1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \newcommand\refsec[1]{\S \ref{sec:#1}}
5: \newcommand\refeq[1]{eq.~(\ref{eq:#1})}
6: \newcommand\Rsrc{R_{\rm src}}
7: \newcommand\Rein{R_{\rm ein}}
8: \newcommand\Reff{R_{\rm eff}}
9: \newcommand\mm{\mathcal{M}}
10: \newcommand\mucut{\mu_{\rm cut}}
11: \newcommand\vect[1]{{\textbf{\em #1}}}
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\bcn}{\begin{center}}
17: \newcommand{\ecn}{\end{center}}
18: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}
19: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}}
20: \newcommand{\btab}{\begin{tabular}}
21: \newcommand{\etab}{\end{tabular}}
22: \newcommand{\bt}{\begin{table}}
23: \newcommand{\et}{\end{table}}
24:
25: \newcommand\reffig[1]{Figure \ref{fig:#1}}
26: \newcommand\Msun{\mbox{ M}_{\odot}}
27: \newcommand{\bfig}{\begin{figure}}
28: \newcommand{\efig}{\end{figure}}
29: \newcommand\bp{\begin{figure}}
30: \newcommand\ep{\end{figure}}
31: \newcommand\bpm{\begin{figure*}}
32: \newcommand\epm{\end{figure*}}
33:
34: \newcommand {\apgt} {\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }
35: \newcommand {\aplt} {\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }
36: \newcommand\fib{{\rm fib}}
37: \newcommand\src{{\rm src}}
38: \newcommand\vx{{\bf x}}
39:
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43: \title{Lensing Probabilities for Spectroscopically Selected Galaxy-Galaxy
44: Strong Lenses}
45:
46: \author{
47: Gregory Dobler\altaffilmark{1,5},
48: Charles R. Keeton\altaffilmark{2},
49: Adam S. Bolton\altaffilmark{1,3},
50: and
51: Scott Burles\altaffilmark{4}
52: }
53:
54: \altaffiltext{1}{
55: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
56: 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
57: }
58: \altaffiltext{2}{
59: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University,
60: 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
61: }
62: \altaffiltext{3}{
63: B.W. Parrent Fellow,
64: Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
65: 2680 Wodlawn Dr., Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
66: }
67: \altaffiltext{4}{
68: Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research and
69: Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
70: Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
71: }
72: \altaffiltext{5}{
73: gdobler@cfa.harvard.edu
74: }
75:
76: \begin{abstract}
77: Spectroscopic galaxy-galaxy lens searches are presently the most prolific method
78: of identifying strong lens systems in large data sets. We study the
79: probabilities associated with these lens searches, namely the probability of
80: identifying a candidate with rogue [\ion{O}{2}] emission lines in a galaxy's
81: spectrum, and the probability that the candidate will show features of strong
82: lensing in follow-up photometric observations. We include selection effects
83: unique to spectroscopic data, and apply them to the Sloan Lens ACS (SLACS)
84: survey \citep{SLACS1}. The most significant selection effect is the
85: finite size of the spectroscopic fiber which selects against large
86: separation lenses and results in a non-monotonic dependence of the rogue line
87: probability on velocity dispersion. For example, with the 3 arcsec diameter
88: SDSS fiber and 2 arcsec FWHM seeing, we find that the probability that a given LRG
89: has a rogue [\ion{O}{2}] line in its spectrum \emph{decreases} with velocity
90: dispersion from 150 km/s to 300 km/s and then increases up to 400 km/s for a given
91: source size. The total probability for observing a rogue line in a single survey
92: spectrum is $\sim$0.9--3.0\%, and the total lensing rate is $\sim$0.5--1.3\%.
93: The range is due to uncertainties in the physical size of [\ion{O}{2}] emission
94: regions, and in the evolution of the [\ion{O}{2}] luminosity function. Our
95: estimates are a factor of $\sim$5 higher than the results of the SLACS survey, a
96: discrepancy which we attribute to the SLACS requirement that multiple rogue lines
97: be observed simultaneously.
98: \end{abstract}
99:
100: \keywords{gravitational lensing -- surveys -- galaxies: statistics}
101:
102:
103:
104: \section{Introduction}
105: \label{sec:intro}
106:
107: Spectroscopic gravitational lens searches have begun to yield a remarkable
108: number of strong galaxy-galaxy (g-g) lens systems
109: \citep{bolton04,SLACS1,willis}. These finite source lenses promise both new
110: physical insights and new phenomenology. The extended images provide extensive
111: constraints on the lens potential, especially on the radial density profile,
112: which is still the
113: main systematic uncertainty in lensing constraints on the Hubble constant
114: \citep[e.g.,][]{keko97,csk02}. In present surveys, limits on the source
115: redshift range mean the lenses that are found typically have images that
116: appear well within the effective radius of the lens galaxy \citep{SLACS3}.
117: This makes g-g lenses ideal for probing the inner regions of distant
118: elliptical galaxies. In addition, current selection effects favor
119: star-forming source galaxies, which opens the exciting possibility of
120: observing multiply-imaged supernovae \citep{og1,dk1}.
121:
122: The basic premise behind spectroscopic lens searches is to mine large
123: samples of galaxy spectra looking for ``rogue'' emission lines that
124: originate from background galaxies at small impact parameter
125: \citep{warren96,willis00}. This technique is complementary to photometric
126: searches \citep[e.g.,][]{cabanac07,kubo07} which look for strongly lensed,
127: arc-like features in imaging data.
128:
129: Among several recent spectroscopic searches \citep{bolton04,SLACS1,willis}, the
130: most prolific has been the Sloan Lens ACS (SLACS)
131: survey.\footnote{www.slacs.org} For this survey, \citet{bolton04}
132: and \citet{SLACS1} mined a catalog of 50,996 Sloan Digital
133: Sky Survey (SDSS) Luminous Red Galaxy \citep[LRG, see][]{LRG} spectra
134: for rogue [\ion{O}{2}] 3727 emission lines, and found $\sim$50 candidates. The
135: addition of later SDSS data releases as well as spectra from the MAIN galaxy
136: sample increased the number of candidates to $\sim$200, with a similar 1-in-1000
137: incidence. Follow-up observations have subsequently confirmed 70--80 new g-g
138: lenses from among these candidates. SLACS data have been used to place the lens
139: galaxies on the fundamental plane \citep{SLACS2,bolton-FP}, to constrain the
140: redshift evolution of the density profiles of elliptical galaxies
141: \citep{SLACS3}, and to trace the density profiles out to very large radii
142: \citep{gavazzi07}.
143:
144: Given that galaxy-galaxy lenses are already numerous, and will become
145: increasingly common in large surveys \citep{marshall,moustakas}, a sound
146: statistical analysis of the expected incidence of g-g strong lensing is warranted.
147: In traditional analyses of the statistics of lensed quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{tog}
148: the primary statistical question is, ``what is the probability
149: that a given source is lensed?'' By contrast, in g-g lens statistics
150: the question is different, viz.\ ``what is the probability that a given
151: galaxy is a lens?'' In this paper we formulate a general statistical
152: analysis applicable to spectroscopic g-g lens searches, and apply it
153: to the SLACS sample to estimate the total number of rogue emission
154: lines in the survey, and the actual number of strong lens systems that
155: should be confirmed by follow-up observations. Our results for SLACS
156: will help assess the completeness of that survey, while our general
157: conclusions will (we hope) be useful in the design of future
158: spectroscopic lens searches.
159:
160: Except where noted, throughout this paper we assume a flat cosmology with
161: $\Omega_M = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, and $H_0 = 70$ km/s/Mpc.
162:
163: \section{Probability for Galaxy-Galaxy Lensing}
164: \label{sec:theory}
165:
166: \begin{figure*}
167: \begin{center}
168: \centerline{
169: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f1.eps}
170: }
171: \caption{
172: Lensing geometry for spectroscopically-selected galaxy-galaxy lenses.
173: The probability that the foreground galaxy is a lens is the probability
174: that there is a source within the galaxy's ``Einstein cone.'' (The
175: multiply-image region behind the galaxy is not strictly a cone, because
176: the cross section need not be circular and does not grow linearly with distance;
177: but the terminology is attractive.)
178: }
179: \label{fig:lensgeom}
180: \end{center}
181: \end{figure*}
182:
183: \reffig{lensgeom} shows a schematic representation of the lensing
184: geometry. Let the galaxy be described by a singular isothermal ellipsoidal (SIE)
185: mass distribution with parameters $\vec{G} = (z_l, \sigma, e, \gamma,
186: \phi_\gamma)$ where $z_l$ is the redshift, $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion,
187: $e$ is the ellipticity, $\gamma$ is the external shear, and $\phi_\gamma$ is
188: the angle between the ellipticity and shear. The probability
189: $P_G(\vec{G})$ that this galaxy is a lens is equivalent to the
190: probability that there is a source within the ``Einstein cone''
191: of the galaxy. Here we define the Einstein cone to be the region
192: behind the galaxy in which a source is strongly lensed. For point
193: sources, the Einstein cone is the same as the multiply-imaged region,
194: but we will refine the definition shortly to incorporate complexities
195: from extended sources. Note that the cross section of this region
196: need not be circular, and its size does not grow linearly with
197: distance, so the volume is not strictly conical; but we believe the
198: terminology is convenient and attractive.
199:
200: If the number density of sources brighter than flux $S$
201: as a function of redshift is given by $n_s(z_s,S)$, then the lensing
202: probability is
203: \ba
204: P_G(\vec{G}) &=& \int_{V_{\rm ein}} n_s(z_s,S)\ dV
205: \label{eq:lensprob1}\\
206: &=& \int_{z_l}^{\infty} \frac{dV}{dz_s d\Omega}\ dz_s
207: \int n_s(z_s,S)\ d\vec{u} ,
208: \nonumber
209: \ea
210: where $V_{\rm ein}$ is the volume of the Einstein cone, $z_l$
211: and $z_s$ are the lens and source redshifts respectively, and $\Omega
212: = \Omega(z_s)$ is the solid angle subtended by the cone at $z_s$.
213: The integral over $\Omega$ is actually an integral over
214: $\vec{u}$, the angular coordinates in the source plane, and for now
215: we consider the source plane integral to extend over the
216: multiply-imaged region. Finally, it is natural to do the integral
217: in comoving coordinates, but to express distances as angular
218: diameter distances. So we write the comoving volume element as
219: \be
220: \frac{dV}{dz_s d\Omega} = \frac{c}{H_0}\ \frac{(1+z_s)^2 D_s^2}{E(z_s)}\ ,
221: \ee
222: where $E(z) = [\Omega_M (1+z)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda}]^{1/2}$, and write
223: factors of $(1+z_s)$ explicitly allow us to keep $D_s$ as the
224: angular diameter distance to the source.
225:
226: In practice, we are interested in the number density of sources
227: whose observed flux is above a survey's flux limit $S_0$. This
228: implies $S_I \times \mu \geq S_0$ where $S_I$ is the source's
229: intrinsic flux and $\mu$ is the lensing magnification. Therefore,
230: the relevant number density for \refeq{lensprob1} is
231: \be
232: n_s(z_s,S) = n_s(z_s,S_0/\mu)
233: = \int_{L_0/\mu}^{\infty} \Phi(L,z_s) \ dL ,
234: \label{eq:ns}
235: \ee
236: where $\Phi(L,z_s)$ is the source luminosity function at
237: redshift $z_s$. Here $L_0 = 4\pi (1+z_s)^4 D_s^2 S_0$ is the
238: luminosity corresponding to the flux limit $S_0$, and factors
239: of $(1+z_s)$ again appear so that we may keep $D_s$ as an
240: angular diameter distance. The fact that the lower limit of
241: integration depends on $\mu$ means that the integral
242: automatically incorporates lensing magnification bias.
243:
244: With point sources the definition of a lens relies on image
245: multiplicity: any source with multiple images is said to be
246: strongly lensed. With extended sources the situation is more
247: complicated. A source lying just outside the caustics might
248: be distorted enough to be labeled a lens even if there is just
249: one image. A source lying astride a cusp or fold caustic may
250: exhibit a single arc comprising two or three merged images,
251: with counter-images that may or may not be bright enough to be
252: detectable. The point is that identifying an object as a lens
253: may depend on some qualitative interpretation of the morphology.
254: Since the interpretation depends on distortions of the image(s),
255: which are related to the lensing magnification, we attempt to
256: quantify the labeling of extended lenses through a magnification
257: cut. Specifically, we label an object a lens if the lensing
258: magnification $\mu$ exceeds some threshold set by $\mu_{cut}$.
259: (Our choice of $\mu_{cut}$ is discussed below.) We then take
260: the source plane integral in \refeq{lensprob1} to extend over
261: the region in which $\mu > \mu_{cut}$.
262:
263: The lensing magnification depends not only on the source
264: position $\vec{u}$, but also on the parameters of the lens
265: galaxy. Therefore \refeq{lensprob1} represents the lensing
266: probability for a particular galaxy. To describe a population
267: of galaxies, in principle we want to average over some appropriate
268: distributions of $z_l$, $\sigma$, $e$, $\gamma$, and $\phi_\gamma$.
269: In practice, if we have a set of $N$ observed galaxies, each of
270: which is described by the parameters $\vec{G}_i$, we can do the
271: average explicitly:
272: \be
273: \bar{P}_G = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} P_G(\vec{G}_i) .
274: \label{eq:totprob}
275: \ee
276: In the following sections we apply this $P_G$ calculation to the
277: SLACS sample, specifically incorporating parameters and selection
278: effects appropriate to that survey.
279:
280:
281:
282: \section{SLACS Survey Parameters}
283: \label{sec:SLACS}
284:
285: \subsection{Spectroscopic Selection Effects}
286:
287: \begin{figure*}
288: \begin{center}
289: \centerline{
290: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2a.eps}
291: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f2b.eps}
292: }
293: \caption{
294: Selection effects due to the finite SDSS spectroscopic fiber size.
295: {\em (Left)}
296: The solid curves show a sample image configuration for a lens system
297: with lens parameters
298: $(z_l,\sigma,e,\gamma,\phi_{\gamma}) = (0.2,300\mbox{ km/s},0.3,0.05,0.0)$
299: and source parameters $(z_s,\Rsrc,u_0,v_0)=(0.6,0.88\mbox{
300: kpc},0.15\arcsec,0.15\arcsec)$.
301: The dotted circle denotes the SDSS fiber.
302: {\em (Right)}
303: The solid curves show only the portion of the images that fall inside
304: the fiber. The fiber cut reduces the integrated flux within the fiber,
305: creating a selection bias against large separation lenses and large
306: source sizes. (This figure ignores the effects of seeing, which are
307: discussed in \refsec{seeing}.)
308: }
309: \label{fig:fibcut}
310: \end{center}
311: \end{figure*}
312:
313: When discussing SDSS spectra, it is crucial to account for the finite
314: size of the spectroscopic fiber. The strength of a rogue emission line
315: is directly related to how much flux from the source galaxy falls within
316: the fiber. If a lens galaxy is massive, the lensed images may be pushed
317: outside of the fiber, so the rogue line may be weak or even absent
318: despite the fact that the system is a lens. \reffig{fibcut} shows a
319: sample image configuration both with and without this ``fiber cut''
320: taken into account. (This figure ignores the effects of seeing, which are
321: discussed in \refsec{seeing}.)
322:
323: The diameter of the SDSS fiber is 3.0 arcsec, while an SIE galaxy
324: lens with redshift $z_l = 0.2$ and velocity dispersion
325: $\sigma = 250$ km/s (roughly the mean LRG redshift and velocity
326: dispersion from the SLACS survey) has an Einstein radius of
327: $\sim$1.0--1.2 arcsec depending on $z_s$. Thus, the fiber cut may
328: create a significant bias against large separation lenses in the SLACS
329: sample. There is also a
330: bias against large sources (for a given source flux). Of course, with
331: follow up observations the full image configuration will be observed,
332: but it is the fiber flux that determines whether a system is
333: identified as a lens candidate in the first place.
334:
335: The finite wavelength range of SDSS spectra places an upper limit
336: on detectable source redshifts. The quality of spectral noise
337: modeling is another important factor, since imperfect sky subtraction
338: can leave emission line residuals that are not modeled by the
339: eigenspectra used to fit LRGs \citep[see Figure 1 of][]{bolton04}.
340: \citet{bolton04} were careful to account for imperfect sky
341: subtraction at long wavelengths, allowing them to probe deep into
342: the 7000--9000 \AA\ range. A third factor is the SLACS selection
343: criteria: LRG spectra were required to exhibit not only blended
344: [\ion{O}{2}] 3727 lines, but also two longer-wavelength ``secondary''
345: features. The longest-wavelength secondary feature was [\ion{O}{3}]
346: 5007, while the shortest was H$\beta$ with rest wavelength 4863 \AA.
347: These lead to an upper limit on the source redshift of
348: $z_{s,{\rm max}} \sim 9200 {\rm \AA} / 5007 {\rm \AA} - 1 = 0.84$ and
349: $z_{s,{\rm max}} \sim 9200 {\rm \AA} / 4863 {\rm \AA} - 1 = 0.89$,
350: respectively. In our calculations we therefore take
351: $z_{s,{\rm max}} = 0.9$. Finally, to ensure a significant lensing
352: probability in their sample, \citet{bolton04} only searched
353: for sources with velocities more than 5000 km/s behind the LRG,
354: corresponding to a lower limit on the source redshift of
355: $z_{s,{\rm min}} = z_l + 0.017$. These constitute the limits of
356: the $z_s$ integration in \refeq{lensprob1}.
357:
358: The last important spectral parameter is the flux limit. Figure~1
359: of \citet{bolton04} shows the typical 1$\sigma$ noise spectrum.
360: For wavelengths $\la$7200 \AA\ the wavelength dependence is small,
361: so for simplicity we take the noise floor to be constant in
362: wavelength, which also means constant in source redshift.
363: Including the \cite{bolton04} requirement that secondary emission
364: features have signal-to-noise ratios greater than 3.0, we take
365: $S_0 = 6.0 \times 10^{-17}$ ergs/s/cm$^2$.
366:
367:
368: \subsection{Source Population: \ion{O}{2} Luminosity Function}
369:
370: From \refeq{ns} it is clear that we must specify the luminosity
371: function (LF) of sources, in order to account for the flux limit
372: and the magnification bias. For SLACS, the primary selection is
373: on [\ion{O}{2}] line flux. \citet{hogg} give the [\ion{O}{2}] LF
374: for the redshift range $0.3 < z < 1.5$ (see their Fig.~7), which
375: covers the range of source redshifts accessible in the SLACS
376: survey. However, we make two refinements to the LF. First,
377: \citeauthor{hogg} quoted the LF for an OCDM cosmology, but we
378: prefer to work in $\Lambda$CDM; luminosities and volumes
379: both need to be adjusted. Second, since [\ion{O}{2}] emission is
380: thought to trace the star formation rate, the LF may vary
381: substantially with redshift \citep{kenn, glaze}. We include the
382: possibility of number evolution by modeling the LF as an evolving
383: Schechter function,
384: \be
385: \Phi(L,z_s) \ dL = n_* (1+z_s)^{\beta}
386: \left(\frac{L}{L_*}\right)^{\alpha}\ e^{-L/L_*}\ \frac{dL}{L_*}\ .
387: \label{eq:LF}
388: \ee
389:
390: We make both adjustments using the following technique. We first
391: choose a value for the evolution parameter $\beta$. We postulate a
392: set of Schechter function parameters $(n_*,L_*,\alpha)$ to specify
393: the $\Lambda$CDM LF, $\Phi_{\Lambda{\rm CDM}}$. We draw from this LF to generate
394: a mock sample of sources in an $\Lambda$CDM universe. We then imagine
395: ``observing'' these sources, interpreting them using an OCDM
396: cosmology, and deriving the effective OCDM LF, $\Phi'_{\rm OCDM}$.
397: We compare $\Phi'_{\rm OCDM}$ with the OCDM LF presented by
398: \citet{hogg} to see how well they match. We then repeat this
399: process for many values of $(n_*,L_*,\alpha)$ and choose the
400: values that provide the best match between $\Phi'_{\rm OCDM}$ and
401: the \citeauthor{hogg} data. This gives us the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM LF,
402: for our particular choice of the evolution parameter $\beta$.
403: Finally, we repeat the entire analysis for different values of
404: $\beta$. The resulting LFs are summarized in Table \ref{tbl:LFfit}.
405:
406: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
407: \tablewidth{0pt}
408: \tablecaption{Source \ion{O}{2} LF Parameters}
409: \tablehead{
410: $n_*$ & $\log L_*$ & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ \\
411: ($10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$) & (erg/s) & &
412: }
413: \startdata
414: 4.09 & 42.34 & \ -1.15 \ & 0 \\
415: 2.16 & 42.31 & \ -1.13 \ & 1 \\
416: 0.90 & 42.37 & \ -1.17 \ & 2 \\
417: 0.62 & 42.18 & \ -1.09 \ & 3
418: \enddata
419: \tablecomments{
420: Best-fit Schechter function parameters for the \ion{O}{2} lumonisity
421: function in the redshift range $0.3<z<1.5$. We have converted the
422: data of \citet{hogg} from OCDM to $\Lambda$CDM, and we have considered
423: different possibilities for the number evolution parameter $\beta$
424: (see text).
425: }\label{tbl:LFfit}
426: \end{deluxetable}
427:
428: With an LF of the form \refeq{LF}, the luminosity integral in
429: \refeq{ns} can be evaluated,
430: \be
431: \int_{L_0/\mu}^{\infty} \Phi(L,z_s) \ dL
432: = n_*\, (1+z_s)^{\beta}\, \Gamma\left[1+\alpha,\frac{L_0}{L_*\mu}\right] ,
433: \label{eq:numsrc}
434: \ee
435: where $\Gamma$ is the incomplete gamma function. Recall that for
436: a flux-limited survey, $L_0 = 4\pi (1+z_s)^4 D_s^2 S_0$ depends on
437: redshift.
438:
439:
440:
441: \subsection{Lens Population: SDSS LRG Sample}
442:
443: The initial sample analyzed by \citet{bolton04} included $\sim$51,000
444: LRG spectra obtained by SDSS between 2000 March 5 and 2003 May 27. To
445: obtain proper statistics, we must include appropriate distributions
446: of $z_l$, $\sigma$, $e$, $\gamma$, and $\phi_{\gamma}$ for this
447: sample (see eq.~\ref{eq:totprob}). The velocity dispersion function
448: $dn/d\sigma$ of the full SDSS elliptical galaxy catalog has been
449: measured by \citet{sheth03}. Their analysis corrected for various
450: selection effects in order to recover the intrinsic distribution
451: $dn/d\sigma$. However, we wish to \emph{include} the selection
452: effects since our goal is to estimate how many rogue emission lines
453: should have been found in the actual SDSS data.
454:
455: To do this, and also to account for distributions of $z_l$ and $e$,
456: we randomly select 800 LRGs \citep[see][]{LRG} observed between
457: 2000 March 5 and 2003 May 27 and flagged as GALAXY-RED by the SDSS
458: photometric pipeline \citep{lupton}.\footnote{For details related to
459: SDSS, see \citet{SDSS1} for a technical summary, \citet{SDSS2} for
460: issues related to the camera, \citet{SDSS3}, \citet{SDSS4}, and
461: \citet{SDSS5} for a discussion of the photometric system and
462: calibration, and \citet{SDSS6} for details related to astrometric
463: calibration. The tiling procedure is described in \citet{SDSS7}.}
464: The number of LRGs was chosen to be computationally tractable, and we have
465: verified that it is a sufficiently large sample to yield accurate statistics (see
466: \refsec{totprob}).
467: Choosing from the sample of observed LRGs automatically
468: incorporates all of the same selection effects as the sample from
469: which SLACS was drawn. As in \cite{bolton04}, we restrict the LRG
470: redshift range to $0.15<z_l<0.65$.\footnote{The distributions of galaxies in
471: redshift and velocity dispersion are shown in \reffig{histograms}.}
472: We use $r$-band ellipticities
473: from de Vaucouleurs fits in the SDSS photometric pipeline
474: \citep{lupton}. These ellipticities describe the light while
475: what we really need is the mass, but there is evidence that the
476: mass and light ellipticities follow similar distributions
477: \citep{rusinteg,heyl,nabbur}.
478:
479: We assign each galaxy a random shear amplitude drawn from a
480: lognormal distribution centered on $\gamma = 0.05$ with dispersion
481: 0.2 dex \citep[see][]{holdschech}, and a random shear angle
482: $\phi_{\gamma} \in [0,2\pi]$.
483:
484:
485:
486: \section{Methods}
487: \label{sec:methods}
488:
489: Our formula for the total lensing probability explicitly includes
490: two integrals over the source redshift $z_s$ and the source position
491: $\vec{u}$ (see eq.~\ref{eq:lensprob1}). There is a third integral
492: that enters implicitly: an integral over the image plane to compute
493: the magnification of an extended source. The integral over source
494: redshift is straightforward to compute numerically, but the 2-D
495: integrals over the image and source planes require more care.
496:
497:
498:
499: \subsection{Semi-Analytic Image Plane Integration}
500: \label{sec:sieanalytic}
501:
502: To calculate the magnification $\mu$ for a given source and lens,
503: we extend the analytic method developed in \citet{dobler} to include
504: finite source lensing by isothermal \emph{ellipsoids} (SIEs) in an
505: external shear field. The SIE density profile has been used quite
506: successfully to model not only quasar lenses but also the extended
507: images seen in SLACS lenses \citep{SLACS3}. The lens equation is
508: \be
509: \vec{u} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
510: 1 - \gamma\cos 2\phi_{\gamma} & -\gamma\sin 2\phi_{\gamma} \\
511: -\gamma\sin 2\phi_{\gamma} & 1 + \gamma\cos 2\phi_{\gamma}
512: \end{array} \right) \vec{x} - \vec{\alpha}(\vec{x}) ,
513: \ee
514: where $\vec{x} = (r\cos\theta, r\sin\theta)$ are image plane
515: coordinates. The two components of the deflection angle for an
516: SIE lens are \citep{kormann94,keeton98}
517: \ba
518: \alpha_x &=& \frac{b' q}{\sqrt{1-q^2}}\
519: \tan^{-1}\left[Q(\theta) \cos\theta\right] , \\
520: \alpha_y &=& \frac{b' q}{\sqrt{1-q^2}}\
521: \tanh^{-1}\left[Q(\theta) \sin\theta\right] ,
522: \ea
523: where $q=1-e$,
524: \ba
525: Q(\theta) &=& \left(\frac{1-q^2}{q^2\cos^2\theta+\sin^2\theta}\right)^{1/2} ,
526: \\
527: b' &=& \frac{b\pi}{2 K(1+q^{-2})}\ ,
528: \ea
529: and $K$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind
530: \citep[see][]{huterer}. The Einstein radius $b$ of the galaxy is related to its
531: velocity dispersion by
532: \be
533: b = 4\pi \left(\frac{\sigma}{c}\right)^2 \frac{D_{ls}}{D_s}\ ,
534: \label{eq:rein}
535: \ee
536: where $D_s$ and $D_{ls}$ are angular diameter distances from the
537: observer to the source and from the lens to the source, respectively.
538:
539: The idea behind our analytic method is to parameterize the source
540: boundary by a circle:
541: $(u,v) = (u_0 + \Rsrc\cos\lambda,v_0 + \Rsrc\sin\lambda)$ for
542: $\lambda \in [0,2\pi]$. Plugging this into the lens equation yields
543: \ba
544: u_0 + \Rsrc\cos\lambda &=& r\,\Gamma_- - \alpha_x, \nonumber\\
545: v_0 + \Rsrc\sin\lambda &=& r\,\Gamma_+ - \alpha_y,
546: \label{eq:lenseqSLACS}
547: \ea
548: with
549: \be
550: \Gamma_{\pm} \equiv (1\pm\gamma\cos2\phi_{\gamma})\cos\theta
551: - \gamma\sin2\phi_{\gamma}\sin\theta.
552: \ee
553: We square and add the two equations in \refeq{lenseqSLACS} to
554: eliminate $\lambda$. Since $\alpha_x$, $\alpha_y$, and $\Gamma_{\pm}$
555: are all independent of $r$, we obtain a simple quadratic equation for
556: $r$ that we can solve to find the following \emph{analytic} expression
557: for the image boundary as a function of $\theta$:
558: \be\label{eq:radii}
559: r_{\pm}(\theta) = \frac{B \pm \sqrt{B^2 - A C}}{A}
560: \label{eq:analyticsol}
561: \ee
562: where
563: \ba
564: A &=& \Gamma_+^2 + \Gamma_-^2 , \nonumber\\
565: B &=& \Gamma_-(\alpha_x+u_0) + \Gamma_+(\alpha_y+v_0) , \nonumber\\
566: C &=& (\alpha_x+u_0)^2 + (\alpha_y+v_0)^2 - \Rsrc^2 .
567: \ea
568:
569: The total magnification of an extended source is then
570: \be
571: \mu_{\rm tot} = \frac{\mbox{Total image area}}{\mbox{Total source area}}
572: = \frac{1}{2\pi \Rsrc^2} \int_{\mathcal{M}} \left( r_+^2 - r_-^2 \right)\
573: d\theta
574: \label{eq:muanalytic}
575: \ee
576: where $\mathcal{M}$ is the region of $\theta$ over which $r_{\pm}(\theta)$
577: is real and positive. We can also impose the SDSS fiber cut very
578: simply as follows. Let $r_{\rm fib} = 1.5$ arcsec be the fiber radius.
579: If we define the ``fiber magnification'' to be the total flux within
580: the fiber divided by the total flux of the source, we can compute
581: this as
582: \be\label{eq:noseemag}
583: \mu_{\rm fib} = \frac{1}{2\pi \Rsrc^2} \int_{\mathcal{M}}
584: \left[ \min(r_+,r_{\rm fib})^2 - \min(r_-,r_{\rm fib})^2 \right]\
585: d\theta
586: \label{eq:mufib}
587: \ee
588: We emphasize that in both cases the solution for the image boundary
589: is completely analytic, which allows us to reduce the 2-D image
590: plane integration to a 1-D integral along the image boundary.
591:
592: It is useful to note explicitly where the various system parameters
593: enter into the magnification calculation. The lens and source redshifts
594: and the galaxy velocity dispersion all enter through the Einstein
595: radius $b$. The shear parameters appear in $\Gamma_{\pm}$, while the
596: ellipticity is buried in the deflection components $\alpha_x$ and
597: $\alpha_y$.
598:
599:
600:
601: \subsection{Seeing Effects}
602: \label{sec:seeing}
603:
604: The above treatment of the image plane integration neglects the effects of
605: atmospheric seeing. For the SLACS sample, the seeing is typically
606: $\sim$2 arcsec (FWHM), which is an appreciable fraction of the SDSS fiber
607: diameter. Seeing can either \emph{add} flux to the fiber from images
608: outside, or \emph{remove} flux from the fiber from images that are
609: inside. Which of these effects dominates depends on the configuration
610: of images, as shown in \reffig{seeing}.
611:
612: \begin{figure}
613: \begin{center}
614: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{f3a.eps}
615: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{f3b.eps}
616:
617: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{f3c.eps}
618: \includegraphics[width=0.23\textwidth]{f3d.eps}
619: \caption{
620: Sample image configurations for on-axis (top) and off-axis (bottom) lensing
621: geometries both with (right) and without (left) seeing. Here $\Rein = 0.9$
622: arcsec and $\Rsrc=0.07$ arcsec, the source flux is normalized to unity, the
623: circle represents the $r_{\rm fib} = 1.5$ arcsec SDSS fiber, and the seeing
624: is 2 arcsec (FWHM). For on-axis sourcees, the fiber flux is preferentially
625: \emph{decreased} due to seeing, while for off-axis sources the fiber flux
626: is preferentially \emph{increased}.
627: }
628: \label{fig:seeing}
629: \end{center}
630: \end{figure}
631:
632: We handle the effects of seeing in the following way. Let $I(\vx)$ be the surface
633: brightness distribution of the lensed image (in the absence of seeing). Then the
634: smeared surface brightness distribution is
635: \be
636: I'(\vx) = \int G(\vx-\vx')\ I(\vx')\ d\vx'
637: \ee
638: where $G$ represents the PSF, which we take to be a Gaussian with FWHM 2 arcsec.
639: Specifically, $G(\vx-\vx')$ is the flux at $\vx$ when the PSF is centered at
640: $\vx'$. The fiber flux is then
641: \begin{eqnarray}
642: F_\fib &=& \int_\fib I'(\vx)\ d\vx \nonumber\\
643: &=& \int_\fib d\vx \int d\vx'\ G(\vx-\vx')\ I(\vx') \nonumber\\
644: &=& \int d\vx'\ I(\vx') \left[ \int_\fib d\vx\ G(\vx-\vx') \right].
645: \label{eq:ffib}
646: \end{eqnarray}
647: The term in square brackets is the fiber flux of a Gaussian centered
648: at $x'$. Since the Gaussian PSF and the fiber are both circular, this
649: term can only depend on the distance of the center of the Gaussian
650: from the origin, $r = |\vx'|$. Hence we write this factor as $G_\fib(r)$,
651: and then rewrite \refeq{ffib} as
652: \be
653: F_\fib = \int_{0}^{\infty} dr\,r \int_{0}^{2\pi} d\theta\
654: I(r,\theta)\ G_\fib(r).
655: \ee
656: If we take the source flux to be unity, the integral actually gives
657: the fiber magnification $\mu_\fib$. In this case, the source surface
658: brightness is $1/\pi\Rsrc^2$, and since lensing conserves surface
659: brightness we have $I(x) = 1/\pi\Rsrc^2$ within the image boundaries,
660: and 0 outside. Since the image boundaries are given by $r_\pm(\theta)$ from
661: \refeq{radii}, in the end we can write the fiber magnification in the presence of
662: seeing as
663: \be
664: \mu_\fib = \frac{1}{\pi\Rsrc^2} \int d\theta \int_{r_-(\theta)}^{r_+(\theta)}
665: dr\ r\ G_\fib(r),
666: \ee
667: which is a generalized version of \refeq{noseemag}.
668: The ``fiber Gaussian'' factor $G_\fib(r)$ must be computed numerically, however
669: this 1D integral only needs to be done once making this semi-analytic method for
670: the image plane integration computationally orders of magnitudes faster than
671: classical ray shooting methods for computing the magnification of an extended
672: source.
673:
674:
675:
676: \subsection{Numerical Source Plane Integration}
677: \label{sec:srcint}
678:
679: Since the magnification must be computed numerically, the source plane
680: integral in \refeq{lensprob1} must be computed numerically as well.
681: The numerical integration scheme we use incorporates multiple grids
682: with adaptive resolution to tile the source plane efficiently;
683: details are given in the Appendix.
684:
685:
686:
687: \section{Results}
688: \label{sec:results}
689:
690: \subsection{Three Probabilities}
691: \label{sec:three-prob}
692:
693: As discussed in \refsec{theory}, we use a magnification cut to
694: determine whether a system is labeled a strong lens or not. Since
695: the labeling is applied only after follow-up observations, we apply
696: the cut to the total magnification (not the fiber magnification).
697: We choose as our fiducial threshold $\mu_{\rm cut} = 2$, because
698: this corresponds to the magnification of a point source located on
699: the boundary of the multiply-imaged region for an isothermal sphere
700: lens. A finite source magnified by this amount should show clear
701: signs of strong lensing. In other words, we define
702: \be \label{eq:PL}
703: P_L(\vec{G};\Rsrc) = P_G(\vec{G} \ | \ \mu_{tot}(\Rsrc)>\mu_{cut}) .
704: \ee
705: to be the probability that a galaxy has a rogue emission line due
706: to a source that is lensed.
707:
708: We should not just discard systems with magnifications below the
709: cut. There is a range of positions (roughly speaking, behind the
710: galaxy but outside the Einstein cone) where a source could send
711: enough flux down the fiber to create a rogue line without being
712: lensed. Such systems represent false positives in spectroscopic
713: lens searches, and in order to understand the efficiency of a
714: survey we need to assess the false positive rate. We define the
715: complement of \refeq{PL} to be the probability that a galaxy has
716: a rogue emission line due to a source that is {\em not} lensed:
717: \be \label{eq:PN}
718: P_N(\vec{G};\Rsrc) = P_G(\vec{G} \ | \ \mu_{tot}(\Rsrc)<\mu_{cut}) .
719: \ee
720: We can then let $P_R = P_L + P_N$ be the total probability that
721: a galaxy has a rogue line, while $R_F = P_N/P_R$ is the false
722: positive rate (defined to be the fraction of candidates for which
723: follow-up observations do not show substantial evidence for lensing).
724: Throughout our analysis we keep track of the total rogue line
725: probability $P_R$, the lensing probability $P_L$, and the false
726: positive rate $R_F$.
727:
728:
729:
730: \subsection{Back of the Envelope Estimate}
731:
732: Before giving our full results, we can make a simple estimate of
733: the lensing probability. For this estimate we ignore finite source
734: and fiber effects and just take all sources inside the Einstein cone
735: to be lensed. For simplicity we take the luminosity threshold $L_0$
736: to be independent of source redshift, and we consider a non-evolving
737: source luminosity function, so $n_s$ is constant. If we let $L_0$
738: be the lowest luminosity threshold (i.e., computed from the flux
739: limit $S_0$ at the minimum source redshift), we should overestimate
740: the number of detectable sources. With these simplifications, the
741: lensing probability is
742: \ba
743: P_L^{\rm est} &\sim& \int_{D^C_l}^{D^C_{s,{\rm max}}} n_s\ \pi (D^C_s b)^2\ dD^C_s
744: \nonumber\\
745: &\sim& \int_{D^C_l}^{D^C_{s,{\rm max}}} n_s\ 16\pi^3
746: \left(\frac{\sigma}{c}\right)^4 (D^C_s-D^C_l)^2\ dD^C_s ,
747: \nonumber\\
748: &\sim& n_s\ \frac{16\pi^3}{3} \left(\frac{\sigma}{c}\right)^4
749: (D^C_{s,{\rm max}} - D^C_l)^3 .
750: \nonumber\\
751: &\sim& n_s\ \frac{16\pi^3}{3} \left(\frac{\sigma}{c}\right)^4 \times
752: \nonumber\\
753: & & \ \ \left[(1+z_{s,{\rm max}}) D_{s,{\rm max}} - (1+z_l) D_l\right]^3 ,
754: \ea
755: where $C$ indicates a comoving distance. We take $z_{s,{\rm max}} = 0.9$.
756: For fiducial LRG parameters $z_l = 0.2$ and $\sigma = 250$ km/s, our
757: estimate yields $P_L^{\rm est} \sim 3.1\%$. In other words, we expect
758: the lensing probability to be at the percent level.
759:
760:
761:
762: \subsection{Dependence on Lens Parameters}
763:
764: \begin{figure*}
765: \begin{center}
766: \centerline{
767: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4a.eps}
768: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4b.eps}
769: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4c.eps}
770: }
771: \centerline{
772: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4d.eps}
773: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4e.eps}
774: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4f.eps}
775: }
776: \centerline{
777: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4g.eps}
778: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4h.eps}
779: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f4i.eps}
780: }
781: \caption{
782: Total rogue line probability ($P_R$, left), lensing probability
783: ($P_L$, middle), and false positive rate ($R_F$, right), as a function
784: of the size of the source. We take as fiducial parameters
785: $(z_l,\sigma,e,\gamma,\phi_{\gamma}) = (0.2,250\mbox{ km/s},0,0,0)$.
786: In the top row we vary the lens redshift, in the middle row we vary
787: the velocity dispersion, and in the bottom row we vary the velocity dispersion
788: without including the effects of seeing. The spectroscopic fiber cut produces a
789: non-monotonic dependence of $P_R$ on $\sigma$. This behavior also depends on
790: the seeing. The lensing probability $P_L$ turns over at large $\Rsrc$
791: (most visible in the $\sigma = 150$ km/s curve) due to the magnification cut.
792: The false positive rate also exhibits complex behavior with $\Rsrc$ and is very
793: sensitive to both $\sigma$ and $z_l$.
794: }
795: \label{fig:varparams}
796: \end{center}
797: \end{figure*}
798:
799: We first seek to understand how the various probabilities depend
800: on the lens galaxy properties. \reffig{varparams} shows the rogue line
801: probability, lensing probability, and false positive rate as a
802: function of source size, for different values of the lens redshift $z_l$
803: and velocity dispersion $\sigma$. The total probability $P_R$ for
804: detecting a rogue line in an LRG spectrum is at the level of 2--3\%
805: (consistent with our estimate above), and depends moderately on
806: lens redshift. Once a rogue line is detected, the probability that the
807: line corresponds to a source that is significantly distorted decreases
808: significantly with lens redshift: the false positive rate is only
809: $R_F \sim 35\%$ at $z_l=0.15$, compared with $R_F \sim 80\%$ at
810: $z_l=0.45$. The trend is not surprising because there is a finite
811: upper limit on the source redshift, and the Einstein radius shrinks
812: as the lens moves out in redshift ($b \propto D_{ls}$).
813:
814: As expected, \reffig{varparams} shows that the lensing probability
815: depends strongly on $\sigma$: $P_L$ varies by almost a factor of
816: 10 over the range 150 km/s $< \sigma <$ 400 km/s. For most values
817: of $\sigma$, the lensing probability increases with source size
818: over the range $0 < \Rsrc < 10$ kpc. However, for $\sigma=150$ km/s
819: the curve reaches a peak at $\Rsrc \approx 5$ kpc and then turns over.
820: We attribute this to finite source effects: at $\sigma = 150$ km/s
821: the lens is simply not strong enough to significantly perturb a
822: large source, ($\Rein = 0.48$ arcsec for $z_s = 0.9$). In fact, all of the
823: $P_L$ curves would turn over if we went to large enough source size.
824:
825: We also find the surprising result that the rogue line probability
826: does not increase monotonically with $\sigma$. With 2 arcsec seeing, the
827: ordering of the curves in increasing $P_R$ is $\sigma=300$, 250, 350,
828: 200, 150, and 400 km/s (for all source sizes). In other words, the
829: total rogue line probability for $\sigma=150$ km/s exceeds that for
830: all other cases except $\sigma=400$ km/s. We attribute this to the
831: finite size of the spectroscopic fiber. When $\sigma$ is small,
832: the Einstein cone is small and most sources inside the fiber are
833: not lensed (indeed, the false positive rate is high). As $\sigma$
834: increases, lensing can push some of the light outside the fiber
835: (see \reffig{fibcut}), reducing the fiber flux and hence making
836: the rogue line harder to detect. However, if the line is detected
837: the chance that it corresponds to a lens is high. As $\sigma$
838: increases still further, the Einstein cone begins to fill the fiber
839: (the false positive rate becomes very low), and the rogue line
840: probability increases with $\sigma$ just like the lensing
841: probability.
842:
843: The total rogue line probability, and its non-monotonic dependence on
844: $\sigma$, are sensitive to seeing. Eliminating seeing (bottom row of
845: \reffig{varparams}) changes the ordering of the $P_R$ curves with
846: different values of $\sigma$; in particular, it shifts the case with
847: the lowest rogue line probability to lower $\sigma$. By contrast,
848: seeing has less effect on the total lensing probability. These
849: features can again be understood in terms of fiber effects. When
850: $\sigma$ is low, the Einstein radius is small and most of the ``lens''
851: configurations lie well within the spectroscopic fiber, so seeing has
852: little effect on the fiber flux and hence on $P_L$. Seeing can pull
853: flux into the fiber from sources that lie outside, but these are
854: predominantly non-lens configurations. The net result is that seeing
855: increases the total rogue line probability, mainly by adding false
856: positives. When $\sigma$ is high, by contrast, the fiber is mostly
857: filled with ``lens'' configurations, so the false positive rate is low
858: both with and without seeing.
859:
860: Though not shown here, we have also studied the effects of varying
861: ellipticity and shear parameters. We find no significant change in
862: the lensing probability due to $e$ and $\gamma$, in contrast to
863: point source lensing statistics \citep{huterer}. The difference is
864: presumably related to the different statistical question (i.e., the
865: probability that a galaxy is a lens rather than the probability
866: that a source is lensed), and to effects like the fiber cut that
867: are specific to spectroscopic surveys.
868:
869:
870:
871: \subsection{Dependence on Survey Parameters}
872:
873: \begin{figure*}
874: \begin{center}
875: \centerline{
876: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f5a.eps}
877: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f5b.eps}
878: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f5c.eps}
879: }
880: \caption{
881: Same as \reffig{varparams} except for varying $\mu_{\rm cut}$.
882: The total number of rogue lines remains unchanged (of course), but the
883: lensing probability $P_L$ varies by a factor 2.4 at small source size and 4.1 at
884: large source size. As expected, the false positive rate $R_F$ is sensitively
885: dependent on the definition of a lens, $\mu_{\rm cut}$.
886: }
887: \label{fig:mucut}
888: \end{center}
889: \end{figure*}
890:
891: It is important to understand the dependence of the probabilities on our choice
892: of the definition of a lens (the magnification cut $\mucut$), and on the survey
893: noise floor $S_0$. \reffig{mucut} shows $P_R$, $P_L$, and $R_F$ for
894: $1.5 \leq \mucut \leq 3.0$. Since $\mucut$ simply indicates whether a source
895: is classified as lensed or not, the rogue line probability does not change.
896: However, the strong lensing probability $P_L$ \emph{does} depend on $\mucut$.
897: For $\Rsrc = 0.5$ kpc, increasing $\mucut$ from 1.5 to 3.0 decreases the
898: lensing probability by a factor of 2.4. At $\Rsrc = 10$ kpc, the change is a
899: factor of 4.1. The dependence on source size can be understood in terms of
900: the magnification regions in the source plane. As $\mucut$ is increased,
901: the total area of the source plane with $\mu > \mucut$ decreases more slowly
902: for small sources than for larger sources.
903:
904: If we double the noise floor $S_0$, we find that the rogue line probability
905: is decreased by a factor of 0.65 for $\Rsrc=0.5$ kpc, and 0.63 for
906: $\Rsrc=10$ kpc. This change is mainly caused by the number of sources brighter
907: than the flux limit. Since $n_s \propto \Gamma[1+\alpha,L_0/\mu L_*]$ and
908: $L_0 \propto S_0$, doubling the noise floor changes the number of detectable
909: sources by a factor of
910: $\sim \Gamma[1+\alpha,2 L_0/\mu L_*]/\Gamma[1+\alpha,L_0/\mu L_*]$. This
911: works out to be a factor of 0.6--0.8 for typical $L_0$ and $\mu$ values.
912: This simple estimate agrees quite well with our full calculations despite
913: ignoring complicated seeing effects, magnification effects, and the redshift
914: dependence of $L_0$.
915:
916:
917:
918: \subsection{Total Probabilities and Higher Order Statistics}
919: \label{sec:totprob}
920:
921: \begin{figure}
922: \begin{center}
923: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f6.eps}
924: \caption{
925: Total detection probabilities as a function of the
926: number of LRG realizations. In this convergence test we fix the
927: source size to be $\Rsrc = 0.5$ kpc and we use a non-evolving source
928: luminosity function ($\beta=0$). The probabilities converge quickly,
929: indicating that 800 realizations is more than adequate to yield
930: accurate statistics.
931: }
932: \label{fig:converge-test}
933: \end{center}
934: \end{figure}
935:
936: \begin{figure*}
937: \begin{center}
938: \centerline{
939: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f7a.eps}
940: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f7b.eps}
941: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f7c.eps}
942: }
943: \caption{
944: Total detection probabilities after averaging over 800 sets of LRG
945: parameters, for four different models of LF evolution. Given these
946: results, we expect that the initial SLACS sample of 50,996 LRGs should contain
947: $\sim$460--1,530 galaxies with rogue emission lines in their spectra, and
948: $\sim$250--640 should reveal strong lensing features in follow-up
949: observations.
950: }
951: \label{fig:finalprob}
952: \end{center}
953: \end{figure*}
954:
955: \begin{figure*}
956: \begin{center}
957: \centerline{
958: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f8a.eps}
959: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f8b.eps}
960: \includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{f8c.eps}
961: }
962: \caption{
963: Total detection probabilities as a function of source size and the FWHM of the
964: Gaussian seeing model ($\beta = 0$). Seeing effects boost the lensing
965: probability at small $\Rsrc$ but suppress the lensing probability at large
966: $\Rsrc$. The total rogue line detection probability is boosted for all source
967: sizes. The fraction of non-lenses is much more sensitive to seeing effects
968: at small $\Rsrc$ leading to the minimum in the false positive rate in
969: \reffig{finalprob}.
970: }
971: \label{fig:vary-seeing}
972: \end{center}
973: \end{figure*}
974:
975:
976: We are now ready to compute overall probabilities by averaging over an
977: appropriate sample of galaxies (see eq.\ \ref{eq:totprob}). First we need to
978: consider how many galaxies we need to include to obtain accurate
979: statistics. \reffig{converge-test} shows the three probabilities as a function
980: of the number of LRG realizations (for $\Rsrc=0.5$ kpc and $\beta=0$,
981: meaning no evolution in the source [\ion{O}{2}] luminosity function). All
982: three probabilities converge rather quickly, indicating that our
983: fiducial sample size of 800 LRGs is sufficient.
984:
985: \reffig{finalprob} shows the total probability for detecting rogue emission
986: lines in LRG spectra, the probability of identifying lensing in follow-up
987: observations, and the SLACS false-positive rate all as a function of source size
988: averaged over our full sample of 800 galaxies.
989:
990: At this point we also examine the effects of evolution of the
991: source [\ion{O}{2}] luminosity function. We consider four models,
992: ranging from no evolution ($\beta=0$) to a strong increase in the
993: number of [\ion{O}{2}] emitters in the past ($\beta=3$). A value of
994: $\beta \approx 2$--3 for $z<1$ is preferred by \citet{glaze} based
995: on SDSS derived star formation histories. LF evolution tends to
996: decrease the rogue line and lensing probabilities. The explanation
997: is that we fix the total number density of sources in the range
998: $0.35 \leq z \leq 1.5$ from the observations by \citet{hogg}, so
999: increasing $\beta$ shifts a higher fraction of those sources to
1000: higher redshifts, and therefore \emph{decreases} the number of
1001: sources below the SLACS upper limit $z_{s,{\rm max}} = 0.9$.
1002:
1003: For a source size of 0.5 kpc, we find the total probability for rogue line
1004: detection varies from 2.0\% for source LF's with no evolution ($\beta=0$) to
1005: 0.9\% for LF's with strong evolution ($\beta=3$). With $\Rsrc=10$ kpc, the
1006: probabilities are 3.0\% ($\beta=0$) and 1.3\% ($\beta=3$). The implication is
1007: that in the original \citet{bolton04} sample of 50,996 LRG spectra,
1008: $\sim$460--1,530 should contain rogue [\ion{O}{2}] emission lines in their
1009: spectra above a threshold of $6 \times 10^{-17}$ erg/s/cm$^2$. Of those,
1010: $\sim$250--640 should show significant strong lensing features when imaged with
1011: high spatial resolution. The remaining systems are false positive detections in
1012: which there is a background galaxy that is not significantly perturbed by
1013: lensing effects. The total false positive rate $R_F(\Rsrc)$ also varies
1014: significantly with with source size and $\beta$ but has typical values $R_F \sim$
1015: 50\% (see \reffig{finalprob}). It is important to note that while the
1016: breakdown into lenses and false positives depends on our choice of the
1017: magnification cut ($\mu_{\rm cut} = 2.0$), the total number of rogue lines is a
1018: robust prediction.
1019:
1020: While our fiducial results have been computed for 2 arcsec seeing, it is
1021: instructive to consider how seeing affects our result. \reffig{vary-seeing}
1022: shows the three probabilities as a function of source size for various
1023: values of the seeing. The effect of seeing is to introduce a ``tilt'' to
1024: the lensing probability curve, giving a moderate boost at small source
1025: size and reduction at large source size. Seeing increases the total
1026: rogue line probability, especially at small source size. The
1027: implication is that seeing enhances the number of detected rogue lines that
1028: do not correspond to lens systems at all source sizes but most
1029: dramatically at small $\Rsrc$. Indeed, the false positive rate
1030: increases monotonically with $\Rsrc$ when seeing is unimportant (the
1031: FHWM is small compared with the size of the spectroscopic fiber), while it
1032: flattens out and develops a minimum near $\Rsrc \approx 5.5$ kpc when
1033: the seeing is important.
1034:
1035: Although there is significant uncertainty due to source size and LF
1036: evolution effects, our lensing estimates are clearly higher than the $\sim$150
1037: rogue lines and $\sim$60 lens systems found in the initial SLACS sample. The
1038: most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the SLACS selection
1039: criteria require two \emph{additional} emission features ($H\beta$, [\ion{O}{3}]
1040: 4959, or [\ion{O}{3}] 5007) besides the primary [\ion{O}{2}] 3727 line. The
1041: presence of these additional features was required to substantially reduce
1042: the number of false positives, but may have eliminated many
1043: real lens systems as well. Incorporating multiple emission
1044: line statistics into our calculations would require knowledge of
1045: the joint probability distribution between [\ion{O}{2}] and
1046: secondary line luminosities and is beyond the scope of the
1047: present study. Furthermore, secondary lines tend to appear in the
1048: $\sim$7000--9000 \AA\ region of the spectrum where sky noise is more problematic;
1049: many spectra with secondary features buried in the noise may
1050: have been rejected as targets. In any event, we predict that there is a large
1051: number of g-g lenses waiting to be discovered in the SDSS spectroscopic data.
1052:
1053: \begin{figure*}
1054: \begin{center}
1055: \centerline{
1056: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f9a.eps}
1057: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f9b.eps}
1058: }
1059: \caption{
1060: Histograms of velocity dispersion (left) and redshift (right), for
1061: the LRG parent sample (solid line) and the subsample that represent
1062: lenses (dashed line, $\Rsrc = 0.5$ kpc, $\beta = 0$,
1063: seeing=2\arcsec{}). All histograms are normalized to unit area.
1064: The lens galaxies are biased towards higher velocity dispersion and
1065: lower redshift. A KS test comparing the distributions of the velocity dispersion
1066: (lens redshift) yields only a $2.5\times 10^{-7}$\% (0.05\%) chance that the
1067: populations are drawn from the same distribution.
1068: }
1069: \label{fig:histograms}
1070: \end{center}
1071: \end{figure*}
1072:
1073: Finally, it is interesting to consider how the galaxies that produce
1074: g-g lenses may form a biased subset of all LRGs. \reffig{histograms}
1075: shows the distributions of redshift and velocity dispersion for our
1076: parent population of galaxies, and for the same population with each
1077: galaxy weighted by its lensing probability (with $\Rsrc = 0.5$ kpc,
1078: $\beta = 0$, seeing=2\arcsec{}). There is clearly a bias
1079: towards larger velocity dispersions, which is natural, but it is
1080: weaker than in traditional quasar lens statistics because of fiber
1081: cut effects. There is also a bias towards lower redshifts, because
1082: lower-redshift galaxies have larger Einstein cones (cf.\
1083: \reffig{varparams}). We test the null hypothesis that the two populations
1084: represent the same probability distribution with the Kolmogorav-Smirnov test
1085: \citep{press92}. Comparing the distributions of the velocity dispersion
1086: (redshift) yields only a $2.5\times 10^{-7}$\% (0.05\%) chance that the
1087: populations are drawn from the same distribution.
1088:
1089:
1090:
1091: \section{Conclusions}
1092:
1093: We have introduced a statistical method to estimate the expected
1094: number of strong galaxy-galaxy lens systems in a spectroscopic survey.
1095: In the process, we have also developed a semi-analytic technique for
1096: calculating the magnification of a finite source due to an isothermal
1097: ellipsoid galaxy in an external shear field. Conceptually, the most
1098: important result is that the size of the spectroscopic fiber provides
1099: a significant selection effect. In our analysis of the SLACS survey,
1100: the fiber cut yields the unexpected result that the probability of
1101: detecting a rogue emission line is a non-monotonic function of the
1102: velocity dispersion $\sigma$. Since larger $\sigma$ corresponds to
1103: a larger Einstein cone, one would naively expect the rogue line
1104: probability to increase with $\sigma$. However, large $\sigma$ also
1105: corresponds to a large image separation, which can cause much of the
1106: source flux to fall outside the spectroscopic fiber. The situation is further
1107: complicated by the effects of atmospheric seeing which can add flux into the fiber
1108: from images outside or remove flux from the fiber from images inside. It will be
1109: crucial to compute the effects of the fiber cut and seeing, customized to the
1110: parameters of the spectrograph, for any future search for g-g
1111: lenses in large spectroscopic surveys.
1112:
1113: The lensing probability has a fairly weak dependence on the size
1114: of the source, but a stronger dependence on the evolution of the
1115: source luminosity function. Lensing introduces biases such that
1116: lens galaxies will tend to have higher velocity dispersions and
1117: lower redshifts compared with the parent population of galaxies.
1118:
1119: Incorporating parameters from the SLACS survey, we estimate that
1120: there should be $\sim$460--1,380 rogue emission lines in the sample
1121: of 50,996 LRG spectra. Of these, $\sim$250--640 should show clear
1122: evidence of strong lensing in follow-up observations. The broad range of
1123: probabilities is due primarily to uncertainties in the physical size of
1124: [\ion{O}{2}] emission regions and in the evolution of the [\ion{O}{2}]
1125: luminosity function. Specifically, small sources and strong evolution yield
1126: lower probabilities while large sources and no evolution give higher
1127: probabilities. Our estimates are notably higher than the numbers actually
1128: observed in the SLACS survey so far. We attribute this to their requirement
1129: that multiple emission lines be detected, to the large amount of sky noise in
1130: the long wavelength region of the spectra, and to the potential extinction of
1131: the [\ion{O}{2}] emission line by dust in the lens galaxies. Our
1132: calculations imply that there are many more galaxy-galaxy strong
1133: lenses waiting to be found in the SDSS spectroscopic data.
1134:
1135: While our methods have been specifically applied to the SLACS
1136: survey, they should be applicable to all finite source lens
1137: searches in upcoming spectroscopic surveys. Future improvements
1138: to our method would involve incorporating non-uniform brightness
1139: distributions for the background source galaxies.
1140:
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144: \acknowledgements
1145: GD and CRK were supported in part by grant HST-AR-10668 from the Space
1146: Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of
1147: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
1148:
1149:
1150: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1151:
1152: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2003}]{SDSS7}
1153: Blanton M.R., Lin H., Lupton R.H., Maley F.M., Young N., Zehavi I.,
1154: Loveday J., 2003, AJ, 125, 2276
1155:
1156: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolton et al.}{2004}]{bolton04}
1157: Bolton A. S., Burles S., Schlegel D. J., Eisenstein D. J., Brinkmann
1158: J., 2004, AJ, 127, 1860
1159:
1160: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolton et al.}{2006}]{SLACS1}
1161: Bolton A. S., Burles S., Koopmans L. V. E., Treu T., Moustakas L., 2006,
1162: ApJ, 638, 703
1163:
1164: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bolton et al.}{2007}]{bolton-FP}
1165: Bolton A. S., Burles S., Treu T., Koopmans L. V. E., Moustakas L.,
1166: 2007, ApJL submitted, astro-ph/0701706
1167:
1168:
1169: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cabanac et al.}{2007}]{cabanac07}
1170: Cabanac R. A. et al, 2007, A\&A, 461, 813
1171:
1172: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dobler \& Keeton}{2005}]{dobler}
1173: Dobler G., Keeton C. R., 2005, MNRAS, 365, 1243
1174:
1175: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dobler \& Keeton}{2006}]{dk1}
1176: Dobler G., Keeton C. R., 2006, ApJ, 653, 1391
1177:
1178: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eisenstein et al.}{2001}]{LRG}
1179: Eisenstein D. J., Annis J., Gunn J. E. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 2267
1180:
1181: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fukugita et al}{1996}]{SDSS3}
1182: Fukugita M., Ichikawa T., Gunn J. E., Doi M., Shimasaku K., and
1183: Schneider D. P. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748
1184:
1185: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gavazzi et al.}{2007}]{gavazzi07}
1186: Gavazzi R. et al, 2007, submitted to ApJ, astro-ph/0701589
1187:
1188: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Glazebrook et al.}{2003}]{glaze}
1189: Glazebrook K. et al., 2003, ApJ, 587, 55
1190:
1191: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gunn et al.}{1998}]{SDSS2}
1192: Gunn J. E., Carr M. A., Rockosi C. M., Sekiguchi M. et al. 1998,
1193: AJ, 116, 3040
1194:
1195: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heyl et al.}{1994}]{heyl}
1196: Heyl J. S., Hernquist L., Spergel D. N., 1994, ApJ, 427, 165
1197:
1198: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{2001}]{SDSS4}
1199: Hogg D. W., Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., and Gunn J. E. 2001, AJ,
1200: 122, 2129
1201:
1202: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{1998}]{hogg}
1203: Hogg D. W., Cohen J. G., Blandford R., Pahre M. A., 1998, ApJ, 504,
1204: 622
1205:
1206: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Holder \& Schechter}{2003}]{holdschech}
1207: Holder G., Schechter P., 2003, ApJ, 589, 688
1208:
1209: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Huterer et al.}{2005}]{huterer}
1210: Huterer D., Keeton C. R., Ma C. P., 2005, ApJ, 624, 34
1211:
1212: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Keeton \& Kochanek}{1997}]{keko97}
1213: Keeton C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1997, ApJ, 487, 42
1214:
1215: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Keeton \& Kochanek}{1998}]{keeton98}
1216: Keeton C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1998, ApJ, 495, 157,
1217:
1218: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kennicutt}{1992}]{kenn}
1219: Kennicutt R. C., 1992, ApJ, 388, 310
1220:
1221: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kochanek}{2002}]{csk02}
1222: Kochanek C. S., 2002, ApJ, 578, 25
1223:
1224: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Koopmans et al.}{2006}]{SLACS3}
1225: Koopmans L. V. E., Treu T., Bolton A. S., Burles S., Moustakas
1226: L.A., 2006, astro-ph/0601628
1227:
1228: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kubo \& Dell'Antonio}{2007}]{kubo07}
1229: Kubo J. M. \& Dell'Antonio I. P., 2007, arXiv:0712.3063
1230:
1231: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lupton et al.}{2001}]{lupton}
1232: Lupton R. H. et al., 2001, ASPC, 238, 269
1233:
1234: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Marshall et al.}{2005}]{marshall}
1235: Marshall P., Blandford R., Sako M., 2005, New AR, 49, 387
1236:
1237: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Moustakas et al.}{2007}]{moustakas}
1238: Moustakas L. et al.\, 2007, ApJ, 660L, 31
1239:
1240: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Naab \& Burkert}{2003}]{nabbur}
1241: Naab T., Burkert A., 2003, ApJ, 597, 893
1242:
1243: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oguri \& Kawano}{2003}]{og1}
1244: Oguri M., Kawano, Y., 2003, MNRAS, 338, L25
1245:
1246: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pier et al.}{2003}]{SDSS6}
1247: Pier J.R., Munn J.A., Hindsley R.B., Hennessy G.S., Kent S.M., Lupton
1248: R.H., Ivezic Z. 2003, AJ, 125, 1559
1249:
1250: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press \& Schechter}{1974}]{pressschech}
1251: Press W., Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
1252:
1253: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press et al.}{1992}]{press92}
1254: Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T., \& Flannery B.P., 1992,
1255: \emph{Numerical Recipes in C}, 2nd edn., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
1256: Press
1257:
1258: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rusin \& Tegmark}{2001}]{rusinteg}
1259: Rusin D., Tegmark M., 2001, ApJ, 553, 709
1260:
1261: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kormann et al.}{1994}]{kormann94}
1262: Kormann R., Schneider P., Bartelmann M., 1994, A\&A, 284, 285
1263:
1264: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheth et al.}{2003}]{sheth03}
1265: Sheth R. K. et al., 2003, ApJ, 594, 225
1266:
1267: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith et al}{2002}]{SDSS5}
1268: Smith J.A., Tucker D.L., Kent S.M. et al.\, 2002, AJ, 123, 2121
1269:
1270: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Treu et al.}{2006}]{SLACS2}
1271: Treu T., Koopmans L. V. E., Bolton A. S., Burles S., Moustakas L.,
1272: 2006, ApJ, 604, in press
1273:
1274: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Turner et al.}{1984}]{tog}
1275: Turner E. L., Ostriker J. P., Gott J. R. III, 1984, ApJ, 284, 1
1276:
1277: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Warren et al.}{1996}]{warren96}
1278: Warren S. J., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 139
1279:
1280: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Willis}{2000}]{willis00}
1281: Willis J.P., 2000, Obs, 120, 427
1282:
1283: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Willis et al.}{2006}]{willis}
1284: Willis J. P., Hewett P. C., Warren S. J., Dye S., Maddox N., 2006, MNRAS,
1285: 369, 1521
1286:
1287: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{York et al.}{2000}]{SDSS1}
1288: York D. G., Adelman J., Anderson J. E. et al.\, 2000, AJ, 120, 1579
1289:
1290:
1291: \end{thebibliography}
1292:
1293:
1294:
1295: \appendix
1296:
1297: \section{Two-Dimensional Integration}
1298: \label{app:appendix}
1299:
1300: Our source plane integration is carried out via a 2-D integrator that tiles the
1301: integration region efficiently by using a movable grid with adaptive
1302: resolution. As an example to illustrate our method, we first consider the
1303: magnification calculation for a uniform brightness finite source (with size
1304: $\Rsrc$ centered at the origin) which is lensed by an isothermal ellipsoidal mass
1305: distribution (SIE).
1306:
1307: Since the magnification is defined as,
1308: \be
1309: \mu = \frac{\mbox{Area of the images}}{\mbox{Area of the source}},
1310: \ee
1311: we must find the total area of the images by integrating over the 2-D image
1312: plane. We start with a single ``macro''-grid whose lower right corner is
1313: centered on the origin and suppose that the edge of an image passes through this
1314: grid as shown in Figure \ref{fig:inout}.
1315: \bp
1316: \begin{center}
1317: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f10a.eps}
1318: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f10b.eps}
1319: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f10c.eps}
1320: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{f10d.eps}
1321: \caption{
1322: A schematic representation of the tiling algorithm. The algorithm uses a
1323: macrogrid with adaptive
1324: resolution that subdivides if the number of corners that are ``in''
1325: is $\neq$ 0 or 4. Once the maximum number of sublevels is reached,
1326: the macrogrid is shifted in a spiraling geometry about the origin.
1327: }
1328: \label{fig:inout}
1329: \end{center}
1330: \ep
1331: A grid point $(x,y)$ is flagged as ``in'' if,
1332: \be
1333: [x - \alpha_x(x,y)]^2 + [y - \alpha_y(x,y)]^2 \leq \Rsrc^2
1334: \label{eq:in}
1335: \ee
1336: and ``out'' if,
1337: \be
1338: [x - \alpha_x(x,y)]^2 + [y - \alpha_y(x,y)]^2 > \Rsrc^2
1339: \label{eq:out}
1340: \ee
1341: Here $\vec{\alpha}(x,y)$ is the deflection angle due to the SIE at point
1342: $(x,y)$ and relates the image plane grid points to the source plane
1343: coordinates $(u,v)$ via the lens equation,
1344: \begin{eqnarray}
1345: u & = & x - \alpha_x(x,y) \nonumber \\
1346: v & = & y - \alpha_y(x,y)
1347: \end{eqnarray}
1348: We then recursively subdivide portions of this grid until all four
1349: corners of each subgrid are either ``in'' or ``out'' (or until the
1350: maximum number of subdivisions has been reached). For a given subgrid
1351: this implies that our criterion for further subdivision is:
1352: \be
1353: \begin{array}{ccll}
1354: N_{in} & = & \mbox{ 1, 2, or 3} & \mbox{ : subdivide} \\
1355: N_{in} & = & \mbox{ 0 or 4} & \mbox{ : do not subdivide}
1356: \end{array}
1357: \ee
1358: where $N_{in}$ is the number of corners that are flagged as being ``in''
1359: the image.
1360:
1361: Once this initial grid has been appropriately subdivided, we then
1362: move the macrogrid in a spiraling geometry and repeat the process (see
1363: Figure \ref{fig:spiral}) keeping a running total of the image area upon
1364: each revolution of the spiral.
1365: \bp
1366: \begin{center}
1367: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{f11.eps}
1368: \caption{
1369: A schematic representation of the evaluation order for the ``steps''
1370: for the spiraling algorithm. The origin is marked with an $O$ and the
1371: spiraling terminates once $N_{tol}$ revolutions yield no significant
1372: change in the integrated area.
1373: }
1374: \label{fig:spiral}
1375: \end{center}
1376: \ep
1377: This spiraling procedure self-terminates once the macrogrid has completed
1378: $N_{tol}$ revolutions with little to no change in the total image area.
1379:
1380: Our technique has the advantage of achieving high resolution with
1381: relatively few subdivisions per grid and, more importantly, does not
1382: require preset boundary conditions. That is, the self-termination
1383: criterion simply stops the spiraling procedure once the total image area
1384: is no longer changing. However, care must be taken to avoid missing
1385: ``distant'' images (images which appear far from the origin), and in
1386: practice we do set a minimum number of revolutions for the spiral.
1387:
1388: In the previous example, we assumed our function evaluations at the grid points
1389: took only two values: 1 or 0 (i.e., ``in'' or ``out'' of the image). The next
1390: step is to allow each grid point to assume a continuous value $f(x,y)$. With
1391: this generalization, we must modify our subdivision criterion which we now take
1392: to be,
1393: \be
1394: \begin{array}{cccl}
1395: |F_{avg} - F_c| & \geq & \epsilon \ |F_{avg}|&
1396: \mbox{ : subdivide} \\
1397: |F_{avg} - F_c| & < & \epsilon \ |F_{avg}| &
1398: \mbox{ : do not subdivide},
1399: \end{array}
1400: \ee
1401: where
1402: \be
1403: F_{avg} = \frac{1}{4} [f(x_1,y_1)+f(x_2,y_1)+f(x_1,y_2)+f(x_2,y_2)]
1404: \ee
1405: is the average of the function values at the four grid corners and,
1406: \be
1407: F_c = f\left(\frac{x_1+x_2}{2},\frac{y_1+y_2}{2}\right)
1408: \ee
1409: is the function value at the center of the grid. The tolerance value
1410: $\epsilon$ must be set by hand and is roughly a measure of how much
1411: $f(x,y)$ varies over the region $[x_1:x_2][y_1:y_2]$. That is, our grid
1412: only increases resolution in regions where the function varies rapidly
1413: with either $x$ or $y$. Since the spiral termination criterion is still
1414: such that the total integral does not significantly change after $N_{tol}$
1415: revolutions, this 2-D integration scheme is ideally suited to integrate
1416: functions for which $f(x,y) \rightarrow 0$ as $x,y \rightarrow \infty$.
1417:
1418: \end{document}
1419: