1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint2]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass{emulateapj5}
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
7: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
8: \usepackage{natbib}
9: \citestyle{aa}
10: %\usepackage{epsf}
11: \newcommand{\tx}[1]{\textrm{#1}}
12: \newcommand{\pc}[1]{\protect\citename{#1}}
13: \newcommand{\kms}{km~$\tx{s}^{-1}$}
14: \newcommand{\dv}{$r^{1/4}\,$}
15: \newcommand{\Io}{I$_{814}$}
16: \newcommand{\Vs}{V$_{606}$}
17: \newcommand{\sbe}{$SB_{\tx{e}}$}
18: \newcommand{\resec}{$r_{\tx{e}}$}
19: \newcommand{\Rekpc}{$R_{\tx{e}}$}
20: \newcommand{\mlsun}{M$_{\odot}$/L$_{\odot,V}$}
21: \newcommand{\expnt}[2]{\ensuremath{#1 \times 10^{#2}}} % scientific notation
22: \newcommand{\gsim}{\gtrsim}
23: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lesssim}
24: \newcommand{\cxo}{\textit{CXO}}
25: \newcommand{\chandra}{\textit{Chandra}}
26: \newcommand{\errrad}{{\ensuremath{2\farcs0}}}
27: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{
28: \def\@captype{figure}
29: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
30: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
31: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{
32: \def\@captype{table}
33: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
34: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
35: \def\xc{\mathrel{x_{\rm c}}}
36: \def\yc{\mathrel{y_{\rm c}}}
37: \def\rc{\mathrel{r_{\rm core}}}
38: \def\rt{\mathrel{r_{\rm cut}}}
39: \def\sigo{\mathrel{\sigma_{\rm o}}}
40: \def\xr{\mathrel{x_{\rm r}}}
41: \def\xt{\mathrel{x_{\rm t}}}
42:
43: \slugcomment{ApJ, accepted}
44: \shorttitle{Lensing and Dynamical Analysis of Abell 383 and MS2137-23}
45: \shortauthors{Sand et al.}
46:
47:
48: \begin{document}
49: %\twocolumn[
50: \title{Separating Baryons and Dark Matter in Cluster Cores: A Full 2-D Lensing and Dynamic Analysis of Abell 383 and MS2137-23}
51:
52: \author{David J. Sand,$\!$\altaffilmark{1,2} Tommaso Treu\altaffilmark{3,4}, Richard S. Ellis\altaffilmark{5}, Graham P. Smith\altaffilmark{6} \& Jean-Paul Kneib\altaffilmark{7}}
53:
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56: We utilize existing imaging and spectroscopic data for the galaxy
57: clusters MS2137-23 and Abell 383 to present improved measures of the
58: distribution of dark and baryonic material in the clusters' central
59: regions. Our method, based on the combination of gravitational
60: lensing and dynamical data, is uniquely capable of separating the
61: distribution of dark and baryonic components at scales below 100
62: kpc. Our mass models include pseudo-elliptical generalized NFW
63: profiles for constraining the inner dark matter slope, and our lens
64: modeling takes into account both the ellipticity and substructure
65: associated with cluster galaxies as necessary in order to account for
66: the detailed properties of multiply-imaged sources revealed in Hubble
67: Space Telescope images. We find a variety of strong lensing models
68: fit the available data, including some with dark matter profiles as
69: steep as expected from recent simulations. However, when combined with
70: stellar velocity dispersion data for the brightest member, shallower
71: inner slopes than predicted by numerical simulations are preferred, in
72: general agreement with our earlier work in these clusters. For
73: Abell 383, the preferred shallow inner slopes are statistically a good
74: fit only when the multiple image position uncertainties associated
75: with our lens model are assumed to be 0\farcs5, to account for unknown
76: substructure. No statistically satisfactory fit was obtained matching
77: both the multiple image lensing data and the velocity dispersion
78: profile of the brightest cluster galaxy in MS2137-23. This suggests
79: that the mass model we are using, which comprises a pseudo-elliptical
80: generalized NFW profile and a brightest cluster galaxy component may
81: inadequately represent the inner cluster regions. This may plausibly
82: arise due to halo triaxiality or by the gravitational interaction of
83: baryons and dark matter in cluster cores. The intriguing results for
84: Abell 383 and MS2137-23 emphasize the need for a larger sample of
85: clusters with radial arcs. However, the progress made via this
86: detailed study highlights the key role that complementary observations
87: of lensed features and stellar dynamics offer in understanding the
88: interaction between dark and baryonic matter on non-linear scales in
89: the central regions of clusters.
90:
91: \end{abstract}
92: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- galaxies:formation -- dark matter}
93: %]
94: \altaffiltext{1}{Chandra Fellow}
95: \altaffiltext{2}{Steward Observatory,
96: University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}
97: \altaffiltext{3}{University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Physics, Santa Barbara CA 93106-9530}
98: \altaffiltext{4}{Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow}
99: \altaffiltext{5}{California Institute of Technology, Department of
100: Astronomy, Mail Code 105--24, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
101: \altaffiltext{6}{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbason, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK}
102: \altaffiltext{7}{OAMP, Laboratoire d\'Astrophysique de Marseille - UMR 6110 - Traverse du siphon, 13012 Marseille, France}
103: \setcounter{footnote}{6}
104:
105: \section{Introduction}
106:
107: Cold dark matter (CDM) simulations (both with and without the
108: inclusion of baryonic physics) are a crucial tool and proving ground
109: for understanding the physics of the universe on nonlinear scales.
110: One of the most active aspects of research in this area concerns the
111: form of the dark matter density profile. Key questions raised in
112: recent years include: Is there a universal dark matter density profile that
113: spans a wide range of halo masses? What is the form of this profile
114: and how uniform is it from one halo to another? To what extent
115: do baryons modify the dark matter distribution?
116:
117: Drawing on a suite of N-body simulations, \citet{NFW97} originally proposed
118: that the dark matter density profiles in halos ranging in size from those
119: hosting dwarf galaxies to those with galaxy clusters have a
120: universal form. This 3-D density distribution, termed the NFW profile,
121: follows $\rho_{DM}\propto r^{-1}$ within some scale radius, $r_{sc}$, and
122: falls off as $\rho_{DM}\propto r^{-3}$ beyond. Subsequent simulations
123: indicated that the inner density profile could be yet steeper -
124: $\rho_{DM}\propto r^{-1.5}$ \citep{M98,Ghigna00}. As computing power
125: increases and numerical techniques improve, it is now unclear whether
126: the inner dark matter distribution converges to a power law form rather
127: than becoming progressively shallower in slope at smaller radii
128: \citep{P03,Navarro04,Diemand04,Diemand05}.
129:
130: For comparisons with data, such simulations need to account for the
131: presence of baryons. This is particularly the case in the cores of rich
132: clusters. Although baryons represent only a small fraction of the overall
133: cluster mass, they may be crucially important on scales comparable to
134: the extent of typical brightest cluster galaxies. Much work is being done
135: to understand the likely interactions between baryons and DM
136: \citep{Gnedin04,Nagai05,Faltenbacher05}. These simulations will
137: provide refined predictions of the relative distributions of baryons
138: and DM.
139:
140: This paper is a further step in a series which aims to present an
141: observational analog to progress described above in the numerical
142: simulations. At each stage it is desirable to confront numerical
143: predictions with observations. Whereas some workers have
144: made good progress in constraining the {\em total} density profile
145: (e.g.~\citet{Broadhurst05b}), in order to address the relevance of the
146: numerical simulations we consider it important to develop and test
147: techniques capable of separating the distributions of dark and
148: baryonic components (e.g. ~\citet{Sand02,Zappacosta06,Biviano06,Mahdavi07}).
149:
150: This paper presents a refined version of the method first proposed by
151: \citet{Sand02}, exploited more fully in \citet{Sand04} (hereafter
152: S04). S04 sought to combine constraints from the velocity dispersion
153: profile of a central brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) with a strong
154: gravitational lensing analysis in six carefully selected galaxy
155: clusters in order to separate the baryonic and dark matter
156: distributions. S04 carefully selected clusters to have simple,
157: apparently 'relaxed' gravitational potentials in order to match
158: broadly the 'equilibrium' status of the simulated dark matter halos
159: originally analyzed by \citet{NFW97} and subsequent simulators. For
160: example, Abell 383 and MS2137-23 have almost circular BCGs ($b/a$=0.90
161: and 0.83 respectively), require a single cluster dark matter halo to
162: fit the strong lensing constraints (in contrast to the more typical
163: clusters that require a multi-modal dark matter morphology -- Smith et
164: al. 2005), have previously published lens models with a relatively
165: round dark matter halo ($b/a$=0.88 and 0.78 respectively - Smith et
166: al. 2001; Gavazzi 2005), and display no evidence for dynamical
167: disturbance in the X-ray morphology of the clusters (Smith et
168: al. 2005; Schmidt \& Allen 2006).
169:
170: The merit of the approach resides in combining two techniques that
171: collectively probe scales from the inner $\sim$10 kpc (using the BCG
172: kinematics) to the $\sim$100 kpc scales typical of strong
173: lensing. Whereas three of the clusters contained tangential arcs,
174: constraining the total enclosed mass within the Einstein radius, three
175: contained both radial and tangential gravitational arcs, the former
176: providing additional constraints on the derivative of the total mass
177: profile. In their analysis, S04 found the gradient of the inner dark
178: matter density distribution varied considerably from cluster to
179: cluster, with a mean value substantially flatter than that predicted
180: in the numerical simulations.
181:
182: S04 adopted a number of assumptions in their analysis whose effect on
183: the derived mass profiles were discussed at the time. The most
184: important of these included ignoring cluster substructure and adopting
185: spherically-symmetric mass distributions centered on the BCG. The
186: simplifying assumptions were considered sources of systematic
187: uncertainties, of order 0.2 on the inner slope. Although the six
188: clusters studied by S04 were carefully chosen to be smooth and round,
189: several workers attributed the discrepancy between the final results
190: and those of the simulations as likely to arise from these simplifying
191: assumptions \citep{Bartelmann04,Dalal04b,Meneghetti05}.
192:
193: The goal of this paper is to refine the data analysis for two of the
194: clusters (MS2137-23 and Abell 383) originally introduced by S04 using
195: fully 2-D strong gravitational lensing models, thus avoiding any
196: assumptions about substructure or spherical symmetry. The lensing
197: models are based on an improved version of the LENSTOOL program
198: (\citealt{Kneibphd,Kneib96}; see Appendix;
199: http://www.oamp.fr/cosmology/lenstool/). A major development is the
200: implementation, in the code, of a pseudo-elliptical parameterization
201: for the NFW mass profile, i.e. a generalization of those seen in CDM
202: simulations, viz:
203: %
204: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:gnfw}
205: \label{eq:gnfw}
206: \rho_d(r)=\frac{\rho_{c} \delta_{c}}{(r/r_{sc})^{\beta}(1+(r/r_{sc}))^{3-\beta}}
207: \end{equation}
208: %
209: where the asymptotic DM inner slope is $\beta$. This formalism allows
210: us to overcome an important limitation of previous work and takes into
211: account the ellipticity of the DM halo and the presence of galaxy-scale
212: subhalos. Furthermore the 2-D lensing model fully exploits the
213: numerous multiply-imaged lensing constraints available for MS2137-23
214: and Abell 383.
215:
216: The combination of gravitational lensing and stellar dynamics is the
217: most powerful way to separate baryons and dark matter in the inner
218: regions of clusters. However, it is important to keep a few caveats
219: in mind. Galaxy clusters are structurally heterogeneous objects that
220: are possibly not well-represented by simple parameterized mass
221: models. To gain a full picture of their mass distribution and the
222: relative contribution of their major mass components will ultimately
223: require a variety of measurements applied simultaneously across a
224: range of radii. Steps in this direction are already being made with
225: the combined use of strong and weak gravitational lensing
226: (e.g.~\citet{Limousin06,Bradac06}), which may be able to benefit
227: further from information provided from X-ray analyses
228: (e.g.~\citet{Schmidt06}) and kinematic studies (e.g.~\citet{Lokas03}).
229: A recent analysis has synthesized weak-lensing, X-ray and
230: Sunyaev-Zeldovich observations in the cluster Abell 478 -- similar
231: cross-disciplinary work will lend further insights into the mass
232: distribution of clusters \citep{Mahdavi07}.
233:
234: Of equal importance are mass models with an appropriate amount of
235: flexibility and sophistication. For instance, incorporating models that
236: take into account the interaction of baryons and dark matter may shed
237: light into the halo formation process and provide more accurate
238: representations of dark matter structure. Halo triaxiality, multiple
239: structures along the line of sight and other geometric effects will
240: also be important to characterize. At the moment, incorporating these
241: complexities and securing good parameter estimates is computationally
242: expensive even with sophisticated techniques such as the Markov-Chain
243: Monte Carlo method.
244:
245: Numerical simulation results are often presented as the average
246: profile found in the suite of calculations performed. Instead, the
247: distribution of inner slopes would be a more useful quantity for
248: comparison with individual cluster observations. Also, comparisons
249: between simulations and observations would be simplified if {\it
250: projected} density profiles of simulated halos along multiple lines of
251: sight were to be made available. These issues should be resolvable as
252: large samples of observed mass profiles are obtained.
253:
254: For the reasons above, comparing observational results with
255: numerical simulations is nontrivial. The observational task should
256: be regarded as one of developing mass modeling techniques of
257: increasing sophistication that separate dark and baryonic matter,
258: so as to provide the most stringent constraints to high resolution
259: simulations which include baryons as they also increase in
260: sophistication. The combination of stellar dynamics and strong
261: lensing is the first crucial step in this process. Its diagnostic
262: power will be further enhanced by including other major mass
263: components (i.e.~the hot gas of the intracluster medium or the stellar
264: contribution from galaxies) out to larger radii.
265:
266: A plan of the paper follows. In \S~\ref{sec:methods} we explain the
267: methodology used to model the cluster density profile by combining
268: strong lensing with the BCG velocity dispersion profile. In
269: \S~\ref{sec:obsresults} we focus on translating observational
270: measurements into strong lensing input parameters. This section
271: includes the final strong lensing interpretation of MS2137-23 and
272: Abell 383. In \S~\ref{sec:stronglens} we present the results of our
273: combined lensing and dynamical analysis. In \S~\ref{sec:systematics}
274: we discuss further systematic effects, limitations and degeneracies
275: that our technique is susceptible to -- with an eye towards future
276: refinements. Finally, in \S~\ref{sec:finale} we summarize and discuss
277: our conclusions. Throughout this paper, we adopt $r$ as the radial
278: coordinate in 3-D space and $R$ as the radial coordinate in 2-D
279: projected space. When necessary, we assume $H_{0}$=65 \kms
280: Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}$=0.3, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.7.
281:
282: \section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}
283:
284: The intent of this work is to use the full 2D information provided by
285: the deep Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging in two strong lensing
286: clusters (MS2137-23 and Abell 383) in conjunction with the BCG stellar
287: velocity dispersion profile in order to constrain the distribution of
288: baryonic and dark matter. These two clusters were selected for
289: further study from the larger sample presented by S04 because, of the
290: three systems with both radial and tangential gravitational arcs,
291: these two presented the shallowest DM inner slopes.
292:
293: \subsection{Lens Modeling}\label{sec:massmodel}
294:
295: We use the updated LENSTOOL ray-tracing code to construct models of
296: the cluster mass distribution. Our implementation of the mass
297: profiles is identical to that of \citet{Golse02}, with the exception
298: that we have generalized their pseudo-elliptical parameterization to
299: include ones with arbitrary inner logarithmic slopes. For the
300: details, the reader is referred to both \citet{Golse02}, and the
301: Appendix. Here we briefly explain the lens modeling process and
302: parameterization of the cluster mass model.
303:
304: Identifying mass model components and multiple-image candidates is an
305: iterative process. Initially, multiple images are spectroscopically
306: confirmed systems with counter images identified by visual inspection
307: and with the aid of preliminary lens models, taking into account that
308: gravitational lensing conserves surface brightness. Multiple images
309: without spectroscopic confirmation were used in the case of Abell 383,
310: since these additional constraints helped clarify the role that galaxy
311: perturber \#1 (Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel}) played in the central regions
312: of the cluster (see \S~\ref{sec:lensinterpa383}). If the location of
313: a counter image is tentative, especially if there are several
314: possibilities or an intervening cluster galaxy confuses the situation,
315: the system is not included in deriving the mass model.
316: \S~\ref{sec:lensinterpms2137} and \S~\ref{sec:lensinterpa383} present
317: a detailed description of the final multiple image list adopted.
318:
319: Once the multiple images are determined, the cluster mass model is
320: refined and perturber galaxy properties are fixed. In general, a lens
321: mass model will have both cluster and galaxy scale mass components.
322: The cluster scale mass component represents the DM associated with the
323: cluster as a whole plus the hot gas in the intracluster medium. In
324: the limit that the cluster DM halo is spherical (see
325: Eqn~\ref{rho_ell}), its density profile has the form of
326: Eqn~\ref{eqn:gnfw}. In the adopted parameterization, the DM halo also
327: has a position angle ($\theta$) and associated pseudo-ellipticity
328: ($\epsilon$) (see Eqn~\ref{sigma_ell} \& \ref{rho_ell}).
329:
330: Galaxy scale mass components are necessary to account for
331: perturbations to the cluster potential that seem plausible based on
332: the HST imaging and are demanded by the observed multiple image
333: positions. These components are described by pseudo-isothermal
334: elliptical mass distributions (PIEMD; \citet{Kassiola93}). Each PIEMD
335: mass component is parametrized by its position ($\xc$, $\yc$),
336: ellipticity ($e$), position angle ($\theta$), core radius ($\rc$),
337: cut-off radius ($\rt$) and central velocity dispersion ($\sigo$). The
338: projected mass density, $\Sigma$, is given by:
339:
340: \begin{equation}\label{eq:piemd}
341: \Sigma(x,y){=}\frac{\sigo^2}{2G}\,\frac{\rt}{\rt{-}\rc}\left(\frac{1}{(\rc^2{+}\rho^2)^{1/2}}{-}\frac{1}{(\rt^2{+}\rho^2)^{1/2}}\right)
342: \end{equation}
343:
344: \noindent where
345: $\rho^2{=}[(x{-}\xc)/(1{+}e)]^2{+}[(y{-}\yc)/(1{-}e)]^2$
346: and the ellipticity of the lens is defined as $e{=}(a{-}b)/(a{+}b)$
347: \footnote{This quantity should not be confused with the quite
348: different definition used for the pseudo-elliptical generalized NFW
349: profile, see the Appendix.}. The total mass of the PIEMD is thus
350: $3/2\pi \sigma_0^2 r_{\rm cut}/G$. In order to relate
351: Equation~\ref{eq:piemd} to the observed surface brightness of the BCG
352: in particular, we take $\Sigma=(M_*/L)I$, where $M_*/L$ is the stellar
353: mass to light ratio and $I$ is the surface brightness, and find the
354: following relation
355:
356: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mlpiemd}
357: M_*/L = 1.50 \pi\sigo^{2}\rt / (GL)
358: \end{equation}
359:
360: \noindent where $L$ is the total luminosity of the BCG. The $M_*/L$
361: of the central BCG will be used as a free parameter in our mass
362: modeling analysis. Further details and properties of the truncated
363: PIEMD model can be found in \citet{Natarajan97} and
364: \citet{Limousin05}.
365:
366: The relevant parameters of the perturber galaxies (position,
367: ellipticity, core radius, cutoff radius and position angle) are
368: assumed to be those provided via examination of the HST imaging (see
369: \S~\ref{sec:galgeom} for details). Only the central stellar velocity
370: dispersion, $\sigo$, is determined by optimization. At a particular
371: stage in the process, the predicted multiple image positions are
372: compared with those observed, and a $\chi^{2}$ value calculated (see
373: \S~\ref{sec:stats}). The iteration stops when a $\chi^{2}$ minimum is
374: reached. The sole criteria for adding a perturber galaxy was
375: whether or not it was necessary for the lens model to match the
376: multiple image positions. If adding an additional perturber did not
377: alter our interim minimum $\chi^{2}$, we did not include it in our
378: subsequent analysis.
379:
380: Two special cases were encountered during the above procedure.
381: First, one of the galaxy perturbers in Abell~383 required a larger
382: cutoff radius ($r_{cut}$) than implied from the light distribution.
383: As is described in \S~\ref{sec:lensinterpa383}, this concentration is
384: necessary to account for several of the multiple image positions. For
385: this mass concentration, not only do we determine the optimum
386: $\sigma_{0}$ parameter, but also the cutoff radius ($r_{cut}$).
387:
388: The other special case concerns the BCG in both galaxy clusters.
389: These are assumed to be coincident with the center of the cluster DM
390: halo -- one justified by the co-location of the BCG and central X-ray
391: isophotes \citep{gps05,gavazzi03}. The BCG mass distribution,
392: represented by a PIEMD model, comprises only the stellar mass. In
393: this case the HST imaging is used to fix the BCG ellipticity and
394: position angle, but since the measured stellar velocity dispersion is
395: to be used as a constraint on the cluster mass profile, we leave the
396: central velocity dispersion parameter (and hence the stellar $M_*/L$,
397: Eqn~\ref{eq:mlpiemd}) free {\it in the lensing analysis}. As the
398: Jaffe density profile is used for the BCG dynamical analysis (S04),
399: the PIEMD core and cutoff radius which best match the Jaffe surface
400: density are adopted. \S~\ref{sec:galgeom} discusses further the
401: results of the surface brightness matching between the Jaffe and PIEMD
402: models in the clusters.
403:
404: \subsection{Incorporating the Dynamical Constraints}\label{sec:dynconsts}
405:
406: Apart from the use of the pseudo-elliptical gNFW profile for the dark
407: matter component, the observational data and analysis methods adopted
408: here are identical to those used by S04. In that work, the observed
409: velocity dispersion profile of the BCG was interpreted via the
410: spherical Jeans equation (see Appendix of S04) to assist in the
411: decomposition of the dark and baryonic mass components. This portion
412: of the $\chi^{2}$ was calculated by comparing the expected velocity
413: dispersion profile of the BCG (which depends on the mass enclosed at a
414: given radius and the relative contribution of dark and luminous
415: matter) given a mass model with the observed velocity dispersion
416: profile, taking into account the effects of seeing and the long slit
417: shape used for the observations. Ellipticity in the BCG and its dark
418: matter halo can be ignored as its effect on the velocity dispersion
419: profile will be small (e.g.~\citet{Kronawitter00}).
420:
421: The reader is referred to S04 for the observational details pertaining
422: to the velocity dispersion profile, the surface brightness profile of
423: the BCG and the subsequent dynamical modeling to constrain the cluster
424: DM inner slope.
425:
426: \subsection{Statistical Methods}\label{sec:stats}
427:
428: A $\chi^{2}$-estimator is used to constrain the acceptable range of
429: parameters compatible with the observational data. First we use the
430: strong lens model to calculate the likelihood of the lensing
431: constraints and then we combine it with a dynamical model to include
432: the kinematic information into the likelihood.
433:
434: The first step is the strong lensing likelihood. Once the lensing
435: interpretation is finalized and the perturbing galaxy parameters are
436: fixed, the remaining free parameters are constrained by calculating a
437: lensing $\chi^2$ over a hypercube which encompasses the full range of
438: acceptable models, modulo a prior placed on the dark matter scale
439: radius (see \S~\ref{sec:rscprior}). In Bayesian terms this
440: corresponds to adopting a uniform prior. The lensing $\chi^2$ value
441: is calculated in the source plane identically to that of
442: \citep{gps05}. For each multiply-imaged system, the source
443: location for each noted image ($x_{model,i}$,$y_{model,i}$) is
444: calculated using the lens equation. Since there should be only one
445: source for each multiple image set (with N images), the difference
446: between the source positions should be minimized, hence:
447:
448: \begin{equation}
449: \chi^2_{pos}{=}\sum_{i{=}1}^{N}\frac{(x_{model,i}{-}x_{model,i+1})^2{+}(y_{model,i}{-}y_{model,i+1})^2}{\sigma_{S}^2}
450: \label{theory:chipos}
451: \end{equation}
452:
453: \noindent $\sigma_{S}$ is calculated by scaling the positional error
454: associated with a muliple image knot, $\sigma_{I}$, by the
455: amplification of the source $A$ so that $\sigma_{I}^{2}=A
456: \sigma_{S}^{2}$. The following analysis will assume two different
457: positional errors for the multiply imaged knots, using uncertainties
458: of $\sigma_{I}=$0\farcs2 and 0\farcs5, referred to hereafter as the
459: `fine' and `coarse' analyses, respectively. The case for each is
460: justified below.
461:
462: %The lensing $\chi^2$ value is
463: %calculated in the source plane as follows (see \citet{Limousin06} for
464: %details). For each multiply-imaged system, the source location for
465: %each noted image ($x_{model}$,$y_{model}$) is calculated using the
466: %lens equation. From this group of related source positions, the
467: %barycenter ($x_{B}$,$y_{B}$) is calculated, whence:
468: %
469: %\begin{equation}
470: %\chi^2_{pos}{=}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i{=}1}^{N}\frac{(x_{model}{-}x_{B})^2{+}(y_{model}{-}y_{B})^2}{\sigma_{pos}^2}
471: %\label{theory:chipos}
472: %\end{equation}
473:
474: %\noindent $\sigma_{pos}$ is calculated by scaling the positional
475: %error associated with a multiple image knot, $\sigma_{I}$, by the
476: %amplication of the source $A$ so that $\sigma_{I}^{2} = A
477: %\sigma_{S}^{2}$.
478:
479:
480: The finer 0\farcs2 error bar corresponds to the uncertainty in the
481: multiple image knot positions as defined by the resolution and pixel
482: size of the HST/WFPC2 images. Excellent strong lensing fits are
483: achieved with the finer 0\farcs2 error bar ($\chi^{2}/dof\sim 1$), so
484: that technically there is no need for increased uncertainties. The
485: uncertainty is dominated by the spatial extension of the multiple
486: image knots employed and the ability to identify surface brightness
487: peaks.
488:
489: In contrast to our ability to match the image positions down to the
490: resolution of the HST/WFPC2 images, recent combined strong and weak
491: lensing analyses of Abell 1689 have been unable to do so
492: (e.g.~\citet{Broadhurst05,Halkola06,Limousin06}). Although Abell 1689
493: is a more complex cluster than those studied here, it does have the
494: most identified multiple images of any other cluster to date, and so
495: can probe the overall mass profile on smaller scales and with many
496: more constraints. As espoused in \S~1, real galaxy clusters are
497: complex systems that are likely not easily parameterized by simple
498: mass models, and as the number and density of mass probes increases
499: the more refined and complete the mass model necessary to match the
500: data. In our case, where we have relatively few mass profile
501: constraints (at least in comparison to Abell 1689), we adopt a coarser
502: 0\farcs5 positional error which allows us to account for complexities
503: in the actual mass distribution of our clusters that our small number
504: of mass probes are insensitive to. This, plus the fact that we
505: carefully chose our perturbing galaxies such that a lensing
506: $\chi^{2}/dof\sim1$ was found should account for reasonable situations
507: where we have missed an interesting perturber galaxy. By adopting
508: too small a multiple image position uncertainty, the region in
509: parameter space explored may be overly confined (such that, for
510: example, the observed BCG velocity dispersion profile cannot be
511: reproduced).
512:
513:
514: The strong lensing analysis is performed with 5 free parameters,
515: analogous to those adopted in S04. These are the dark matter inner
516: logarithmic slope ($\beta$), the pseudo-ellipticity of the potential
517: ($\epsilon$), the amplitude of the DM halo ($\delta_{c}$), the dark
518: matter scale radius ($r_{sc}$), and the mass-to-light ratio of the BCG
519: ($M_*/L$). We choose to place a uniform prior on the dark matter
520: scale radius, ($r_{sc}$) based on past mass profile analyses of these
521: clusters and results from CDM simulations in order to reduced
522: computation time (see \S~\ref{sec:rscprior}). In practice, to
523: evaluate the $\chi^2_{pos}$ at each point in the hypercube, the
524: pseudo-ellipticity of the cluster dark matter halo is optimized while
525: simply looping over the remaining free parameters.
526:
527: Once the strong lensing $\chi^{2}$ values are computed, attention is
528: turned to the dynamical data. In contrast to the strong lensing
529: model, the dynamical model is spherically symmetric and follows that
530: presented by S04, with the $\chi^{2}$ value being:
531:
532: \begin{equation}
533: \chi^{2}_{\sigma}{=}\sum_{i{=}1}^{N}\frac{(\sigma_{i,obs}{-}\sigma_{i,model})^{2}}{\Delta_{i}^{2}}
534: \label{eqn:chisigma}
535: \end{equation}
536: %(M_{*}/L,\delta_{c},\beta,r_{sc})
537:
538: \noindent where $\Delta_{i}$ is the uncertainty in the observed
539: velocity dispersion measurements.
540:
541: The lensing and velocity dispersion $\chi^{2}$ values are summed,
542: allowing for standard marginalization of nuisance parameters and
543: the calculation of confidence regions.
544:
545: \subsection{Dark matter scale radius prior}\label{sec:rscprior}
546:
547: As mentioned in the previous sections, in order to limit computation
548: time, a prior was placed on the dark matter scale radius
549: $r_{sc}$. This is justified both on previous mass profile analyses of
550: these clusters and the results of CDM simulations.
551:
552: An array of CDM simulations has provided information not only on the
553: inner dark matter density profile, but on the expected value of the
554: scale radius, $r_{sc}$, and its intrinsic scatter at the galaxy
555: cluster scale (e.g.~\citealt{Bullocketal01,Tasitsiomi04,Dolag04}).
556: For example, \citet{Bullocketal01} found that dark matter halos the
557: size of small galaxy clusters have scale radii between 240 and 550 kpc
558: (68\% CL). \citet{Tasitsiomi04}, using higher resolution simulations
559: with fewer dark matter halos found $r_{sc}$ of 450$\pm$300 kpc.
560: Finally, \citet{Dolag04} studied the DM concentrations of galaxy
561: clusters in a $\Lambda CDM$ cosmology and found a typical range of
562: scale radii between $r_{sc}$ of 150 and 400 kpc. These results
563: represent a selection of the extensive numerical work being done on
564: the concentration of dark matter halos.
565:
566: Previous combined strong and weak lensing analyses of MS2137-23 have
567: provided approximate values for the scale radius
568: \citep{gavazzi03,Gavazzi05}. \citet{gavazzi03} found a best fitting
569: scale radius of $\sim$130 kpc (and hints that the scale radius may be
570: as low as $\sim$70 kpc from their weak lensing data) for their
571: analysis of MS2137-23. A more recent analysis \citep{Gavazzi05} found a
572: best fitting radius of $\sim$170 kpc. Similarly for Abell 383, a
573: recent X-ray analysis found a best-fitting dark matter scale radius of
574: $\sim130$ kpc (Zhang et al. 2007).
575:
576: Taking these observational studies into account, we chose a uniform
577: scale radius prior between 100 and 200 kpc for MS2137-23 and Abell
578: 383, both for simplicity and to bracket the extant observational
579: results which often have constraints at larger radii (and thus
580: constrain the scale radius better) than the current work. It is worth
581: noting that the extant observations of these two clusters indicate a
582: scale radius which is on the low end of that predicted from CDM
583: simulations. For a fixed virial mass, a smaller scale radius
584: indicates a higher concentration, $c=r_{vir}/r_{sc}$. This could be
585: due to the effect of baryonic cooling, which could increase halo
586: concentration (as well as inner slope perhaps). It has been suggested
587: that those halos with the highest concentration (again for a fixed
588: mass) are those that are the oldest and with the least substructure,
589: providing more indirect evidence that we have chosen 'relaxed' galaxy
590: clusters to study \citep{Zentner05}. We briefly explore the
591: consequences of changing our assumed scale radius prior range in
592: \S~\ref{sec:highrad}.
593:
594: \section{Application to Data}\label{sec:obsresults}
595:
596: We now turn to the observational data for MS2137-23 and Abell 383
597: and describe our methods for analyzing these in the context
598: of lensing input parameters.
599:
600: \subsection{BCG and Perturber Galaxy Parameters}\label{sec:galgeom}
601:
602: In order to fix the position angle and ellipticity of the perturber
603: galaxies and BCG components, the IRAF task {\sc ellipse} is used to
604: estimate the surface brightness profile at typically the effective
605: radius. The measured parameters are fixed in the lensing
606: analysis. The galaxy position, core radius ($\rc$) and cutoff radius
607: ($\rt$) are each chosen to match those fitting the photometry
608: (Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel}). For perturbing galaxies, this leaves
609: only the PIEMD parameter velocity dispersion ($\sigo$) which must be
610: adjusted to match the multiple imaging constraints, as explained in
611: \S~\ref{sec:massmodel}.
612:
613: For the BCG, following S04, it is preferable to use the Jaffe stellar
614: density profile for the dynamical analysis since this function
615: provides an analytic solution to the spherical Jeans equation.
616: However, the PIEMD model implemented in {\sc lenstool} offers numerous
617: advantages for the lensing analysis. To use the most advantageous
618: model in each application, a correspondence is established between the
619: two by fitting with a PIEMD model the Jaffe surface brightness fit
620: presented by S04. An appropriate combination of the PIEMD $\rc$ and
621: $\rt$ model parameters matches the Jaffe profile found by S04 with no
622: significant residuals (PSF smearing was also taken into account).
623: Table~\ref{tab:lensfixed} lists the PIEMD parameters used for our
624: lensing analysis, as well as the Jaffe profile parameters used by S04.
625:
626: \begin{table*}
627: \begin{center}
628: \caption{Fixed Parameters in Abell 383 and MS2137-23 Lens Model\label{tab:lensfixed}}
629: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
630: \tableline\tableline
631: Cluster&Parameters& $x_{c}$&$y_{c}$& b/a & $\theta$&$r_{core}$&$\sigma_{0}$& $r_{cut}/R_{e}$\\
632: &&(arcsec)&(arcsec)&&(deg)&(kpc)&($km s^{-1}$)&(kpc)\\
633: \tableline
634: MS2137&Cluster-scale DM halo&0.0&0.0&Free&5.0 & -&-&-\\
635: &${\rm BCG_{PIEMD}}$&0.0&0.0&0.83&17.75&5$\times10^{-6}$&Free&22.23\\
636: &${\rm BCG_{Jaffe}}$&0.0&0.0&-&-&-&-&24.80\\
637: &Galaxy Perturber&16.2&-5.46&0.66&159.9&0.05&173.0&4.8\\
638: Abell 383&Cluster-scale DM halo&0.0&0.0&Free&104.3&-&-&-\\
639: &${\rm BCG_{PIEMD}}$&0.0&0.0&0.90&107.2&3$\times10^{-6}$&Free&25.96\\
640: &${\rm BCG_{Jaffe}}$&0.0&0.0&-&-&-&-&46.75\\
641: &Perturber 1&14.92&-16.78&0.804&-20.9&0.67&230.0&26.98\\
642: &Perturber 2&9.15&-1.92&0.708&10.3&0.51&140.0&10.79\\
643: &Perturber 3&0.17&-24.26&0.67&65.2&0.24&124.8&9.10\\
644: &Perturber 4&-4.10&-13.46&0.645&27.7&0.17&125.7&2.19\\
645: \tableline
646: \end{tabular}
647: \tablecomments{The position angle, $\theta$ is measured from North
648: towards East. The DM halo is parameterized with the pseudo-gNFW
649: profile. All other mass components are parameterized by a PIEMD
650: model. Note that $R_{e}=0.76r_{jaffe}$ \citep{Jaffe83}.}
651: \end{center}
652: \end{table*}
653:
654:
655:
656:
657: \subsection{MS2137-23 Lens Model}\label{sec:lensinterpms2137}
658:
659: The strong lensing properties of MS2137-23 have been studied
660: extensively by many workers
661: \citep{Mellier93,Miralda95,Hammer97,gavazzi03,Gavazzi05}. The most
662: detailed model \citep{gavazzi03} used 26 multiply-imaged knots from
663: two different background sources. The model adopted here is more
664: conservative and based only on those multiple images confirmed via
665: spectroscopy or suggested on the grounds of surface brightness or
666: interim lens models. Despite having some multiple images in common
667: with \citet{gavazzi03}, we have retained our own nomenclature.
668:
669: Following \citet{Sand02}, the tangential and radial arcs arise from
670: separate sources, at $z=1.501$ and $z=1.502$, respectively. The
671: multiple image interpretation is detailed in Figure~\ref{fig:mulplot}
672: and Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}. There are two separate features (1
673: and 3) on the source giving rise to the tangential arc which is
674: multiply-imaged four and three times respectively. It has not been
675: possible to confidently locate the fourth image of feature 3, since it
676: is adjacent to the perturbing galaxy. Also, it is expected that a
677: fifth, central image would be associated with the giant tangential
678: arc. Although the position of this fifth central image has been
679: tentatively reported \citep{gavazzi03}, we do not include it in our
680: model because we were unable to clearly identify it due to BCG
681: subtraction residuals. Two images of the source giving rise to the
682: radial arc were also identified. The mirror image of feature 2a
683: nearer the center of the BCG could not be recovered, most likely
684: because of residuals arising from the subtraction of the BCG.
685:
686: \begin{figure*}
687: \begin{center}
688:
689: \mbox{
690: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f1a.eps}}
691: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f1b.eps}}
692: }
693: \mbox{
694: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f1c.eps}}
695: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f1d.eps}}
696: }
697:
698:
699: \caption[Multiple image interpretation of the cluster
700: MS2137.]{\label{fig:mulplot} Multiple image interpretation of the
701: cluster MS2137-23. The exact positions used are shown in
702: Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}. Three sets of multiple images are
703: identified, one with the radial arc system (2a \& 2b) and two with the
704: tangential arc system (1abcd \& 3abc). The perturbing galaxy is the
705: elliptical S0 next to the lensed feature 1b. }
706: \end{center}
707: \end{figure*}
708:
709: As in \citet{gavazzi03}, only one perturbing galaxy is included in the
710: lens model (see Table~\ref{tab:lensfixed}). For this system, the
711: best-fitting $\chi^{2}$ value occurred near $\sigo$=173 \kms.
712:
713:
714: In the initial modeling of MS2137-23, some experimentation was
715: undertaken with different cluster DM ellipticities and position
716: angles. While some variation in ellipticity is permitted by the
717: lensing interpretation, a robust position angle offset was detected
718: between the BCG and that of the DM halo of $\Delta \theta \sim$13
719: degrees, in agreement with \citet{gavazzi03}. In the following,
720: results are presented with the DM position angle fixed at $\theta$=5
721: degrees. This optimal position angle was determined during the
722: initial lens modeling process by fixing all cluster mass parameters to
723: values corresponding to a model with $\chi^{2}/dof\sim 1$ and letting
724: the DM position angle vary until a $\chi^{2}$ minimum was reached.
725: As a consistency check, we repeated our calculations with a
726: fixed DM position angle of 4.0 and 6.0 degrees. Varying the DM
727: position angle had very little effect on our other parameter
728: constraints, but results in a slightly larger overall $\chi^{2}$
729: (lensing + velocity dispersion profile; $\Delta \chi^{2} <$1) value.
730: For this reason, we only present our DM position angle of 5 degree
731: results.
732:
733:
734:
735: \subsection{Abell 383 Lens Model}\label{sec:lensinterpa383}
736:
737: Detailed lens models for Abell 383 have been published in
738: \citet{gps01,gps05}, which we will largely adopt in this work.
739: Multiple image sets 1 and 2 are based on the in-depth lensing
740: interpretation of \citet{gps05}. The reader is referred to that work
741: for a detailed description of this radial and tangential gravitational
742: arc. Multiple image sets 3, 4, 5 and 6 (for which there are no
743: spectroscopic redshifts, but for which their distinctive morphology is
744: reassuring) are included largely to constrain the properties of
745: perturbing galaxies 1, 3, and 4 (see Fig~\ref{fig:mulplota383} and
746: Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}). Since these images have no spectroscopic
747: confirmation, a redshift $z\sim$3 was assumed; the mass model is very
748: insensitive to the exact choice.
749:
750: \begin{figure*}
751: \begin{center}
752: \mbox{
753: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f2a.eps}}
754: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f2b.eps}}
755: }
756: \mbox{
757: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f2c.eps}}
758: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.2cm \epsfbox{f2d.eps}}
759: }
760: \caption[Multiple image interpretation of the cluster Abell
761: 383.]{\label{fig:mulplota383} Multiple image interpretation of the
762: cluster Abell 383. The exact positions used are shown in
763: Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}. In all figures except for the top left we
764: have subtracted cluster galaxies in order to more clearly see the
765: multiple image features. }
766: \end{center}
767: \end{figure*}
768:
769:
770: The Abell 383 cluster mass model is more complex than that for
771: MS2137-23, but only in the sense that there are more perturbing
772: galaxies that must be put into the mass model to match the image
773: positions. The bright cluster elliptical southwest of the BCG (\#2 in
774: \citet{gps05}; Perturber \#1 in this work) requires a DM halo more
775: extended than the light, as mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:massmodel}.
776: After some iteration, it was found that the parameters of this
777: important perturber could be fixed to those listed in
778: Table~\ref{tab:lensfixed}. Multiple image sets 3, 4 and 5 play a
779: crucial role (see Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}) in constraining the
780: perturber. Although other perturbing galaxies were added, none has a
781: comparable effect on the lensing $\chi^2$. Table~\ref{tab:lensfixed}
782: provides the full model parameter list.
783:
784: A slight ($\sim$3 degree) offset between the position angle of the BCG
785: and the cluster DM halo was noted. We found the best-fitting DM
786: position angle in the same way as in MS2137-23
787: (\S~\ref{sec:lensinterpms2137}). The position angle of the DM halo
788: was kept fixed but the ellipticity was left as a free parameter. As in
789: MS2137-23, we also reran our analysis with a DM position angle of
790: 103.3 and 105.3, but only present the results with a DM PA of 104.3.
791:
792: \begin{table*}
793: \begin{center}
794: \caption{Multiple Image Interpretation of MS2137 and Abell 383\label{tab:lensinterp}}
795: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
796: \tableline\tableline
797: Cluster&Multiple Image& $x_{c}$&$y_{c}$&Redshift\\
798: &ID&(arcsec)&(arcsec)\\
799: \tableline
800: MS2137&1a&6.92&-13.40&1.501\\
801: &1b&12.40&-7.94&1.501\\
802: &1c&0.07&19.31&1.501\\
803: &1d&-11.57&-7.49&1.501\\
804: &2a&3.96&-5.51&1.502\\
805: &2b&-8.01&22.10&1.502\\
806: &3a&5.16&-14.68&1.501\\
807: &3b&0.11&18.91&1.501\\
808: &3c&-12.30&-6.74&1.501\\
809: Abell 383&1A&-1.74&2.56&1.0\\
810: &1B&-1.03&1.20&1.0\\
811: &1C&16.37&-4.03&1.0\\
812: &2A&7.00&-14.01&1.0\\
813: &2B&8.23&-13.20&1.0\\
814: &2C&14.11&-8.19&1.0\\
815: &3A&5.88&-22.02&3.0\*\\
816: &3B&14.69&-14.68&3.0\*\\
817: &3C&16.49&-14.39&3.0\*\\
818: &4A&8.35&-23.96&3.0\*\\
819: &4B&17.45&-17.28&3.0\*\\
820: &4C&17.92&-15.43&3.0\*\\
821: &5A&6.64&-21.75&3.0\*\\
822: &5B&16.98&-14.09&3.0\*\\
823: &6A&7.05&-21.75&3.0\*\\
824: &6B&17.27&-14.17&3.0\*\\
825: \tableline
826: \end{tabular}
827: \tablecomments{Multiple Image Interpretation. All image positions are with
828: respect to the BCG center.}
829: \end{center}
830: \end{table*}
831:
832:
833: \section{Results}\label{sec:stronglens}
834:
835: We now analyze the refined 2D lens models of MS2137-23 and Abell 383
836: together with the velocity dispersion profiles presented in S04. We
837: present our analysis with both a multiple image position uncertainty
838: of 0\farcs2 and 0\farcs5, described as the fine and coarse fits in
839: \S~\ref{sec:stats}. The results are summarized in
840: Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel} and Figures~\ref{fig:ms2137rscprior} and
841: \ref{fig:a383rscprior}.
842:
843: \subsection{MS2137-23}
844:
845: Figure~\ref{fig:ms2137rscprior} and the discussion below summarizes
846: the results for the fine and coarse positional cases. One thing to
847: note is the number of degrees of freedom involved, i.e. the difference
848: between the number of constraints and the number of free parameters,
849: in order to quantify the goodness of fit. The mass model has 5 free
850: parameters, as detailed in \S~\ref{sec:lensinterpms2137}: the DM inner
851: slope $\beta$, the DM pseudo-ellipticity $\epsilon$, the DM amplitude
852: $\delta_{c}$, the BCG stellar $M_{*}/L$, and the dark matter scale
853: radius $r_{sc}$ which is allowed to vary in the 100-200 kpc range.
854: Considering Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}, the multiple images provide 12
855: constraints, while the velocity dispersion data provides 8, giving a
856: total of 20 data constraints. The resulting number of degrees of
857: freedom is thus 15.
858:
859:
860: \begin{figure*}
861: \begin{center}
862: \mbox{
863: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f3a.eps}}
864: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f3b.eps}}
865: }
866: \mbox{
867: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f3c.eps}}
868: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f3d.eps}}
869: }
870: \caption{The combined lensing+dynamics results for the cluster
871: MS2137-23. The top row summarizes the results for the 0\farcs2
872: lensing position uncertainty scenario while the bottom row
873: encapsulates the 0\farcs5 scenario. Top Left--Lensing+dynamics
874: likelihood contours (68\%,95\%, and 99\%) in the $M/L-\beta$ plane
875: after marginalizing over the other free parameters with the 0\farcs2
876: lensing multiple image uncertainty. Top Right-- Best fitting
877: velocity dispersion profile from the combined lensing+dynamics
878: analysis with the 0\farcs2 lensing multiple image uncertainty. No
879: models could be found that fit both the lensing and observed
880: velocity dispersion constraints. Bottom Left -- Lensing+dynamics
881: likelihood contours (68\%,95\%, and 99\%) with the 0\farcs5 lensing
882: multiple image uncertainty in the $M/L-\beta$ plane after
883: marginalizing or optimizing over the other free parameters. Bottom
884: Right -- Best fitting velocity dispersion profile from the combined
885: lensing+dynamics analysis with the 0\farcs5 lensing multiple image
886: uncertainty. While the best-fitting model velocity dispersion is a
887: better fit to the data than in the 0\farcs2 lensing scenario, it
888: still cannot reproduce the observed decline in the velocity
889: dispersion profile in our highest radial bins -- suggesting a
890: problem with our current mass model parameterization.
891: \label{fig:ms2137rscprior}}
892: \end{center}
893: \end{figure*}
894:
895: \subsubsection{The fine positional accuracy lensing case}
896:
897: The two top panels of Figure~\ref{fig:ms2137rscprior} and the
898: appropriate line in Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel} encapsulate the results
899: of the fine positional analysis. DM inner slopes between $\beta =
900: 0.65 - 1.0$ lie within the 68\% confidence limit (after marginalizing
901: over all other free parameters), although the best fitting DM scale
902: radius sits at the edge of the allowed prior ($r_{sc,best}$=200 kpc).
903: A scale radius of 200 kpc is higher than that seen in previous lensing
904: analyses of MS2137-23 that have used a similar mass parameterization
905: to our own (e.g.\citet{gavazzi03,Gavazzi05}), so there is no case to
906: alter the prior.
907:
908: The parameter constraints are not particularly tight because the total
909: $\chi^2\sim$54, larger than expected given the number of degrees of
910: freedom. Such a value may indicate that the form of the mass profile
911: used in the fit is inappropriate. Indeed, the model velocity
912: dispersion profile is a poor match to that observed
913: (Figure~\ref{fig:ms2137rscprior}). In fact, if the BCG velocity
914: dispersion results are ignored, acceptable lens models ($\chi^{2}/dof
915: \lesssim 1$) can be recovered with a variety of inner DM slopes, scale
916: radii and BCG stellar $M/L$, although these parameters have correlated
917: values. We postpone discussion of the possible reasons for this
918: mismatch until later.
919:
920: \subsubsection{The coarse positional accuracy lensing case}
921:
922: The two bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:ms2137rscprior}, along with
923: Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel} summarize our results for the coarse
924: positional analysis. DM inner slopes between $\beta =$0.4-0.75 lie
925: within our 68\% CL, and we again find DM scale radii at the high end
926: of our prior range, as expected. The shift in the BCG M/L vs. DM
927: inner slope contour fine positional case indicates that the increased
928: parameter space in the lensing models has led to a slightly improved
929: velocity dispersion profile (bottom right panel of
930: Figure~\ref{fig:ms2137rscprior}). The overall $\chi^{2}\simeq$31 is
931: improved, although the probability for 15 degrees of freedom is less
932: than 1\%, assuming measurements are governed by Gaussian
933: statistics. Thus the model remains a marginal fit to the data.
934:
935: \subsubsection{Comparison with Gavazzi 2005}
936:
937: We now briefly compare our results with those of \citet{Gavazzi05}.
938: Gavazzi's analysis used a similar strong lensing model to our own,
939: including what we consider to be somewhat less secure multiple
940: images. However, he extended the analysis to larger scales including
941: weak lensing data and incorporated the BCG velocity dispersion profile
942: presented by S04. Gavazzi adopted a strict NFW profile for the cluster
943: DM halo and a Hernquist profile for the stellar component of the BCG.
944:
945: Despite these differences, Gavazzi's conclusions are very similar to
946: those of the present paper. Models with NFW-like DM haloes (regardless
947: of whether the inner slopes were varied) were uniformly poor fits to
948: the observational data. In particular, the falling velocity
949: dispersion profile observed at $R \gtrsim 5$kpc cannot be reproduced,
950: despite experimenting with the effect of anisotropic orbits in the
951: stellar distribution. A major conclusion of Gavazzi's study is that
952: halo triaxiality, an effect not typically included, may play an
953: important role in the central regions of galaxy clusters. We will
954: return to this topic in \S~\ref{sec:ac}.
955:
956: \begin{table*}
957: \begin{center}
958: \caption{Acceptable Parameter Range\label{tab:lensmodel}}
959: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
960: \tableline\tableline
961: Prior Setup&Cluster& Inner DM Slope& $\epsilon$& $\delta_{c}$ & $r_{sc}$ & $M_*/L_{V}$ \\
962: && $\beta$ & & & (kpc) &\\
963: \tableline
964: 100 - 200 kpc $r_{sc}$ Prior&\\
965: $\sigma_{lens}=$0\farcs2& MS2137 & $0.95^{+0.05}_{-0.30}$&$0.08^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$&$29420^{+98310}_{-1760}$&$200^{-42}$&$1.58^{+0.52}_{-0.635}$\\
966: & Abell 383 & $0.55^{+0.2}_{-0.05}$&$0.08^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$&$140000^{+8500}_{-60600}$&$100^{+28}$& $2.4^{+0.42}_{-0.42}$\\
967: $\sigma_{lens}=$0\farcs5& MS2137 & $0.6^{+0.15}_{-0.2}$&$0.06^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$&$44600^{+35500}_{-7175}$&$200^{-31}$&$2.45^{+0.75}_{-0.65}$\\
968: & Abell 383 & $0.45^{+0.2}_{-0.25}$&$0.06^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$&$156000^{+38500}_{-67150}$&$100^{+21}$& $2.34^{+1.02}_{-0.54}$\\
969: \tableline
970: \end{tabular}
971: \tablecomments{Best-fitting parameters and/or confidence limits for
972: the different prior scenarios present in this paper. }
973: \end{center}
974: \end{table*}
975:
976: \subsection{Abell 383}
977:
978: Our results for Abell 383 are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:a383rscprior}
979: and Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel} for both the fine and coarse positional
980: uncertainty cases. We discuss each separately below.
981: Calculating the number of degrees of freedom in a similar way to that
982: done for MS2137-23, we again have 5 free parameters in our mass model.
983: Considering Table~\ref{tab:lensinterp}, multiple images provide 16
984: constraints, taking into account that those related to multiple image
985: sets 3,4,5 \& 6 do not have known redshift information. The velocity
986: dispersion data provide 3 additional constraints. Thus, the
987: resulting number of degrees of freedom is 14.
988:
989: \subsubsection{The fine positional accuracy lensing case}
990:
991: The top two panels of Figure~\ref{fig:a383rscprior} and the
992: appropriate line in Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel} summarize the results in
993: this case. DM inner slopes between $\beta = 0.5 - 0.7$ lie within the
994: 68\% confidence limit of our analysis (after marginalizing over all
995: other free parameters). The best fitting scale radius sits again at
996: the edge of the allowed $r_{sc}$ prior range ($r_{sc}$=100 kpc). An
997: X-ray analysis of Abell 383, which was able to probe to higher radius
998: than the current analysis, indicates that the DM scale radius is well
999: above 100 kpc (Zhang et al. 2007). For these reasons, and those
1000: discussed earlier, there is no case for adjusting the DM scale radius
1001: prior.
1002:
1003: The total $\chi^{2}$=40.4, high given the 14 degrees of freedom in
1004: the analysis.
1005:
1006: \subsubsection{The coarse positional accuracy lensing case}
1007:
1008: The two bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:a383rscprior}, along with
1009: Table~\ref{tab:lensmodel} summarize the results for the coarse
1010: positional accuracy case. DM inner slopes between $\beta =$0.2 - 0.65
1011: lie within our 68\% CL, along with a best fitting DM scale radius of
1012: 100 kpc. Our parameter constraints encompass the values found in
1013: the fine accuracy case with no shift in parameter space (unlike the
1014: case for MS2137-23). This suggests that although we should expect
1015: a lower $\chi^{2}$ due to the increased uncertainties allowed, no
1016: significant improvement to the best-fitting velocity dispersion profile
1017: should be expected. As we can see in the bottom right panel of
1018: Figure~\ref{fig:a383rscprior}, the best fitting velocity dispersion
1019: profile is very similar to that obtained in the fine case.
1020: The total $\chi^{2}$=22, acceptable given 14 degrees of freedom.
1021:
1022: \begin{figure*}
1023: \begin{center}
1024: \mbox{
1025: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f4a.eps}}
1026: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f4b.eps}}
1027: }
1028: \mbox{
1029: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f4c.eps}}
1030: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f4d.eps}}
1031: }
1032: \caption{The combined lensing+dynamics results for the cluster Abell 383.
1033: The top row summarizes the results for the 0\farcs2 lensing position
1034: uncertainty scenario while the bottom row encapsulates the 0\farcs5
1035: scenario. Top Left--Lensing+dynamics likelihood contours
1036: (68\%,95\%, and 99\%) in the $M/L-\beta$ plane with the 0\farcs2
1037: lensing multiple image uncertainty after marginalizing over the
1038: other free parameters. Top Right-- Best fitting velocity dispersion
1039: profile from the combined lensing+dynamics analysis with the
1040: 0\farcs2 lensing multiple image uncertainty. Bottom Left --
1041: Lensing+dynamics contours (68\%,95\%, and 99\%) in the $M/L-\beta$
1042: plane with the 0\farcs5 lensing multiple image uncertainty after
1043: marginalization over the other free parameters. Bottom Right --
1044: Best fitting velocity dispersion profile from the combined
1045: lensing+dynamics analysis with the 0\farcs5 lensing multiple image
1046: uncertainty. The 0\farcs5 lensing multiple image scenario provides
1047: a better overall fit to the observations, although we are limited by
1048: the relatively poor quality of the observed Abell 383 velocity dispersion
1049: profile.
1050: \label{fig:a383rscprior}}
1051: \end{center}
1052: \end{figure*}
1053:
1054: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:systematics}
1055:
1056: In the previous section we have presented the results of our analysis,
1057: which showed that a mass model comprising a stellar component for the
1058: BCG following a Jaffe profile together with a generalized NFW DM
1059: cluster halo is able to adequately reproduce the observations for
1060: Abell 383 (albeit {\it only} for the coarse lensing positional
1061: accuracy scenario) but is unable to simultaneously reproduce the
1062: observed multiple image configuration and BCG velocity dispersion
1063: profile for MS2137-23. In the case of Abell 383, the inner DM profile
1064: is flatter than $\beta$=1, supporting the earlier work of S04. This
1065: indicates that at least some galaxy clusters have inner DM slopes
1066: which are shallower than those seen in numerical simulations --
1067: but only if the mass parameterization used in the current work is
1068: reflective of reality. Further work in this interesting cluster using
1069: other observational probes will further refine the mass model,
1070: and determine if the generalized NFW DM form is a good fit to the
1071: cluster profile.
1072:
1073: In this section we discuss systematic uncertainties in
1074: our method and possible refinements that could be made to
1075: reconcile the mass model with the observations for MS2137-23.
1076: We hope that many of these suggestions will become important
1077: as cluster mass models improve and thus will present
1078: fruitful avenues of research.
1079:
1080: \subsection{Systematic Errors}
1081:
1082: We focus first on systematic errors associated particularly with the
1083: troublesome stellar velocity dispersion profile for MS2137-23. Errors
1084: could conceivably arise from (i) significant non-Gaussianity in the
1085: absorption lines (which are fit by Gaussians), (ii) uncertain
1086: measurement of the instrumental resolution used to calibrate the
1087: velocity dispersion scale, and (iii) template mismatch.
1088:
1089: Non-gaussianity introduces an error that we consider too small to
1090: significantly alter the goodness of fit \citep{Gavazzi05}. The
1091: instrumental resolution of ESI (the Keck II instrument used to measure
1092: the velocity dispersion profile; \citet{Sheinis02}) is $\sim$30 \kms;
1093: this is much smaller than the measured dispersion. Even if the
1094: instrumental resolution was in error by a factor of two, the
1095: systematic shift in $\sigma$ would only be 3 \kms (using Eq~3 in Treu
1096: et al.\ 1999). This would affect all measurements and not reverse the
1097: trend with radius.
1098:
1099: Concerning template mismatch, S04 estimated a possible systematic
1100: shift of up to 15-20 \kms . This could play a role especially as the
1101: signal to noise diminishes at large radii, where the discrepancy with
1102: the model profile is greatest. To test this hypothesis, we added 20
1103: \kms in quadrature to only those velocity dispersion data points in
1104: MS2137-23 at $R > 4$ kpc and recalculated the best-fitting $\chi^{2}$
1105: values. $\chi^{2}$ is reduced from 31 to 28.8, a modest reduction
1106: which fails to explain the poor fit.
1107:
1108: Although selectively increasing the error bars on those data points
1109: most discrepant with the model is somewhat contrived, our result does
1110: highlight the need for high S/N velocity dispersion measures out to
1111: large radii. A high quality velocity dispersion profile has been
1112: measured locally for Abell 2199 to $\sim$20 kpc \citep{Kelsonetal02}.
1113: Interestingly, these high S/N measures display similar trends to those
1114: for MS2137-23 in the overlap regime, i.e. a slightly decreasing
1115: profile at $R\lesssim 10$kpc. The dip witnessed in MS2137-23 is thus
1116: not a unique feature, although with deeper measurements we might
1117: expect to see a rise at larger radii as a result of the shallow DM
1118: profile.
1119:
1120: A final potential limitation in the dynamical analysis is the assumption
1121: of orbital isotropy. Both S04 and \citet{Gavazzi05} explored the
1122: consequences of mild orbital anisotropy, concluding a possible offset
1123: of $\Delta \beta \sim0.15$ might result. Even including orbital
1124: anisotropy into his analysis, \citet{Gavazzi05} was unable to fit the
1125: observed velocity dispersion profile.
1126:
1127: Since we determine our lensing $\chi^{2}$ values in the source
1128: plane, we checked to make sure that no extra images were seen after
1129: remapping our best-fit lensing + velocity dispersion models back to the
1130: image plane. No unexpected images were found, although several images
1131: that were explicitly not used as constraints were found, such as the
1132: mirror image of radial arc image 2a in MS2137 and the complex of
1133: multiple images associated with 3abc, 5ab, and 6ab in Abell 383 (see
1134: Figures~\ref{fig:mulplot} and \ref{fig:mulplota383}). As discussed in
1135: \S~\ref{sec:lensinterpms2137} and \ref{sec:lensinterpa383}, some of
1136: these multiple images were not used as constraints because we could
1137: not confidently identify their position either due to galaxy
1138: subtraction residuals or blending with other possible multiple image
1139: systems.
1140:
1141: \begin{figure*}
1142: \begin{center}
1143: \mbox{
1144: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f5a.eps}}
1145: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f5b.eps}}
1146: }
1147: \mbox{
1148: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f5c.eps}}
1149: \mbox{\epsfysize=4.5cm \epsfbox{f5d.eps}}
1150: }
1151: \caption{Confidence contours (68\%,95\%, and 99\%) when we allow
1152: the dark matter scale radius to be fixed at values a factor of two
1153: beyond our observationally motivated prior. Top Row -- Contours
1154: when we fix the dark matter scale radius to $r_{sc}$=50 and 400 kpc
1155: in MS2137. Although the $r_{sc}$=400 kpc scenario provides a
1156: relatively good fit to the data ($\chi^{2}\sim$26), this value for
1157: the scale radius is much larger than that observed from weak lensing
1158: data. The $r_{sc}$=50 kpc scenario is a significantly worse fit to
1159: the data, with $\chi^{2}\sim$39. Note that the DM inner slope is
1160: $\beta < 1$ in both scenarios. Bottom Row -- Contours when we fix
1161: the dark matter scale radius to $r_{sc}$=50 and 400 kpc in A383.
1162: The large discrepancy in inner slope values obtained emphasize the
1163: need for a mass probe at larger radii. The best-fitting model for
1164: either fixed scale radius is significantly worse than the
1165: best-fitting $r_{sc}$=100 kpc result ($\chi^{2}\sim$26.5 and 31.3
1166: for $r_{sc}$=50 and 400 kpc respectively).
1167: \label{fig:diffrsc}}
1168: \end{center}
1169: \end{figure*}
1170:
1171: We finally comment on the uncertainties assigned to the multiple image
1172: systems for our lens models. We have presented two sets of results in
1173: this work; with assigned image positional accuracies of
1174: $\sigma_{I}$=0\farcs2 and 0\farcs5. We find a variety of lens models
1175: are compatible with the $\sigma_{I}$=0\farcs2 case and only when the
1176: velocity dispersion data is included into the analysis does the data
1177: fail to be reproduced by the model. Certainly if we were to further
1178: increase the positional errors, at some point a good velocity
1179: dispersion fit could conceivably be obtained, but we will refrain from
1180: doing so in the present work.
1181:
1182: Increasing the positional uncertainties is only justified if there is
1183: evidence that there are significant missing components in the mass
1184: models. Further observations that can probe the mass distribution on
1185: fine scales to larger radii and higher quality models which can
1186: account for phenomena such as adiabatic contraction in the inner
1187: regions of galaxy clusters and triaxiality represent the best way to
1188: obtain a more precise picture of the cluster mass distribution.
1189:
1190:
1191: \subsection{Improving the Mass Model}
1192:
1193: We now turn our attention to possible inadequacies in the mass
1194: model. It is important to stress that the two diagnostics (lensing and
1195: dynamics) adopted in this study probe different scales. The lensing
1196: data tightly constrains the mass profile at and outside the radial arc
1197: ($\sim$20 kpc), while the velocity dispersion constrains the mass
1198: profile inside $R \lesssim 10$ kpc. Since multiple images are
1199: numerous and their positions can be more precisely measured than
1200: velocity dispersion \footnote{The error on the astrometry with
1201: respect to the relevant scale, the Einstein Radius $\theta_{\rm E}$ is
1202: much smaller than the relative error on velocity dispersion,
1203: i.e. $\delta \theta / \theta_{\rm E} << \delta \sigma/\sigma$}, they
1204: carry more weight in the $\chi^2$ statistic than the kinematic points,
1205: producing a best overall fitting model (which is lensing dominated)
1206: that is a relatively poor fit to the kinematic data. To improve the
1207: model, one must admit that either one of the two components of the
1208: modeling is incorrect, or that the functional form of the mass profile
1209: chosen to extrapolate the lensing information at the scales relevant
1210: for dynamics is insufficient. In this section we discuss several
1211: areas where the mass model presented in this paper could be improved.
1212:
1213: \subsubsection{The Contribution of the Brightest Cluster Galaxy}
1214:
1215: We might query the assumption of a Jaffe density profile for the BCG.
1216: This seems an unlikely avenue for improvement given the Jaffe profile
1217: fits the observed BCG surface brightness profile remarkably well
1218: (see Figure 2 of S04). Moreover, \citet{Gavazzi05} utilized a Hernquist
1219: mass profile in his analysis of MS2137-23, which also matches the
1220: observations, and \citet{Gavazzi05} was likewise unable to reproduce
1221: the observed S04 velocity dispersion profile.
1222:
1223: We have additionally checked our assumptions by altering the
1224: PIEMD fit to the BCG surface brightness data so that it is matched not
1225: to the derived Jaffe profile fit to the BCG but directly to the HST
1226: surface brightness profile. With this setup, we found a $r_{cut}$ value
1227: of 23.70 kpc for MS2137 and 28.65 kpc for Abell 383 (compare this with
1228: the numbers in Table~\ref{tab:lensfixed}). Redoing our analysis for
1229: the best-fitting $r_{sc}$ scenario only, our constraints on $\beta$
1230: for both Abell 383 and MS2137 did not change by more than 0.05, and so
1231: it is not likely that our method for constraining the BCG mass
1232: contribution is the root cause of our inability to fit the data to a
1233: BCG + gNFW cluster DM halo mass model.
1234:
1235: Conceivably the BCG may not be coincident with the center of the
1236: cluster DM halo, as has been assumed throughout this work. It is
1237: often the case that small subarcsecond off sets between BCGs and
1238: cluster DM halos are necessary to fit lensing constraints
1239: (e.g.~\citet{gps05}). There is strong evidence that the BCG is
1240: nearly coincident with the general cluster DM halo {\it in projection}
1241: from the strong lensing work presented here and by others
1242: \citep{gavazzi03,Gavazzi05}. However, an offset could be responsible
1243: for the flat to falling observed velocity dispersion profile if the
1244: BCG were actually in a less dark matter dominated portion of the
1245: cluster. Another possibility is that there are multiple massive
1246: structures along the line of sight, which would be probed by the
1247: strong lensing analysis, but not with the velocity dispersion profile
1248: of the BCG. A comprehensive redshift survey of MS2137-23 could
1249: provide further information on structures along the line of sight.
1250:
1251:
1252: \subsubsection{The Advantage of a Mass Probe at Larger Radii}\label{sec:highrad}
1253:
1254: With our presented data set, we have seen that it is difficult to
1255: constrain the DM scale radius, $r_{sc}$ because both of our mass
1256: probes are only effective within the central $\sim$100 kpc of the
1257: clusters -- within the typical DM scale radius observed and seen in
1258: CDM simulations. For this reason, the inferred DM scale radius for
1259: both Abell 383 and MS2137-23 lay at the boundary of our assumed prior
1260: range. Future work will benefit from weak lensing data, along with
1261: galaxy kinematics and X-ray data of the hot ICM which can each probe
1262: out to large clustercentric radii.
1263:
1264: Although not the focus of the current work, pinning down the correct
1265: DM scale radius will be crucial for constraining other DM mass
1266: parameters. For instance, there is a well-known degeneracy between
1267: $r_{sc}$ and the inner slope $\beta$
1268: (e.g.~\citet{gavazzi03,Gavazzi05}). To briefly explore this, we
1269: have reran our analysis (for the coarse positioning lensing case) for
1270: both clusters with a $r_{sc}$ of 50 and 400 kpc -- factors of two
1271: beyond our chosen $r_{sc}$ prior. We show our confidence contours in
1272: Figure~\ref{fig:diffrsc}, which are noteworthy. For example in the
1273: case of MS2137-23, if we fix $r_{sc}$=50 kpc, then the best-fitting
1274: $\beta = 0.05$. However, if $r_{sc}$=400 kpc then $\beta=0.7$, more
1275: in accordance with simulations. Interestingly, the $r_{sc}$=400kpc
1276: scenario returns a better overall $\chi^{2}\sim26$ than any model with
1277: $r_{sc}$=100-200 kpc -- even though a $r_{sc}$ of 400 kpc is clearly
1278: ruled our by extant weak lensing observations. None of the other
1279: $r_{sc}$=50,400 kpc scenarios produced $\chi^{2}$ values that were
1280: comparable to those seen with $r_{sc}$=100-200 kpc. Any further
1281: knowledge of the DM scale radius would aid greatly in constraining
1282: $\beta$ and determining the overall goodness of fit of the generalized
1283: NFW DM profile to the cluster data.
1284:
1285: X-ray studies assuming hydrostatic equilibrium
1286: \citep{Allen01vir,Schmidt06} and a combined strong and weak lensing
1287: analysis \citep{Gavazzi05} have presented data on MS2137-23 to radii
1288: much larger than that probed in this study. To check that the mass
1289: model derived from data within $\sim$ 100 kpc do not lead to results
1290: at variance with published data at larger radii, we have taken the
1291: \citet{Gavazzi05} results and compared their derived mass at large
1292: radii with an extrapolation of our mass models.
1293:
1294:
1295: Examining Figure~3 from \citet{Gavazzi05} we estimate that from his
1296: weak lensing analysis a 2D projected mass enclosed between $1.6 \times
1297: 10^{14}$ and $1.1 \times 10^{15} M_{\odot}$ at $\sim 1.08$ Mpc using
1298: the cosmology adopted in this paper. Correspondingly, if we take all
1299: of the $\Delta \chi^{2}<1.0$ models using our analysis method (the
1300: coarse positional accuracy case was use) and calculate the expected 2D
1301: projected mass enclosed at 1.08 Mpc we find values between $6.9 \times
1302: 10^{14}$ and $8.4 \times 10^{14} M_{\odot}$, well within the expected
1303: range.
1304:
1305:
1306: Note that no attempt was made to extrapolate the mass {\it profiles}
1307: derived in our analysis to larger radii than the data in this paper
1308: allow, although we are acquring weak lensing data for a large
1309: sample of galaxy clusters to perform a more extensive analysis. The
1310: purpose of this consistency check is to only ensure that the masses we
1311: derive for such large radii are not too discrepant with existing
1312: analyses. The consistency check is satisfied and lends some credence
1313: to the models.
1314:
1315: \subsubsection{Dark matter baryons interactions and Triaxiality}\label{sec:ac}
1316:
1317: The central regions of DM halos can be strongly affected by the
1318: gravitational interaction with baryons during halo formation. If
1319: stars form and condense much earlier than the DM, it is expected that
1320: the baryons will adiabatically compress the DM resulting in a halo
1321: that is {\it steeper} than that of the original
1322: \citep{Blumenthal86,Gnedin04}. Alternatively, dark matter heating
1323: through dynamical friction with cluster galaxies can counteract
1324: adiabatic contraction, leading to a shallower DM profile
1325: \citep{Elzant04,Nipoti03}. The present work takes into account
1326: neither of the above scenarios, and if any baryon-DM interaction
1327: greatly changes the cluster density profile, our assumed parameterized
1328: gNFW profile may be inappropriate. Recently, \citet{Zappacosta06}
1329: have used X-ray mass measurements in the cluster Abell 2589 to
1330: conclude that processes in galaxy cluster formation serve to
1331: counteract adiabatic contraction in the cluster environment.
1332: Certainly, more observational work is needed to understand the
1333: interplay between baryons and DM in clusters, and extended velocity
1334: dispersion profiles of BCGs in conjunction with other mass tracers at
1335: larger radii could serve as the best testing ground for the interplay
1336: of dark and luminous matter.
1337:
1338: Not only is there likely significant interplay between baryons and DM
1339: in the central regions of clusters, but real galaxy clusters are
1340: certainly triaxial and, if ignored, this may lead to biased parameter
1341: estimations and discrepancies when combining mass measurement
1342: techniques that are a combination of two- and three-dimensional.
1343: Several recent studies have considered the effects of halo triaxiality
1344: on observations. Using an N-body hydrodynamical simulation of a disk
1345: galaxy and performing a 'long slit' rotation curve observation,
1346: \citet{Hayashi04} found that orientation and triaxial effects can
1347: mistake a cuspy DM profile for one that has a constant density core.
1348: At the galaxy cluster scale, \citet{Clowe04} performed mock weak
1349: lensing observations of simulated galaxy clusters and found that the
1350: NFW concentration parameter recovered was correlated with the 3D
1351: galaxy cluster orientation. In order to investigate the recent rash
1352: of galaxy clusters with observed high concentration parameters in
1353: seeming contradiction to the CDM paradigm
1354: \citep{Kneib03,Gavazzi05,Broadhurst05b}, \citet{Oguri05} used strong
1355: and weak lensing data in Abell 1689 along with a set of models that
1356: included halo triaxiality and projection effects. Again, it was seen
1357: that halo shape causes a bias in mass (and mass profile)
1358: determination, although it should be kept in mind that measurements of
1359: concentration are extremely difficult (e.g. Halkola et al.\ 2006), and
1360: the recent study of \citet{Limousin06} has seemed to clear up the
1361: concentration parameter controversy for at least Abell 1689.
1362:
1363: In terms of the current work, \citet{Gavazzi05} has pointed out that
1364: the inability of his lensing model to fit the MS2137-23 BCG velocity
1365: dispersion profile may be due to halo triaxiality or projected mass
1366: along the line of sight (which would increase the mass measured in the
1367: lensing analysis but would not be seen in the stellar velocity
1368: dispersion). \citet{Gavazzi05} showed that an idealized prolate halo
1369: with an axis ratio of $\sim$ 0.4 could explain the velocity dispersion
1370: profile in MS2137-23. Halo triaxiality could also explain the high
1371: concentration previously seen in this cluster. Again, the gap between
1372: simulations and observations may be bridged with respect to
1373: triaxiality if further steps were taken to compare the two directly.
1374: One step in this direction would be the publication of detailed
1375: density profiles for the simulations (in 3-D or along numerous
1376: projected sight-lines).
1377:
1378: The most recent DM only simulations have indicated that the
1379: standard NFW profile representation of a DM profile (and its
1380: \citet{M99} counterpart with an inner slope $\beta \sim 1.5$) can be
1381: significantly improved by slightly altering the model to a profile
1382: with a slope that becomes systematically shallower at small radii
1383: (e.g.~\citet{Navarro04}, but see \citet{Diemand05}). While we have
1384: adopted the traditional generalized NFW profile in this study, future
1385: work with parameterized models should move towards the latest fitting
1386: functions along with an implementation of adiabatic contraction as has
1387: already been attempted by \citet{Zappacosta06}. Note, however, that
1388: both \citet{Navarro04} and \citet{Diemand04} have stated that all
1389: fitted functions have their weaknesses when describing complicated
1390: N-body simulations and that when possible simulations and observations
1391: should be compared directly.
1392:
1393:
1394: \section{Summary \& Future Work}\label{sec:finale}
1395:
1396: We have performed a joint gravitational lensing and dynamical analysis
1397: in the inner regions of the galaxy clusters Abell 383 and MS2137-23 in
1398: order to separate luminous baryonic from dark matter in the cluster
1399: core. To achieve this, we implemented a new 2D pseudo-elliptical
1400: generalized NFW mass model in an updated version of the {\sc LENSTOOL}
1401: software package. This refinement is a natural progression from
1402: our earlier attempts to measure the dark matter density profile
1403: \citep{Sand02, Sand04}.
1404:
1405: For the study, we adopted an observationally motivated scale radius
1406: prior of $r_{sc}=100-200$ kpc. With strong lensing alone, we find
1407: that a range of mass parameters and DM inner slopes are compatible
1408: with the multiple image data, including those with $\beta > 1$ as seen
1409: in CDM simulations. However, including the BCG kinematic constraints
1410: for both systems, the acceptable parameter ranges shrink
1411: significantly.
1412:
1413: We can summarize the results for the two clusters as follows:
1414:
1415: \begin{enumerate}
1416:
1417: \item For the cluster Abell 383 we have found satisfactory BCG +
1418: generalized NFW cluster DM models only for our coarse lensing
1419: positional accuracy scenario. Assuming that this is reflective of the
1420: underlying cluster DM distribution, the dark matter inner slope is
1421: found to be $\beta=0.45^{0.2}_{-0.25}$, supporting our earlier
1422: contention that some clusters have inner DM profiles flatter than
1423: those predicted in numerical simulations.
1424:
1425: \item For MS2137-23 our model is unable to reproduce the observed BCG
1426: velocity dispersion profile and the range of accepted inner slopes
1427: therefore depends sensitively on the adopted uncertainties in the mass
1428: model. This may suggest an unknown systematic uncertainty in our
1429: analysis or that we have adopted an inappropriate mass model. We
1430: explore the former in considerable detail, extending the quite
1431: extensive discussion of \citet{Sand04}. However, no obvious cause can
1432: be found. If, as we suspect, the cause lies with our adopted mass
1433: model, it points to the need for further work concerning the
1434: distribution of dark matter in the central regions of galaxy
1435: clusters.
1436:
1437: \end{enumerate}
1438:
1439: Future modeling efforts should include the effects of triaxiality and
1440: the influence of baryons on dark matter. It is also critical to
1441: obtain high S/N extended velocity dispersion measurements of more BCGs
1442: out to larger radii so that, in conjunction with other mass
1443: measurement techniques, the interplay of baryons and dark matter in
1444: cluster cores can be studied with a real sample. Some other future
1445: directions are straightforward. For example, the deep multiband ACS
1446: imaging now being done with galaxy clusters \citep{Broadhurst05} allow
1447: for literally hundreds of multiple images to be found, significantly
1448: increasing the number of constraints and allowing for nonparametric
1449: mass modeling \citep{Diego04} -- a crucial addition in case the
1450: currently used parameterized models do not correspond to reality. We
1451: are eager to find ways to more directly compare simulations with
1452: observations so that clearer conclusions can be drawn over whether or
1453: not simulations and observations are compatible. This may
1454: involve measuring other properties of the dark matter halo rather than
1455: a sole emphasis on the inner slope, such as the concentration
1456: parameter, $c$. Simulated observations of numerical simulations,
1457: such as that presented recently by \citet{Meneghetti05}, offer a clear
1458: way forward in understanding the systematics involved in observational
1459: techniques and the kinds of observations required to test the current
1460: paradigm for structure formation.
1461:
1462:
1463: \acknowledgements
1464:
1465: We thank Raphael Gavazzi for numerous stimulating conversations. DJS
1466: acknowledges support provided by NASA through Chandra Postdoctoral
1467: Fellowship grant number PF5-60041. TT acknowledges support from the
1468: Sloan Foundation through a Sloan Research Fellowship. GPS acknowledges
1469: financial support from a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.
1470: Finally, the authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the cultural
1471: role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within
1472: the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the
1473: opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. This research
1474: has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is
1475: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
1476: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
1477: Administration.
1478:
1479: \appendix
1480:
1481:
1482: \section{A Generalized NFW Implementation in LENSTOOL}
1483:
1484: Here we briefly discuss the implementation of the pseudo-elliptical
1485: generalized NFW profile into the {\sc lenstool} software package. The
1486: interested reader is referred to \citet{Kneibphd,gps05} for further
1487: details about the {\sc lenstool} software. Some of what follows has
1488: been presented by \citet{Golse02}, but is reviewed here for continuity
1489: and clarity.
1490:
1491: Throughout this section we are using the thin-lens approximation with
1492: $r^{2}=R^{2}+z^{2}$ and $\bf{x} = (x_{1},x_{2})= \bf{R} /r_{sc}$. By
1493: introducing ellipticity into the potential rather than the surface
1494: mass density we make the lensing calculations more tractable given
1495: that the deflection angle is just the gradient of the scaled lensing
1496: potential. Using the following coordinate substitution of $x$ by
1497: $x_{\epsilon}$,
1498:
1499: \begin{equation}
1500: \label{defin_ell}
1501: \left\lbrace
1502: \begin{array}{lcl}
1503: x_{1\epsilon} & = & \sqrt{a_{1}} \, x_1 \\
1504: x_{2\epsilon} & = & \sqrt{a_{2}} \, x_2 \\
1505: x_\epsilon & = & \sqrt{x_{1\epsilon}^2 +
1506: x_{2\epsilon}^2}\ =\ \sqrt{a_{1}x_1^2 +a_{2}x_2^2}\\
1507: \phi_\epsilon & = & \arctan \left(x_{2} / x_{1}\right)
1508: \end{array}
1509: \right.
1510: \end{equation}
1511:
1512: \noindent where $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are two elliptical parameters. We
1513: can calculate the elliptical deflection angle:
1514:
1515: %
1516: \begin{equation}
1517: \vec{\alpha}_\epsilon(\vec{x})=\left(
1518: \begin{array}{l}
1519: \displaystyle{\frac
1520: {\partial\varphi_\epsilon}{\partial x_1}}=
1521: \alpha(x_\epsilon)\sqrt{a_{1}}\cos{\phi_\epsilon}\\
1522: \displaystyle{\frac
1523: {\partial\varphi_\epsilon}{\partial x_2}}=
1524: \alpha(x_\epsilon)\sqrt{a_{2}}\sin{\phi_\epsilon}\\
1525: \end{array}
1526: \right)
1527: \label{defl_ell}
1528: \end{equation}
1529: %
1530: The above expression holds for any definition of $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$
1531: which we choose to be:
1532:
1533: \begin{equation}
1534: \label{a_GK}
1535: \begin{array}{c}
1536: a_{1}=1+\epsilon\\
1537: a_{2}=1-\epsilon
1538: \end{array}
1539: \end{equation}
1540:
1541:
1542: \noindent While this choice of $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ do not correspond
1543: directly to the ellipticity of the potential (see
1544: \citealt{Meneghetti03b}, who use a different parameterization), it
1545: does lead to simple expressions for standard lensing quantities, such
1546: as the surface mass density and shear (see Eqs. 17-19 of
1547: \citet{Golse02}) . The standard ellipticity of the potential
1548: $\epsilon_{\varphi}$ is related to $\epsilon$ by
1549:
1550:
1551: \begin{equation}
1552: \label{eq:phi}
1553: \epsilon_{\varphi} = 1 - \displaystyle{\sqrt{\frac{1-\epsilon}{1+\epsilon}}}.
1554: \end{equation}
1555:
1556:
1557: Using the standard lensing functions (see e.g.~\citet{Miralda91}) for
1558: the deflection angle ($\alpha$), convergence ($\kappa$), and shear
1559: ($\gamma$), along with Eqn~\ref{defl_ell} above, the projected mass
1560: density $\Sigma_\epsilon(\vec{x})$ for our pseudo-elliptical
1561: implementation is simply:
1562:
1563: \begin{equation}
1564: \Sigma_\epsilon(\vec{x})=\Sigma(\vec{x}_\epsilon)+\epsilon\cos{2\phi_\epsilon}
1565: (\overline{\Sigma}(\vec{x}_\epsilon)-\Sigma(\vec{x}_\epsilon)).
1566: \label{sigma_ell}
1567: \end{equation}
1568:
1569: Likewise, the 3D pseudo-elliptical density profile can be similarly
1570: derived to be
1571:
1572: \begin{equation}
1573: \rho_\epsilon(\vec{x},z)=\rho(\vec{x}_\epsilon,z)+\epsilon\cos{2\phi_\epsilon}
1574: (\frac{2}{x_{\epsilon}^{2}} \int_{0}^{x_{\epsilon}}x \rho(\vec{x},z) dx-\rho(\vec{x}_\epsilon,z))
1575: \label{rho_ell}
1576: \end{equation}
1577:
1578: \noindent where $z$ is the direction along the line of sight. Since
1579: we are not making an effort to probe the triaxiality of our galaxy
1580: clusters, we will plot projected quantities whenever possible.
1581:
1582: Although Eqns~\ref{rho_ell} and \ref{sigma_ell} are general, we are
1583: working with the generalized NFW density profile
1584:
1585: %
1586: \begin{equation}
1587: \label{eq:pgnfw}
1588: \rho_d(r)=\frac{\rho_{c} \delta_{c}}{(r/r_{sc})^{\beta}(1+(r/r_{sc}))^{3-\beta}}
1589: \end{equation}
1590: %
1591:
1592: and the resulting surface density profile
1593:
1594: %
1595: \begin{equation}
1596: \label{eq:sddm}
1597: \Sigma_{gNFW} (R)=2 \rho_{c} r_{sc} \delta_{c} x^{1-\beta} \int_0^{\pi/2}d\theta \sin\theta (\sin\theta + x)^{\beta-3}
1598: \end{equation}
1599: %
1600: when modeling the cluster dark matter halos.
1601:
1602:
1603: \noindent In Figure~\ref{fig:ellip_ill} the extent to which our
1604: implementation does not produce surface density profiles with true
1605: elliptical isocontours is illustrated. As the parameter $\epsilon$
1606: increases the surface density isocontours become more boxy and peanut
1607: shaped. However, at relatively low $\epsilon$, the isocontours are
1608: very nearly elliptical. We discuss in the following section to what
1609: extent our generalized NFW pseudo-elliptical mass model is an adequate
1610: description of an elliptical mass distribution.
1611:
1612: Unlike the NFW profile, the surface mass density and
1613: deflection angle of the generalized NFW profile cannot be calculated
1614: analytically. This greatly slows any lensing computation, especially
1615: when we need to calculate $\chi^{2}$ values over large parameter
1616: hypercubes. To limit the computing time necessary, we created a
1617: look-up table for all of the necessary integrals from which we
1618: interpolate when performing our lensing calculations.
1619:
1620: \subsection{Limitations of the Pseudo-Elliptical Treament}
1621:
1622: In this section we quantitatively investigate the range of $\epsilon$
1623: for which the generalized NFW pseudo-elliptical mass model is an
1624: adequate description of an elliptical mass distribution. As can be
1625: seen in Figure~\ref{fig:ellip_ill} our pseudo-elliptical
1626: representation can depart strongly from a true elliptical model at
1627: high ellipticities. To what degree can we consider out treatment of
1628: ellipticity an accurate one for representing elliptical surface
1629: density distributions? To answer this, we reapply several of the
1630: quantitative measures presented by \citet{Golse02} to our generalized
1631: NFW pseudo-elliptical model. To get a feel for the relation between
1632: $\epsilon$ and the ellipticity in the surface mass density,
1633: $\epsilon_{\Sigma}$, we plot several values in Fig.~\ref{fig:evsepot}.
1634:
1635: We quantify the degree of boxiness by measuring the distance,
1636: $\delta r$, between a surface density contour and a real ellipse with
1637: the same major and minor axis radii (as was done in \citet{Golse02};
1638: see their Figure 6 for a geometrical illustration of $\delta r$). In
1639: Fig.~\ref{fig:delr} we plot $\delta r / r$ as a function of $\epsilon$
1640: for several values of the inner slope, $\beta$, and a variety of
1641: $r/r_{sc}$. If we desire our pseudo-elliptical implementation to be
1642: within $10 \%$ of a true elliptical surface density distribution for
1643: $r/r_{sc} < 10$, then values of $\epsilon \lesssim 0.2$ are
1644: appropriate, especially for DM halos with steep inner slopes.
1645:
1646: One unphysical consequence of introducing ellipticity into the
1647: potential is that the surface mass density can become negative,
1648: especially near the minor axis where $cos(2 \phi_{\epsilon})=-1$. In
1649: Figure~\ref{fig:neg_test} we plot the distance along the minor axis at
1650: which $\Sigma_{\epsilon}$ becomes negative for several inner slopes.
1651: If we wish to restrict ourselves to values of $\epsilon$ where the
1652: surface density does not go negative for $r/r_{sc} < 10$, then
1653: we must restrict ourselves to values of $\epsilon$ less than
1654: approximately 0.25.
1655:
1656: In summary, in order to be within $10 \% $ of a true elliptical surface
1657: mass distribution and to have positive values of the surface mass
1658: density for $r / r_{sc} < 10$ we must restrict our use of the
1659: pseudo-elliptical gNFW parameterization to values of $\epsilon
1660: \lesssim 0.2$, well within the model values of $\epsilon$ for the
1661: clusters studied in this paper.
1662:
1663:
1664:
1665: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1666: \bibliography{apj-jour,mybib}
1667:
1668:
1669:
1670:
1671: \begin{figure*}
1672: \begin{center}
1673: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.0cm \epsfbox{f6.eps}\label{fig:ellip_ill}}
1674: \caption{Illustration of projected density isocontours for the
1675: pseudo-elliptical generalized NFW parameterization with
1676: $r/r_{sc}=10.0$ and $\beta=1.0$. Note that as $\epsilon$ gets larger,
1677: the projected density contours become more dumb-bell shaped.}
1678:
1679: \end{center}
1680: \end{figure*}
1681:
1682: \begin{figure*}
1683: \begin{center}
1684: \mbox{
1685: \mbox{\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsfbox{f7a.eps}}
1686: \mbox{\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsfbox{f7b.eps}}
1687: \mbox{\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsfbox{f7c.eps}}
1688: }
1689: \caption{The ellipticity (taking the minor and major axis positions
1690: and assuming $\epsilon_{\Sigma}=1-b/a$) of the projected density,
1691: $\Sigma$, as a function of the ellipticity in the potential for
1692: different values of $\beta$.
1693: \label{fig:evsepot}}
1694: \end{center}
1695: \end{figure*}
1696:
1697:
1698: \begin{figure*}
1699: \begin{center}
1700: \mbox{
1701: \mbox{\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsfbox{f8a.eps}}
1702: \mbox{\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsfbox{f8b.eps}}
1703: \mbox{\epsfysize=5.5cm \epsfbox{f8c.eps}}
1704: }
1705: \caption{$\delta r / r$ as a function of $\epsilon$ for a variety of
1706: pseudo-elliptical generalized NFW models with different inner slopes,
1707: $\beta$. This simply characterizes the deviation of the projected
1708: density from an elliptical model for various $r / r_{sc}$.
1709: \label{fig:delr}}
1710: \end{center}
1711: \end{figure*}
1712:
1713:
1714: \begin{figure*}
1715: \begin{center}
1716: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.0cm \epsfbox{f9.eps}\label{fig:neg_test}}
1717: \caption{Distance from ellipse center along the minor axis at which
1718: $\Sigma_{\epsilon}$ becomes negative. Several example values for
1719: different inner dark matter density slopes, $\beta$, are plotted.}
1720:
1721: \end{center}
1722: \end{figure*}
1723:
1724:
1725: \end{document}
1726: