1: %\documentclass[aps,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

3: \usepackage{epsfig, natbib, graphicx, color}

4: \usepackage{apjfonts}

5: 

6: \def\black{\color{black}}

7: \def\white{\color{white}}

8: 

9: \input epsf

10: \newcommand{\sfig}[2]{\centerline{ \epsfxsize = #2 \epsfbox{#1} }}

11: 

12: 

13: %--------------------------------------------------

14: %--------------------------------------------------

15: % Cosmology

16: 

17: \newcommand{\OL}{\Omega_\Lambda}

18: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega_m}

19: 

20: 

21: %--------------------------------------------------

22: %--------------------------------------------------

23: 

24: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

25: 

26: \newcommand{\kpc}{\mbox{kpc}}

27: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\mbox{Mpc}}

28: \newcommand{\hMpc}{h^{-1}\mbox{Mpc}}

29: \newcommand{\msun}{M_\odot}

30: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}

31: \newcommand{\lmin}{L_{min}}

32: \newcommand{\Ns}{N_s}

33: \newcommand{\bn}{\hat \bm{n}}

34: \newcommand{\LCDM}{\Lambda\mbox{CDM}}

35: 

36: \newcommand{\los}{\bm{\hat n}}

37: \newcommand{\squad}{\sigma^{(4)}}

38: \newcommand{\sdouble}{\sigma^{(2)}}

39: \newcommand{\sbquad}{\sigma^{(4)}_B}

40: \newcommand{\sbdouble}{\sigma^{(2)}_B}

41: \newcommand{\pquad}{p^{(4)}(\mu)}

42: \newcommand{\pdouble}{p^{(2)}(\mu)}

43: 

44: \citestyle{aa}

45: \shortauthors{ROZO ET AL}

46: \shorttitle{Lensing Biasing of Triaxial Halos}

47: 

48: \begin{document}

49: \title{Biases in the Gravitational Lens Population Induced by Halo and Galaxy Triaxiality}

50: \author{Eduardo Rozo\altaffilmark{1},

51: Jacqueline Chen\altaffilmark{2},

52: Andrew R. Zentner\altaffilmark{3,4,5}

53: }

54: 

55: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics (CCAPP), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA}

56: \altaffiltext{2}{Argelander-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie, University of Bonn, Auf dem H\"{u}gel 71, 53121 Bonn, Germany}

57: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA}

58: \altaffiltext{4}{Kavli Institude for Cosmological Physics and Department of Astronomy, Chicago, IL 60637, USA}

59: \altaffiltext{5}{The Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA}

60: 

61: 

62: \begin{abstract}

63: The lensing cross section of triaxial halos depends on the relative orientation between a halo's 

64: principal axes

65: and its line of sight.  Consequently, a lensing subsample of randomly oriented halos is not, in general,

66: randomly oriented.  

67: Using an isothermal mass model for the lensing galaxies and their host halos, we show 

68: that the lensing subsample of halos that produces doubles is preferentially aligned along the

69: lines of sight, whereas halos that produce quads tend to be projected along their middle axes.

70: These preferred orientations result in different projected ellipticity

71: distributions for quad, doubles, and random galaxies.   We show that $\approx 300$ lens systems 

72: must be

73: discovered to detect this effect at the $95\%$ confidence level.  We also investigate the importance

74: of halo shape for predicting the quad-to-double ratio and find that the latter depends quite sensitively

75: on the distribution of the short-to-long axis ratio, but is otherwise nearly independent of halo shape.

76: Finally, we estimate the impact of the preferred orientation 

77: of lensing

78: galaxies on their projected substructure mass fraction, and find that the observed alignment

79: between the substructure distribution and the mass distribution of halos result in a negligible bias.

80: \end{abstract}

81:  \keywords{

82: galaxies, halos, lensing

83: }

84: 

85: \section{Introduction}

86: 

87: Statistics of lensing galaxies have been used as cosmological and galaxy formation probes since early

88: in the modern history of gravitational lensing \citep[][]{turneretal84}.  Lensing rates can

89: be used to constrain dark energy \citep[][]{fukugitaetal92, chae03,mitchelletal05,

90: chae07,ogurietal07}, to probe the structure of lensing galaxies \citep[][]{keeton01d,kochanekwhite01,

91: chae05},

92: and to probe galaxy evolution \citep[][]{chaemao03, ofeketal03,rusinkochanek05}.   While the

93: use of lensing statistics as a cosmological probe has had mixed success, particularly early on,

94: it remains a unique probe with entirely different systematics from more traditional approaches.

95: Consequently, lensing statistics are likely to remain a fundamental cross-check

96: of our understanding of cosmology and galaxy evolution.

97: 

98: One of the difficulties that confronts the study of lensing statistics is that, in general,

99: the halo population that produces gravitational lenses can in fact be a highly biased

100: subsample of the general halo population.  For instance, it has long been known

101: that while early type galaxies compose only $\approx 30\%$ of all luminous galaxies,

102: the majority of lensing galaxies are in fact early type since these tend to be more massive

103: and reside in more massive halos than their late counterparts.  By the same token,

104: lensing early type galaxies tend to have higher luminosity and velocity dispersions

105: than non-lensing early type galaxies \citep[][]{moelleretal06, boltonetal06}.  Overall, then, when interpreting

106: lensing statistics, one ought to always remember that by selecting lensing galaxies one is 

107: automatically introducing an important selection effect that can significantly bias the 

108: distribution of any galaxy observable that has an impact on the lensing probabilities.  

109: Here, we consider one such source of bias, the triaxiality of galaxy halos.\footnote{Throughout

110: this work, we will be using the term galaxy and halo more or less interchangeably.  The reason

111: for this is that we are primarily focused on the impact of halo triaxiality on the lensing

112: cross section, and the latter depends only on the {\it total} matter density.  Consequently, differentiating

113: between halo and galaxy would only obfuscate presentation and introduce unnecessary

114: difficulties.  For instance, while modeling the total matter distribution as

115: isothermal is a reasonable approximation, neither the baryons nor the dark matter by itself 

116: is isothermally distributed.  Thus,

117: it is much simpler to adopt an isothermal model, and refer to the baryons plus dark

118: matter as a single entity, than to try to differentiate between the two.  Likewise, when discussing

119: triaxiality, what is important in this work is the triaxiality of the total matter distribution.}

120: 

121: 

122: That halo triaxiality can have important consequences for

123: lensing statistics has been known for several years.  

124: For instance, \citet[][]{ogurikeeton04} have shown that triaxiality can significantly

125: enhance the optical depth of large image separation lenses.  Similar conclusions have

126: been reached concerning the formation of giant arcs by lensing clusters 

127: \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{ogurietal03, rozoetal06c, hennawietal07}. 

128: Curiously, however, little 

129: effort has gone into investigating

130: how observational properties of lensing galaxies can be different from those 

131: of the galaxy population as a whole due to the triaxial structure of galactic halos.

132: This work addresses this omission.

133: 

134: The first observable we consider is the projected axis ratio of lensing galaxies.  

135: Roughly speaking, given that non-zero ellipticities are needed in order to produce

136: quad systems, one would generically expect lenses that lead to this image configuration

137: to be more elliptical than the overall galaxy population.

138: Likewise, lensing galaxies that produce

139: doubles should, on average, be slightly more circular than a random galaxy.   

140: There can, however, be complications for these simple predictions due to

141: halo triaxiality.   For instance, given a prolate

142: halo, projections along the long axis of the lens will result in highly concentrated,

143: very circular profiles.  Will the increase in Einstein radius of such projections 

144: compensate for the

145: lower ellipticity of the system, implying most quads will be projected along their

146: long axis, or will it be the other way around?  

147: Clearly, the relation between ellipticity and lensing cross sections is

148: not straightforward once triaxiality of the lensing galaxies is taken into 

149: account, but it seems clear that there should be some observable difference

150: between the ellipticity distribution of lensing galaxies and that of all early types.

151: Interestingly, no such difference has been observed \citep[][]{keetonetal97,rusintegmark01},

152: which seems to fly in the face of our expectations \citep[though see also the discussion in][]{keetonetal98}.  

153: Is this actually a problem, or

154: will a quantitative analysis show that the consistency of the two distributions

155: is to be expected?  Here, we explicitly resolve this question, and demonstrate that

156: current lens samples are much too small to detect the expected differences.

157: 

158: Having considered the ellipticity distribution of random and lensing galaxies, it is then a natural

159: step to investigate the impact of halo triaxiality on predictions of the quad-to-double

160: ratio.  Specifically, it is well known that the quad-to-double ratio is sensitive to the ellipticity

161: distribution of lensing galaxies \citep[][]{keetonetal97}, so if lensing

162: can bias the distribution of ellipticities in lensing galaxies, then it should also affect the

163: predicted quad-to-double ratios.  This is an important point because it has been argued that

164: current predictions for the quad-to-double ratio are at odds with observations.

165: More specifically, the predicted 

166: quad-to-double ratio for the CLASS \citep[Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey,][]{myersetal03,browneetal03} 

167: sample of gravitational lenses is too low relative to

168: observations \citep[][]{rusintegmark01,hutereretal05}.  

169: Curiously, however, recent work on the quad-to-double ratio observed in the

170: SQLS \citep[Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Lens Search,][]{ogurietal06,inadaetal07}.

171: suggests that the exact opposite is true for the latter sample, namely, theoretical expectations

172: are too high relative to observations \citep[][]{oguri07}.   In either case, it is of interest

173: to determine how exactly does triaxiality affects theoretical predictions, especially since

174: the aforementioned difficulties with the CLASS sample has led various

175: authors to offer possibilities as to how one might boost the expected

176: quad-to-double ratios.  Specifically, one can boost the quad-to-double ration in the 

177: class sample either from the effect of 

178: massive satellite galaxies near the lensing galaxies \citep[][]{cohnkochanek04}, or through the 

179: large-scale environment of the lensing galaxy \citep[][]{keetonzabludoff04}.  Clearly,

180: we should determine whether halo triaxiality can be added to this list.

181: 

182: This brings us then to the final problem we consider here, namely whether the substructure population

183: of lensing galaxies is different from that of non-lensing galaxies. Specifically,

184: we have argued that lensing galaxies will not be isotropically distributed

185: in space.  Since the substructure distribution of a dark matter halo is typically aligned with its parent

186: halo's long axis \citep[][]{zentneretal05,libeskindetal05,agustssonbrainerd06,azzaroetal06}, 

187: it follows that the projected distribution of substructures for lensing galaxies may in fact

188: be different for lensing halos than for non-lensing halos.  Such an effect could be quite important given

189: the claimed tension between the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) predictions for the substructure mass

190: fraction of halos \citep[see][]{maoetal04} and their observed values \citep[][]{dalalkochanek02a,kochanekdalal04}.

191: Likewise, such a bias would impact the predictions for the level of astrometric and flux perturbations produced

192: by dark matter substructures in gravitational lenses \citep[][]{rozoetal06,chenetal07}.  Here, we wish to

193: estimate the level at which the projected substructure mass fraction of lensing halos could be affected

194: due to lensing biasing.

195: 

196: The paper is organized as follows: in section \ref{sec:biases} we derive the basic equations needed

197: to compute how observable quantities will be biased in lensing galaxy samples due to halo

198: triaxiality.  Section \ref{sec:model} presents the model used in this work to quantitatively estimate

199: the level of these biases, and discusses how lensing halos are oriented relative to the line

200: of sight as a function of the halos' axes ratios.  Section \ref{sec:axis} investigates the projected

201: axis ratio distributions of lensing versus non-lensing galaxies, and demonstrates that 

202: present day lensing samples are too small to detect the triaxiality induced biases we have 

203: predicted.  Section \ref{sec:ratio} discusses the problem of the quad to double ratio, and

204: section \ref{sec:subs} demonstrates that halo triaxiality biases the projected substructure

205: mass fraction in lensing halos by a negligible amount.  Section \ref{sec:caveats} discusses

206: a few of the effects we have ignored in our work and how these may alter our results,

207: and finally section \ref{sec:summary} summarizes our work and presents our conclusions.

208: 

209: %----------------------------------------------

210: 

211: 

212: \section{Lens Biases Induced by Triaxiality}

213: \label{sec:biases}

214: 

215: We begin by deriving the basic expressions on which we rely to estimate

216: the effects of halo triaxiality on the observed properties of lensing galaxies.

217: In particular, we show that since the lensing cross section for triaxial lenses

218: is in general not spherically symmetric, this implies that a population of randomly

219: oriented halos produces a non-random lens population.  Finally, we show that

220: the induced non-randomness of the lensing halo population can alter the mean

221: observational properties of these halos relative to the general halo population.

222: 

223: 

224: \subsection{The Lensing Cross Section}

225: \label{sec:cs}

226: 

227: Let $\bm{p}$ be a set of parameters that characterizes the projected 

228: gravitational potential of a halo.  For instance, $\bm{p}$ can be the Einstein radius of the

229: lens, its ellipticity, and so on.  Given a background source density $n_s(z_s)$ and a halo 

230: density $n_h(\bm{p},z_h)$, and in 

231: the absence of a flux limit, the mean number of lensing events per unit redshift per area

232: is given by

233: %

234: \begin{equation}

235: \frac{dN_{lenses}}{dz_sdz_hd\Omega} = n_s(z_s) n_h(\bm{p},z_h)

236: \frac{d\chi}{dz_s}\frac{d\chi}{dz_h}\sigma(\bm{p},z_h,z_s)

237: \end{equation}

238: %

239: %

240: where $\chi$ is the comoving distance to the appropriate halo or source redshift, and

241: %

242: %

243: \begin{equation}

244: \sigma(\bm{p},z_h,z_s) = \int_{lensing} d^2\bm{y}.Ä

245: \label{eq:cs}

246: \end{equation}

247: %

248: %

249: The integral is over all regions of the source plane that produce lensed images

250: of interest.  For instance, if one were interested in quadruply imaged sources,

251: the integral would be over all source positions that result in four image lenses.

252: The quantity $\sigma$ is called the \it lensing cross section, \rm  and of

253: particular interest to us will be the cross sections $\sigma^{(N)}$ for

254: producing $N$-image systems.

255: 

256: In reality, one always has some flux limit $F_{min}$ which corresponds

257: to a minimum source luminosity $L_{min}$.   Fortunately, the above argument

258: is easily generalized: let $dn_s(L,z_s)/dL$ be the number density of background 

259: sources with luminosity $L$.  Then, the mean number of lensing events becomes

260: %

261: %

262: \begin{equation}

263: \frac{dN_{lenses}}{dz_sdz_hd\Omega} = n_h\frac{d\chi}{dz_s}\frac{d\chi}{dz_h}

264: 	\int d^2\bm{y} \int_{L_{min}/\mu(\bm{y})}^\infty dL\ \frac{dn_s(L,z_s)}{dL}.

265: \end{equation}

266: %

267: %

268: If the source luminosity function can be approximated by a power law 

269: $dn_s(L,z_s)/dL = AL^{-\alpha}$ (note both $A$ and $\alpha$ can depend on $z_s$),

270: the above expression reduces to 

271: %

272: %

273: \begin{equation}

274: \frac{dN_{lenses}}{dz_sdz_hd\Omega} = n_b(>L_{min}) n_h 

275: 	\frac{d\chi}{dz_s} \frac{d\chi}{dz_h} \sigma_B(\bm{p},\alpha,z_h,z_s)

276: \label{eq:bcs}

277: \end{equation}

278:  %

279:  %

280:  where $n_b(>L_{min},z_s)$ is the number density of sources above the flux limit

281:  \it in the absence of lensing, \rm  and $\sigma_B$ is given by

282:  %

283:  %

284:  \begin{equation}

285:  \sigma_B (\bm{p},z_h,z_s,\alpha)= \int d^2\bm{y}\ \mu(\bm{y})^{\alpha-1}

286:  \end{equation}

287: %

288: %

289: where $\mu(\bm{y})$ is the total magnification of a source at position $\bm{y}$.

290: Following \citet[][]{hutereretal05}, we call $\sigma_B$ the \it biased cross

291: section. \rm  Indeed, since the distribution of magnifications $p(\mu)$

292: among all lensing events is given by

293: %

294: %

295: \begin{equation}

296: p(\mu) = \frac{1}{\sigma}\int d^2\bm{y}\ \delta(\mu(\bm{y})-\mu)

297: \end{equation}

298: %

299: %

300: where $\sigma$ is the (unbiased) lensing cross section defined in Eq.

301: \ref{eq:cs}, then we can rewrite Eq. \ref{eq:bcs}   as

302: %

303: %

304: \begin{equation}

305: \sigma_B = \avg{\mu^{\alpha-1}}\sigma,

306: \end{equation}

307: %

308: %

309: where

310: %

311: %

312: \begin{equation}

313: \avg{\mu^{\alpha-1}} = \int d\mu\ p(\mu)\mu^{\alpha-1}.

314: \end{equation}

315: %

316: %

317: Thus, the net effect of gravitational magnification on the frequency of lensing events 

318: can be summarized as a biasing factor $\avg{\mu^{\alpha-1}}$ that multiplies the 

319: unbiased lensing cross section $\sigma$.

320: 

321: 

322: 

323: \subsection{Triaxiality and Lensing Biasing}

324: 

325: Let $\bm{P}$ characterize the mass distribution of a triaxial halo, and let $\bm{\hat n}$

326: be the orientation of the halo's long axis relative to the line of sight.  The halo's two dimensional

327: potential is then characterized by a new set of parameters $\bm{p}(\bm{P},\bm{\hat n})$

328: which depend on the halo properties $\bm{P}$ and the particular line of sight $\los$ along

329: which the halo is being viewed.  For instance, the vector $\bm{P}$ can include such halo properties

330: as halo mass and axis ratios, whereas $\bm{p}$ could include parameters such as the Einstein

331: radius of the projected mass distribution as well as the projected axis ratio.

332: 

333: As discussed above, the mean number of lensing events per unit redshift by a

334: halo along a given line of sight is given by Eq. \ref{eq:bcs}.  For convenience, we

335: define the halo and source surface densities

336: $d\Sigma_h/d\bm{P}$ and $d\Sigma_s/dz_s$ via

337: %

338: %

339: \begin{eqnarray}

340: \frac{d\Sigma_h}{d\bm{P}dz_h}\ & =\ & \frac{dn_h}{d\bm{P}}\frac{d\chi}{dz_h} \\

341: \frac{d\Sigma_s}{dz_s} \ & =\ & n_s(>L_{min})\frac{d\chi}{dz_s}.

342: \end{eqnarray}

343: %

344: %

345: In terms of these surface densities, and assuming a randomly-oriented distribution of

346: halos, the mean number of lenses per unit area as a function of their orientation 

347: $\los$ is given by

348: %

349: %

350: \begin{equation}

351: \frac{dN_{lenses}}{d\bm{P}d\los dz_sdz_hd\Omega} = \frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d\Sigma_s}{dz_s}\frac{d\Sigma_h}{d\bm{P}dz_h}

352: 	\sigma_B(\bm{p}(\bm{P},\los),z_h,z_s,\alpha).

353: \label{eq:numlens}

354: \end{equation}

355: %

356: %

357: The prefactor of $1/(2\pi)$ arises from the fact that 

358: $dn_h/d\bm{P}d\los = (dn_h/d\bm{P})/(2\pi)$ due to our assumption of randomly

359: oriented halos.\footnote{If $\los$ denotes the angle between the line of sight and a

360: specified halo axis, and given that $\los$ and $-\los$ correspond to the same line of

361: sight, then it is evident that the space of all lines of sight is simply $S^2/Z_2$ - a sphere

362: with its diametrically opposed points identified.  The volume of such a space with the usual

363: metric is thus simply $2\pi$.}  We emphasize that Eq. \ref{eq:numlens} characterizes the number of

364: lenses \it as a function of the relative orientation $\los$ between the halo's major

365: axis and the line of sight. \rm  Thus, to compute the total number of lenses irrespective

366: of halo orientation, we would simply integrate the above expression over all lines of 

367: sight $\los$.  

368: 

369: There is an absolutely key point to be made concerning Eq. \ref{eq:numlens},

370: which provides the motivation behind this work.  Specifically, we note that the

371: number of lenses is proportional to $\sigma_B(\bm{p}(\bm{P},\los))$.  This implies

372: that even though the overall halo population does not have a preferred orientation

373: in space, {\it the lens population is not randomly oriented}, a fact which can

374: have observable consequences.    

375: In particular, given an observable halo property $f(\bm{P},\los)$ that depends on the

376: line of sight projection (e.g. the projected

377: axis ratio or projected substructure mass fraction), the mean value of $f$ over all 

378: $\bm{P}$ halos is simply

379: %

380: %

381: \begin{equation}

382: \avg{f|\bm{P}}_{halos} = \int \frac{d^2\los}{2\pi} f(\bm{P},\los),

383: \end{equation}

384: %

385: %

386: whereas the mean value of $f$ over all lenses is given by

387: %

388: %

389: \begin{equation}

390: \avg{f|\bm{P}}_{lenses} = \frac{1}{\avg{\sigma_B|\bm{P}}}

391: 	\int \frac{d^2\los}{2\pi} \sigma_B(\bm{p}(\bm{P},\los)) f(\bm{P},\los)

392: \label{eq:losdist}

393: \end{equation}

394: %

395: %

396: where $\avg{\sigma_B}$ is the average value of $\sigma_B$ over all lines of sight,

397: %

398: %

399: \begin{equation}

400: \avg{\sigma_B|\bm{P}} = \int \frac{d^2\los}{2\pi} \sigma_B(\bm{p}(\bm{P},\los)).

401: \end{equation}

402: %

403: %

404: Thus, in general, one expects that the mean value of $f$ over all lenses and over all halos

405: will be different.  In the next few sections, we identify a few halo properties that depend on line

406: of sight projection, and determine whether lensing biases induced by triaxiality are likely

407: to be significant.

408: 

409: 

410: 

411: 

412: 

413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

415: 

416: 

417: 

418: \section{The Model}

419: \label{sec:model}

420: 

421: We estimate the impact of halo triaxiality on the properties of lenses by considering a 

422: triaxial isothermal profile.  The merit of this approach is its simplicity: because of the simple

423: form of the matter distribution in this model, we can compute all of the relevant quantities

424: in a semi-analytic fashion, and the main

425: features of the model can be easily understood, thereby providing an important reference point 

426: for investigating more elaborate models.   Moreover, by working out in detail a simple analytic

427: model, our results provide an ideal test bed for more involved numerical codes, which would then

428: allow us to investigate how our conclusions are changed as more complicated models are allowed

429: (Chen et al. 2007, in preparation). 

430: 

431: 

432: \subsection{Semi-Analytical Modeling}

433: 

434: Our analytical halo model is that of a simple triaxial isothermal profile of the form

435: %

436: %

437: \begin{equation}

438: \rho(\bar\bm{x}) = N(q_1,q_2)\frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi G}

439: 	\frac{1}{x^2/q_1^2+y^2+z^2/q_2^2}

440: \label{eq:3dsie}

441: \end{equation}

442: %

443: %

444: where $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the axis ratios of the profile and we have chosen a coordinate

445: system that is aligned with the halo's principal axes, and such that 

446: $1\geq q_1 \geq q_2$.\footnote{i.e. $q_1$ is the ratio of medium to long

447: axis of the halo, whereas $q_2$ is the ratio of the short to long axis.  The motivation behind our

448: particular choice of axis labeling will

449: be made clear momentarily.}   The normalization 

450: constant $N(q_1,q_2)$ is chosen to ensure that the mass contained within a sphere of

451: radius $r$ be independent of the axis ratios for fixed velocity dispersion $\sigma_v^2$, the latter

452: being the velocity dispersion of the Singular Isothermal Sphere (SIS) obtained when $q_1=q_2=1$.

453: 

454: Let then $(\theta,\phi)$ denote a line of sight.  In appendix \ref{app:proj}, we show that the

455: corresponding projected surface mass density profile is that of a Singular Isothermal 

456: Ellipsoid (SIE) which, following \citet[][]{kormannetal94}, we write as

457: %

458: %

459: \begin{equation}

460: \Sigma(\tilde x, \tilde y) = \frac{\sqrt{q}\tilde \sigma_v^2}{2G}\frac{1}{\tilde x^2+q^2\tilde y^2}

461: \end{equation}

462: %

463: %

464: where both $q$ and $\tilde \sigma_v$ are known functions of $q_1,\ q_2$ and, in the case

465: of $\tilde \sigma_v$, of $N(q_1,q_2)\sigma_v^2$ (see Appendix

466: \ref{app:proj} for details).  In the above expression, $\tilde \sigma$ and $q$ are the effective velocity

467: dispersion and axis ratio respectively of the projected SIE profile.  As shown by \citet[][]{kormannetal94},

468: the lensing cross section for an SIE scales trivially with the Einstein radius $b$\footnote{By trivially,

469: we mean $\sigma\propto b^2$.}

470: %

471: \begin{equation}

472: b= 4\pi\frac{\tilde\sigma_v^2}{c^2}\frac{D_lD_{ls}}{D_s}

473: \label{eq:erad}

474: \end{equation}

475: %

476: of the profile.  Consequently, the distribution of halo orientations for a lens sample, 

477: $\rho(\los)=\sigma_B(\los)/\avg{\sigma_B}$,

478: is independent of the velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$ of the halo. 

479: 

480: There is one last important element of the model that needs to be specified, namely the luminosity

481: function of the sources being lensed.   Here, we take the luminosity function to be a power law with

482: slope of $-2$, which, while not exactly correct, is reasonably close to the slope of the luminosity

483: function of CLASS lenses \citep[][]{chae03,mckeanetal07}.    Moreover, this choice is ideally suited for numerical

484: work since in such a case the biased cross section is simply $\sigma_B=\avg{\mu}\sigma$,

485: implying that the biased cross section can be easily computed through uniform Monte Carlo sampling

486: of the image plane.

487: Since one of our goals in

488: this work is to provide a test case for more complicated numerical algorithms, we choose $\alpha=-2$.

489: 

490: 

491: Having fully specified our model, we can now easily compute the biased lensing cross section

492: for halos of any shape as a function of line of sight.  

493: Briefly, we proceed as follows.  First, 

494: we compute the biased lensing cross section for SIE profiles as a function of

495: the projected axis ratio $q$ for a grid of $q$ values.  These data points are then fit

496: using a third order polynomial fit, which we find is accurate to $\lesssim 1\%$.   Using

497: this simple fit for $\sigma_b(q)$, and the fact that we can analytically compute the 

498: Einstein radius and projected axis ratio for a triaxial halo along any line of sight,

499: we can readily compute the mean lensing cross section of a halo averaged over all lines

500: of sight.  For a detailed description of our calculations, we refer

501: the reader to the Appendices.

502: 

503: Before we end, however, 

504: it is important to remark here that, despite its simplicity, we expect our model is more than adequate

505: to investigate the qualitative trends that we would expect to observe in the data, and for providing

506: order of magnitude estimates of the impact of triaxiality.  Specifically, elliptical isothermal profiles appear 

507: to be excellent approximations

508: to the true matter distribution in real lens systems \citep[see e.g.][]{gerhardetal01, rusinma01, rusinetal03, 

509: rusinkochanek05, treuetal06, koopmansetal06, gavazzietal07}, so the triaxial 

510: isothermal mass distribution

511: considered here should provide a reasonably realistic model for order of magnitude estimates.   While

512: more sophisticated models are certainly possible \citep[see e.g.][]{jiangkochanek07}, it 

513: is our view that the simplicity of the isothermal model 

514: more than justifies our choice of profile for a first pass at the problem.

515: 

516: 

517: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

518: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

519: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

520: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

521: 

522: 

523: \subsection{The Distribution of Halo Orientations for Triaxial Isothermal Profiles}

524: 

525: Before we look at the distribution of halo orientations,

526: it is worth taking a minute to orient ourselves in the coordinate system we have chosen.  Consider first Eq. \ref{eq:3dsie}.

527: The distance from the center of the halo to the intercept of a constant density contour is

528: maximized for the $y$ axis, and minimized for the $z$ axis, while the $x$ axis is intermediate between the two.  If we 

529: then parameterize the line of sight using the circular 

530: coordinates $\theta$ and $\phi$ where $\theta$ is the angle with the $z$ axis and $\phi$ is the projected angle with 

531: the $x$ axis, then our coordinate system is such that it has the following properties.

532: %

533: \begin{itemize}

534: \item The $x, y,$ and $z$ axis of our coordinate system correspond to the middle, long, and short axis of the halo 

535: respectively.

536: \item Projections along $\cos(\theta)=1$ are along the short axis of the halo. 

537: \item Projections along $\cos(\theta)=0,\ \phi=0$ are along the middle axis of the halo.

538: \item Projections along $\cos(\theta)=0,\ \phi=\pi/2$ are along the long axis of the halo.

539: \end{itemize}

540: %

541: The nice thing about this particular choice of coordinates is that in the $\cos(\theta)-\phi$ plane, both the long

542: and the middle axis are represented by a single point, whereas the short axis is represented by an entire line.

543: As we shall see, projections along the middle and long axis maximize the lensing cross section of a halo 

544: for quad and double lenses respectively, so having that maximum be a single point in the space of lines of 

545: sight is a desirable quality of our chosen coordinate system.

546: 

547: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

548: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

549: 

550: \begin{figure}[t]

551: \epsscale{1.2}

552: \plotone{orient1.ps}

553: \plotone{orient2.ps}

554: \caption{{\it Top panel:} Einstein radius $b/b_0$ as a function of line of sight for a triaxial

555: isothermal profile (see Eq. \ref{eq:3dsie}) with axis ratios $q_1=0.75$ and $q_2=0.5$.

556: Here, $b_0$ is the Einstein radius obtained in the spherically symmetric case ($q_1=q_2=1$).

557: {\it Bottom panel:} Projected axis ratio for the same halo. 

558: Our coordinate system is such that $\cos(\theta)=1$ corresponds to projections along the

559: short axis of the halo, $\cos(\theta)=0, \phi=0$ corresponds to projections along the middle

560: axis, and $\cos(\theta)=0, \phi=\pi/2$ are projections along the long axis of the lens.  Note

561: projections along the long axis of the lens ($\cos(\theta)=0, \phi=\pi/2$) result in the largest

562: Einstein radius, whereas projections along the middle axis ($\cos(\theta)=0, \phi=0$) 

563: maximize the ellipticity of the projected density profile. }

564: \label{fig:orient}

565: \end{figure} 

566: 

567: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

568: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

569: 

570: Figure \ref{fig:orient} shows the ratio $b(\los)/b_0$ where $b_0$ is the

571: Einstein radius of an SIS with velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$, as well as the projected axis ratio $q(\los)$,

572: for an isothermal ellipsoid with axis ratios $q_1=0.75,\  q_2=0.5$.

573: We can see the Einstein radius of the projected profile is maximized when projecting along the long axis of the

574: halo, whereas the ellipticity is maximized when projecting along the middle axis of the halo, as it should be.

575: Note we have only considered the range $\theta\in[0,\pi/2]$ and

576: $\phi\in[0,\pi/2]$ rather than the full range of possible lines of sight $\theta\in[0,\pi/2]$ and $\phi\in[0,2\pi]$.  This is 

577: due to the symmetry of our model; all eight of the octants defined by the symmetry planes of the ellipsoids are

578: identical.

579: 

580: Let us now go back and study the distribution of line of sights for both doubles and quads.

581: Figure \ref{fig:losdist} shows these distributions for three types of halos: a prolate halo, an oblate halo,

582: and a halo that is neither strongly oblate nor strongly prolate.  As is customary, we parameterize the halo

583: shape in terms of the shape parameter $T$ which is defined as

584: %

585: %

586: \begin{equation}

587: T = \frac{1-q_1^2}{1-q_2^2}.

588: \label{eq:shape_parameter}

589: \end{equation}

590: %

591: %

592: Note that a perfectly prolate halo ($q_1=q_2$) has $T=1$, 

593: whereas a perfectly oblate halo ($q_1=1$) has

594: $T=0$.  From top to bottom, the halo shape parameters used to produce Figure \ref{fig:losdist} are

595: $T=0.9$ (cigar shape), $T=0.5$ (neither strongly oblate nor strongly prolate), and $T=0.1$ 

596: (pancake shape). 

597: The axis ratio $q_2$ was held fixed at $q_2=0.5$.

598: Finally, the left column is the distribution of lines of sight for double systems, 

599: whereas the right column is the distribution for quads.  For ease of comparison, the color scale has

600: been kept fixed in all plots.

601: 

602: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

603: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

604: 

605: \begin{figure*}[t]

606: \epsscale{1.15}

607: %\plotone{los_dist.ps}

608: \plottwo{los_dist1.ps}{los_dist2.ps}

609: \plottwo{los_dist3.ps}{los_dist4.ps}

610: \plottwo{los_dist5.ps}{los_dist6.ps}

611: \caption{Contours of the orientation distribution $\rho(\los)=\sigma_B/\avg{\sigma_B}$ for triaxial isothermal profiles.

612: The left and right columns show the distributions for double and quads respectively, while the three rows are for

613: three different halos: the top row is for prolate (cigar-like) halos ($T=0.9$), the middle row if a for a triaxial

614: halo that is neither strongly oblate nor prolate ($T=0.5$), and the bottom row is for oblate (pancake-like)

615: halos ($T=0.1$).  The short to long axis ratio $q_2$ was held fixed at $q_2=0.5$.  

616: For ease of comparison, the color scale is the same in all plots.  Note that

617: for doubles, the distribution of lines of sight is peaked about projections along the long axis of the lens, as we

618: would expect.  For quad systems, however, the distribution peaks for projections along the middle axis of the

619: lens, which corresponds to maximizing the ellipticity of the resulting projected profile (see Figure

620: \ref{fig:orient}).}

621: \label{fig:losdist}

622: \end{figure*} 

623: 

624: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

625: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

626: 

627: Let us begin by looking in detail at the doubles column first.  As is to be expected, the distribution of lines

628: of sight is peaked for projections along the long axis of the lens, as this line of sight maximizes the Einstein

629: radius of the projected profile.  Moreover, the distribution is very sharply peaked for cigar-like halos (top row),

630: but is rather flat for pancake-like halos (bottom row).   The reason that the distribution of lines of sight 

631: for pancake-like halos is so flat is simple: for an oblate halo, projecting along either the long or medium

632: axis of the halo results in a large Einstein radius, but also a large ellipticity, so a large part of the multiply imaged

633: region of the source plane actually corresponds to four image configurations, taking away from the cross

634: section for producing doubles.   When projecting along the short axis of the lens, the Einstein radius is

635: minimized, but the projected mass distribution is nearly spherical, so the majority of the multiply-imaged region

636: produces only doubles.

637: 

638: The column corresponding to quads has much more interesting structure.   First, note that {\it the distribution

639: of line of sights for quad lenses peaks for projections along the middle axis of the lens rather than the long

640: axis of the lens.}   As noted earlier, projections along the middle axis of the lens maximize the ellipticity of the

641: projected profile, so relative to projections along the long axis of the lens, it is evident that the increase in ellipticity 

642: more than offsets the slightly smaller Einstein radii for the purposes of enhancing the lensing cross section for

643: producing quad systems.  It is also interesting to note that while the peak of the distribution is always 

644: clearly about the middle axis of the lens, the shape of the distribution varies considerably in going 

645: from prolate halos to oblate halos.   In particular, note that for prolate halos the peak about the middle 

646: axis is relatively narrow.  What is more, projections along the short axis of the lens are more likely than projections

647: along the long axis because the latter minimizes the ellipticity of the projected profile.  

648: For oblate halos, on the other hand, projections along the long axis of the lens are almost

649: as likely as projections along the middle axis.  This is simply because for such halos, there is little

650: difference in the ellipticity of the projected profile between projections along the middle and long axis of the

651: halos.  Consequently, both axes result in highly effective quad lenses.  Note too that for pancake-like halos, 

652: projections along the short axis are strongly avoided, since this projection minimizes both the Einstein radius

653: and the projected axis ratio of the lens.  

654: 

655: In short, then, prolate halos and oblate halos will have very different orientation distributions: for prolate halos,

656: nearly all doubles will be due to projections along the long axis of the lens, while most quads will be due to 

657: projections along the middle axis of the lens, followed by projections along the short axis.  For oblate halos,

658: however, all halo orientations are almost equally likely in the case of doubly imaged systems, whereas quads

659: strongly avoid projections along the short axis of the halo.

660: 

661: The remainder of the paper will explore whether these results have a significant impact on the statistical

662: properties of the halo population.  Specifically, we will first consider the ellipticity distribution 

663: of lensing galaxies compared to that of galaxies as a whole.  We will then discuss how these 

664: results affect the predicted quad-to-double ratio, and finally, we will investigate whether 

665: lensing halos are expected to have a significantly biased projected substructure mass fraction.

666: 

667: 

668: 

669: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

670: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

671: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

672: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

673: 

674: 

675: 

676: \section{The Projected Axis Ratios of Lensing Halos}

677: \label{sec:axis}

678: 

679: As mentioned in the introduction, if one assumes that 

680: the ellipticity of the light and that

681: of the mass are monotonically related, then one would naively expect that 

682: lensing galaxies that produce quads ought to be more elliptical than the average galaxy because

683: the lensing cross section for quads increases with increasing ellipticity.

684: Similarly,

685: galaxies that produce doubles should tend to be more spherical.  In this section,

686: we discuss the impact of halo triaxiality on the distribution of axis ratios for double and quad lenses.

687: 

688: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

689: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

690: 

691: \begin{figure}[t]

692: \epsscale{1.2}

693: \plotone{qproj_dist.ps}

694: \caption{Distribution of projected axis ratios for quads and doubles for a sample oblate halo ($T=0.1$)

695: and a sample prolate halo ($T=0.9$).   The distribution of projected axis ratios for doubles and quads

696: are fairly different, with that of quads being peaked at low axis ratios (high ellipticities) while that of doubles is

697: relatively flat.  The quads distribution for prolate halos is significantly more peaked than that of oblate

698: halos, suggesting that the distribution of projected axis ratios in quadruply imaged systems may help constrain

699: the shape of the three dimensional matter distribution of halos.  Also shown in the figure as lines on the top axis are

700: the values of $q_{0.75}$, the projected axis ratio for which $75\%$ of the lenses have $q\leq q_{0.75}$ (the oblate

701: and prolate values for $q_{0.75}$ are nearly identical).  Note that

702: the difference in $q_{0.75}$ between quads and doubles is quite pronounced, with $\Delta q_{0.75}> 0.1$

703: for both oblate and prolate halos.}

704: \label{fig:qproj_dist}

705: \end{figure} 

706: 

707: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

708: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

709: 

710: Given a line of sight $\los$, we can compute the axis ratio $q(\los)$ of the projected mass distribution (see Eq.

711: \ref{eq:qproj}).  Using the distribution of lines of sight $\rho(\los)$, one can then easily compute the distribution of

712: projected axis ratios $q$ for a sample of lenses via

713: %

714: \begin{equation}

715: \rho(q|q_1,q_2) = \int \frac{d\los}{2\pi} \rho(\los) \delta_D(q(\los|q_1,q_2)-q).

716: \end{equation} 

717: %

718: Figure \ref{fig:qproj_dist} shows the distribution of the projected axis ratio of both quad and double systems

719: for the sample pancake-like (oblate, $T=0.1$) and cigar-like (prolate, $T=0.9$)

720: halos from Figure \ref{fig:losdist}.

721: As is to be expected, the distribution for quad systems is considerably skewed 

722: towards high ellipticity systems, whereas the distribution for doubles is much flatter.  Moreover, the quads distribution

723: is significantly more skewed for prolate (cigar-like) systems than for oblate (pancake-like) halos.

724: Based on Figure \ref{fig:qproj_dist}, we have attempted to

725: distill the difference between quads and doubles into a single number.  We define

726: the axis ratio $q_{0.75}$ as the axis ratio for which $75\%$ of the lenses have axis ratios 

727: $q\leq q_{0.75}$.\footnote{The $75\%$ number is selected in a somewhat ad hoc manner.

728: Basically, we wanted $q_X$ to fall past the large prominent peak seen in Figure \ref{fig:qproj_dist},

729: and in that sense $X=80\%$ or $X=90\%$ would work just as well.  On the other hand, observational

730: estimates of $q_X$ for $X$ close to unity would be quite difficult, so to some extent we wanted $X$ 

731: to be as small as possible.  We chose $X=75\%$ as a reasonable value.}  The value

732: $q_{0.75}$ for quads and doubles for both sample halos is also shown in Figure \ref{fig:qproj_dist} as

733: lines along the top axis of the plot.  It is clear that the projected axis ratio $q_{0.75}$ for doubles and quads is

734: very different, with $\Delta q_{0.75}>0.1$ for both oblate and prolate halos.

735: 

736: Figure \ref{fig:axis_ratio} shows the difference $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and quads (i.e. $q_{0.75}^{doubles}-

737: q_{0.75}^{quads}$, solid line) and

738: between doubles and the overall halo populations (i.e. $q_{0.75}^{doubles}-q_{0.75}^{halos}$, dotted line) as 

739: a function of  the axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$.   However, rather than using $q_1$ as an axis,  we follow

740: standard practice and parameterize the shape of the halo in terms of the shape parameter $T$ defined in

741: Eq. \ref{eq:shape_parameter}.

742: There are several interesting things to be gathered from 

743: Figure \ref{fig:axis_ratio}.

744: First, when comparing doubles to quads, note that while $\Delta q_{0.75}$ is indeed large ($q_{0.75}\gtrsim 0.1$) 

745: for both prolate

746: and oblate halos, the difference can be larger for oblate halos than for prolate halos.  Moreover, 

747: note that 

748: in going from oblate to prolate halos, the difference $\Delta q_{0.75}$ goes through a minimum when

749: $q_2 \approx q_1^2$ (solid line), in which case values 

750: as low as $\Delta q_{0.75} \approx 0.05$ for $q_2\approx 0.5$ are possible.  

751: Turning now to the comparison between

752: doubles and random halos, we see that the difference in $q_{0.75}$ for these two halo populations becomes

753: negligible in the case of oblate halos, reflecting the near uniform distribution of lines of sights for doubles

754: for oblate halos (see Figure \ref{fig:losdist}). On the other hand, the fact that most prolate doubles are seen

755: along the long axis of the halo implies that $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and random halos

756: must be significant, and thus doubles tend to be more circular than the typical halo.

757: 

758: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

759: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

760: 

761: \begin{figure}[t]

762: \epsscale{1.2}

763: \plotone{qquart_diff.ps}

764: \caption{Difference $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and quads ($q_{0.75}^{doubles}-q_{0.75}^{quads}$, 

765: solid line) and between doubles and

766: the overall halo population ($q_{0.75}^{doubles}-q_{0.75}^{halos}$, dotted lines) as a function of the 

767: small-to-large axis ratio $q_2$ and the shape parameter $T$

768: (see Figure \ref{fig:qproj_dist} for the definition of $q_{0.75}$).  For low values of $q_2$

769: ($q_2\approx 0.5$), $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and quads is typically large, of order $0.1$.  

770: The minimum in $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between quads and doubles occurs for axis ratios

771: $q_2\approx q_1^2$, the latter relation being shown above with the thick, solid straight line. 

772: By comparing the axis ratio

773: distribution for quad lenses to those of doubles and those of the overall halo population, 

774: one could in principle determine if halos are typically oblate (pancake-like), prolate (cigar-like), 

775: or in between. }

776: \label{fig:axis_ratio}

777: \end{figure} 

778: 

779: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

780: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

781: 

782: In short, then, the quantity $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and quads and between doubles and random halos

783: can, at least in principle, help determine whether most halos are oblate or prolate.  If halos are prolate, the difference 

784: $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and random halos is large.  If this difference is small, we can then look at the 

785: difference $\Delta q_{0.75}$ between doubles and quads.  If this last difference is large, then halos are typically oblate, 

786: whereas if the difference is small, then halos are neither strongly oblate nor strongly prolate and $q_2\approx q_1^2$.

787: 

788: In practice, however, the above test is difficult to execute.  In particular, while lens modeling can provide some

789: measure of the axis ratio $q$ in quad systems, there remains a fair amount of uncertainty due to the approximate

790: degeneracy between galaxy ellipticity and external shear \citep[see e.g.][]{keetonetal97}.  

791: This degeneracy is even stronger for doubly-imaged

792: systems, and worse, there is no way of determining the axis ratio of the mass for non-lensing galaxies.  Fortunately,

793: at the scales relevant for strong lensing ($\lesssim 5\ \kpc$), baryons dominate the total matter budget in early type

794: galaxies \citep[][]{rusinetal03}, so one expects that the dark matter distribution in these systems

795: will have the same ellipticity and orientation as the baryons.   

796: Observationally, \citet[][]{keetonetal98} \citep[see also][]{keetonetal97}

797: compared the projected ellipticity of the light in lensing galaxies to the ellipticity recovered from explicit

798: lens modeling, and found that the light and the mass tend to be very closely aligned, though the

799: magnitude of the ellipticities is not clearly correlated and the modest quality of the photometry available

800: at the time made their ellipticity measurements difficult.

801: Moreover, the galaxy sample \citet[][]{keetonetal98} included many galaxies that had non-negligible

802: environments that were not incorporated into the model.  More

803: recently, a detailed study of the Sloan Lens ACS Survey \citep[SLACS][]{boltonetal06} with more isolated galaxies

804: supports the hypothesis that the ellipticity of the light is in fact extremely well matched to the ellipticity of the projected 

805: mass, at least on scales comparable to the Einstein radii of the galaxies \citep[][]{koopmansetal06}.\footnote{We note,

806: however, that SLAC lenses tend to have Einstein radii that are quite comparable to their optical radii, so the agreement

807: is really expected.  In principle, a discrepancy could exist for lenses with larger Einstein radii for which the total mass

808: has a larger dark matter component.}

809: Thus, for the purposes of this

810: work, we simply take the isophotal axis ratio of lensing galaxies to be identical to the total matter 

811: axis ratio for the purposes of investigating whether lens biasing can be detected in current lensing samples.

812: 

813: Figure \ref{fig:cumq} shows the cumulative

814: distribution of isophotal axis ratios for quad lenses (solid) and double lenses (dashed) for all lensing galaxies

815: in the CASTLES\footnote{http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/castles/} database 

816: with isophotal axis ratios measurements.\footnote{This data was kindly provided 

817: by Emilio Falco, private communication.}    Of course, the selection function for this sample is impossible to

818: quantify objectively, but our intent is simply to see whether any differences between lensing galaxies and

819: random galaxies can be found.

820: Also shown in the figure are the axis ratio distributions of early type galaxies as reported by 

821: two different groups:

822: the dotted line shown is the fit used by \citet[][]{rusintegmark01} to model the distribution

823: of axis ratios in early type galaxies based on measurements by \citet[][]{jorgensenfranx94}, and 

824: is also quite close to the distribution recovered by \citet[][]{lambasetal92}.  The

825: dashed-dotted line is the axis ratio distribution obtained by \citet[][]{haoetal06} using the SDSS Data Release 4

826: photometric catalog, and is a very close match to the distribution recovered by \citet[][]{fasanovio91}.   

827: \citet[][]{haoetal06} noted that it is unclear why these two distributions differ, though \citet[][]{keetonetal97}

828: note that such a difference can easily arise depending on whether S0 galaxies are included in the

829: galaxy sample or not (with S0 galaxies being more elliptical).  Here, we simply consider both distributions.

830:  

831: Given that the axis ratio distribution for both quads and doubles largely fall in between the two model 

832: distributions we considered, it is immediately obvious that no robust results can be obtained at this

833: time.  Specifically, uncertainties in the details of the selection function of the galaxies used to construct

834: the isophotal axis ratios are a significant systematic.  More formally,

835: using a KS-test, we find that the isophotal axis ratio distributions of both quad and double lens galaxies

836: are consistent with that of the early type galaxy population as a whole (irrespective of which model distribution

837: we choose) and with each other as well.    Interestingly, whether or not

838: we restrict ourselves to galaxies that are isolated or whether we include all lensing galaxies

839: does not appear to change the result in any way.

840: Naively, then, the consistency of the axis ratio distributions

841: suggests that halos are typically neither strongly oblate nor prolate, but rather somewhere in between,

842: where the quantity $\Delta q_{0.75}$ exhibits a minimum, which occurs at $q_2\approx q_1^2$.

843: 

844: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

845: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

846: 

847: \begin{figure}[t]

848: \epsscale{1.2}

849: \plotone{cumq.ps}

850: \caption{Cumulative distribution of the isophotal axis ratio for early type galaxies.  The step-lines

851: shown correspond to galaxies that produce quads (solid) and doubles (dashed).  The smooth curves

852: show the overall

853: early type galaxy population in the Coma clusters \citep[dotted, see][]{rusintegmark01} and

854: in the SDSS DR4 \citep[dashed, see][]{haoetal06}.  The axis

855: ratio distribution for lensing galaxies is consistent with both model distributions, and with each

856: other, suggesting that the typical halo is neither

857: strongly oblate nor prolate, with axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$ such that $q_2\approx q_1^2$.}

858: \label{fig:cumq}

859: \end{figure} 

860: 

861: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

862: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

863: 

864: Given that current lens samples are too small for detecting any difference on the ellipticities of quadruply and 

865: doubly imaged systems, it is worth asking whether or not a detection is possible in principle.  That is, 

866: how many lenses must one have in order to detect quad systems as being more elliptical than doubles?

867: To answer this question, we need to first assume a simple model for the distribution of axis ratios $Q(q_1,q_2)$,

868: with which one could then compute the resulting projected axis ratio distributions for doubles, quads, and the

869: galaxy population at large.   We should note here, however, that in detail our results will depend on the

870: adopted distribution $Q(q_1,q_2)$, which is not known.

871: 

872: It is not immediately obvious what the most correct model distribution $Q(q_1,q_2)$ should be.  

873: While there have been many studies that have investigated the distribution of axis ratios

874: of dark matter halos in simulations \citep[see e.g.][]{warrenetal92,jingsuto02,bailinsteinmetz05},  

875: it has become clear

876: that the distribution itself depends on many variables, including halo mass \citep[][]{kasunevrard05,bettetal07},

877: radius at which the shape of the halo is measured \citep[][]{hayashietal07}, halo environment \citep[][]{hahnetal07},

878: and whether the halo under

879: consideration is a parent halo or a subhalo of a larger object \citep[][]{kuhlenetal07}.  Adding to these difficulties

880: is the fact that different authors use different definitions and methods for measuring the shapes of halos,

881: which forces one to go to great lengths in order to ensure a fair comparison of the results from different groups

882: \citep[see for example][]{allgoodetal06}.  Even more problematic that all of these difficulties, however, is

883: the fact that not only can the distributions of baryons have a different shape from the dark 

884: matter \citep[][]{gottloberyepes07}, baryons dominate the mass budget in the halo regions where strong 

885: lensing occurs, and can

886: therefore dramatically impact halo shapes at those scales \citep[][]{kazantzidisetal04,bailinetal05,gustafssonetal06}.  

887: Since our intent here is simply

888: to provide a rough estimate of the number of lenses required to detect a significant difference in the ellipticities 

889: of quad and double systems, we simply adopt a fiducial model that is based primarily on the results 

890: of \citet[][]{allgoodetal06} and \citet[][]{kazantzidisetal04}, and use it to estimate the number of lenses necessary

891: to detect the larger ellipticity of quad systems.    

892: Specifically, \citet[][]{allgoodetal06} obtain that for an $M_*$ halo the distribution 

893: of the short-to-long axis ratio of dark matter halos is Gaussian with a mean of $\avg{q_2} = 0.54$ and a standard

894: deviation $\sigma_{q_2}=0.1$.   As noted by \citet[][]{kazantzidisetal04}, baryonic cooling tends to 

895: circularize the mass profiles of halos, so we adopt instead a somewhat larger ratio $\avg{q_2}=0.65$, but retain 

896: the dispersion $\sigma_{q_2}=0.1$.  The adopted value for $\avg{q_2}$ is larger than that obtained

897: from dissipationless simulations, but smaller than that found in the simulations of

898: \citet[][]{kazantzidisetal04}, as the latter suffer from the well known over-cooling problem and therefore

899: overestimate the impact of baryons on the profiles.  In addition, 

900: we truncate the distribution at $q_2=0.4$, as the expressions for 

901: the lensing cross sections are no longer valid for systems with projected axis ratios 

902: below $0.4$.\footnote{For SIE profiles, if the projected axis ratio $q<0.4$, then naked cusp

903: configuration appear.  Since the analytical formulae we used to compute $\sigma(q)$

904: all compute the area contained within the tangential caustic, it follows that for $q<0.4$, 

905: our cross section estimates would correspond to the total cross section for producing

906: either quads or naked cusps.  To avoid this complication, we simply truncate our

907: axis ratio distribution at $q_2=0.4$.  Note however that since $q_2=0.4$

908: is already $2.5\sigma$ away from the adopted mean we expect the

909: introduced cutoff to have a negligible impact on our results.}

910: Finally, the value of the intermediate axis $q_1$ is obtain following the 

911: model of \citet[][]{allgoodetal06}

912: \citep[itself based on the work by][]{jingsuto02}, namely, the quantity $p=q_2/q_1$ is drawn from the distribution

913: %

914: %

915: \begin{equation}

916: \rho(p|s) = \frac{3}{2(1-s)}\left[1 - \left(\frac{2p-1-s}{1-s}\right)^2\right]

917: \end{equation}

918: %

919: %

920: where $s=\mbox{min}(0.55,q_2)$.

921: 

922: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

923: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

924: 

925: \begin{figure}[t]

926: \epsscale{1.2}

927: \plotone{predicted_axis_ratio_distributions.ps}

928: \caption{Cumulative distribution of the isophotal projected axis ratio for all galaxies, quad lenses,

929: and double lenses, using the fiducial model discussed in the text.  For comparison, we also show the

930: observed distribution of isophotal axis ratios in the SDSS DR4 as measured by \citet[][]{haoetal06}. 

931: Keep in mind that the model is not meant to be a fit to the data from \citet[][]{haoetal06}, but rather is

932: only meant as a useful approximate model that allows us to estimate the number of lenses necessary

933: to distinguish between the ellipticity distribution of quads and doubles. 

934: We find that $N\approx 350$ lenses are needed to empirically distinguish the two distributions at

935: the $95\%$ confidence level.}

936: \label{fig:predict_qproj}

937: \end{figure} 

938: 

939: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

940: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

941: 

942: 

943: Figure \ref{fig:predict_qproj} shows the cumulative distributions of the predicted isophotal axis ratios 

944: for all galaxies, as well as for quad and double systems.  Also shown for reference are the axis ratio 

945: measurements of early type galaxies by \citet[][]{haoetal06} using SDSS DR4 data.  Note that, as we 

946: expected, the difference in the axis ratio $q_{0.75}$ between doubles and quads is of order $0.05$.

947: The maximum vertical distance between the cumulative distributions functions for quads and doubles

948: is $D\approx 0.15$, which, using a KS-statistic, implies that roughly $300$ lenses 

949: ($150$ quads,  $150$ doubles) with good isophotal measurements are necessary to detect the difference

950: between the two distributions at the  $95\%$ confidence level.  A $5\sigma$ detection would 

951: require $\approx 1,400$ lenses.  Such large number of lenses is larger

952: than the current list of known lensing systems, but is certainly within the realm of what one may

953: expect from future lens searches \citep[see e.g.][]{koopmansetal04,marshalletal05}.

954: 

955: 

956: 

957: 

958: 

959: 

960: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

961: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

962: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

963: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

964: 

965: 

966: 

967: \section{Triaxiality and Predictions for the Quad-to-Double Ratio}

968: \label{sec:ratio}

969: 

970: We showed above that halo triaxiality can have an important impact on the distribution of axis ratios for

971: lensing galaxies.  Since the projected axis ratio of a halo plays a key role in the expected quad-to-double ratio

972: of lensing galaxies, it is easy to see that triaxiality should also affect this statistical observable.  This

973: is the problem we wish to consider now: how does triaxiality affect the quad-to-double ratio of lensing

974: galaxies?

975: 

976: Consider first equation \ref{eq:numlens}.  For our semi-analytic case, the halo parameters $\bm{P}$ that

977: determine the mass distribution of the halo

978: are simply the halo velocity dispersion and its two axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$.   What is more, we

979: saw that if we define $b_0(\sigma_v)$ as the Einstein radius of an SIS of velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$, then 

980: the ratio $\sigma/b_0^2$ depends only on the axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$.  If we make the further assumption 

981: that the distribution of halo parameters is separable, i.e. that 

982: %

983: \begin{equation}

984: \frac{dn_{halos}}{dz_hd\sigma_vdq_1dq_2} = \frac{dn_{halos}}{dz_hd\sigma_v} Q(q_1,q_2),

985: \end{equation}

986: %

987: then it is easy to see that the \it ratio \rm of the total number of quad systems to double systems depends

988: only on the distribution of axis ratios $Q(q_1,q_2)$ because the overall scaling of the lensing cross 

989: sections for both doubles and quads just factors out of the problem.  Thus, the ratio of quad-to-doubles 

990: is given simply by

991: %

992: \begin{equation}

993: r(q_1,q_2) = \frac{\mbox{No. of quads}}{\mbox{No. of doubles}} = 

994: 	\frac{ \avg{\sigma_B^{(4)}|q_1,q_2} }{ \avg{\sigma_B^{(2)}| q_1,q_2} }.

995: \end{equation}

996: 

997: 

998: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

999: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1000: 

1001: \begin{figure}[t]

1002: \epsscale{1.2}

1003: \plotone{cross_sections.ps}

1004: \plotone{lens_ratio.ps}

1005: \caption{{\it Top panel:} The dimensionless biased lensing cross section $\sigma_B/b_0^2$ for quads 

1006: (solid) and doubles (dotted) as a function of the axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$ of the halo population.   

1007: {\it Bottom panel:}  quad-to-double ratio as a function of the axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$ for triaxial

1008: isothermal profiles.  We only consider the range $q_2\geq 0.4$ because below this value our

1009: semi-analytical calculations based on \citet[][]{kormannetal94} break down.  Note the observed ratio 

1010: of about 0.4 can only be obtained for halos that deviate strongly from spherical symmetry.  Interestingly,

1011: all contours in both panels are very nearly horizontal, so whether halos are prolate (cigar-like) or 

1012: oblate (pancake-like) has almost no impact on the lensing optical depths or the quad-to-double

1013: ratio.}

1014: \label{fig:ratio}

1015: \end{figure} 

1016: 

1017: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1018: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1019: 

1020: The top panel of Figure \ref{fig:ratio} shows the dimensionless mean biased lensing cross section 

1021: $\avg{\sigma_B}/b_0^2$  for both doubles and quads averaged over lines of sight for a population of randomly 

1022: oriented halos.  Also shown in the bottom panel

1023: is the quad-to-double ratio.  As expected, large ($\gtrsim 0.3$) quad-to-doubles ratios require strong deviations 

1024: from spherical symmetry, so $q_2$ needs to be small.  Interestingly, however, all of the contours in both the 

1025: top and bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig:ratio} are nearly vertical: lensing cross sections are nearly independent

1026: of halo shape.

1027: We can understand this qualitatively as follows.   In the case of doubles, there is a tradeoff between two 

1028: competing effects: for $1\gtrsim q_1\gg q_2$, there are many lines of sight that enhance the Einstein radius of 

1029: the lens, but only moderately so.  For $1\gg q_1\gtrsim q_2$ on the other hand, there are only a few lines of 

1030: sight that enhance the Einstein radius of the lens (i.e. projections along the long axis of the halo), but 

1031: the enhancement is much greater.  Thus, the overall boost to the Einstein radius is offset by the reduced ``volume''

1032: of lines of sight available for forming doubles and vice versa.

1033: A similar effect occurs for quads: oblate halos make effective lenses when projected 

1034: along either the long or middle axis of the lens, but strongly avoid the short axis, so the ``volume'' of lines of sight 

1035: available to oblate halos is small.  Prolate halos, on the other hand, are not quite as effective as oblate halos

1036: at making quads, but can produce quads over a larger range of possible lines of sight.  

1037: 

1038: 

1039: At any rate, one thing that is clear from Figure \ref{fig:ratio} is that halo shape does not have a significant impact on the

1040: expected quad-to-double ratio.  One extremely interesting consequence of this results is that it implies that 

1041: halo triaxiality can be properly incorporated into lensing statistics studies without greatly increasing the number

1042: of degrees of freedom in the problem.  More explicitly, traditional lens statistics studies use as input the observed

1043: two dimensional ellipticity distribution of early type galaxies, and approximate the effects of triaxiality by multiplying 

1044: the usual isothermal ellipsoidal profiles with a normalization factor computed assuming halos are either all perfectly

1045: oblate, or perfectly prolate \citep[see e.g.][]{chae03,chae07,oguri07}.   The main reason this is done, rather than

1046: considering triaxial halos and averaging over lines of sight, is that in order to do the latter calculation, one needs

1047: to know something about the distribution of axis ratios. We have shown, however, that such a calculation would

1048: in fact be nearly independent of assumptions made about the intermediate axis $q_1$.

1049: In other words, a proper calculation that weights lines of sight according to their biased lensing

1050: cross section rather than uniform weighting (as implicitly done when taking the ellipticity distribution to be that

1051: of early type galaxies as a whole) effectively involves no more freedom than the usual approach, the 

1052: main difference being that the assumptions made will involve not the ellipticity distribution, but rather

1053: the distribution of the short-to-long axis ratio $q_2$, which can itself be constrained using the

1054: projected ellipticity distribution \citep[e.g.][]{lambasetal92}.  

1055: 

1056: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1057: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1058: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1059: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1060: 

1061: 

1062: 

1063: 

1064: \section{The Substructure Mass Fraction in the Inner Regions of Lensing Halos}

1065: \label{sec:subs}

1066: 

1067: One of the important predictions of the CDM paradigm of structure formation is that galactic halos

1068: contain a large amount of bound substructure within 

1069: them \citep[see e.g.][]{whiterees78,blumenthaletal84}.   Observationally, however, both our

1070: own galaxy and M31 have an order of magnitude less luminous companions than is predicted

1071: if one assumes substructures have a fixed mass to light ratio \citep[][]{kauffmannetal93, klypinetal99, mooreetal99}.  

1072: Currently, the

1073: favored explanation for this discrepancy is that the mass to light ratio of such small structures

1074: depends strongly on the history of the objects, and therefore only a select subset of the substructures

1075: within the halo become luminous \citep[e.g.][]{somervilleprimack99,bensonetal02,kravtsovetal04,salesetal07}.  

1076: While such scenarios appear to be in good agreement

1077: with the data, it would still be desirable to provide as direct detection as possible of the remaining

1078: dark substructures.

1079: 

1080: 

1081: Motivated by the fact that dark substructures can only be discovered via their gravitational signal, 

1082: \citet[][]{dalalkochanek02a} investigated whether the well known flux anomalies problem could be

1083: explained as the action of dark substructures embedded within the halo of the lensing galaxy.

1084: Using a relatively simple model, they found that in order to explain the observed flux anomalies, 

1085: one requires a projected substructure mass fraction $f_s$ in the range $7\%>f_s>0.6\%$ at the

1086: $90\%$ confidence level.  It was then argued by \citet[][]{maoetal04} that such a substructure mass

1087: fraction was slightly larger than the mass fraction obtained from simulations $f_s\approx 0.5\%.$

1088: 

1089: 

1090: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1091: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1092: 

1093: \begin{figure}[t]

1094: \epsscale{1.2}

1095: \plotone{fsublos.ps}

1096: \caption{The projected substructure mass fraction within $3\%$ of the virial radius as a function of 

1097: $\cos(\theta_{long})$ where $\theta_{long}$ is the angle between the projection axis and the long

1098: axis of the halo.  Error bars show the dispersion in the sample rather than the error on the mean.

1099: The solid line shows a simple constant plus gaussian fit of the form

1100: $f_s(x) = 0.003+0.018\exp(-(1-x)^2/0.1^2)$ where $x=\cos(\theta_{long})$.  Note projections along

1101: the long axis of the lens have significantly higher substructure mass fractions than the typical

1102: projection.}

1103: \label{fig:fsublos}

1104: \end{figure} 

1105: 

1106: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1107: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1108: 

1109: Recently, it has become clear that the distribution of substructures in dark matter halos is not spherically 

1110: symmetric, but is instead triaxial, and aligned with the major axis of the halo.  Since lensing halos

1111: are not randomly oriented in space, the mean projected substructure mass fraction for all halos

1112: - the $f_s\approx 0.5\%$ value obtained by \citet[][]{maoetal04} - need not be the same as the mean

1113: substructure mass fraction for lensing halos, which would in turn affect theoretical predictions 

1114: \citep[e.g.][]{rozoetal06,chenetal07}. Here, we use the results on substructure alignments in

1115: numerical simulations to estimate the dependence of the projected substructure mass fraction $f_s$

1116: on the projection axis.  More specifically, {\it assuming that substructures do

1117: not significantly alter the biased lensing cross sections for the halos}, we compute the mean substructure mass

1118: fraction for doubles and quad lenses as a function of the axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$ of the lensing halos.

1119: 

1120: We begin by presenting the substructure mass fraction $f_s$, as a function of line-of-sight in simulated

1121: dark matter halos.  In Figure \ref{fig:fsublos}, we reproduce the distribution as presented in \citet[][]{zentner06}.  This

1122: figure shows the mass fraction projected within $3\%$ of the virial radius as a function of the projection angle 

1123: $\cos(\theta_{long})$  for a sample of

1124: halos in a dissipationless $N$-body simulation of structure growth.  The angle $\theta_{long}$ is defined as the

1125: relative angle between the projection axis and the long axis of the halo.  The data for the figure come from 26 host dark 

1126: matter halos with masses in the range $10^{12} h^{-1}\msun < M < 10^{13} h^{-1}\msun$, and the error bar shown

1127: represents the 

1128: dispersion in the sample rather than the error on the mean.  The halos were drawn from a high-resolution flat, $\LCDM$

1129: simulation with $\Omega_m=0.3,$ $\sigma_8=0.9,$ $\Omega_b h^2=0.023,$ and $h=0.7.$  Details on the simulations

1130: can be found in \citet[][]{zentner06} or in \citet[][]{gottloberturchaninov06}.

1131: 

1132: Using the fit to $f_s(\cos(\theta_{long}))$ shown in Figure \ref{fig:fsublos}, we compute the mean

1133: projected substructure mass fraction $\avg{f_s|q_1,q_2}$ for a population of double and quad lenses 

1134: as a function of the halo axis ratios $q_1$ and $q_2$.  Our results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fsub}.

1135: For reference, the mean substructure mass fraction for randomly oriented halos obtained from

1136: the fit shown in figure \ref{fig:fsublos} is $\avg{f_s}=0.46\%$.   As per our expectations, we find that

1137: prolate (cigar-like) doubles have substructure mass fractions that are  enhanced relative

1138: to the average halo, with $\avg{f_s}\approx 0.6\%$.  Note though that this enhancement is relatively

1139: minor, and slowly decreases to the random average as halos become oblate.

1140: 

1141: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1142: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1143: 

1144: \begin{figure}[t]

1145: \epsscale{1.2}

1146: \plotone{mean_fsub.ps}

1147: \caption{Mean projected substructure mass fraction $\avg{f_s|q_1,q_2}$ as a function

1148: of halo axis ratios for doubles (dotted lines) and quads (solid lines), shown 

1149: above as percentages (i.e. we show

1150: $100\avg{f_s|q_1,q_2}$).  The projected substructure mass fraction as a

1151: function of line of sight is taken to be the fit shown in Figure \ref{fig:fsublos}, and biased cross 

1152: section weighting assumes substructures do not significantly impact the lensing cross section.

1153: For comparison, the mean substructure mass fraction for randomly oriented halos in our model

1154: is $\avg{f_s}=0.46\%$.}

1155: \label{fig:fsub}

1156: \end{figure} 

1157: 

1158: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1159: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1160: 

1161: More interesting to us is the behavior of quads, for which we find a mild enhancement relative to random

1162: for oblate halos, and a decrease in the expected substructure mass fraction for prolate halos.  This  

1163: can be easily understood from Figure \ref{fig:losdist}: oblate quads strongly avoid projections along the short

1164: axis of the halo, and projections along the middle and long axis of the lens are nearly equally likely.

1165: Consequently, one expects an enhancement of the substructure mass fraction because some lines of sight with

1166: low $f_s$ are avoided.  On the other hand, for prolate halos, projections along the long axis of the lens are

1167: the least common, so indeed we expect the mean projected substructure mass fraction for these systems 

1168: to be reduced.

1169: 

1170: Overall, though, it is clear that for quad systems - which are the only kind of systems for which $\avg{f_s}$ may be

1171: estimated using the methods of \citet[][]{dalalkochanek02a} - the substructure mass fraction in the inner regions

1172: of a halo cannot be significantly enhanced due to lens biasing if the impact of substructures on the lensing

1173: cross section of galactic halos can be neglected.  Thus, lens biasing does little to soften the slight

1174: (and in these authors' opinion, not terribly significant) discrepancy between the values of $f_s$ recovered 

1175: by \citet[][]{dalalkochanek02a} and those from numerical simulations.  

1176: 

1177: 

1178: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1179: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1180: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1181: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: \section{Caveats and Systematics}

1185: \label{sec:caveats}

1186: 

1187: Before we finish, we believe it is important to mention two systematics that could significantly

1188: affect the conclusions presented in this work.  Specifically, throughout we have assumed

1189: that the lensing cross section is dominated by the smooth mass distribution of lensing galaxies,

1190: and we presented in section \ref{sec:model} several studies that suggest that our model

1191: for the mass distribution of early type galaxies is a reasonable one.  As mentioned in

1192: the introduction, the possible discrepancy between theory and observation concerning

1193: the quad-to-double ratio of the CLASS lenses has raised the possibility that lensing

1194: cross sections are in fact heavily influenced by the environment of the halo or

1195: possibly by substructures with in it.  We briefly discuss each of these in turn.

1196: 

1197: We begin by discussing halo environments.  In our calculations above, and in

1198: most of the lensing statistics literature, the effect of halo environment on lensing statistics is 

1199: neglected.  This is not an entirely ad hoc assumption.  Theoretical estimates of 

1200: the amount of shear that the typical lens experiences are quite small

1201: \citep[$\gamma \approx 0.02$, see e.g.][]{keetonetal97, dalalwatson04}, so its impact should be negligible.  

1202: Curiously, however, explicit lens modeling of known systems usually requires large external shears

1203: ($\gamma\approx 0.1$) in order to provide reasonable fits to observations \citep[see e.g.][]{keetonetal97}.

1204: Moreover, direct estimates of the environment of lensing galaxies also support the idea of a stronger

1205: effect from nearby structures \citep[][]{ogurietal05}.   The discrepancy between these

1206: observations and the predictions for halo environments are themselves an interesting problem,

1207: which ultimately may or may not be related to the usual quad-to-double ratio problem.  At any

1208: rate, one might hope that even if such large external shears are correct, their impact on

1209: the quad-to-double ratio would still be negligible if

1210: their orientation is random.  This expectation was indeed confirmed by \citep[][]{rusintegmark01}.

1211: Unfortunately, it is known that a significant fraction of lenses are actually member galaxies of intermediate

1212: mass groups \citep[][]{momchevaetal06,williamsetal06}, and that galaxies in groups and clusters tend to be radially

1213: aligned \citep[][]{pereirakuhn05, donosoetal06, faltenbacheretal07}, implying 

1214: the randomly oriented shear assumption is likely not justified.

1215: Indeed, a careful analysis of the impact of the halo environment for group members shows neglecting

1216: to take said environment into account can lead to an underestimate of the ratio of the quad-to-double

1217: lensing cross sections for such galaxies as large as a factor of two \citep[][]{keetonzabludoff04}.  

1218: At this point, what seems clear is that there is not as of yet a definitive answer as to exactly how

1219: important galaxy environments are, and thus, we have opted for making the simplest possible assumption

1220: for the purposes of this work, that is, we have ignored the impact of large-scale environments.

1221: 

1222: The second solution to the quad-to-double ratio problem involves substructures.  Specifically, 

1223: \citet[][]{cohnkochanek04}

1224: have shown that the lensing cross section of galaxies is severely affected

1225: by substructures.  If this is indeed the case, the way in which lensing galaxies are biased relative to

1226: the overall galaxy population depend not only on the smooth component of its mass distribution, but

1227: also on the spatial distribution of substructures within the galaxy halo.   Interestingly, in such a scenario

1228: halo triaxiality would impact the orientation of halos relative to the line of sight now only through the biasing

1229: due to the smooth matter component, but also because of the previously mentioned alignment between

1230: the substructure distributions and the smooth mass distributions.  We leave the question of exactly how 

1231: such a population of halos would be biased to future work (Chen et al., in preparation).

1232: 

1233: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1234: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1235: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1236: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1237: 

1238: 

1239: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

1240: \label{sec:summary}

1241: 

1242: The triaxial distribution of mass in galactic halos implies that the probability that a galaxy becomes a lens

1243: is dependent on the relative orientation of the galaxy's major axis to the line of sight.   Consequently, a

1244: subsample of randomly oriented galaxies that act as strong lenses will {\it not} be randomly oriented

1245: in space.  The relative orientation and the strength of the alignment depends on the shape of the 

1246: matter distribution, and on the type of lens under consideration: prolate doubles have a high probability

1247: of being project along their long axis, whereas the distribution of oblate doubles is nearly isotropic.

1248: Prolate quads are most often projected along their middle axis, though the degree to which alignment

1249: occurs is not as strong as for prolate doubles.  Interestingly, highly prolate quads are also more likely

1250: to be projected along their short axis than along the long axis, though this very quickly changes as halos

1251: become more triaxial and less prolate.  Oblate quads strongly avoid projections along the short axis of the lens,

1252: but projections along the other two axis are almost equally likely.

1253: 

1254: An important consequence of the differences in the distribution of halo orientations for 

1255: quad lenses, double lenses, and the galaxy population as a whole is that

1256: the ellipticity distribution of these various samples must be different, even if the distribution of halo

1257: shapes is the same.   Specifically, we predict that quad lenses are typically 

1258: more elliptical than random galaxies, and that the ellipticity distribution of doubles is very slightly more circular

1259: than that of random galaxies.  While current data do not show any indication of these trends,

1260: we have shown that $\approx 300\ (1,400)$ lenses are necessary to obtain a $2\sigma\ (5\sigma)$ 

1261: detection of the effect.  

1262: 

1263: The fact that halo triaxiality affects the ellipticity distribution of lensing galaxies also means that

1264: halo triaxiality needs to be properly taken into account in lensing statistics.   Consequently,

1265: we estimate how the biased lensing cross sections of galaxies depend on halo shape, and

1266: find that they are nearly independent of the halo shape parameter $T$.  Instead, the mean

1267: biased cross section of a lens depends almost exclusive on the distribution on the short-to-long

1268: axis ratio $q_2$ (often denoted by $s$).  

1269: 

1270: Finally, given that the

1271: distribution of substructures in numerical simulations is observed to be preferentially aligned with

1272: the long axis of the host halos, we estimate how the preferred orientation of lensing galaxies

1273: affects their predicted substructure mass fraction.  We find that biases due to non-isotropic distribution

1274: of halos relative to the line of sight have an insignificant impact on the mean substructure mass fraction

1275: of lensing galaxies.  

1276: 

1277: {\bf Acknowledgements: } ER would like to thank Christopher Kochanek for numerous discussions

1278: and valuable comments on the manuscript 

1279: which have greatly improved both the form and content of this work.  The authors

1280: would also like to thank to Emilio Falco for kindly providing the isophotal axis ratio data that was needed 

1281: for producing Figure \ref{fig:cumq}, and to Charles Keeton for a careful reading of the manuscript.

1282: ER was funded by the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics

1283: (CCAPP) at The Ohio State University.  ARZ has been funded by the University of Pittsburgh, the National Science

1284: Foundation (NSF) Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship program through grant AST 0602122, and

1285: by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at The University of Chicago.  This work made use of the National 

1286: Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrophysics Data System.

1287: 

1288: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1289: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1290: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1291: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1292: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1293: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1294: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1295: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1296: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1297: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1298: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1299: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1300: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1301: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1302: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1303: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1304: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1305: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1306: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1307: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1308: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1309: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1310: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1311: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1312: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1313: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1314: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1315: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1316: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1317: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1318: 

1319: 

1320: 

1321: \bibliographystyle{apj}

1322: \bibliography{mybib}

1323: 

1324: \newcommand\AAA[3]{{A\& A} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1325: \newcommand\PhysRep[3]{{Physics Reports} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1326: \newcommand\ApJ[3]{ {ApJ} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1327: \newcommand\PhysRevD[3]{ {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1328: \newcommand\PhysRevLet[3]{ {Physics Review Letters} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1329: \newcommand\MNRAS[3]{{MNRAS} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1330: \newcommand\PhysLet[3]{{Physics Letters} {\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}

1331: \newcommand\AJ[3]{ {AJ} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) }

1332: \newcommand\aph{astro-ph/}

1333: \newcommand\AREVAA[3]{{Ann. Rev. A.\& A.} {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}

1334: 

1335: \appendix

1336: 

1337: 

1338: 

1339: 

1340: 

1341: \section{Lensing Cross Sections of Singular Isothermal Ellipsoids}

1342: 

1343: The Singular Isothermal Ellipsoid (SIE) is one of the simplest lens models that

1344: can produce quadruply imaged sources.  \citet[][]{kormannetal94} performed a detailed 

1345: study of the lensing properties

1346: of SIE lenses, and, in particular, derived simple expressions for the total

1347: area contained within the tangential and radial caustics of such lenses.

1348: Specifically, given an SIE profile

1349: %

1350: %

1351: \begin{equation}

1352: \Sigma = \frac{\sqrt{q}\sigma_v^2}{2G}\frac{1}{x^2+q^2y^2},

1353: \end{equation}

1354: %

1355: %

1356: \citet[][]{kormannetal94} found that the area $\sigma_r$ and $\sigma_t$ contained 

1357: inside the radial and tangential caustics is given by 

1358: %

1359: %

1360: \begin{equation}

1361: \sigma_r = \frac{4q}{1-q^2}\int_q^1dx\ \frac{\cos^{-1}(x)}{\sqrt{x^2-q^2}}

1362: \end{equation}

1363: %

1364: and

1365: %

1366: \begin{equation}

1367: \sigma_t = \frac{4q}{1-q^2}\int_q^1dx\ \left(\frac{\sqrt{1-x^2}}{x}-\cos^{-1}(x)\right)

1368: 	\frac{\sqrt{x^2-q^2}}{x^2}

1369: \end{equation}

1370: %

1371: respectively.  Moreover, they showed that for $q>q_c$ where $q_c\approx 0.394$,

1372: the tangential caustic is entirely contained within the radial caustic, and hence

1373: the lensing cross section $\squad$ for forming four image lenses is simply

1374: $\squad = \sigma_t$.  Likewise, the lensing cross section for forming doubles

1375: is given by $\sdouble = \sigma_r-\sigma_t$.

1376: 

1377: Unfortunately, as derived in section \ref{sec:cs}, the relevant quantity for

1378: lensing statistics of a flux limited sample is not the lensing cross section

1379: itself, but the biased cross section $\sigma_B$.  Moreover, the latter cross

1380: section requires one to compute

1381: the magnification distribution $p(\mu)$ for double and quad lenses, for which

1382: there are no closed form expressions.  In this appendix, we numerically compute

1383: the magnification distribution $p(\mu)$, and its first moment $\avg{\mu}$ for both

1384: doubles and quads, and use them to compute the biased lensing cross section

1385: $\sigma_B=\avg{\mu}\sigma$ appropriate for a source luminosity function 

1386: $n_s(L)\propto L^{-2}$.  

1387: 

1388: The left panel of Figure \ref{fig:pmu} shows the magnification distribution for doubly and quadruply

1389: image systems for SIE profiles with axis ratios $q=0.4$ and $q=0.8$.   Note that the magnification

1390: distribution for doubles is very rich in features.  The magnification distribution for quads, on the other

1391: hand, is relatively simple, and we can provide a simple fitting formula for it.  To do so, first note that we

1392: know that in the limit $\mu\rightarrow \infty$, 

1393: $\pquad \propto \mu^{-3}$, so we expect that $\pquad \approx Nx^{-3}f(x)$ where

1394: $x=\mu/\mu_{min}$ and $\mu_{min}$ is the minimum magnification for quad 

1395: lenses, $N$ is a normalization constant, and $f(x)$ is a function which asymptotes

1396: to unity and deviates from unity only for $x\approx 1$.  Consequently, we expand

1397: $f(x)$ in a power series in terms of $x^{-1}$, of which we expect only the first few terms

1398: would be necessary to produce a good fit.  As it turns out, we found that $f(x)$

1399: needs only one non-constant term to result in excellent fits to $\pquad$, and our

1400: final fitting function for $\pquad$ is thus

1401: %

1402: %

1403: \begin{equation}

1404: \pquad \approx  \frac{1}{\mu_{min}^{(4)}} \frac{2}{1+a/2} x^{-3}(1+ax^{-2}).

1405: \label{eq:quadfit}

1406: \end{equation}

1407: %

1408: %

1409: A priori, we would expect that the best fit value of the $a$ coefficient in the above

1410: expression would be a function of the axis ratio $q$ of the profile.  While there does

1411: appear to be some such dependence, it is extremely mild, so we have opted

1412: for keeping $a$ fixed to the value $a=0.83$.    We found that this expression is 

1413: accurate to better than $5\%$ for 

1414: $\mu_{min} \lesssim \mu \lesssim 20\mu_{min}$ and $q\geq0.4$.

1415: 

1416: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1417: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1418: 

1419: \begin{figure}[t]

1420: \epsscale{1.15}

1421: \plottwo{magdist.ps}{bcs.ps}

1422: \caption{{\it Left panel:} Distribution of magnifications $p(\mu)$ for double and quadruple lenses for

1423: an SIE profile with axis ratios $q=0.4$ and $q=0.8$.  The $q=0.4$ distribution for doubles

1424: is shown as a solid line, and the corresponding distribution for quads is shown as diamonds.

1425: The dotted curve and triangles are the double and quad distributions for $q=0.8$.  The solid

1426: curves on top of the diamonds and triangles are our empirical fit for quad lenses (see Eq.

1427: \ref{eq:quadfit}, and is 

1428: accurate to $\approx 5\%$.  {\it Right panel:} Biased lensing cross section $\sigma_B=\avg{\mu}\sigma$

1429: as a function of axis ratio for SIE profiles and assuming a source luminosity function with a power law slope

1430: $\alpha=-2$.  The solid curves are simple cubic fits which are accurate to better than $1\%$.}

1431: \label{fig:pmu}

1432: \end{figure} 

1433: 

1434: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1435: %----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

1436: 

1437: The right panel of Figure \ref{fig:pmu} shows the actual quantities we are interested in, the biased lensing

1438: cross sections $\sigma_B = \avg{\mu}\sigma$.  As is obvious from the figure, the form of these biased 

1439: cross sections is very simple, so even a simple quadratic fit results in quite good fits (of order a few percent).

1440: Since we wish our empirical fit to be accurate, we fit the numerically computed cross sections with a cubic, 

1441: which is enough to obtain sub-percent level accuracy.  Our best fit curves (in a least square sense) are

1442: %

1443: \begin{eqnarray}

1444: \sigma_B^{(2)} & = & -6.902+42.937q-33.240q^2+9.736q^3 \\

1445: \sigma_B^{(4)} & = &\ 11.409-20.833q+13.236q^2-3.816q^3.

1446: \end{eqnarray}

1447: %

1448: Of course, we could have just as easily splined the numerically estimated values to compute the lensing

1449: cross section at any axis ratio $q$.  We opted to fit the cross sections with a simple form both for simplicity,

1450: and in the chance that the fitting formulae provided here will be useful for other works.

1451: 

1452: 

1453: 

1454: 

1455: \section{Projected Surface Density Profiles of Triaxial Isothermal Halos}

1456: \label{app:proj}

1457: 

1458: Consider an SIS profile

1459: %

1460: %

1461: \begin{equation}

1462: \rho_{SIS}(r) = \frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi G}\frac{1}{r^2}.

1463: \end{equation}

1464: %

1465: %

1466: Its triaxial generalization takes the form

1467: %

1468: %

1469: \begin{equation}

1470: \rho_{SIE}(\bar\bm{x}) = N(q_1,q_2)\frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi G}\frac{1}{\bar x^2/q_1^2+\bar y^2+\bar z^2/q_2^2}

1471: \end{equation}

1472: %

1473: where $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the halo's axis ratios, and we have chosen a coordinate system

1474: that is aligned the halo's principal axis and such that $1\geq q_1 \geq q_2$.  $p_2$ remains the ratio of the small to large axis. The prefactor $N(q_1,q_2)$ represents a relative normalization

1475: for halos of varying axis ratios which we will compute shortly.  First however, 

1476: since \citet[][]{kormannetal94} use the notation where the axis ratios multiply rather than divide the coordinates,

1477: we rewrite the mass density as

1478: %

1479: \begin{equation}

1480: \rho_{SIE}(\bar\bm{x}) = \tilde N(q_1,q_2)\frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi G}\frac{1}{p_1^2\bar x^2+p_2^2\bar y^2+\bar z^2}

1481: \label{eq:triaxial}

1482: \end{equation}

1483: %

1484: where $p_1=q_2/q_1$, $p_2=q_2$, and $\tilde N(p_1,p_2) = q_2^2N(q_1,q_2)$.  

1485: Note $p_1$ is the ratio of the small to middle axis, while

1486: $p_2$ remains the ratio of the small to large axis.

1487: We choose the normalization function $\tilde N(p_1,p_2)$ such

1488: that the mass contained within a radius $r$ is independent of the axis ratios $p_1$ and $p_2$,

1489: as appropriate if one wishes to investigate the impact of triaxiality on lensing cross sections

1490: at fixed mass with the latter defined using spherical overdensities. 

1491: Integrating the above profiles and setting $M_{SIS}(r)=M_{SIE}(r)$ results in\footnote{To obtain the

1492: expressions above, we perform first the radial integral and then the $\theta$ integral where $\theta$

1493: is the azimuthal angle.}

1494: %

1495: %

1496: \begin{equation}

1497: \tilde N(p_1,p_2) = \left\{ \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi/2} d\phi\ 

1498: 	\frac{\tan^{-1}\left[ \sqrt{(1-a)/a} \right]}{\sqrt{a(1-a)}}\right\}^{-1}

1499: \end{equation}	

1500: %

1501: %

1502: where we have defined $a(\phi;q_1,q_2)$ via

1503: %

1504: %

1505: \begin{equation}

1506: a(\phi;q_1,q_2) = p_1^2\cos^2(\phi)+p_2^2\sin^2(\phi).

1507: \end{equation}

1508: 

1509: 

1510: We wish to project $\rho_{SIE}$ along an arbitrary line of sight.  Let $\bm{x}$ be a coordinate system such

1511: that the $z$ axis is aligned with the line of sight.  We choose the $x$ and $y$ axis to be such that a 

1512: rotation by an angle $\theta$ along the $y$ axis followed by a rotation along the $z$ axis by an angle

1513: $\phi$ recovers the coordinate system $\bar\bm{x}$ from Eq. \ref{eq:triaxial}.  The corresponding

1514: rotation matrix is given by

1515: %

1516: %

1517: \begin{equation}

1518: R = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

1519: 	\cos\theta\cos\phi & -\sin\phi & \sin\theta\cos\phi \\

1520: 	\cos\theta\sin\phi & \cos\phi & \sin\theta\sin\phi \\

1521: 	-\sin\theta & 0 & \cos\theta

1522: 	\end{array}\right).

1523: \end{equation}

1524: 

1525: By construction, the corresponding projected surface density $\Sigma(x,y)$  is

1526: given simply by

1527: %

1528: %

1529: \begin{equation}

1530: \Sigma(x,y) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz\ \rho_{SIE}(R\bm{x})

1531: \end{equation}

1532: %

1533: %

1534: which has the form

1535: %

1536: %

1537: \begin{equation}

1538: \Sigma(x,y) = \tilde N(p_1,p_2) \frac{\sigma_v^2}{2\pi G} \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz\ \frac{1}{A+Bz+Cz^2}

1539: \label{eq:projint}

1540: \end{equation}

1541: %

1542: %

1543: where

1544: %

1545: %

1546: \begin{eqnarray}

1547: A & = & A_{xx}x^2+A_{xy}xy+A_{yy}y^2 \\

1548: B & = & B_xx+B_yy \\

1549: C & = & p_1^2\sin^2\theta\cos^2\phi+p_2^2\sin^2\theta\sin^2\phi+\cos^2\theta

1550: \end{eqnarray}

1551: %

1552: %

1553: and

1554: %

1555: %

1556: \begin{eqnarray}

1557: A_{xx} & = & p_1^2\cos^2\theta\cos^2\phi+p_2^2\cos^2\theta\sin^2\phi+\sin^2\theta \\

1558: A_{xy} & = & \sin(2\phi)\cos(\theta)(-p_1^2+p_2^2) \\ 

1559: A_{yy} & = & p_1^2\sin^2\phi+p_2^2\cos^2\phi \\ 

1560: B_x & = & \sin(2\theta)(p_1^2\cos^2\phi+p_2^2\sin^2\phi-1) \\

1561: B_y & = & \sin(\theta)\sin(2\phi)(-p_1^2+p_2^2).

1562: \end{eqnarray}

1563: %

1564: %

1565: Note that if $q_1=q_2=1$, then $A_{xx}=A_{yy}=C=1$ and $A_{xy}=B_x=B_y=0$, exactly as it should.

1566: Performing the integral in Eq. \ref{eq:projint} we find

1567: %

1568: %

1569: \begin{equation}

1570: \Sigma(x,y) = \tilde N(p_1,p_2) \frac{\sigma_v^2}{2G}\frac{1}{\sqrt{AC-B^2/4}}

1571: \end{equation} 

1572: %

1573: %

1574: which has the generic form

1575: %

1576: %

1577: \begin{equation}

1578: \Sigma(x,y) = \tilde N(p_1,p_2) \frac{\sigma_v^2}{2G}\frac{1}{(\alpha_{xx}x^2+\alpha_{xy}xy+\alpha_{yy}y^2)^{1/2}}

1579: \label{eq:projden}

1580: \end{equation}

1581: %

1582: %

1583: where

1584: %

1585: %

1586: \begin{eqnarray}

1587: \alpha_{xx} & = & A_{xx}C-B_x^2/4 \\

1588: \alpha_{xy} & = & A_{xy}C-B_xB_y/2 \\

1589: \alpha_{yy} & = & A_{yy}C-B_y^2/4.

1590: \end{eqnarray}

1591: %

1592: %

1593: For $q_1=q_2=1$, the above expressions reduce to $\alpha_{xx}=\alpha_{yy}=1$ and $\alpha_{xy}=0$

1594: as appropriate for an SIS profile.  For the more general case

1595: it is evident from equationuation \ref{eq:projden} that using an additional rotation of the $x-y$ plane 

1596: we can diagonalize the projected mass density $\Sigma(x,y)$.  We find that the required 

1597: rotation angle $\psi$ is given by

1598: %

1599: %

1600: \begin{equation}

1601: \tan2\psi = \frac{\alpha_{xy}}{\alpha_{xx}-\alpha_{yy}}.

1602: \end{equation}

1603: %

1604: %

1605: Using a $\sim$ to denote the new coordinate system, we can thus write

1606: %

1607: %

1608: \begin{equation}

1609: \Sigma(\tilde x, \tilde y) = \frac{\sqrt{q}\tilde \sigma_v^2}{2G}\frac{1}{(\tilde x^2+q^2\tilde y^2)^{1/2}}

1610: \label{eq:projden1}

1611: \end{equation}

1612: %

1613: %

1614: where

1615: %

1616: %

1617: \begin{eqnarray}

1618: q^2 & = & \frac{\tilde\alpha_{yy}}{\tilde\alpha_{xx}} \label{eq:qproj} \\

1619: \tilde\sigma_v^2 & = & \frac{\tilde N(p_1,p_2)}{\sqrt{q\tilde\alpha_{xx}}}\sigma_v^2 \label{eq:norm}

1620: \end{eqnarray}

1621: %

1622: %

1623: and we have defined

1624: %

1625: %

1626: \begin{eqnarray}

1627: \tilde\alpha_{xx} & = &\alpha_{xx}\cos^2\psi+\alpha_{xy}\sin\psi\cos\psi+\alpha_{yy}\sin^2\psi \\

1628: \tilde\alpha_{yy} & = & \alpha_{xx}\sin^2\psi-\alpha_{xy}\sin\psi\cos\psi+\alpha_{yy}\cos^2\psi.

1629: \end{eqnarray}

1630: %

1631: %

1632: As expected, the above expression for $q$ reduces to $q=p_2/p_1=q_1$ when we project along the

1633: $z$ axis (i.e. the short axis), to $q=p_2$ when projecting along the $y$ axis (i.e. the long axis), 

1634: and to $q=p_1=q_2/q_1$ when projecting along the $x$ axis (i.e. the middle axis).  

1635: The particular form of the parameterization of the surface density in Eq. \ref{eq:projden1}

1636: is meant to match the conventions in \citet[][]{kormannetal94}, which was chosen to ensure 

1637: the mass contained within a given density contour be independent of $q$ for fixed $\tilde\sigma_v$.

1638: 

1639: and the 

1640: 

1641: 

1642: 

1643: 

1644: 

1645: 

1646: \end{document}

1647: 

1648: