1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,referee]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
4: \usepackage {epsfig}
5: %
6: %\newcommand{\myemail}{alard@iap.fr}
7: %
8: %
9: %
10: %
11: \title[]{Perturbative signature of substructures in strong gravitational lenses.}
12: %
13: \author[C. Alard]{C. Alard \thanks{E-mail:alard@iap.fr} \\
14: Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, 98bis boulevard Arago, 75014
15: Paris}
16: %
17: \begin{document}
18: \label{firstpage}
19: %
20: \maketitle
21: %
22: \begin{abstract}
23: In the perturbative approach, substructures in the lens can be reduced
24: to their effect on the two perturbative fields $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$.
25: A simple generic model of elliptical lens with a substructure situated near the critical
26: radius is investigated in details. Analytical
27: expressions are derived for each perturbative field, and basic properties are analyzed. The power spectrum
28: of the fields is well approximated by a power-law, resulting in significant tails at high frequencies.
29: Another feature of the perturbation by a substructure is that the ratio of the power spectrum at order $n$
30: of the 2 fields $R_n$ is nearly 1. The ratio $R_n \simeq 1$ is specific to substructures, for instance
31: an higher order distortion ($n>2$) but with auto-similar isophotes will result in $R_n \propto \frac{1}{n^2}$.
32: Finally, the problem of reconstructing the perturbative field is investigated. Local field model are implemented and
33: fitted to maximize image similarity in the source plane. The non-linear optimization is greatly facilitated, since
34: in the perturbative approach the circular source solution is always known. Examples of images
35: distortions in the subcritical regime due to substructures are presented, and analyzed for different source shapes. Provided enough images
36: and signal is available, the substructure field can be identified confidently. These results suggests that
37: the perturbative method is an efficient tool to estimate the contribution of substructures to the mass
38: distribution of lenses.
39: %
40: \end{abstract}
41: %
42: \begin{keywords}
43: gravitational lensing-strong lensing
44: \end{keywords}
45:
46: %
47: \section{Introduction.}
48: %
49: Images formed in the strong gravitational regime are very sensitive to the local variations of the lens deflection field.
50: In a circular potential the caustic is reduced to a single point and the image of a source in a singular situation is a circle.
51: When ellipticity is introduced, the caustic system is a serie of connected lines with typical diamond shape aspect. This system
52: presents cusps and folds singularities as predicted by the theory of singularities. Ellipticity is the first morphological deviation
53: from circular symmetry, and is a standard ingredient of lens models. However, higher order deviations from circular symmetry are significant
54: in practice, and mostly related to substructures or interaction at close range between galaxies, as observed in merging effects.
55: Not all lenses are mergers, but in general substructures are expected in the mass distribution of lenses (see for instance Klypin {\it et al.}
56: 1999, Moore {\it et al.} 1999, Ghigna {\it et al.} 2000). The presence of substructures has several effects, modifying the optical depth (Horesh {\it et al.} 2005,
57: Meneghetti {\it et al.} 2007), or altering the image flux (Bartelmann {\it et al} 1995, Keeton {\it et al} 2003, Mao {\it et al} 2004, Maccio {\it et al} 2006)
58: By analyzing the image flux for very small sources, like distant quasars it should be possible in principle to evaluate the contribution
59: of substructure to the lens deflection field. However, in practise small sources like quasars may be quite sensitive to microlensing by stars
60: in the lens galaxy, which complicates the analysis.
61: This paper will investigate the effect of substructures for much larger sources, typically galaxies. In particular,
62: the modifications of the image morphology due to the perturbing field of the substructures will be investigated in details.
63: %
64: \section{Perturbative description of the effects of substructure on arcs.}
65: %
66: Small substructures with mass of about a percent of the main deflector can
67: have a major influence on the shape of gravitational arcs. To be effective, the
68: perturbator must be located near the critical line, and in a area of
69: image formation ($|\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}| < {\rm source \ radius}$).
70: The effect of substructure is illustrated in Fig. (~\ref{plot01}) and Fig. (~\ref{plot02}).
71: In Fig. (~\ref{plot01}) we are in the cusp caustic regime of an elliptical lens, while
72: in Fig. (~\ref{plot02}) the perturbative field of a sub-substructure is added to the elliptical
73: lens. The field of the substructure changes dramatically the shape of the images, the arc
74: is broken in 3 images, which is a situation typical of a sub-critical regime.
75: In both case the perturbative approximation is over-plotted on the image
76: of the sources obtained using ray-tracing. To obtain the image contours by the
77: perturbative method, the derivatives of the lensing
78: potential are estimated at $r=R_E$ (Einstein radius), providing the fields, $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$
79: which are directly introduced in Eq. (12) (Alard 2007).
80: As expected the perturbative method gives accurate results
81: in the elliptical case, but also in the perturbed elliptical case, which suggests that the perturbative
82: method is an efficient tool to study the perturbations of arcs by substructures.
83: More detailed investigations of lens with substructures using the perturbative
84: method are available in Peirani {\it et al.} 2008.
85: In the perturbative approach all the information on the deflection potential is
86: in two fields, $f_1(\theta)$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$. Thus it is sufficient to evaluate
87: the effect of the substructure on these two fields, and this will be the main goal of the
88: present paper.
89: %
90: \begin{figure}
91: \centering{\epsfig{figure=ray_trace1.ps,width=12cm}}
92: \caption{Near cusp configuration for an elliptical NFW profile without substructure. The source
93: is circular with diameter $R_S=0.05 R_E$. The black images have been obtained by direct
94: ray-tracing. The red lines are the contours of the circular
95: source obtained using the perturbative formalism.}
96: \label{plot01}
97: \end{figure}
98: %
99: \begin{figure}[b]
100: \centering{\epsfig{figure=ray_trace2.ps,width=12cm}}
101: \caption{Same source position, but in addition to the elliptical deflector a substructure
102: with mass equal to one percent of the elliptical lens. The perturbator is located on the X-axis
103: at a distance $r_p=1.3 R_E$.}
104: \label{plot02}
105: \end{figure}
106: %
107: %
108: \subsection{Field perturbation induced by substructures.}
109: %
110: For simplicity, a spherical isothermal model will be adopted for the substructure potential.
111: The perturbative approach requires the estimation of the deflection field
112: on the critical circle. As in Alard (2007) we re-scale the coordinate system so that the
113: Einstein radius of the un-perturbed lens is situated at $r=1$. The substructure's
114: parameters are the following: its mass within the unit circle, $m_p$, its position
115: in polar coordinates: radius, $r_p=1+dr$, and position angle $\theta_p$, (see Fig. ~\ref{plot1}).
116: The perturbation induced by this model of substructure
117: is derived in Eq. ~\ref{f0_f1}. The general
118: behavior of the function's $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ and $f_1$ is presented
119: in Fig.'s ~\ref{plot2} and ~\ref{plot3} respectively.
120: %
121: \begin{figure}
122: \centering{\epsfig{figure=Fig1.eps,width=6cm}}
123: \caption{Geometry of the perturbation introduced by the substructure. The great circle
124: is the Einstein radius (normalized to unity) of the un-perturbed distribution, while the small circle represents
125: the substructure situated at $r_p=1+dr$.}
126: \label{plot1}
127: \end{figure}
128: %
129: \begin{equation} \label{f0_f1}
130: \begin{cases}
131: f_1=\frac{m_p \left(1-r_p \cos \left(\theta-\theta_p \right) \right)}{\sqrt{1-2 r_p \cos \left( \theta -\theta_p \right)+r_p^2}} \\
132: \frac{d f_0}{d \theta} = \frac{m_p \left(r_p \sin \left(\theta-\theta_p \right) \right)}{\sqrt{1-2 r_p \cos \left( \theta -\theta_p \right)+r_p^2}} \\
133: \end{cases}
134: \end{equation}
135: %
136: \subsection{Properties of the function's $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$}
137: %
138: For both function's, the amplitude of the variation is quite similar for different positions of the
139: perturbator, and is of the order of the mass of the perturbator. The $f_1$ function is asymmetrical with respect
140: to the sign of the $dr$ parameter ($r_p=1+dr$), while for $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ asymmetries are
141: weak. The other properties of the function's are related to their steep behavior at the origin.
142: In particular, Fig. ~\ref{plot3} shows that $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$, has a steep slope at the origin. This slope $S_0$
143: increases as $dr$ decrease, with approximately, $S_0 \simeq 1+\frac{1}{dr}$, which corresponds to a typical scale
144: length $\simeq 1-\frac{1}{dr}$. The $f_1$ functional scale like
145: $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ near the origin, at lowest order $f_1$ is quadratic and the coefficient of the
146: quadratic term is: $\left(1+\frac{1}{dr}\right)^2$, thus the typical scale
147: length is also: $\simeq 1-\frac{1}{dr}$.
148: %
149: %
150: \begin{figure}
151: \centering{\epsfig{figure=f1.ps,width=10cm}}
152: \caption{The variations of the field $f1$ for different position
153: of the substructure. In all plots the mass of the substructure is normalized to $m_p=1$ and the substructure is supposed to be on the X-axis ($\theta_p=0$),
154: and at the following distances from the center of the coordinate system: $r_p=1.25$ (black), $r_p=1.1$ (green), $r_p=0.9$ (blue), $r_p=0.75$ (red).}
155: \label{plot2}
156: \end{figure}
157: %
158: %
159: \begin{figure}
160: \centering{\epsfig{figure=df0.ps,width=10cm}}
161: \caption{The variations of the field $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$, the parameters and color conventions are identical to Fig. ~\ref{plot2} }
162: \label{plot3}
163: \end{figure}
164: %
165: %
166: \subsubsection{Spectral decomposition of the function's.}
167: %
168: %
169: The function's $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ are expanded in discrete Fourier series, and the power
170: spectrum $P_i(n)$ is derived from the coefficients of the Fourier expansion:
171: %
172: %
173: \begin{equation}
174: \begin{cases}
175: \frac{d f_0}{d \theta} = \sum_{n} \alpha_{0,n} \cos(n \theta) + \beta_{0,n} \sin(n \theta)\\
176: f_1= \sum_{n} \alpha_{1,n} \cos(n \theta) + \beta_{1,n} \sin(n \theta) \\
177: P_i(n) = \alpha_{i,n}^2+\beta_{i,n}^2 \ \ \ \ i=0,1 \\
178: \label{pot_def}
179: \end{cases}
180: \end{equation}
181: %
182: %
183: The power spectrum of the two function's is well approximated by a power law. The exponent of this power-law
184: depends strongly on the minimum distance of the sub structure to the Einstein circle (see Fig. ~\ref{plot4}).
185: The power-law exponent in itself is variable as a function of $dr$, but interestingly the ratio of the power
186: law components is quite constant and close to unity for a wide range of $dr$, see Fig. ~\ref{plot4.1}.
187: %
188: %
189: \begin{figure}
190: \centering{\epsfig{figure=f10_pw.ps,width=10cm}}
191: \caption{Power law approximation of the power spectrum of $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ . The Exponent
192: of the power law is plotted as a function of the distance of the substructure to the unit circle.}
193: \label{plot4}
194: \end{figure}
195: %
196: %
197: \begin{figure}
198: \centering{\epsfig{figure=ratio_pw.ps,width=10cm}}
199: \caption{This figure presents
200: the ratio of the power spectrum's, $R = \frac{P_1(n)}{P_0(n)}$.}
201: \label{plot4.1}
202: \end{figure}
203: %
204: %
205: \subsection{Relation to the multipole expansion of the potential}
206: %
207: The two fields $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ are related to the multipole expansion of the
208: perturbative potential $\psi$ (see Eq. 3 in Alard 2007 for the definition of $\psi$).
209: This relation is interesting, since some of the properties of multipole expansion may be exploited in
210: the analysis of the perturbative function's.
211: The expansion of the perturbative potential $\psi$ reads (Kochanek 1991):
212: %
213: \begin{equation} \label{harm_exp}
214: \psi = -\sum_n \left( \frac{a_n(r)}{r^n} \cos n \theta + \frac{b_n(r)}{r^n} \sin n \theta + c_n(r) \ r^n \cos n \theta + d_n(r) \ r^n \sin n \theta \right)
215: \end{equation}
216: %
217: The coefficients $(a_n,b_n,c_n,d_n)$ are related to the density of the lens $\rho$ by the following formula:
218: %
219: \begin{equation} \label{harm_coeffs}
220: \begin{cases}
221: a_n = \frac{1}{2 \pi n} \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{r=1} \rho(u,v) \cos n v \ u^{n+1} \ du \ dv \\
222: b_n = \frac{1}{2 \pi n} \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{r=1} \rho(u,v) \sin n v \ u^{n+1} \ du \ dv \\
223: c_n = \frac{1}{2 \pi n} \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_{r=1}^\infty \rho(u,v) \cos n v \ u^{1-n} \ du \ dv \\
224: d_n = \frac{1}{2 \pi n} \int_0^{2 \pi} \int_{r=1}^\infty \rho(u,v) \sin n v \ u^{1-n} \ du \ dv \\
225: \end{cases}
226: \end{equation}
227: %
228: Using Eq's (~\ref{harm_exp}) and (~\ref{harm_coeffs}), and noting that: $\left(\frac{d \left( a_n+c_n \right)}{d r}\right)_{[r=1]}=\left(\frac{d \left( b_n+d_n \right)}{d r}\right)_{[r=1]}=0$ the fields $f_0$ and $f_1$ :
229: %
230: \begin{equation} \label{f1f0_harm}
231: \begin{cases}
232: f_1 = \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial r}\right)_{[r=1]} = \sum_n n \left(a_n-c_n \right) \cos n \theta
233: + n \left(b_n-d_n \right) \sin n \theta\\
234: \frac{d f_0}{d \theta} = \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \theta}\right)_{[r=1]} = \sum_n -n \left(b_n+d_n \right) \cos n \theta
235: + n \left(a_n+c_n \right) \sin n \theta \\
236: \end{cases}
237: \end{equation}
238: %
239: \subsubsection{Local perturbation.}
240: %
241: Eq. ~\ref{f1f0_harm} shows that the multipole expansion of the potential is directly related to the harmonic
242: expansion of the perturbative fields. A simple and interesting case is the perturbation of the potential by a point
243: mass. There are two cases, either the point mass is inside the unit circle (then form Eq. ~\ref{harm_coeffs}, $c_n=0$ and $d_n=0$)
244: or outside ($a_n=0$ and $b_n=0$), in both cases the power spectrum of $f_1$ $P_1(n)$ is equal to the power
245: spectrum of $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$. A substructure is a local perturbation, and is not too far from the point
246: mass perturbator, this analogy explains the ratio close to 1 which is observed in the ratio between the component of
247: the power spectrum of the fields (Fig. ~\ref{plot4.1}).
248: %
249: %
250: \subsubsection{Slight isophotal deformation of the density.}
251: %
252: Let's consider the case of a lens with small deviations from circular
253: symmetry. In this case, the total density $\rho_0$ reads:
254: %
255: $$
256: \rho_0(r,\theta)=F\left(r \left( 1+g(\theta) \right) \right) \simeq F(r)+r F^{'}(r) \ g(\theta)
257: $$
258: With: $g(\theta) \ll 1$ \\
259: The perturbative density $\rho$ reads:
260: \begin{equation} \label{rho_p}
261: \rho(r,\theta)=r F^{'}(r) \ g(\theta)
262: \end{equation}
263: %
264: By introducing the former equation in Eq. (~\ref{harm_coeffs}) and subsequently in Eq. (~\ref{f1f0_harm}),
265: the following equations for the fields $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ are obtained:
266: %
267: \begin{equation}
268: \begin{cases}
269: f_1 = \sum_n \left(p_n-q_n \right) \left(\alpha_n \cos(n \theta) + \beta_n \sin(n \theta) \right) \\
270: \frac{d f_0}{d \theta} = \sum_n \left( p_n+q_n \right) \left(-\beta_n \cos(n \theta) + \alpha_n \sin(n \theta) \right) \\
271:
272: p_n=\int_0^1 F^{'}(u) u^{n+2} du \\
273: q_n=\int_1^\infty F^{'}(u) u^{2-n} du \\
274: \alpha_n=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} g(v) \cos(nv) dv \\
275: \beta_n=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} g(v) \sin(nv) dv \\
276: \end{cases}
277: \end{equation}
278: %
279: The ratio of the components of the power spectrum of $f_1$, $P_1(n)$, and, $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$, $P_0(n)$ is:
280: %
281: \begin{equation}
282: R = \frac{P_1(n)}{P_0(n)} = \left( \frac{p_n-q_n}{p_n+q_n} \right)^2
283: \end{equation}
284: %
285: %
286: For power law density profiles, $F(r) \propto r^{-\gamma}$, and $R \propto \left( \frac{\gamma-2}{n} \right)^2$, which is very
287: different from the nearly constant ratio observed for local perturbations.
288: %
289: %
290: \section{Properties of the perturbed images.}
291: %
292: %
293: \section{Properties of the images formed by perturbed lenses.}
294: %
295: \subsection{Caustics.}
296: %
297: This section will investigate the caustic system of an elliptical lens perturbed by a substructure.
298: The lens ellipticity is defined
299: by the parameter $\eta$, the substructure parameters are its position angle $\theta_p$, its
300: distance $dr$ (see Fig. ~\ref{plot1}) and its mass $m_p$ (see Eq. ~\ref{f0_f1}).
301: For small $\eta$, the elliptical potential reads:
302: $$
303: \phi_E=F\left(\sqrt{(1-\eta) \ x^2+(1+\eta) \ y^2} \right) \simeq F(r)-\frac{\eta}{2} \ F^{'}(r) \ r \cos(2 \theta)=\phi_0(r)+\psi_E(r,\theta)
304: $$
305: Adding the contribution of the substructure (Eq. ~\ref{f0_f1}), and considering that $F^{'}(1)=1$, and $F^{''}(1)=0$ if the model
306: is isothermal, the perturbative fields are:
307: %
308: \begin{equation}
309: \begin{cases} \label{full_pot}
310: f_1=-\frac{\eta}{2} \cos(2 \theta)+\frac{m_p \left(1-r_p \cos \left(\theta-\theta_p \right) \right)}{\sqrt{1-2 r_p \cos \left( \theta -\theta_p \right)+r_p^2}} \\
311: \frac{d f_0}{d \theta} = \eta \sin(2 \theta)+\frac{m_p \left(r_p \sin \left(\theta-\theta_p \right) \right)}{\sqrt{1-2 r_p \cos \left( \theta -\theta_p \right)+r_p^2}} \\
312: \end{cases}
313: \end{equation}
314: %
315: By introducing the former analytical model in Eq. (31) from Alard (2007) we obtain analytical equations for the caustic lines.
316: The resulting caustic lines are presented in Fig (~\ref{plot5}). The effect of the substructure is maximal when the substructure
317: is aligned with the potential axis, and increases with decreasing $dr$. The effect on the caustic is only weakly dependent on the
318: sign of $dr$.
319: %
320: \begin{figure}
321: \centering{\epsfig{figure=Fig2.ps,width=14cm}}
322: \caption{Caustic lines, elliptical lens, $\eta=0.1$ (black), and substructure with parameters, $m_p=0.03$, $\theta_p=0$, $r_p=1.3$ (blue), and substructure,
323: $m_p=0.03$, $theta_p=\frac{\pi}{10}$, $r_p=1.3$ (red). The distortion of the caustic system is maximal when the
324: the position of the substructure is aligned with the axis of the elliptical potential.}
325: \label{plot5}
326: \end{figure}
327: %
328: \subsection{An illustration of image anomaly due to sub-structure: sub-critical regime.}
329: %
330: The former section shows that the caustic structure is significantly modified in the vicinity of the substructure.
331: An image configuration situated near the critical line for a purely elliptical lens is shifted to the sub-critical
332: regime by the substructure field. An interesting point is that this sub-critical regime
333: is quite different from the regime observed for the purely elliptical lens. The main feature of the sub-critical
334: regime for perturbed elliptical lens is that the image situated at shorter distance from the substructure is
335: much more perturbed than the others. Thus by comparing the structure of the images it is generally possible to
336: detect the anomaly induced by the perturbator. The most obvious features of the perturbed image will be related
337: to the properties of the function's $f_1$ and $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ (see Fig.'s ~\ref{plot2} and ~\ref{plot3}).
338: In particular the function's presents large values of the slope ( $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$), or large curvature
339: ($f_1$) near the origin. For smaller images the local slope is directly related to the image size, thus the perturbation
340: will reduce the size of the image. For instance let's consider the following sub-critical configurations,
341: (i): a source at mid-distance from the caustic in an elliptical potential, ($x_S=x_0$, $y_S=0$), and (ii): the same system, but with the additional
342: deflection field of a substructure with position angle aligned with the potential axis. In case (i) the sub-critical regime
343: breaks the arcs in 3 small images, the central image ($\theta=0$), and 2 symmetrical images. For circular sources and a local linear
344: approximation of the field the size of the images is directly proportional to the inverse of the local
345: derivative of $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$. Once the impact parameter is taken into account, the effective
346: field in the elliptical case is: $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}=\eta \sin(2 \theta)-x_0 \sin(\theta)$ (see Alard 2007, Eq. 10).
347: Using the former formula for $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ some simple calculations shows that the ratio of the size of the
348: central $S_0$ image to the size of the other images $S_1$ is:
349: %
350: \begin{equation} \label{size_ratio}
351: S_{01}=\frac{S_0}{S_1}= 1+\frac{x_0}{2 \eta}
352: \end{equation}
353: %
354: Eq. (~\ref{size_ratio}) shows that for sub-critical regime, $0<x_0<2 \eta$, thus $S_{01}>1$ consequently, the central image
355: is larger that the two other symmetrical images, which is an important feature of the sub-critical regime for elliptical
356: lens.
357: With a substructure, the slope near the origin of $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ is perturbed by an additional
358: field with slope at origin $m_p \left(1+\frac{1}{dr} \right)$ (see Sec. 2.2). In the hypothesis of a local perturbation
359: the 2 other images remain unperturbed. Assuming $dr \ll 1$ the size of the central image is now:
360: %
361: \begin{equation} \label{size_ratio_pert}
362: S_0^{-1} \propto \frac{m_p}{dr} + \left(2 \eta-x_0 \right)
363: \end{equation}
364: %
365: The scale of $x_0$ in the caustic system is $\eta$, thus Eq.'s (~\ref{size_ratio_pert}) indicates that
366: the image ratio is modified by:
367: %
368: \begin{equation} \label{size_ratio_pert2}
369: S_{01}^{P}=S_{01} \times \frac{\eta}{\eta+\frac{m_p}{dr}}
370: \end{equation}
371: %
372: Thus the perturbation is significant if at least, $m_p \simeq \eta \ dr$. Since the usual scale of both $\eta$ and $dr$
373: is of about one tenth of $R_E$, $m_p$ must be of only the order of a percent to alter very significantly the size of the
374: central image.
375: %
376: \subsection{Analysis of images by Reconstruction of the perturbative field.}
377: This section will show that the image anomalies due to substructures can be reconstructed
378: independantly of the source shape. The reconstruction will be illustrated by the configuration
379: presented in Sec. 4.1. In this configuration,
380: the distortion is very obvious, because most of the effect is on the central image, and that
381: the size of this image is reduced by the field of the substructure.
382: However this results holds for source with circular
383: contours only. For other
384: sources the size of the images may be modified slightly, and for better accuracy a more general approach is required.
385: Here we have to tackle the general problem of lensing potential and source reconstruction, taken together these
386: problem are difficult and may be quite degenerate. The problem in itself is much simplified if we make the hypothesis
387: that the field is smooth at the scale of the image and can be represented by a lower order polynomial in $\theta$.
388: The knowledge of the field at the images positions allows to transfer the image contours to the source plane,
389: where the different images of the sources must be identical. The constraint that the image must be identical
390: in the source plane will be used to evaluate the field at the image position. Another constraint on lens reconstruction
391: is that no images are produced in void areas (Diego {\it et al.}). This constraint is simple to implement
392: in the perturbative approach, it is sufficient that $|\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}| > R_C$, where $R_C$ is the radius of a circular
393: envelope to the source contour.
394: %
395: \subsubsection{Local field models.}
396: %
397: There are basically two kind of image models to consider, smaller images, with nearly linear field at the scale of the
398: image, and the longer images produced in near caustics configurations . For smaller images, the model to adopt for the $f_0$ field
399: is very obvious, $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta} \simeq \alpha_0 (\theta -\beta_0)$, with $\alpha_0$ a local constant to evaluate, and
400: $\beta_0$ a position angle which in practice should be close to the image center. Near caustics the model should be
401: a polynomial of higher order. For the $f_1$
402: field the situation is similar to the $f_0$ field for small images, while in near caustics situations the local modelisation
403: of the $f_1$ field will require a full polynomial expansion to higher order (2 or 3).
404: %
405: \subsubsection{Fitting local field models.}
406: %
407: Simulated data are obtained by ray-tracing the lens model in the sub-critical configuration described in Sec. 4.2.
408: The ellipticity of the lens is $\eta=0.1$, and the substructure parameters are:, $m_P=0.03$, $r_P=1.3$, $\theta_P=0$.
409: The source position is $x_S=1.5 \eta$, $y_S=0$.
410: The fitting procedure is greatly simplified by the fact that in the perturbative approach the solution for a circular
411: source is known (Alard 2007). For circular source the $f_1$ field corresponds to the mean radial position of the contour
412: at a given $\theta$, and the $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ field is the contour width. Once these fields are extracted
413: from the images data, they make a good starting guess for the real solution. Basically the guess will be estimated
414: by fitting local polynomial expansions of $\theta$ to the circular solution. Starting from this guess a few
415: steps of non-linear fitting optimization will lead to the correct solution. The quantity to minimize to achieve
416: an estimate of the solution will be a measurement of the image similarity when a re-mapping to the source
417: plane is performed. A general method to estimate the image similarity is to compare their moments. Suppose that there are $N_I$ images,
418: and that their moments to order $N_S$ in the source plane are identical, this provide $\frac{N_S (N_S+3) (N_I-1)}{2}$ constraints.
419: Local linear image models have $2 N_I$ parameters, thus even in the case of 2 images only the problem is already over-constrained for $N_S=2$.
420: In the case presented in Fig's (~\ref{plot6}), (~\ref{plot7}) and (~\ref{plot8}), there are 4 images, thus moments up to
421: the second order are sufficient to fit the data. Ray tracing of the sub-critical configuration presented in Section 4.2 is performed
422: for different sources shape, resulting in 3 different sets of 4 images. Local linear field models are fitted to each of these
423: sets. The circular solution is used as a first guess and a quantity that measures the distance between the image moments in the
424: source plane is minimized using the simplex method. In each case both the field parameters and source shape can be recovered (See table ~\ref{res}).
425: The great advantage of the local field method, is that even for the higher order fields generated by a substructure, the local
426: models are simple and can be recovered. Note also that for instance the slope of $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ gives 4 constraints,
427: which coupled with the image positions gives 8 constraints. In the case of an elliptical lens the Fourier expansion is of order 2
428: (provided ellipticity is not too large), which corresponds to 4 parameters only. Thus the elliptical case is over-constrained in the
429: present situation. With only 2 images the elliptical lens is already constrained. Taking any 2 images unperturbed by the substructure, and making
430: an elliptical model, it will always be impossible for this model to meet the constraint related to the perturbed image.
431: %
432: %
433: \begin{table}[ht]
434: \caption{Local model fitting results for different sources, first circular source with diameter $R_S=0.05 R_E$, elliptical
435: source with $\eta_S=0.5$, $(1-\eta_S) x_S^2+(1-\eta_S) y_S^2=R_S^2$, and $R_S=0.05 R_E$, two circular sources with diameter $R_S=0.05 R_E$ and respective centers: ($-\frac{R_S}{2}$,0), ($\frac{R_S}{2}$,0). For comparison,
436: in the last column
437: of the first part of the table, the theoretical results of the local field values are given
438: when no substructure is present (see the large difference on the slope of image 2). It is not presented
439: for the second part, since due to symmetry of the substructure position it has no effect on the $f_1$ field. }
440: \centering
441: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
442: $|\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}|$ & Slope image 1 & Slope image 2 & Slope image 3 & Slope image 4 \\
443: \hline
444: True solution & 0.17 & 0.23 & 0.17 & 0.35 \\
445: circular source & 0.17 & 0.25 & 0.17 & 0.34 \\
446: Elliptical source & 0.2 & 0.26 & 0.19 & 0.37 \\
447: 2 circular sources & 0.17 & 0.28 & 0.16 & 0.38 \\
448: Without substructure & 0.1 & 0.06 & 0.1 & 0.36 \\
449: \hline
450: \hline
451: $f_1$ & Slope image 1 & Slope image 2 & Slope image 3 & Slope image 4 \\
452: \hline
453: True solution & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
454: circular source & 0.01 & 0 & -0.01 & 0 \\
455: Elliptical source & 0.04 & -0.05 & -0.05 & 0.03 \\
456: 2 circular sources & 0.02 & -0.03 & -0.01 & -0.05 \\
457: \hline
458: \end{tabular}
459: \label{res}
460: \end{table}
461: %
462: %
463: \begin{figure}
464: \centering{\epsfig{figure=simu_cercle.ps,width=14cm}}
465: \caption{Image obtained by ray-tracing for a circular source. The lens is elliptical, $\eta_S=0.1$, and is perturbed by a substructure with
466: parameters: $m_p=0.03$, $theta_p=0$, $r_p=1.3$. The source has diameter $R_S=0.05 R_E$, and impact parameter, ($X_S=0.15 R_E$,0). }
467: \label{plot6}
468: \end{figure}
469: %
470: %
471: \begin{figure}
472: \centering{\epsfig{figure=simu_ellipse.ps,width=14cm}}
473: \caption{Same as figure ~\ref{plot6}, but for an elliptical source with ellipticity $\eta_S=0.5$}
474: \label{plot7}
475: \end{figure}
476: %
477: %
478: \begin{figure}
479: \centering{\epsfig{figure=simu_2_cercles.ps,width=14cm}}
480: \caption{Same as figure ~\ref{plot6}, but for two circular sources with diameter $R_S=0.05$ and respective centers: ($-\frac{R_S}{2}$,0), ($\frac{R_S}{2}$,0).}
481: \label{plot8}
482: \end{figure}
483: %
484: \subsubsection{Accuracy of measurements using the perturbative method.}
485: %
486: In Table 1 the perturbation on the local slope of the $\frac{d f_0}{d \theta}$ function due to the substructure is about 7 times
487: the mean scatter of the measurements recovered by fitting local models for the different sources. Translated in accuracy on the measurement
488: of the substructure mass gives about 0.4 \% of the main halo mass. However the scatter in the measurements comes from the perturbative approximation and also from
489: the simplicity of the local (linear) modeling. Thus this scatter is an over-estimate of the error made in the perturbative
490: approximation.
491: The perturbative method may introduce some limitation in accuracy, but in practice, resolution effects and noise should be much
492: stronger limiting factors. And more importantly, the limit in accuracy by the perturbative method may be a concern only for
493: absolute measurement of the displacement field of the lens, if we are interested in the differential effect of the substructure
494: field, then the perturbative method will be very accurate, first because the method is linear, and thus allows differential measurements,
495: and second because also due to linearity, the field of the perturbator can be reconstructed with an accuracy
496: that scales likes its mass. Thus, for the evaluation of the differential effects due to very small substructure the perturbative
497: method should give accurate results, in this case, the main problem will be related to the un-biased statistical estimation of the perturbative fields
498: for distributions without substructure.
499: %
500: \subsection{Approximate source invariant quantities}
501: %
502: In general the image features are dependent upon the source shape, and the re-construction of the lens fields require
503: the non-linear procedure presented in the former section. However, for smaller images and weakly elliptical sources, there
504: is an approximate invariant. This conserved quantity is useful for nearly round sources, or for improving the first
505: guess in the non linear fitting procedure. Let's consider small images with total size $\theta_I \ll 1$ and an elliptical source,
506: the width of the image is given by Eq. (15) in Alard (2007):
507: %
508: \begin{equation} \label{width}
509: \begin{cases}
510: W=\frac{\sqrt{R_0^2 \ S-(1-\eta_S^2) \ \left( \frac{d f0}{d \theta} \right)^2}}{S} \\
511: S=1-\eta_S \cos\left(2 \left(\theta-\theta_0 \right) \right)
512: \end{cases}
513: \end{equation}
514: %
515: Where $\eta_S$ is the source ellipticity and $\theta_0$ is the angle of the source main axis. Since the image
516: is supposed to be small, we are operating in a small range of $\theta$, and the field $ \frac{d f0}{d \theta}$
517: may be linearized locally. Near the center of the image, $ \frac{d f0}{d \theta} \simeq 0$, thus by taking
518: the origin of $\theta$ at the image center we have: $ \frac{d f0}{d \theta} \simeq k \theta$. We will also
519: assume that the ellipticity is a small number, so that by change of variable $\eta_S = \epsilon \eta_S$, and
520: $\theta=\epsilon \theta$. Using these new variables, it is possible to expand Eq. (~\ref{width}) in series of $\epsilon$, which
521: simplifies the calculation of many quantities.
522: . In particular, the image size along the orthoradial direction is obtained by the condition $W=0$.
523: Solving to the lowest order in $\epsilon$, we obtain a second order equation in $\theta$, and
524: the difference of the 2 roots gives
525: the image size. To the lowest order in $\epsilon$, the image size in the orthoradial direction is $W_T$:
526: %
527: \begin{equation}
528: W_T=\frac{R_0}{k} \left(1-\frac{ \eta_S \cos 2 \theta_0}{2} \right)
529: \end{equation}
530: %
531: The size of the image in the other direction is approximately the size of the image in the radial
532: direction near the center of the image, from Eq. (~/ref{width}) to the lowest order in $\epsilon$,
533: the radial size $W_R$ is:
534: %
535: \begin{equation}
536: W_R=\frac{R_0}{k} \left(1+\frac{ \eta_S \cos 2 \theta_0}{2} \right)
537: \end{equation}
538: %
539: To first order in $\eta_S$, the product $S=W_T \times W_R$ which is closely related to the image surface
540: does not depend on the ellipticity of the source.
541: This result means that in practice for small ellipticity ($\eta_S \ll 1$), $S$ is a constant independent of
542: the source ellipticity.
543: \begin{thebibliography}{}
544: %
545: \bibitem[]{} Alard, C., 2007, MNRAS Letters, 382, 58
546: \bibitem[]{} Bartelmann, Matthias, Steinmetz, Matthias, Weiss, Achim, 1995, A\&A, 297, 1
547: \bibitem[BK1987]{} Bartelmann, M., 1996, A\&A, 313, 697
548: \bibitem[]{} Diego, J.M.,Protopapas, P., Sandvik, H.B., Tegmark, M., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 477
549: \bibitem[]{} Ghigna, S., Moore, B., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., 2000, ApJ, 544, 616
550: \bibitem[]{} Horesh, A., Ofek, E.O., Maoz, D., Bartelmann, M., Meneghetti, M., Rix, HW., 2005, ApJ, 633, 768
551: \bibitem[]{} Keeton, C.R., Gaudi, B.S., Petters, A.O., 2003, ApJ, 598, 138
552: \bibitem[]{} Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A, V., Valenzuela, O., Prada, F., 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
553: \bibitem[BK1991]{} Kochanek, C. S., 1991, ApJ, 373, 354
554: \bibitem[]{} Maccio, A.V., Moore, B., Stadel, J., Diemand, J., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1529
555: %\bibitem[]{} Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 171
556: \bibitem[]{} Meneghetti, M., Argazzi, R., Pace, F., Moscardini, L., Dolag, K., Bartelmann, M., Li, G., Oguri, M., 2007, A\&A, 461, 25
557: \bibitem[]{} Moore, B. Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., Tozzi, P., 1999, ApJL, 524, 19
558: \bibitem[]{} Mao, S., J., Y., Ostriker, J.P. Weller, J., 2004, ApJL, 604, 5
559: \bibitem[]{} Peirani, S., Alard, C., Pichon, C., Gavazzi, R., Aubert, D., 2008, in preparation.
560: %
561: \end{thebibliography}
562: %
563: \end{document}
564: %
565: