: image centroid $\thetavec_0$ and the unlensed source position

176: $\thetavec_{s,0}$, and is related to the lensing parameters by

177: \begin{equation}

178: \delta\thetavec_0

179: =\thetavec_0-\thetavec_{s,0}=\frac{\theta_E}{u^2+2}\;\uvec\;.

180: \end{equation}

181: The position of the centroid shift caused by a single point-mass

182: lensing follows an ellipse \citep{wal95,jeo99}, which is represented

183: by

184: \begin{equation}

185: \frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2}=1\;,

186: \end{equation}

187: where the $\textit{x}$ and $\textit{y}$ represent the centroid shift

188: parallel and normal to the lens-source transverse motion,

189: respectively.  The semi-major axis $\textit{a}$ and semi-minor axis

190: $\textit{b}$ depend on the impact parameter $u_0$ as

191: \begin{equation}

192: a=\frac{\theta_E}{2(u_0^2+2)^{1/2}}\;,\;\;b=\frac{u_0\theta_E}{2(u_0^2+2)}\;.

193: \end{equation}

194: 

195: 

196: 

197: \section{Microlensing under Shear}

198: \subsection{Lens Equation}

199: When a source is lensed by a point mass $\textit{m}$ plus planar

200: mass distribution, the lens equation becomes \citep[see

201: e.g.][]{sch92,an05,an06}

202: \begin{equation}

203: \svec=\rvec-\frac{\rvec}{r^2}-\alphavec(\rvec)\;,

204: \end{equation}

205: where the two-dimensional vectors $\rvec$ and $\svec$ are the

206: positions of the images and the unlensed source, respectively. The

207: vector $\rvec$ in the lens (image) plane is normalized by

208: $r_E=\theta_E D_l$ and the vector $\svec$ in the source plane by

209: $s_E = \theta_E D_s$. The scaled deflection angle $\alphavec(\rvec)$

210: due to the additional mass distribution in the lens plane is given

211: by the gradient of the deflection potential $\psi$:

212: \begin{equation}

213: \alphavec(\rvec)=\nablavec\psi(\rvec)\;,

214: \end{equation}

215: where

216: \begin{equation}

217: \psi(\rvec)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{R^2}d^2r'\sigma(\aprvec)\ln|\rvec-\aprvec|\;.

218: \end{equation}

219: Here $\sigma(\rvec)$ represents the surface mass density

220: $\Sigma(\rvec)$ normalized by the critical surface mass density

221: $\Sigma_{cr}$,

222: \begin{equation}

223: \sigma(\rvec)=\frac{\Sigma(\rvec)}{\Sigma_{cr}},\;\;\;\Sigma_{cr}=\frac{c^2D_s}{4\pi

224: GD_{l'}D_{l's}}\;,

225: \end{equation}

226: where \(D_{l'}\) is the distance from the observer to the planar

227: mass distribution, which is in general different from \(D_l\), the

228: distance to the point mass $m$, and similarly for \(D_{l's}\).

229: 

230: When the mass distribution consists of a stellar mass and a much

231: larger-scale extended mass distribution, the lens equation is

232: approximated by a point mass plus quadrupole lens model (Chang \&

233: Refsdal 1984; see also Kovner 1987),

234: \begin{equation}

235: \svec\;=\;\rvec\:-\:\frac{\rvec}{r^2}\:-\:\left(

236: \begin{array}{cc}\kappa+\gamma & 0\\

237: 0 & \kappa-\gamma

238: \end{array}\right)\rvec\;.

239: \end{equation}

240: The quadrupole term is specified by the convergence $\kappa$ and the

241: shear $\gamma$. These quantities are the two-dimensional second

242: derivatives of $\psi(\rvec)$:

243: \begin{equation}

244: \kappa=\frac{\psi_{11}+\psi_{22}}{2}\;,\;\;\gamma=\sqrt{\gamma_1+\gamma_2}\;,

245: \end{equation}

246: where

247: \begin{equation}

248: \gamma_1=\frac{\psi_{11}-\psi_{22}}{2}\;,\;\;\gamma_2=\psi_{12}=\psi_{21}\;,

249: \end{equation}

250: and $\psi_{ij}$ is the partial derivative of $\psi(\rvec)$ with

251: respect to $r_i$,

252: \begin{equation}

253: \psi_{ij}\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial

254: r_i}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial r_j}\;\psi(\rvec)\;.

255: \end{equation}

256: If we define the rescaled coordinates $\Svec$ and $\Rvec$ as

257: \begin{equation}

258: \Svec\;\equiv\;\frac{\svec}{\sqrt{|1-\kappa+\gamma|}}\;,\;\;\Rvec\;\equiv\;\sqrt{|1-\kappa+\gamma|}\:\rvec\;,

259: \end{equation}

260: equation $(14)$ becomes

261: \begin{equation}

262: \Svec\;=\;\varepsilon \left(

263: \begin{array}{cc}

264: \Lambda & 0\\

265:  0 & 1

266: \end{array}\right)\Rvec\:-\:\frac{\Rvec}{R^2}\;,

267: \end{equation}

268: where

269: \begin{equation}

270: \varepsilon\equiv

271: \texttt{sign}(1-\kappa+\gamma)\;,\;\;\Lambda\equiv\frac{1-\tilde{\gamma}}{1+\tilde{\gamma}}\;,

272: \end{equation}

273: and the reduced shear $\tilde{\gamma}$ is

274: \begin{equation}

275: \tilde{\gamma}\equiv\frac{\gamma}{1-\kappa}\;.

276: \end{equation}

277: For convenience, $\tilde{\gamma}$ will be referred simply as the

278: shear henceforth.

279: 

280: In order to solve the lens equation, we introduce the polar

281: coordinates $(R,\varphi)$ in the lens plane: $R_x\equiv R

282: \cos\varphi$ and $R_y\equiv R\sin\varphi $. Then equation (19)

283: becomes

284: \begin{equation}

285: S_x= R (\varepsilon\Lambda-R^{-2})\cos\varphi ,\;\;S_y=

286: R(\varepsilon1-R^{-2})\sin\varphi\;,

287: \end{equation}

288: which yields a fourth-order equation for $R^2$ \citep{sch92},

289: \begin{eqnarray}

290: \Lambda^2R^8-[\varepsilon2\Lambda(\Lambda+1)+S_x^2+\Lambda^2S_y^2]R^6\nonumber \\

291: +[\Lambda^2+4\Lambda+1+\varepsilon2(S_x^2+\Lambda

292: S_y^2)]R^4\nonumber \\

293: -[\varepsilon2(\Lambda+1)+S_x^2+S_y^2]R^2+1=0\;,

294: \end{eqnarray}

295: We solve equation (23) by Laguerre's method.

296: 

297: \subsection{Light Curve}

298: Equation (23) has either zero, two, or four real roots, each of

299: which corresponds to the position of the individual image. The

300: Jacobian matrix of equation (19) is

301: \begin{equation}

302: \frac{\partial\Svec}{\partial\Rvec}=\left(

303: \begin{array}{cc}

304: \varepsilon\Lambda+\frac{R_x^2-R_y^2}{R^4} & \frac{2R_xR_y}{R^4}\\

305: \\

306: \frac{2R_xR_y}{R^4} & \varepsilon1-\frac{R_x^2-R_y^2}{R^4}

307: \end{array}\right)\;,

308: \end{equation}

309: whose determinant is

310: \begin{equation}

311: \textrm{det}\left(\frac{\partial\Svec}{\partial\Rvec}\right)=

312: \frac{1}{R^4}[\Lambda(R_x^2+R_y^2)^2+\varepsilon(1-\Lambda)(R_x^2-R_y^2)-1]\;.

313: \end{equation}

314: The magnification of each individual image is

315: \begin{equation}

316: A_{\gamma,i}=\left|\textrm{det}\left(\frac{\partial

317: \svec}{\partial\rvec}\right)\right|^{-1}=\;\frac{1}{1-\kappa+\gamma}\left|\textrm{det}\left(\frac{\partial

318: \Svec}{\partial\Rvec}\right)\right|^{-1}\;.

319: \end{equation}

320: The total magnification is the sum of the magnifications of

321: individual images, $A_\gamma=\sum_{i}{A_{\gamma,}}_i$. In order to

322: quantify how much the light curve in the presence of shear deviates

323: from that in the absence of shear, we define the excess

324: magnification as

325: \begin{equation}

326: \delta A\equiv A_\gamma-A_0\;,

327: \end{equation}

328: where $A_\gamma$ and $A_0$ represent the magnifications with and

329: without shear, respectively. In Figure 1, we present the contour

330: maps of magnification $A_\gamma$ (left panels) and excess

331: magnification $\delta A$ (right panels) as a function of source

332: position ($s_x, s_y$) for $\tilde{\gamma}=10^{-2},$ $10^{-4},$ and

333: $10^{-6}$, respectively. The caustics appear as the central diamonds

334: in the left panel of Figure 1, whose full width on the

335: $\textit{x}$-axis is $4\gamma(1-\kappa+\gamma)^{-1/2}$ and that on

336: the $\textit{y}$-axis is $4\gamma(1-\kappa-\gamma)^{-1/2}$

337: \citep[][]{han05}. When the source is outside the caustic, i.e.

338: $u_0\gtrsim4{\gamma}$, the number of images is two as in the simple

339: lensing without shear.

340: 

341: The series solution of equation (23) can be derived under the

342: assumption $\kappa\ll\gamma\ll|\svec|\ll1$. The excess magnification

343: $\delta A$ is calculated in powers of \(\tilde\gamma\), and the

344: leading term yields

345: \[

346:   \delta A

347:   \simeq\tilde\gamma\left(-\frac{1}{2s}+\frac{3s_y^2}{s^3}\right).

348:   \]

349: Although other geometric configurations will yield different values,

350: the order of magnitude of the deviation will be the same, \( \delta

351: A \sim \tilde\gamma / u_0 \). This shows that even very small shear

352: can produce a significant deviation in the light curve if the impact

353: parameter is small enough, that is in high-magnification events.

354: 

355: 

356: We now investigate the light curves for typical source trajectories.

357: Since the trajectory of the source does not coincide with the

358: direction of the shear in general, we choose source trajectories

359: with various angles (see Fig. 2). Figure 2 shows the angle

360: $\vartheta$ defined as the angle between the $\textit{x}$-axis and

361: the source trajectory. The dotted ring around the lens (its position

362: marked by `$\times$') is the Einstein ring. In the left panel of

363: Figure 3, we present the lensing light curves for the corresponding

364: source trajectories marked in Figure 2 with values of the shear

365: $\tilde{\gamma}=$ 0.01, 0.005, 0.001, and $\tilde{\gamma}=$ 0.0 (no

366: shear). All light curves have the same impact parameter, $u_0= 0.3$.

367: The minimum magnification $A_\gamma$ is greater than the minimum of

368: $A_0$ by a factor $1/(1+\tilde{\gamma})(1-\tilde{\gamma})$ for

369: $\tilde{\gamma}<1$. This is because the brightness of the source is

370: increased by the shear alone even in the absence of the point-mass

371: lens. In the right panel of Figure 3, we present the magnitude and

372: pattern of $\delta A$ for various shear values and source

373: trajectories. We find that the excess magnification increases as

374: $\tilde{\gamma}$ increases and the excess becomes maximum when the

375: source trajectory is parallel to the shear direction ($\vartheta=

376: 0^\circ$). Even if the light curves have the same shear and the

377: impact parameter, the positions and heights of the peak deviations

378: vary with $\vartheta$. We find that the value of maximum $\delta A$

379: decreases as source trajectory becomes perpendicular to the shear

380: direction ($\vartheta=90^\circ$). We also find that unless the

381: source trajectory is parallel or perpendicular to the shear

382: direction, the deviation $\delta A$ becomes asymmetric in the

383: presence of the shear.

384: 

385: In real observations of microlensing, however, each light curve will

386: be first fitted by a theoretical microlensing light curve such as

387: the Paczy\'nski curve. So we check how the light variation induced

388: by the presence of shear deviates from the single mass lensing

389: curve. In Paczy\'nski curve, the peak amplification $A_p$ is a

390: simple function of the impact parameter $u_0$,

391: \begin{equation}

392: A_p=\left[1-\left(\frac{u_0^2}{2}+1\right)^{-2}\right]^{-1/2}\;.

393: \end{equation}

394: We compare the light curve in the presence of shear with the

395: Paczy\'nski curve that has the same peak magnification $A_p$ at

396: $t=t_0$ against the background magnification due to the shear alone,

397: $A_{\gamma}|_{s\rightarrow\infty}$. The impact parameter $u_{0p}$

398: (eq. [28]) from the fitted Paczy\'nski curve is always slightly

399: smaller than the true impact parameter $u_0$ because shear increases

400: the maximum magnification. The detailed shapes of the deviations

401: from the Paczy\'nski curve for various $\tilde{\gamma}$ and

402: $\vartheta$ are shown in Figure 4. As expected from the Figure 3,

403: the light curve becomes asymmetric in the presence of the shear when

404: the source trajectory is not parallel or perpendicular to the

405: direction of the shear. By fitting the deviation from Paczy\'nski

406: curve with an appropriate lens model with shear, it is possible, in

407: principle, to determine the magnitude and the direction of the shear

408: if the photometric accuracy is good enough to measure the deviation.

409: In real observations, the light curve as a whole will be fitted by

410: the Paczyi\'nski curve, and the shape and the maximum value of the

411: deviation can be somewhat smaller than that from the simple fitting

412: of the maximum amplification.

413: 

414: 

415: \subsection{Centroid Shift}

416: We define the centroid shift by

417: \begin{equation}

418: \delta\thetavec_\gamma \equiv \thetavec_\gamma - \thetavec_s\;,

419: \end{equation}

420: where

421: \begin{equation}

422: \thetavec_\gamma= \frac{\sum

423: A_{\gamma,i}\;\rvec_i}{A_\gamma}\;\theta_E\;,\;\;\thetavec_s=\svec_\gamma\theta_E\;,

424: \end{equation}

425: $\svec_\gamma$ is the position of the image that would result from

426: the shear alone in the absence of the point mass, i.e.

427: $\svec_\gamma=\svec+\alphavec(\svec_\gamma)$. When microlensing

428: occurs in the presence of shear, astrometric observations will

429: measure $\delta\thetavec_\gamma$. From equations (18) and (22), we

430: see that

431: \begin{equation}

432: \svec_{\gamma,x}=\frac{s_x}{1-\kappa-\gamma},\;\;\;\;

433: \svec_{\gamma,y}=\frac{s_y}{1-\kappa+\gamma}\;,

434: \end{equation}

435: which shows the whole field is sheared even before stellar

436: microlensing occurs. This affects the observed proper motion of the

437: source as well as the estimate of the lensing parameters. If the

438: source proper motion increases by the factor $\Lambda^{-1}$, the

439: Einstein ring radius crossing time would change to

440: \begin{equation}

441: t_E'=\Lambda\;t_E\;.

442: \end{equation}

443: 

444: The trajectories of $\delta\thetavec_\gamma$ in units of $\theta_E$

445: are shown in Figure 5 for given $\vartheta's$ and

446: $\tilde{\gamma}'s$.  The left panel shows the change of centroid

447: shift trajectories depending on $\vartheta$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$.

448: The centroid shift trajectories ($\textsl{dotted, dot-dashed, and

449: dashed curves}$) deviate from a simple astrometric ellipse

450: ($\textsl{solid curve}$), and both the shape and the magnitude of

451: the distortion vary with $\vartheta$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$. The right

452: panel of Figure 5 shows the variation of the centroid shift

453: trajectory depending on the impact parameter $u_0$. The trajectories

454: of centroid shift for different $u_0$ in the presence of the shear

455: are different from each other.  The shape becomes more complex and

456: the distortion increases as $u_0$ decreases. The distortion becomes

457: very large for small values of $u_0$ even when the shear is small.

458: 

459: To quantify the deviation of the centroid shift trajectory, we

460: calculate the excess centroid shift defined as

461: \begin{equation}

462: \Delta\thetavec\equiv\delta\thetavec_\gamma-\delta\thetavec_0\;,

463: \end{equation}

464: where $\delta\thetavec_\gamma$ and $\delta\thetavec_0$ represent the

465: centroid shifts with and without shear, respectively. The deviation

466: $\Delta\thetavec$ is really the deviation from the centroid shift

467: ellipse which is expected in a point mass lensing without shear. The

468: trajectories of $\Delta\thetavec$ are shown in the left panel of

469: Figure 6. The arrow in each panel shows the direction of the

470: centroid motion with the progress of time. All excess centroid

471: shifts have one twist. This is similar to the planet-induced

472: microlensing centroid shift \citep{han02}. The magnitude of the

473: excess centroid shift defined as

474: $\Delta\theta\equiv|\delta\thetavec_\gamma|-|\delta\thetavec_0|$ is

475: shown in the right panel of Figure 6. We find that major deviation

476: occurs when $-2<(t-t_0)/t_E<2$, as expected. The sign of

477: $\Delta\theta$ can be either positive or negative. The detailed

478: shape of $\Delta\theta$ as a function of $(t-t_0)/t_E$ depends on

479: $\vartheta$.   For intermediate values of $\vartheta$, e.g.,

480: $\vartheta=30^\circ$ or $60^\circ$, $\Delta\theta$ changes its sign

481: near $t=t_0$.

482: 

483: We further investigate the magnitude of the maximum distortion,

484: $\Delta\theta_{max}$, and the time of maximum distortion, $t_{max}$.

485: Figure 7a shows how $\Delta\theta_{max}$ in units of $\theta_E$

486: varies as a function of $\tilde{\gamma}$ for different values of

487: $\vartheta$ and $u_0$. For small enough value of $\tilde{\gamma}$,

488: $\log\Delta\theta_{max}$ increases linearly as $\log\tilde{\gamma}$

489: increases.   For a given $\tilde{\gamma}$, $\Delta\theta_{max}$

490: becomes maximum when $\vartheta=0^\circ$ and $90^\circ$ and minimum

491: when $\vartheta=45^\circ$. Figure 7b shows the dependence of

492: $\Delta\theta_{max}$ on $u_0$ for given $\tilde{\gamma}$ and

493: $\vartheta=45^\circ$. Figure 8a and 8b show $t_{max}$ in units of

494: $t_E$ as a function of $\tilde{\gamma}$ for different $\vartheta$

495: and $u_0$, which Figure 8c shows the dependence of $t_{max}$ on

496: $u_0$. For each $\vartheta$ and $u_0$, $t_{max}$ is nearly constant,

497: independent of $\tilde{\gamma}$. Since $u_0$ can be determined from

498: the centroid shift trajectory, $\tilde{\gamma}$ can be determined

499: from the $\Delta\theta_{max}$ (Fig. 7a) and $\vartheta$ from

500: $t_{max}$ (Fig. 8a). Therefore, it is possible to determine the

501: shear and its direction if we determine by astrometry both the time

502: $t_{max}$ and the magnitude of the maximum astrometric distortion

503: $\Delta\theta_{max}$. Needless to say, one can always fit the full

504: lensing (with shear) model to each individual case, and determine

505: the shear and its direction.

506: 

507: As in $\S3.2$, we can also calculate the series expressions for

508: $\Delta\theta$ in powers of $\tilde\gamma$ under the same

509: assumption:

510: \begin{equation}

511: \Delta\theta\simeq\tilde{\gamma}\left[2\left(\frac{s^2-1}{s}\right)

512: +4s_y^2\left(\frac{1-s^2}{s^3}\right)\right]

513: \end{equation}

514: where

515: \begin{equation}

516: s=\sqrt{T^2+u_0^2},\;s_y=-T\sin\vartheta+u_0\cos\vartheta,

517: \end{equation}

518: and

519: \begin{equation}

520: T\equiv\left(\frac{t-t_0}{t_E}\right).

521: \end{equation}

522: The time of maximum distortion, $t_{max}$, is given by a root of the

523: equation

524: \begin{equation}

525: T^5+(4u_0^2+1)T^3+(2u_0^3+4u_0)\tan2\vartheta\;

526: T^2+(3u_0^4-5u_0^2)T+(2u_0^5-2u_0^3)\tan2\vartheta=0.

527: \end{equation}

528: This equation has three real roots, and the one with the smallest

529: absolute value corresponds to $t_{max}$. The angle $\vartheta$ is

530: now

531: \begin{equation}

532: \vartheta=\frac{1}{2}\arctan\left[\frac{-t_{max}^5-(4u_0^2+1)t_{max}^3

533: +(5u_0^2-3u_0^4)t_{max}}{(2u_0^3+4u_0)t_{max}^2+(2u_0^5-2u_0^3)}\right].

534: \end{equation}

535: Hence, we can also approximately determine $\tilde\gamma$ and its

536: direction $\vartheta$ from equations (34) and (38) from $t_{max}$

537: and $\Delta\theta_{max}$.

538: 

539: \section{Application to Galactic Microlensing}

540: Now we discuss Galactic microlensing affected by the shear. Consider

541: a microlensing system that consists of a single lensing star under a

542: shear. The shear field can be produced by any Galactic

543: sub-structures such as globular clusters and the Galactic bulge.

544: Here, we only consider the Galactic bulge and globular clusters as

545: typical examples of the shear, and model their mass distribution as

546: a point mass or the Plummer's model. The Galactic bulge is

547: significantly extended along the line of sight and, therefore, the

548: mass distribution has to be weighted by the factor \( (D_{l'}

549: D_{l's})/D_s \) and projected along the line of sight; the bulge

550: mass distribution located near the source plane contributes little

551: while those near the half of the distance to the source contributes

552: most. But in this work we model the bulge as a planar mass

553: distribution at the same distance as that of the lensing star for

554: simplicity.

555: 

556: 1. Point mass: When the lensed images are located far from the

557: source of the shear, the shear field may be approximated by that

558: produced by a point mass.   When the mass distribution consists of a

559: lens with mass $m$ located at the origin of the coordinate and an

560: additional mass with mass $M$ located at $\Rvecone$ (in units of

561: $r_E$), the (additional) deflection potential $\psi(\rvec)$ in

562: equation (12) becomes

563: \begin{equation}

564: \psi(\rvec)=\frac{M}{m}\ln|\rvec-\Rvecone|\;.

565: \end{equation}

566: Shear $\gamma$ and convergence $\kappa$ are calculated from equation

567: (15):

568: \begin{equation}

569: \gamma=\frac{M}{m}\frac{1}{R^2}\;,\;\;\kappa=0\;.

570: \end{equation}

571: Convergence disappears ($\kappa=0$) because the beam is empty, and

572: the reduced shear is equal to the shear, $\tilde{\gamma}=\gamma$.

573: 

574: 2. Plummer's model: As an example of extended mass distribution, we

575: choose the Plummer's model that approximates the surface mass

576: distribution of a globular cluster \citep{plu15,bin87}. In the

577: Plummer's model, the surface mass density is expressed as

578: \begin{equation}

579: \Sigma(\rvec)=\frac{M}{\pi r_0^2}\frac{1}{[1+(r/r_0)^2]^2}\;,

580: \end{equation}

581: where $M$ is the total mass and $r_0$ is the core length in units of

582: $r_E$. The radius $r_h$ containing half the total mass is equal to

583: 1.3048$r_0$. Then, the deflection potential $\psi(\rvec)$ due to the

584: Plummer's mass distribution centered at $\Rvecone$ becomes

585: \begin{displaymath}

586: \psi(\rvec)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{R^2}d^2r'\frac{\Sigma(\aprvec-\Rvecone)}{\Sigma_{cr}}\ln|\rvec-\aprvec|

587: \end{displaymath}

588: \begin{equation}

589: \;\;\;\;\;=\frac{M}{m} \ln[{(\rvec-\Rvecone)^2+r_0^2}]^{1/2}\;.

590: \end{equation}

591: Again, $\gamma$ and $\kappa$ are calculated from equation (15):

592: \begin{equation}

593: \gamma=\frac{M}{m}\frac{{r_1}^2}{({r_1}^2+r_0^2)^2}

594: \end{equation}

595: and

596: \begin{equation}

597: \kappa=\frac{M}{m}\frac{r_0^2}{({r_1}^2+r_0^2)^2}\;.

598: \end{equation}

599: Unlike the point mass case, the convergence $\kappa$ is not zero

600: because there is mass within the beam.

601: 

602: Figure 9a shows the values of $\tilde{\gamma}$ and $\kappa$ as

603: functions of the distance from the center of the mass distribution

604: when the shear is produced by the Galactic bulge with a total mass

605: of $M=1.3\times10^{10}$ $\textrm{M}_\odot$ and located at 8.5 kpc

606: from the Earth. We assume that the lens star of $1\textrm{M}_\odot$

607: is also located at 8.5 kpc and the source star at 9.5 kpc. Solid

608: curve represents $\tilde{\gamma}$ when the bulge is modeled as a

609: point mass while dotted curve as the Plummer's model with $r_0=500$

610: pc. Dashed curve shows $\kappa$ for the Plummer's model. Figure 9b

611: is the same as Figure 9a for a $10^6$ $\textrm{M}_\odot$ globular

612: cluster at $4$ kpc with $r_0=2$ pc, 1 $\textrm{M}_\odot$ lens star

613: at the same 4 kpc, and a source star at $8.5$ kpc. Hence, we expect

614: the shear $\tilde{\gamma}$ produced by typical globular clusters or

615: the Galactic bulge to be in the range of $10^{-6}\sim10^{-4}$.

616: 

617: Shown in Figure 10a is the maximum distortion of the centroid shift

618: in arcseconds when a microlensing event occurs in the Galactic

619: bulge. If future astrometric observation can achieve the positional

620: accuracy down to $\sim1$ micro-arcsec, then $\tilde{\gamma}\sim

621: 10^{-5.5}$ shear field can be detected in very high magnification

622: events with $u_0\leq 0.002$. When a microlensing event occurs near a

623: globular cluster (Fig. 10b), $\tilde{\gamma}\sim 10^{-4.5}$ shear

624: field can be detected for events with $u_0\leq0.05$. On the other

625: hand, in order to detect the deviation of a typical light curve for

626: $\tilde{\gamma}=10^{-5.5}$ and $u_0=0.01$, photometric accuracy

627: should be better than $\Delta m \leq10^{-3.5}$.

628: 

629: Although we may be able to measure the shear in microlensing events,

630: the measurement alone does not tell us about the source of the

631: shear. The shear may be from the Galactic sub-structures, but it can

632: also be from many other objects. The most obvious source is the

633: binary companion. A binary companion at a typical distance of $\sim

634: 35$ AU (Duquennoy \& Mayor 1991) will produce a shear close to

635: \(10^{-3}\), two to three orders of magnitude larger than the shear

636: by the Galactic bulge. The distribution of the binary period and the

637: mass ratio (Duquennoy \& Mayor 1991) implies 85\% of all binary

638: companions will produce \( \gamma \ge 10^{-6} \). So the shear due

639: to binary companion will dominate or be comparable to the shear

640: expected from Galactic sub-structures. The shear can be also

641: produced by planetary companions. Planets detected in the current

642: microlensing experiments produce shear in the range

643: $\tilde\gamma\sim10^{-3}-10^{-5}$. A typical Earth-mass planet at a

644: distance of $\sim2R_E$ ($R_E\simeq4$ AU for 1 $\textrm{M}_\odot$)

645: from the lens produces $\tilde\gamma\sim10^{-6}$, while Pluto-mass

646: planet at a distance $\sim 10R_E$ produces

647: $\tilde\gamma\sim10^{-10}$. Projected companion stars, unassociated

648: but located near the lensing star in the projected sky, will also

649: affect lensing similarly. Hence, in practice it will be difficult to

650: identify the shear by Galactic sub-structures against the shear by

651: companion stars. Still, there can be some microlensing events that

652: are not affected by companion star or in which the shear by Galactic

653: sub-structure may be measured from the statistical analysis of many

654: events as in cosmological weak lensing systems.

655: 

656: There may also be cases for which we may set an upper limit on the

657: value of the shear. A very small upper limit on shear suggests the

658: non-existence of a binary companion or a Galactic structure. For

659: example, if we measure \( \gamma < 10^{-7.2} \), we can expect that

660: the lens does not have a companion with more than 95\% confidence if

661: we assume the distribution of the binary companion by Duquennoy \&

662: Mayor (1991).

663: 

664: Complications in usual microlensing events, for example, blending

665: and binary source, will also affect microlensing under shear. For

666: example, blending decreases the deviation in the image centroid

667: shift and the light curve (Fig. 11b as compared to Fig. 11a) and the

668: binary source completely messes up the centroid shift trajectory

669: (Fig. 11c). However, since the shape of the trajectory mainly

670: depends on the size of the shear, fitting the full trajectory may

671: sort our these complications.

672: 

673: Although the typical shear expected from the Galactic bulge or

674: globular clusters is too small or the clear case that enables the

675: determination of shear is too infrequent to be comfortably detected

676: by current or near-future microlensing experiments, next generation

677: microlensing experiments may enable us to measure the magnitude and

678: the direction of even smaller shear fields among numerous

679: microlensing events. Then, from the theoretical framework of weak

680: lensing, the shear map can be inverted to reproduce the mass

681: distribution \citep[see e.g.,][]{mel99,bar01,ref03}, making it

682: possible to map or at least constrain the Galactic mass

683: distribution. Since all our discussions are based on normalized

684: units, the reproduced mass distribution will be in units of

685: \(\Sigma_{cr}\) per \(\theta_E^2\). If \(D_s\) and \(D_l\) are

686: additionally determined, the mass distribution can be determined in

687: physical units.

688: 

689: \section{Summary}

690: We investigated microlensing under a shear, which might be produced

691: by Galactic sub-structures such as globular clusters or the Galactic

692: bulge. We analyzed its effect on the microlensing light curves and

693: astrometric centroid shift trajectories. We found the followings:

694: 

695: 1. The light curve deviation from the Paczy\'nski curve increases as

696: the shear increases and the impact parameter decreases. The

697: positions and heights of the maximum deviation vary depending on the

698: direction of the source trajectory: the light curve becomes

699: asymmetric if the source trajectory is not parallel or perpendicular

700: to the shear direction.

701: 

702: 2. The centroid shift trajectory in the presence of shear deviates

703: from a simple ellipse, especially when the source is within the

704: Einstein ring. The magnitude of the maximum distortion depends on

705: shear and its direction, and becomes largest when the trajectory is

706: parallel or perpendicular to the shear direction. The time of

707: maximum distortion is nearly independent of the impact parameter.

708: The distortion of the centroid shift trajectory increases as the

709: impact parameter decreases and the shape becomes very complex when

710: the impact parameter is very small.

711: 

712: 3. If we measure the distortion of the astrometric centroid shift

713: trajectory and the time of the maximum distortion, we can determine

714: the shear and its direction.

715: 

716: 4. The magnitude of the shear produced by the Galactic bulge or

717: globular clusters near the Galactic center is of the order of

718: $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-4}$ in normalized units. This shear, in

719: principle, could be detected by future microlensing experiments,

720: especially in high magnification events.

721: 

722: Successful measurement of the shear in various directions in the

723: Galaxy with next generation microlensing experiments may eventually

724: lead to the mapping of the Galactic mass distribution.

725: 

726: \acknowledgements We thank the referee, Scott Gaudi, for many

727: insightful comments, which have improved the paper greatly. We also

728: thank Dong Wook Lee and Cheongho Han for careful reading of the

729: manuscript. This work is the result of research activities

730: Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the

731: Cosmos (ARCSEC) supported by the Korea Science \& Engineering

732: Foundation (KOSEF).

733: 

734: 

735: 

736: \begin{thebibliography}{}

737: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1993)]{alc93} Alcock C. et al., 1993, \nat, 365, 621

738: \bibitem[An(2005)]{an05} An J. H., 2005, \mnras, 356, 1409

739: \bibitem[An $\&$ Evans(2006)]{an06} An J. H., $\&$ Evans N. W.,

740: 2006, \mnras, 369, 317

741: \bibitem[Aubourg et al.(1993)]{aub93} Aubourg E. et al., 1993, \nat, 365, 623

742: \bibitem[Bartelmann $\&$ Schneider(2001)]{bar01} Bartelmann M., $\&$ Schneider P., 2001, \physrep, 340, 291

743: \bibitem[Binney $\&$ Tremaine(1987)]{bin87} Binney J., $\&$ Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics, Princeton, New Jersey

744: \bibitem[Chang $\&$ Refsdal(1979)]{cha79} Chang K., $\&$ Refsdal S., 1979, \nat, 282, 561

745: \bibitem[Chang $\&$ Refsdal(1984)]{cha84} Chang K., $\&$ Refsdal S., 1984, \aap, 132, 168

746: \bibitem[Dominik(1999a)]{dom99a} Dominik M., 1999a, \aap, 341, 943

747: \bibitem[Dominik(1999b)]{dom99b} Dominik M., 1999b, \aap, 349, 108

748: \bibitem[Duquennoy $\&$ Mayor(1991)]{duq91} Duquennoy A., $\&$ Mayor M., 1991, \aap, 248, 485

749: \bibitem[Fischer $\&$ Marcy(1992)]{fis92} Fischer D. A., $\&$ Marcy G. W., 1992, \apj, 396, 178

750: \bibitem[Gott(1981)]{Got00} Gott, J. R. III, \apj, 243, 140

751: \bibitem[Gould(2000)]{gou00} Gould A., 2000, \apj, 542, 785

752: \bibitem[Han et al.(1999)]{han99b} Han C., Chun M. S., $\&$ Chang K., 1999, \apj, 526, 405

753: \bibitem[Han $\&$ Park(2001)]{han01b} Han C., $\&$ Park M., 2001, JKAS, 34, 81

754: \bibitem[Han(2002)]{han02} Han C., 2002, \mnras, 329, 163

755: \bibitem[Han et al.(2005)]{han05} Han C. et al., 2005, \apj, 618,

756: 972

757: \bibitem[Jeong, Han $\&$ Park(1999)]{jeo99} Jeong Y., Han C., $\&$ Park S. H., 1999, \apj, 551, 569

758: \bibitem[Kovner(1987)]{kov87} Kovner I., 1987, \apj, 312, 22

759: \bibitem[Mellier(1999)]{mel99} Mellier Y., 1999, \araa, 37, 127

760: \bibitem[Paczy\'{n}ski(1986)]{pac86} Paczy\'{n}ski B., 1986, \apj, 304, 1

761: \bibitem[Plummer(1915)]{plu15} Plummer H. C., 1915, \mnras, 76, 107

762: \bibitem[Refregier(2003)]{ref03} Refregier A., 2003, \araa, 41, 645

763: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(1992)]{sch92} Schneider P., Ehlers J., $\&$ Falco E. E., 1992, Gravitational Lensing, Springer, Berlin

764: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(1992)]{uda92} Udalski A. et al., 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 253

765: \bibitem[Walker(1995)]{wal95} Walker M. A., 1995, \apj, 453, 37

766: \end{thebibliography}

767: 

768: 

769: \clearpage

770: \begin{figure}

771:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f1}

772:     \caption{Magnification map. Grayscale maps of the magnification $A_\gamma$ (left panel)

773:     and the excess magnification $\delta A$ (right panel) as

774:      a function of source position ($s_x, s_y$) for reduced shear $\tilde{\gamma}=10^{-2}$ (top),

775:       $10^{-4}$ (middle), and $10^{-6}$ (bottom). Contours in the left

776:      panels represent $A_\gamma=40$ (long dashed curve) and

777:      $A_\gamma=80$ (dotted curve). Gray scale in the right panels represents positive (bright) and negative (dark)

778:      deviation regions and dot-dashed curve shows $\delta A=0$ regions.}

779: \end{figure}

780: 

781: \begin{figure}

782:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f2}

783:     \caption{Geometry of lensing.   The straight lines with an

784:     arrow represent source trajectories with different $\vartheta$.

785:     We define $\vartheta$ as the angle between the $\textit{x}$-axis and

786:     the source trajectory. All source trajectories have the same impact

787:     parameter $u_0 = 0.3$.   The dotted ring around the lens, marked

788:     by `$\times$', shows the Einstein ring.}

789: \end{figure}

790: 

791: \begin{figure}

792:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f3}

793:     \caption{Light curves and the excess magnifications.

794:      The left panels show the light curves for the source trajectories ($u_0=0.3$) in Figure

795:     1 with the shear value of $\tilde{\gamma}=0.01, 0.005, 0.001$.   All curves

796:     show the magnification near the peak, and the solid curves are

797:     the magnification without shear $(\tilde{\gamma}=0.0)$.

798:     The right panels show the difference in magnification between the light curve in the

799:     presence of shear and that in the absence of shear as a function of

800:     time for three different source trajectories.}

801: \end{figure}

802: 

803: 

804: \begin{figure}

805:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f4}

806:     \caption{Deviation in the light curves.

807:     Difference between the light curve with shear and the corresponding Paczy\'{n}ski curve

808:     as a function of time for different source trajectories.

809:     Lines are for the same $\tilde{\gamma}'s$ in Figure 3.}

810: \end{figure}

811: 

812: \begin{figure}

813:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f5}

814:     \caption{Centroid shift trajectories.  The left panels

815:     show the change of centroid shift trajectories in units of $\theta_E$ for different angle $\vartheta$ and

816:     shear $\gamma$, while the right panels show the variation of centroid shift trajectories for different

817:     impact parameter $u_0$.  The solid curves represent the simple

818:     astrometric ellipses.}

819: \end{figure}

820: 

821: \begin{figure}

822:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f6}

823:     \caption{The trajectories and magnitudes of excess centroid shifts.

824:      The left panels show the trajectories of excess centroid shifts of  the events

825:     for $\tilde{\gamma} = 0.01$ cases in the left panels of Figure 5.   The arrow mark shows the direction of event

826:     progress. The right panels show the magnitudes of excess centroid

827:     shifts in the left panels as a function of time with three different values of shear, $\tilde{\gamma}=$ 0.01, 0.005,

828:     0.001.}

829: \end{figure}

830: 

831: \begin{figure}

832:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f7}

833:     \caption{The maximum distortion of excess centroid shift.

834:     (a) The maximum distortion of excess centroid shift $\Delta\theta_{max}$

835:     for different values of $u_0$ and  $\vartheta$ as a function of shear $\tilde{\gamma}$.

836:     We show $\Delta\theta_{max}$ for $\vartheta= 0^\circ$ and $45^\circ$ only

837:     because other source trajectories appear between the two cases.

838:     (b) The maximum distortion $\Delta\theta_{max}$ as a function of $u_0$

839:     for different values of $\tilde{\gamma}$ and $\vartheta=45^\circ$.}

840: \end{figure}

841: 

842: \begin{figure}

843:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f8}

844:     \caption{The time of maximum astrometric distortion.

845:     The time of maximum distortion of excess centroid shift,

846:     $t_{max}$, as a function of $\tilde{\gamma}$ and $u_0$:

847:     (a) for fixed $u_0=0.3$, (b) for fixed $\vartheta=30^\circ$ and (c) for fixed $\tilde{\gamma}=10^{-3}$. }

848: \end{figure}

849: 

850: \begin{figure}

851:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f9}

852:     \caption{Shear and convergence from the Galactic sub-structures.

853:     (a) Shear $\tilde{\gamma}$ and convergence $\kappa$ as

854:     functions of the distance from the center of the mass distribution

855:     for $1.3\times10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ Galactic bulge at $8.5$ kpc for 1 M$_\odot$ lens at 8.5 kpc and a source star at 9.5 kpc.

856:     Solid curve shows the value of $\tilde{\gamma}$ when the bulge is modeled as a

857:     point mass while

858:     dotted curve as a Plummer's model with  $r_0=500$ pc. Dashed curve

859:     shows $\kappa$ for Plummer's model. (b) The same for

860:     a $10^6$ M$_\odot$ globular cluster at $4$ kpc with $r_0=2$ pc and a

861:     source star at $8.5$ kpc.}

862: \end{figure}

863: 

864: 

865: \begin{figure}

866:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f10}

867:     \caption{The maximum astrometric distortion expected.

868:     The maximum distortion $\Delta\theta_{max}$ in arcseconds in excess centroid

869:     shift as a function of the shear $\tilde{\gamma}$ due to

870:     (a) the Galactic bulge ($D_s=9.5$ kpc, $D_{l}=8.5$ kpc) and (b)

871:     a globular cluster ($D_s=8.5$ kpc, $D_{l}=4.0$ kpc), both

872:     with a 1 M$_\odot$ lens. Solid lines are for $\vartheta=0^\circ$, dashed ones for $\vartheta=30^\circ$,

873:     and long dashed ones for $\vartheta=45^\circ$. }

874: \end{figure}

875: 

876: \begin{figure}

877:     \epsscale{1.0} \plotone{f11}

878:     \caption{Complications in the centroid shift trajectory and

879:     the light curve from blending.

880:     The centroid shift trajectories (left), centroid shift deviations (middle), and light curves (right)

881:     are presented in case of (a) no blending (top), (b) bright lens (middle), and (c) binary

882:     source (bottom). The light fraction of the blending source is 0.5 for the lensing

883:     parameters $u_0=0.1$, $\vartheta=30^\circ$, and $\tilde\gamma=0.01$.}

884: \end{figure}

885: 

886: \end{document}

887: