1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \shorttitle{Lensed Image Angles and Substructure}
3: \shortauthors{Williams et al.}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Lensed Image Angles: New Statistical Evidence for Substructure}
8:
9:
10: \author{Liliya L.R. Williams, Patrick Foley, Damon Farnsworth}
11: \affil{Department of Astronomy\\
12: University of Minnesota\\
13: 116 Church Street SE\\
14: Minneapolis, MN 55455}
15: \email{llrw@astro.umn.edu}
16: \and
17:
18: \author{Jason Belter}
19: \affil{Nova Classical Academy\\
20: 1668 Montreal Ave\\
21: St. Paul, MN 55116}
22:
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: We introduce a novel statistical way of analyzing the projected mass distribution
26: in galaxy lenses based solely on the angular distribution of images in quads
27: around the lens center. The method requires the knowledge of the lens center
28: location, but the images' distances from the lens center are not
29: used at all. If the images of a quad are numbered in order of arrival time,
30: $\theta_1$ through $\theta_4$, and $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between images
31: $i$ and $j$, then we define the 'bisector' plane whose axes are linear
32: combinations of $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{14}$. The bisector plane of a
33: given lens contains all the quads produced by the lens. We show empirically
34: that all two-fold symmetric lenses with convex, i.e. non-wavy or petal-like
35: isodensity contours are identical in the bisector plane of their quads.
36: We also study lenses with twisting isodensity contours, lumpy substructure,
37: etc. Our results suggest that to reproduce the general characteristics of
38: the observed quad population, kpc-scale substructure must be a common feature
39: of galaxy lenses.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \keywords{gravitational lensing}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
45:
46: In the last decade or so gravitationally lensed QSOs, both doubles and
47: quads, have been used mostly for the determination of the Hubble parameter
48: (see \citet{coles08} for the latest work, and summary of earlier results),
49: and for the estimation of the mass distribution in the lensing galaxies.
50: In this paper we will concentrate on the latter.
51:
52: One can loosely divide the information on the lens mass distribution into
53: two categories: radial and angular. Much attention has been paid in the
54: literature to the sky-projected radial mass distribution
55: in lenses because the slope of the density profile, and its variation with
56: radius is a test of cosmological models \citep{nfw96,nfw97}.
57: The density profile slope in the
58: central regions is also important because it is affected by the (adiabatic)
59: contraction of dark matter halos in response to the collapsing baryons during
60: galaxy formation \citep{fsw05,fsb08,g08}.
61:
62: The angular distribution of lensing mass, for example, the degree of
63: ellipticity, the change in the ellipticity position angle with radius,
64: etc. have received some attention as well \citep{cdk08,sw06,ok04}, but mostly
65: as ``nuisance'' parameters in determining the radial density profile or the
66: Hubble constant. It is somewhat ironic that the
67: generally uninteresting ellipticity position angle can be unambiguously
68: estimated by any reasonable modeling method, even by eye \citep{sw03},
69: whereas, the more interesting density profile slope is often very
70: uncertain because of the mass-sheet, or steepness degeneracy \citep{fgs85,s00}.
71:
72: The positions of lensed images of a quad or a double can also be looked
73: at as consisting of angular and radial information. By radial information
74: we mean the relative spread of images in distance from the lens center.
75: The angular information is the angular separation of the images as viewed
76: from the lens center. For example, in the Cloverleaf, H1413+117, and
77: the Einstein Cross, Q2237+030 any two adjacent images are roughly $90^\circ$
78: apart. In doubles, the two non-central images tend to be separated by
79: $\sim 150^\circ-180^\circ$.
80:
81: Obviously there is no simple one-to-one relation between, say, the radial
82: structure of the lensing mass and the radial distribution of lensed images.
83: However, there are some qualitative connections between the two.
84: For example, a steep lens mass distribution tends to produce quads
85: with narrow radial spread of images, largely independent of the angular
86: distribution of these images, or the ellipticity of the lensing mass.
87: Conversely, if the lensing mass has a shallow density profile the images
88: tend to have a wider radial spread. In the Appendix of this paper we show
89: that one angular property of the lensing mass, its ellipticity position
90: angle can be straightforwardly and rather precisely estimated from the
91: angular positions of the four images of the quad (Section~\ref{estimatingPA}).
92:
93: The main work presented in this paper is loosely motivated by the
94: preceding paragraph. Specifically, we ask what information about the
95: lensing mass can be retrieved by looking solely at the angular distribution
96: of lensed images around the lens center.
97:
98:
99: \section{Defining angles and bisector rays}\label{defining}
100:
101: Following \citet{sw03}, we refer to the four images of a quad by their
102: arrival time, as 1,~2,~3,~4. Image 1 is the global minimum of the arrival
103: time surface and hence is the first arriving image. Image 2 is the second
104: arriving image, and is also a minimum. Images 3 and 4 are saddles of the
105: arrival time surface. Image 5, a maximum, is the central demagnified image,
106: and is usually not detected. (See Figure~\ref{fourpanels}). As explained in
107: \citet{sw03} figuring out the arrival {\it order} of images in observed quads
108: can be done, in most cases, based on the morphology of the image distribution
109: alone, without measuring the time delays.
110:
111: Images 2 and 3 (minimum and saddle) often appear close together; these are
112: the two images that merge and disappear when the source moves away from the
113: lens center. Because of that, the angular separation of these two images
114: (as seen from the lens center), which we will call $\theta_{23}$ can be a
115: measure of the "quadrupoleness" of a quad system. When 2 and 3 are close
116: together the system is barely a quad, and could have been a double if the
117: source happened to be somewhat further away from the lens center, whereas
118: a quad with images 2 and 3 about $90^\circ$ apart is a ``well established''
119: quad.
120:
121: We also define $\beta_{12}$, as the ray anchored at the lens center that bisects
122: the angle between images 1 and 2. If we further specify that $\beta_{12}$
123: points roughly away from image 4, then the definition of $\beta_{12}$ is
124: unambiguous.
125: Similarly, we define $\beta_{34}$ as the ray bisecting the angle between
126: images 3 and 4, and pointing roughly away from image 1. The two lower panels
127: in Figure~\ref{fourpanels} show both these rays for a synthetic mass distribution,
128: whose projected density contours are shown in the upper left panel.
129: The images are filled circles. The arrival time surface
130: is shown in the upper right. The lower left panel shows that the images are
131: found as the intersection of the solution of the lens equation in the $x$ and
132: $y$ directions, shown by thick (red) and thin (blue) curves, respectively.
133: The lower right panel shows the source plane caustics, the source position
134: (empty green circle), and the two bisector rays.
135:
136: These angles and bisector rays turn out to have some very interesting
137: properties, which relate to certain aspects of the lens mass distributions.
138:
139:
140: \section{Mass distribution: Lenses with two-fold symmetry}\label{twofold}
141:
142: \subsection{Defining two-fold symmetric lenses}\label{deftwofold}
143:
144: A two-fold symmetric lens is a projected mass distribution that has
145: two orthogonal axes of bilateral symmetry. A wide class of popular lens models
146: are two-fold symmetric. For example, this category includes elliptical
147: lenses, with any radial density profile. The degree of ellipticity can be a
148: function of radius, but the ellipticity position angle (PA) should not change
149: with radius. Lenses with single or multiple external shear axes, as long as
150: the shear axes are arranged so as to obey the symmetry, also belong in this
151: category. Two lens classes commonly used for parametric modeling, Pseudo
152: Isothermal Elliptical Mass Distributions (PIEMD) and Pseudo Isothermal
153: Elliptical Potentials (PIEP) \citep{kk93} are also members of the two-fold
154: symmetric family of lenses.
155:
156: We exclude lenses that, even though two-fold symmetric, have 'wavy'
157: isodens. (Isodens are contours of equal projected surface mass density in the lens.)
158: For example, lenses whose isodens follow $\cos(2n\theta)$, with $n>1$, or where
159: isodens look like petals. In other words, mass distributions with non-convex
160: isodens are excluded. This is further discussed in Section~\ref{invariant}.
161: The mass distributions thus defined will be referred to as two-fold symmetric.
162:
163: In this paper we examine mass distributions through the properties of the
164: quad lenses they generate. Our study is statistical in nature; we use the
165: properties of the entire quad population produced by a given mass distribution.
166: Insights gained from this study help to draw conclusions from the real data, where
167: a given galaxy lenses one, or maybe a small handful of sources.
168:
169: In this Section we discuss two-fold symmetric lenses and show that
170: members of this family are indistinguishable when viewed in a diagnostic
171: plane whose axes are certain combinations of image angles. Next, we discuss
172: this diagnostic 'bisector' plane.
173:
174:
175: \subsection{Introducing the bisector plot}\label{bisector}
176:
177: The lower right panel of Figure~\ref{fourpanels} suggests that the axes
178: containing $\beta_{12}$ and $\beta_{34}$ are good indicators of the
179: orientation of the diamond caustic, and by extension, the PA of the major
180: and minor axes of the lensing mass distribution around the image ring.
181: This statement is quantified in the Appendix; here we use this observation
182: to motivate our choice of $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$ as an angle that contains
183: useful information about the lensing mass.
184:
185: In the main portion of Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold} (upper right panel)
186: we plot $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$ vs. $\theta_{23}$. Each (red) dot represents a
187: 4-image lens configuration (a quad); all the dots arise from the same galaxy,
188: but each dot has a different source position, picked randomly on the source
189: plane. (Sources that do not produce quads did not make it into this plot.)
190: The galaxy lens used here has an ``isothermal''
191: projected density profile $\Sigma(R)\propto R^{-1}$ with a small core to avoid
192: central singularity. The ellipticity, $\epsilon=0.2$, is constant with radius.
193: (The relation between $\epsilon$ and the axis ratio, $r$ is,
194: $\epsilon=[1-r]/[1+r]$.)
195:
196: We call the distribution of points in the $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$ vs.
197: $\theta_{23}$ plane, the bisector plot. The first thing to note is that
198: the distribution of points in the bisector plot is not random.
199: There are no quads with the bisector difference less
200: than $90^\circ$. More interestingly, there is a well defined envelope, a
201: curved line above and to the right of which there are no quads. We will
202: call this the `envelope'.
203:
204: The bisector plot of Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold} is
205: flanked by two panels. The solid line histogram in the left side panel shows the
206: distribution of bisector plot points along the $\theta_{23}$ direction; the
207: $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$ values have been ``marginalized'' over. The solid line
208: histogram in the bottom panel is the distribution of $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$
209: values; here, the $\theta_{23}$ values have been marginalized over. These two
210: histograms do not fully quantify the distribution of points in the main
211: two-dimensional bisector plot, but they do give us an easy, though incomplete
212: way of examining that distribution.
213: As an example consider a hypothetical quad lens at ($100^\circ,60^\circ$).
214: When projected on to the two histograms the point falls in the middle of
215: both the distributions. So, if one is to ask if this point could have been
216: drawn from the two distributions, the answer would be 'yes' in both cases.
217: However, looking at the full 2-d bisector plane it is obvious that the quad
218: cannot be generated by this lens, as it lies above the bounding envelope,
219: well outside the distribution.
220:
221: \subsection{The bisector plot: an invariant property?}\label{invariant}
222:
223: In the previous section we looked at the bisector plot of one type of lens,
224: with a certain density profile and certain ellipticity. We have also generated
225: bisector plots for many types of lenses, with varying density profiles,
226: varying degrees of ellipticity, including ellipticity $\epsilon(r)$ which
227: changes in radius, lenses with and without external shear, etc.
228: Our numerous experiments suggest that {\it all lenses that possess two-fold
229: symmetry, regardless of the radial density distribution and the magnitude or
230: radial dependence of ellipticity and external shear generate the same
231: distribution of points in the bisector plot, bounded by a vertical line
232: and a concave envelope.} We conclude that all two-fold symmetric lenses, as
233: defined in Section~\ref{deftwofold} are indistinguishable
234: in the bisector plot. This is one of the main findings of this paper.
235:
236: This invariance must derive from the shape of the caustic in the source plane.
237: From our experiments we have noticed that the inner (five image) caustics of
238: all two-fold symmetric lenses are diamond-shaped, and appear to share
239: the following two features. First, the diamond caustic itself has two-fold
240: symmetry (and so the two lines connecting the opposite cusps are perpendicular
241: to each other), and second, the diamond caustics of any two such lenses can be
242: made to have the same shape if one is allowed to linearly stretch or shrink
243: them in the directions along the lines connecting the opposite cusps.
244: By symmetry arguments, the first feature seems natural for lens mass
245: distributions that have two-fold symmetry. The lines connecting opposite
246: cusps of the diamond caustic of a lens with no such symmetry, for
247: example the one shown in Figure~\ref{fourpanels} (lower right panel),
248: do not intersect at right angles. The second feature implies the invariance
249: of the caustic itself (modulo linear stretching of the $x$ or $y$ coordinates),
250: and is probably the crux of the bisector plot invariance shown in
251: Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold}.
252:
253: The invariance does not extend to lenses that have 'wavy' isodens; such lenses
254: tend to produce caustics more complicated than diamond shapes.
255:
256: The invariance does not apply to lenses with naked cusps, i.e.
257: lenses whose diamond caustic cusps stick outside of the oval caustic because
258: of large ellipticity in the mass distribution.
259:
260:
261: \subsection{The bisector plot envelope for a specific lensing potential}\label{SISell}
262:
263: The set of quads that delineate the upper bounding envelope of the bisector
264: plane, shown, for example in Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold}, must correspond
265: to a continuous set of sources in the source plane of any two-fold
266: symmetric lens. We speculate, and confirm using experiments with synthetic
267: lenses, that the envelope quads, when mapped back to the source plane, form
268: a straight line that connects the center of the lens to the point on the
269: diamond caustic closest to the center; we call this the point of closest
270: approach, and denote it $\vec r_c$.
271:
272: If the bisector plane is indeed universal, as we claim, then the envelope
273: must be described by a universal analytical expression. Here we derive the
274: equation for the envelope for a specific type of a two-fold symmetric lens.
275:
276: We start with a lensing potential of the form, $\phi(r,\theta)=r\,f(\theta)$
277: \citep{wmk00}, and work in cylindrical coordinates on the plane of the sky.
278: The arrival time surface is,
279: $\psi(r,\theta)=\frac{1}{2}|\vec r-\vec r_s|^2-\phi(r,\theta)$.
280: The lensing equation, $\vec\nabla\psi=0$, in the $\hat r$ and $\hat \theta$
281: directions is written as,
282: \begin{equation}
283: r_s\cos(\theta-\theta_s)=r-f,\quad\quad\quad\quad
284: r_s\sin(\theta-\theta_s)={{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}
285: \label{lenseq}
286: \end{equation}
287: Using these, the square of the distance of the source from the lens
288: center is,
289: \begin{equation}
290: r_s^2=(r-f)^2+\Bigl({{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}\Bigr)^2,
291: \label{rs2}
292: \end{equation}
293: The determinant of the magnification matrix for our lensing potential is,
294: \begin{equation}
295: \det A={1\over r}\Bigl[(r-f)-{{\partial^2f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}\Bigr]
296: \label{detA}
297: \end{equation}
298:
299: For sources on the caustic, $\det A=0$, and so
300: $r-f={\partial^2f}/{\partial\theta^2}$. The caustic equation becomes
301: \begin{equation}
302: r_s^2=\Bigl({{\partial^2f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}\Bigr)^2
303: +\Bigl({{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta }}\Bigr)^2.
304: \label{rs2caus}
305: \end{equation}
306: The two lensing equations, eq.\ref{lenseq} can then be rewritten as,
307: \begin{equation}
308: r_s\cos(\theta-\theta_s)={{\partial^2 f}\over{\partial\theta^2}},
309: \quad\quad\quad\quad
310: r_s\sin(\theta-\theta_s)={{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}.
311: \label{lenseqcaus}
312: \end{equation}
313: Equations~\ref{rs2caus} and \ref{lenseqcaus} make it apparent that
314: the caustic is oval shaped in the plane defined by orthogonal axes equal
315: to the second and first derivatives of $f$ with respect to $\theta$,
316: respectively. The angle that specifies position in that plane is
317: $(\theta-\theta_s)$. This oval is illustrated in Figure~\ref{oval}, with
318: filled points, and the right and upper axes. Note that this plane, where the
319: caustic has an oval shape is not same as the source plane. For comparison,
320: the caustic in the source plane is also shown in Figure~\ref{oval}, with empty
321: points, and the left and lower axes. In the source plane the caustic has the
322: usual diamond shape.
323: The point of closest approach belongs to the oval and is either on the
324: ${{\partial^2 f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}$ axis, or on the
325: ${{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}$ axis, i.e. either
326: ${{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}=0$, or
327: ${{\partial^2 f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}=0$, respectively.
328:
329: To proceed further we specify the form of $\phi$,
330: \begin{equation}
331: \phi(r,\theta)=br(1+\gamma\cos 2\theta),
332: \label{phi}
333: \end{equation}
334: where $b$ and $\gamma$ are constant for any given lens. This is the lensing
335: potential of a singular isothermal sphere with an added elliptical perturbation,
336: $\gamma$, which generates shear. If there were no shear, $b$ would be the
337: Einstein ring radius of the SIS lens. This SIS+elliptical lens model
338: is discussed, for example in \citet{dalal98}. For this lens,
339: \begin{equation}
340: {{\partial^2f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}=-4b\gamma\cos 2\theta,\quad\quad\quad\quad
341: {{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}=-2b\gamma\sin 2\theta,
342: \label{derivs}
343: \end{equation}
344: which implies that the point of closest approach corresponds to
345: ${{\partial^2 f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}=0$. (This is shown as the solid line
346: segment in Figure~\ref{oval}.) From the first of equations~\ref{lenseqcaus},
347: and restricting ourselves to the 1st and 4th quadrants
348: (the other two are redundant because of symmetry) we derive that
349: $\theta-\theta_{c}=\pi/2$, $\theta=\pi/4$, and so $\theta_{c}=-\pi/4$. Here,
350: $\theta$ is the lens plane angle of only one of the images. $\theta_{c}$ is the
351: angle of the point of the closest approach, $\vec r_c$ in the source plane,
352: which is shown as the dashed line segment in Figure~\ref{oval} (left and lower
353: axes refer to the source plane).
354:
355: According to our hypothesis all the points defining the bisector plot envelope
356: lie on a straight line. Therefore, having found its angle, namely $\theta_{c}$
357: we can now solve for the source positions themselves. To do this we use the
358: second of equations~\ref{lenseqcaus}. Squaring it, and using
359: ~$\sin^2\theta_{c}=\cos^2\theta_{c}=\frac{1}{2}$ we get,
360: \begin{equation}
361: \frac{1}{2}\Bigl[{{r_s}\over{2b\gamma}}\Bigr]^2(1-\sin 2\theta)
362: =\sin^2 2\theta
363: \label{quadratic}
364: \end{equation}
365: Here, $\theta$ refers to any one of four images, two minima and two
366: saddles, and in fact this quadratic equation does have four solutions.
367: There are two solutions for $\sin 2\theta$ from the quadratic itself, and
368: each one of these gives two solutions because
369: ~$\cos 2\theta=\pm \sqrt{1-\sin^2 2\theta}$.
370:
371: The two images with $\sin 2\theta>0$ are in the 1st and 2nd quadrants, while
372: the other two are in the 3rd and 4th. For each of these two pairs of images
373: their $x$-coordinates place them equidistantly on either side of the $y$-axis.
374: This implies that the angular distribution of the four images is symmetric about
375: the $y$-axis. We can take advantage of this in determining how to sort these 4
376: images in order of arrival time. First note that
377: images 2 and 3 are interchangeable; the same is true for images 1 and 4.
378: Images 2 and 3 are the ones that merge together when the
379: source is on the caustic. This happens for the largest possible $r_s$, i.e.
380: $r_c=2b\gamma$. By considering various pairs of adjacent images in turn, one
381: can show that of the 4 images the two that satisfy the merging criterion are
382: the ones with $\sin 2\theta=(\Delta+K)/2$, where $\Delta=\sqrt{K^2+4K}$, and
383: $K=\frac{1}{2}[r_s/r_c]^2=\frac{1}{2}[r_s/2b\gamma]^2$.
384: When the source is on the caustic $2\theta=-\pi/2$
385: for both of these. The other two images have to be 1 and 4.
386: The angular separation between images 2 and 3 is then
387: \begin{equation}
388: \theta_{23}=
389: \pi/2-\tan^{-1}\Biggl[{{(\Delta+K)/2}\over{\sqrt{1-\frac{(\Delta+K)^2}{4}}}}\Biggr].
390: \label{th23}
391: \end{equation}
392: Similarly, the angular separation between images 1 and 4, which is always
393: greater that $\pi/2$ is,
394: \begin{equation}
395: \theta_{14}=
396: \pi/2+\tan^{-1}\Biggl[{{(\Delta-K)/2}\over{\sqrt{1-\frac{(\Delta-K)^2}{4}}}}\Biggr].
397: \label{th14}
398: \end{equation}
399: Then, with some angle visualizing one arrives at the bisector angle difference as,
400: \begin{equation}
401: \beta_{12}-\beta_{34}=[2\pi-(\theta_{23}+\theta_{14})]/2
402: \label{bisd}
403: \end{equation}
404: This is what is plotted as the solid curve in Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold},
405: and subsequent similar figures.
406:
407:
408: \section{Real quads}\label{realquads}
409:
410: Our quad lenses are taken from the CASTLeS data set \citep{castles}.
411: We used all quads, except,
412: PMNJ0134-0931, whose lensing galaxy's position is ambiguous;
413: B0128+437, whose lens center is unknown;
414: SDSS1406+6126, which has partial data; and
415: Q0047-2808, SDSS1029+2623, SDSS1402+6321 which have no data at all.
416: We also used two lenses that are not in CASTLeS:
417: SDSS J125107.57+293540.5 \citep{k07}, and
418: HE1113-0641 \citep{bws07}.
419: Cluster lens SDSS J1004+4112, with QSO image separation of $\sim 15''$ was
420: excluded because the images are formed by the central part of a galaxy cluster,
421: not a galaxy. The source in B1933+503 is a double lobed radio source,
422: whose core and one of the lobes are each lensed into quads. These two quads
423: were included as two separate lenses. This gives us a total of 26 quad lenses
424: listed in Tables~\ref{table1} and \ref{table2}. Lenses in Table~\ref{table1} have
425: unambiguous arrival time ordering of images.
426:
427: In some cross-like quads it is hard to know what the correct numbering of
428: images should be. In the most ambiguous cases we can only be certain that images
429: 1 and 2 should lie across from one another, and so should images 3 and 4. Using
430: this as the only rule gives us four distinct
431: $(\beta_{12}-\beta_{34},~\theta_{23})$ pairs. However, two of these have
432: unrealistically large $\theta_{23}$ values, generally in excess of $100^\circ$,
433: and can therefore be discarded, leaving us with two possibilities for the
434: $(\beta_{12}-\beta_{34},~\theta_{23})$ pair. There are 10 ambiguous lenses,
435: and each one generates two lines in Table~\ref{table2}.
436:
437: The quad data is shown in the bisector plot of Figure~\ref{bisector_data}.
438: The unambiguous arrival time order lenses are represented by bold star symbols.
439: Each one of the 10 ambiguous time order lenses is represented by two smaller
440: star symbols, connected by a thin line.
441:
442: It is apparent from Figure~\ref{bisector_data} that the real quads are not
443: drawn from the quad distribution generated by two-fold symmetric
444: lenses. This is most clearly seen close to the 'apex' of the bisector
445: plot, near $(\beta_{12}-\beta_{34},~\theta_{23})=(90^\circ,90^\circ)$.
446: Here, nearly all star symbols lie outside of the apex outlined by two-fold
447: symmetric lenses. The lower portion of the two-fold symmetric lens bisector
448: plot, roughly below $\theta_{23}\approx 60^\circ$ also appears to be inconsistent
449: with the observed quad population: the latter are distributed more or less
450: evenly in the region below the envelope, whereas the density of small points
451: (from two-fold symmetric lenses) in Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold} increases
452: sharply as one approaches the envelope from below. The final major difference
453: is that there is an apparent dearth of real lenses with $\theta_{23}\sim 50^\circ$,
454: which is not reproduced in the two-fold symmetric lenses.
455:
456: The two solid line histograms in (the two side panels of)
457: Figure~\ref{bisector_data} represent two-fold symmetric lenses, while the
458: histogram delineated with star symbols are the quad data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov
459: (KS) test as applied to the $\theta_{23}$ distribution states
460: that the real quads could not have been drawn from the two-fold symmetric
461: lenses at 95\% confidence level. The main reason for this is the lack of
462: real quads with $\theta_{23}$ around $50^\circ$, exactly where the two-fold
463: symmetric lenses predict most of the quads to lie.
464:
465: The KS test applied to the $(\beta_{12}-\beta_{34})$ distribution is far less
466: conclusive, but note that the KS test is not the optimal test here. In
467: Section~\ref{twofold} we saw that no strictly two-fold symmetric lens can produce
468: $(\beta_{12}-\beta_{34})$ even a degree smaller than $90^\circ$. So the
469: presence of real quads with $(\beta_{12}-\beta_{34})\sim 85^\circ$ rules
470: out these lenses. We conclude that the population of real quads could not have
471: been generated by two-fold symmetric galaxy lenses only. Many lensing galaxies
472: must have more complicated mass distributions.
473:
474: In the next section we explore lenses with twisting isodens and lenses
475: with various degrees of substructure. That substructure may be important is
476: already suggested by HE0230. This lenses' image time ordering is unambiguous.
477: Its coordinates in the bisector plot of Figure~\ref{bisector_data} are at
478: approximately ($116^\circ$,$41^\circ$), quite far above the envelope.
479: According to the arguments of Section~\ref{twofold}, the lens mass distribution
480: must deviate strongly from two-fold symmetric. And if fact, looking
481: at the optical image of the lens (see CASTLeS) it is apparent that in
482: addition to the main lensing galaxy there is a secondary galaxy, located
483: close to image 4. The spectroscopic data of \citep{e06} shows that the main
484: lensing galaxy and the smaller secondary one are most probably members of a
485: galaxy group. A tentative conclusion, to be tested in the next section, is
486: that lens substructure in HE0230 and other lenses is responsible for the
487: disagreement between the bisector plots of two-fold symmetric lenses
488: and the real quad population.
489:
490:
491: \section{Mass distribution: Lenses lacking two-fold symmetry}\label{notwofold}
492:
493: This is a large class of lens models, for example, lenses with twisting
494: density contours, lenses with internal and external shear of different
495: amplitudes and PAs, lenses with substructure, etc. Many real lenses belong in
496: this vast category.
497:
498: As a first example we take a synthetic galaxy lens with highly twisting
499: isodens, the one shown in Figure~\ref{fourpanels}, and also in the
500: lower left inset in Figure~\ref{bisectorRT}. The thick (blue) contour has
501: the surface mass density equal to critical for lensing.
502: The main portion of the same
503: figure is the bisector plot. The single peak of
504: Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold} has now split into two peaks. The upper right inset
505: in a plain line box shows the source plane caustics. In contrast to the
506: caustics of two-fold symmetric lenses, this diamond caustic is not
507: two-fold symmetric, for example, the lines connecting its opposite cusps are not
508: perpendicular to each other.
509:
510: The left and bottom side panels of Figure~\ref{bisectorRT} show, in bold,
511: the $\theta_{23}$ and $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$ histograms for this lens.
512: As in the case of two-fold symmetric lenses, the real quad
513: $\theta_{23}$ distribution does not match that of the synthetic lens with
514: twisting isodens, because the latter peaks, instead of dipping around $50^\circ$.
515:
516: The mass distribution of the Figure~\ref{bisectorRT} lens was not meant
517: to represent any real projected galaxy. Isoden twists in real galaxies result
518: from the projection of intrinsically triaxial galaxies with radially
519: dependent axes ratios. To produce a more realistic isoden twisting we start
520: with a three dimensional mass distribution given by,
521: \begin{equation}
522: \rho(r)=(1+r/r_0)^{-2},\quad\quad\quad {\rm and} \quad
523: ~r^2={x^2\over{a^2}}+{y^2\over{b^2/t}}+{z^2\over{c^2/t}},
524: \end{equation}
525: where $t$, a parameter proportional to $x$, governs the rate of change of
526: axis ratios with radius. We used $a:b:c=1:10:2$. Projecting this triaxial
527: galaxy on to the plane of the
528: sky using Euler angles $\phi=30^\circ$, $\theta=40^\circ$ and $\psi=100^\circ$
529: we get the mass map shown in the lower left inset of Figure~\ref{bisectorX1}.
530: The normalization of the mass distribution is such that the thick (blue) contour
531: has the critical surface mass density for lensing. The difference in the PA of
532: the inner and outer isodens is about $70^\circ$, consistent with what is
533: observed for nearby galaxies \citep{l05}. For our purposes, this synthetic galaxy
534: is a reasonable approximation for a typical projected triaxial galaxy.
535:
536: Sampling the source plane caustic, shown in the upper right inset, using
537: randomly placed sources we get the main panel of Figure~\ref{bisectorX1}.
538: This bisector plot looks similar to the one in Figure~\ref{bisectorRT},
539: only the separation of the peaks around $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}=90^\circ$ is
540: smaller. In general, the spread of the peaks is directly related to the degree
541: of isoden twisting in the lens. Just as in the case of Figure~\ref{bisectorRT},
542: this lens model, and by extension the population of realistic triaxial galaxies
543: cannot reproduce the bisector plot distribution of the real quads, primarily
544: because of the dearth of observed quads with $\theta_{23}$ near $50^\circ$.
545:
546: Before we leave lenses with twisting isodens we note that elliptical lenses
547: with external shear whose axis does not coincide with the PA of the lens
548: produce bisector plots similar to the ones in Figures~\ref{bisectorRT} and
549: ~\ref{bisectorX1}.
550:
551: Next, we turn to lenses with substructure lumps, like secondary or satellite
552: galaxies located close the primary lens galaxy. Our goal here is to consider a few
553: representative substructure types. A systematic exploration of the substructure
554: and what matches observations best will be done in a later paper.
555: Figures~\ref{bisectorR5} and \ref{bisectorR7} show results for lenses with one
556: subclump each. In the first case, Figure~\ref{bisectorR5}, the subclump
557: represents a small perturbation to the lens, so the caustic is only slightly
558: distorted from its two-fold symmetric diamond shape. Because the lens is now
559: more complex, the bisector plot is also more complex. However, the
560: $\theta_{23}$ distribution still does not look like that of the real quads.
561:
562: In the second case, Figure~\ref{bisectorR7}, the subclump
563: is compact and relatively more massive. Here, the lens' $\theta_{23}$
564: distribution (left side panel) looks quantitatively different from all the ones
565: we have considered so far; it is not a single peaked distribution, centered at
566: about $55^\circ$. The main peak has moved to $40^\circ$, and there is an
567: incipient second peak close to $\theta_{23}=90^\circ$. Furthermore, the bisector
568: plot points are beginning to extend far above the envelope, almost reaching
569: HE0230, the 'outlier' at ($116^\circ,~41^\circ$). Perhaps it is not surprising
570: that this lens model (almost) reproduces HE0230; the lens model contains a major
571: secondary perturber, just as the real lens in the HE0230 system.
572:
573: Figure~\ref{bisectorR6} shows the results for a lens with two substructure
574: clumps. The caustic bears no resemblance to a diamond shape, and the bisector
575: plot distribution is very complex. This lens model reproduces, at least
576: qualitatively, major features of the observed quad distribution in the bisector
577: plane. Note that we did not aim to do so; no effort was put
578: into matching the observed distribution in any detail. The dearth of quads at
579: $\theta_{23}\sim 50^\circ$ is present in the synthetic lens, and the distribution
580: of points in the bisector plane extends all the way to HE0230, something that even
581: the lens of Figure~\ref{bisectorR7} could not do.
582:
583: Figures~\ref{bisectorX1}--\ref{bisectorR6} are meant only as qualitative
584: guides to different types of non two-fold symmetric lenses. Based on these
585: we tentatively conclude that the real population of quad lenses requires
586: lumpy substructure; features like twisting isodens and external shear are
587: not enough. However, a thorough exploration of the parameter space of lenses
588: is needed to make robust conclusions. This will be the subject of a later paper.
589:
590:
591: \section{Real doubles}\label{doub}
592:
593: As the source of a quad system moves further away from the lens center
594: images 2 and 3 move closer to each other, and closer to the critical
595: line, and eventually disappear, transforming the lens into a double.
596: As a quad turns into a double, $\theta_{23}=0$ and the remaining images,
597: 1 and 4, become the two images of a double. Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold}
598: tells us that the largest bisector difference in a quad is $120^\circ$.
599: Combining this with eq.~\ref{bisd} tells us that ``newly formed'' doubles
600: should have $(2\pi-\theta_{14})/2=120^\circ$, i.e. their image separation
601: should be at least $\theta=120^\circ$. So, there should be no doubles with
602: image separation $<120^\circ$. If the lens is not two-fold symmetric this
603: limiting angle can change a little.
604:
605: Because doubles have only two images there is no such thing as a bisector
606: plot for doubles, however, one can make a plot equivalent to the bottom
607: panels of Figures~\ref{bisector_twofold}-\ref{bisectorR6}. This is shown in
608: Figure~\ref{doubles}. The thick solid line histograms the angle between the
609: two images of 39 doubles taken from CASTLeS. As expected, the angle between
610: the two images generally stays above $120^\circ$.
611:
612: The other four histograms in Figure~\ref{doubles} represent synthetic lenses.
613: The two thin solid line histograms correspond to galaxy lenses whose
614: projected density profile is proportional to $\exp(-R^{0.25})$.
615: The two dashed histograms represent ``isothermal'' lenses with a small core;
616: outside the core the projected density scales as $R^{-1}$. Each one of these
617: density profiles was given two, constant in radius, ellipticities:
618: $\epsilon=0.1$ (axis ratio, $r=0.82$) and $\epsilon=0.2$ (axis ratio, $r=0.67$).
619: Each one of the two
620: shallower lenses were given the same ellipticities. The ellipticities are
621: labeled in the plot. All four synthetic lenses are two-fold symmetric,
622: but, in contrast to the quads, the distributions of these lenses in the
623: equivalent $\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$ are different.
624:
625: The conclusion we draw is that the distribution of doubles in angles is a
626: more complex function of the galaxy lens parameter that is the case for quads.
627: A more detailed exploration of the doubles distribution in angles, perhaps
628: coupled to the analysis of the quads, will be a subject of another paper.
629:
630:
631: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
632:
633: We introduce a novel way of analyzing the projected mass distribution in galaxy
634: lenses that relies on the angular distribution of images in quads and doubles
635: around the lens center. If the images of a quad are numbered in order of arrival,
636: as $\theta_1$, through $\theta_4$, and $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between images
637: $i$ and $j$ then we define the bisector plane whose axes are linear combinations
638: of $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{14}$. We show empirically that all two-fold symmetric
639: lenses with convex isodensity contours are identical when considered in the
640: bisector plane. We derive an analytical expression for the boundary envelope of
641: the allowed region, for a specific type of lens. These results concerning the
642: invariance of the bisector plane for two-fold symmetric lenses is one of the main
643: findings of the paper. It means, for example, that from the point of view of
644: $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{14}$ of quads, a Pseudo Isothermal Elliptical Mass
645: Distribution is identical to a circular lens, with any density profile plus an
646: external shear.
647:
648: This invariance of the bisector planes of two-fold symmetric lenses can be used
649: to examine the structure of the real galaxy lenses. We conclude that the
650: observed quad population was not produced by two-fold symmetric lenses.
651:
652: We also look at three realistic types of non two-fold symmetric mass distributions,
653: (1) galaxies with twisting isodensity contours, and elliptical galaxies with
654: external shear axis, (2) galaxies with single substructure clumps, and
655: (3) galaxies with two substructure clumps. It appears that only the last type
656: of lenses is able to reproduce the real quad population. This of course does not
657: mean that all galaxies with observed quads are of type (3), but it does
658: suggest that kpc-scale substructure is a common feature in galaxy lenses.
659:
660: To confirm and quantify this conclusion a much more detailed exploration of the
661: parameter space of non two-fold symmetric lenses is needed. Such a study should
662: also include potential sources of bias in the quads. For example,
663: in this paper we have assumed that the real lenses represent a random
664: sampling of the relevant region in the source plane; in other words, all
665: sources have the same weights. This means that we have neglected magnification
666: bias, which makes sources at certain source plane locations more magnified,
667: and hence more likely to enter a magnitude limited sample. The bias is probably
668: negligible for quads, since they are already highly magnified; after all,
669: quads are closely related to Einstein rings. It is unlikely that there is a
670: missing population of faint quads. However, the magnification bias could be an
671: issue for the doubles, and will need to be taken into account in future work.
672:
673: Two final notes are in order. First, the lumpy substructure we refer to here
674: is different from that searched for using image flux anomalies, e.g. \citet{m04}.
675: In the latter case substructure lumps are small, and have to lie close to the
676: line of sight to the images. Our substructure lumps are larger, kpc-sized, more
677: extended and can live anywhere within the central several kpc of the galaxy lens
678: center. Second, the varied and complex lumpy substructure that our analysis implies
679: the lenses should have argues strongly for using non-parametric, or
680: semi-parametric modeling techniques.
681:
682:
683: \acknowledgements
684: This work was supported in part by NSF grant AST 03-07604, and
685: HST-AR-10985.01-A.
686:
687:
688: \appendix
689: \section{Estimating the PA of the lens' major axis}\label{estimatingPA}
690:
691: A given lens system can produce a variety of image configurations, depending
692: on the location of the source. The four panels of Figure~\ref{bisec} show the
693: same lens galaxy with four different source positions. As the source location
694: changes the angular positions of the images, and their angular separation
695: also change considerably. However, the axis containing the bisector rays
696: $\beta_{12}$ and $\beta_{34}$ change very little (i.e. $\beta_{12}$ and
697: $\beta_{34}$ modulo $\pi$). Furthermore, the axes containing $\beta_{12}$ and
698: $\beta_{34}$ coincide with the major and minor axes of the diamond caustic,
699: respectively, to within $\sim 10^\circ$.
700:
701: Figure~\ref{angles5} this observation; it histograms the angle containing
702: the $\beta_{12}$. Because this can be either $\beta_{12}$ or $\beta_{12}+\pi$
703: the full possible range is $\pi$. Each point contributing to the histogram
704: represents a random source position.
705: The thick down-arrow indicates the actual PA of the major axis of the
706: diamond caustic. This is very nearly the same as the mode (peak of the
707: histogram) and the median (central thin arrow) of the $\beta_{12}$
708: distribution. The other two thin arrows mark the 10th and 90th percentiles.
709: The half-width of the $\beta_{12}$
710: distribution is about $7^\circ$, i.e. the axis containing $\beta_{12}$ is
711: $\pm 7^\circ$ from the true PA of the major axis of the diamond caustic.
712: This means that for an unknown position of the source, measuring the axis
713: of $\beta_{12}$ and equating it to the axis containing the cusps of the caustic
714: will typically result in a $7^\circ$ error, or, fractional error of about 4\%.
715:
716: In the absence of strong external shear
717: the direction of the major axis of the diamond caustic is aligned with
718: the major axis of the mass distribution in the ring of the images.
719: Therefore the PA
720: of the axis containing bisector $\beta_{12}$ is aligned with the major axis of
721: the mass distribution at the radius of the images.
722: In ~\citet{sw03} we noted that the direction of the dominant shear or
723: ellipticity in a lens can be determined from the images: The images lie on
724: an eccentric ellipse whose major axis is perpendicular to the major axis of
725: the dominant shear (whether it is internal or external). Here we suggest a
726: more precise measure of the direction of the mass ellipticity, namely,
727: the axis containing $\beta_{12}$.
728:
729:
730: \begin{thebibliography}{}
731: \bibitem[Blackburne et al.(2007)]{bws07}
732: Blackburne, J.A., Wisotzki L., \& Schechter, P.L. 2007, {\tt http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3593}
733: %HE 1113-0641: The Smallest Sep Grav Lens Identified by a Ground-based Optical Telescope
734: \bibitem[Coles(2008)]{coles08}
735: Coles, J. 2008, preprint, {\tt http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3219}
736: %A new estimate of the Hubble time with improved modeling of gravitational lenses
737: \bibitem[Corless et al.(2008)]{cdk08}
738: Corless, V.L., Dobke, B.M., \& King, L.J., {\tt http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0692}
739: %The Hubble constant from galaxy lenses: impacts of triaxiality and model degeneracies
740: \bibitem[Dalal(1998)]{dalal98}
741: Dalal, N. 1998, ApJ, 509, L13
742: %The magnification invariant of simple galaxy lens models.
743: \bibitem[Eigenbrod et al.(2006)]{e06}
744: Eigenbrod, A., Courbin, F., Meylan, G., Vuissoz, C., Magain, P. 2006, A\&A, 451, 759
745: %COSMOGRAIL: III. Redshift of the lensing galaxy in eight gravitationally lensed quasars
746: \bibitem[Falco et al.(1985)]{fgs85}
747: Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V. \& Shapiro, I. I. 1985, ApJ, 289, L1
748: \bibitem[Ferreras, et al.(2005)]{fsw05}
749: Ferreras, I., Saha, P. \& Williams, L.L.R. 2005, ApJ, 623, L5
750: %Stellar and Total Mass in Early-Type Lensing Galaxies
751: \bibitem[Ferreras, et al.(2008)]{fsb08}
752: Ferreras, I., Saha, P. \& Burles, S.
753: %Unveiling dark haloes in lensing galaxies
754: \bibitem[Grillo et al.(2008)]{g08}
755: Grillo, C., Gobat, R., Rosati, P. \& Lombardi, M. 2008, A\&A, 477, L25
756: %Stellar mass estimates in early-type galaxies from lensing+dynamical
757: %and photometric measurements
758: \bibitem[Kassiola \& Kovner(1993)]{kk93}
759: Kassiola, A. \& Kovner, I. 1993, ApJ, 417, 450
760: %Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses
761: \bibitem[Kayo et al.(2007)]{k07}
762: Kayo, I. et al. 2007, {\tt http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2651}
763: %A New Quadruply Lensed Quasar: SDSSJ125107.57+293540.5
764: \bibitem[Keeton, Gaudi \& Petters(2003)]{kgp03}
765: Keeton, C.R., Gaudi, B.S. \& Petters, A.O. 2003, ApJ, 598, 138
766: %Identifying Lenses with Small-Scale Structure. I. Cusp Lenses
767: \bibitem[Kochenek et al.(2008)]{castles}
768: Kochanek, C.S., Falco, E.E., Impey, C., Lehar, J., McLeod, B. \& Rix, H.-W.
769: CASTLeS website, {\tt http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata/}
770: \bibitem[Lauer et al.(2005)]{l05}
771: Lauer, T.R., et al. 2005, ApJ, 129, 2138.
772: %The centers of early-type galaxies with the HST. V. New WFP2 photometry.
773: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1996)]{nfw96}
774: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
775: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1997)]{nfw97}
776: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
777: \bibitem[Mao et al.(2004)]{m04}
778: Mao, S., Jing, Y., Ostriker, J.P., \& Weller, J. 2004, ApJ, 604, L5
779: %Anomalous Flux Ratios in Gravitational Lenses: For or against Cold Dark Matter?
780: \bibitem[Oguri \& Keeton(2004)]{ok04}
781: Oguri, M., \& Keeton, C.R. 2004, ApJ, 610, 663
782: %Effects of Triaxiality on the Statistics of Large-Separation Gravitational Lenses
783: \bibitem[Saha(2000)]{s00}
784: Saha, P. 2000, AJ, 122, 585
785: %Lensing Degeneracies Revisited
786: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(2004)]{sw04}
787: Saha, P. \& Williams, L.L.R. 2003, AJ, 127, 2604
788: %A Portable Modeler of Lensed Quasars
789: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(2003)]{sw03}
790: Saha, P. \& Williams, L.L.R. 2003, AJ, 125, 2769
791: %Qualitative Theory for Lensed QSOs
792: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(2006)]{sw06}
793: Saha, P. \& Williams, L.L.R. 2006, ApJ, 653, 936
794: %Gravitational Lensing Model Degeneracies: Is Steepness All-Important?
795: \bibitem[Witt \& Mao(1997)]{wm97}
796: Witt, H.J. \& Mao, S. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 211
797: %Probing the structure of lensing galaxies with quadruple lenses:
798: %the effect of `external' shear
799: \bibitem[Witt, Mao \& Keeton(2000)]{wmk00}
800: Witt, H.J., Mao, S. \& Keeton, C.R. 2000, ApJ, 544, 98
801: %Analytic time delays and H0 estimates for gravitational lenses
802: \end{thebibliography}
803:
804: \clearpage
805:
806: \begin{figure}
807: \epsscale{0.9}
808: \plotone{f1.eps}
809: \caption{A synthetic galaxy lens.
810: {\em Upper left:} Contours of surface mass density, isodens, of the mass
811: distribution of the lens. The thick (green) contour marks the critical
812: lensing surface mass density. Images are filled (magenta) dots. The
813: contours are spaced linearly. The mass was defined in a circular window.
814: {\em Upper right:} Arrival time surface, with images.
815: {\em Lower left:} The thick (red) and thin (blue) lines are the solutions
816: of the lens equation in the $x$- and $y$-directions, respectively.
817: The intersections are the image positions. Images are labeled according
818: to the arrival time, from 1 to 5. Two bisector rays, $\beta_{12}$ and
819: $\beta_{34}$ are drawn as solid (yellow) lines.
820: {\em Lower right:} Source plane caustics. The straight lines are the bisector
821: rays. The position of the source is marked with an empty (green) circle.}
822: \label{fourpanels}
823: \end{figure}
824:
825: \begin{figure}
826: \epsscale{0.8}
827: \plotone{f2.eps}
828: \caption{The bisector plot for two-fold symmetric lenses as defined in
829: Section~\ref{deftwofold}:
830: the difference in bisector angles, $\beta_{12}\!-\!\beta_{34}$ vs.
831: the angular separation of images 2 and 3, $\theta_{23}$.
832: Each one of the small (red) points corresponds to a different source
833: location. The pattern of these points, including the upper envelope,
834: appears to be the same for all lenses with two-fold symmetry.
835: The solid curve outlining the envelope is given by eqs.~\ref{bisd} and \ref{th23}.
836: The left and bottom side panels show the distribution of $\theta_{23}$
837: and $\beta_{12}\!-\!\beta_{34}$ respectively.
838: Three different lens models are plotted in the side panels; dashed lines
839: represent a galaxy lens with a shallow non-power law density profile
840: and constant ellipticity of 0.14 (axis ratio 0.75); dotted lines
841: represent an ``isothermal'' profile, $\propto R^{-1}$ with a small core,
842: and ellipticity of 0.12 (axis ratio 0.79); solid lines represent a
843: circular mass distribution with two external axes of shear, $60^\circ$
844: apart, and with shear $\gamma=0.1$. }
845: \label{bisector_twofold}
846: \end{figure}
847:
848: \begin{figure}
849: \epsscale{1}
850: \plotone{f3.eps}
851: \caption{The caustic has the usual diamond shape when plotted in the source
852: plane (empty points, and left and lower axes), but when plotted in the plane of
853: ${{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}$ vs. ${{\partial^2f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}$
854: (filled points, and right and upper axes) it has an oval shape discussed in
855: Section~\ref{SISell}. The lensing potential used here is
856: $\phi(r,\theta)=br(1+\gamma\cos 2\theta)$ with $b=1$ and $\gamma=0.1$. The solid
857: line segment represents the point of closest approach in the plane of
858: ${{\partial f}\over{\partial\theta}}$ vs. ${{\partial^2f}\over{\partial\theta^2}}$,
859: while the dashed line is $\vec r_c$, in the source plane.}
860: \label{oval}
861: \end{figure}
862:
863: \begin{figure}
864: \epsscale{1}
865: \plotone{f4.eps}
866: \caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{bisector_twofold}. The main portion of the
867: bisector plot shows the real lenses. Quads with unambiguous time ordering
868: (Table~\ref{table1}) are represented by the bold star symbols. The lenses
869: with ambiguous arrival time ordering (Table~\ref{table2}) are shown with
870: two star symbols each, connected by a thin line. The envelope curve
871: is given by eqs.~\ref{bisd} and \ref{th23}. In the two side panels, the
872: solid line histograms represent two-fold symmetric lenses. The thin
873: line histograms delineated with star symbols represent the data. Each one
874: of the two bisector plane locations of the 'ambiguous' lenses was counted
875: as $\frac{1}{2}$ in the histograms.}
876: \label{bisector_data}
877: \end{figure}
878:
879: \begin{figure}
880: \epsscale{1}
881: \plotone{f5.eps}
882: \caption{Similar to Figures~\ref{bisector_twofold} and \ref{bisector_data}.
883: The isodens of the lens
884: mass distribution are shown in the lower left inset. The thick (blue) contour
885: shows the critical surface mass density for lensing. The contours are spaced
886: logarithmically. (The lens the same as the one shown in Figure~\ref{fourpanels}.)
887: The small (red) points in the main
888: portion of the plot are the quads generated by this lens. The thick (red)
889: line histograms in the two side panels belong to this lens. The thin line
890: histograms are for two-fold symmetric lenses, shown here for comparison.
891: The inset in the upper right shows the source plane caustic.}
892: \label{bisectorRT}
893: \end{figure}
894:
895: \begin{figure}
896: \epsscale{1}
897: \plotone{f6.eps}
898: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{bisectorRT}, only for the lens shown in the
899: lower left. See Section~\ref{notwofold} for details.}
900: \label{bisectorX1}
901: \end{figure}
902:
903: \begin{figure}
904: \epsscale{1}
905: \plotone{f7.eps}
906: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{bisectorRT}, only for the lens shown in the
907: lower left. The secondary galaxy comprises about 0.8\% of the total lensing mass.
908: The surface density profiles of the main and secondary galaxies are, respectively,
909: $\Sigma_m\propto \exp(-R/R_m)^{0.25}$ and $\Sigma_s\propto \exp(-R/R_s)$, and
910: $R_s/R_m=0.7$. See Section~\ref{notwofold} for details.}
911: \label{bisectorR5}
912: \end{figure}
913:
914: \begin{figure}
915: \epsscale{1}
916: \plotone{f8.eps}
917: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{bisectorRT}, only for the lens shown in the
918: lower left. The secondary galaxy comprises about 1.3\% of the total lensing mass.
919: The surface density profiles of the main and secondary galaxies are, respectively,
920: $\Sigma_m\propto \exp(-R/R_m)^{0.25}$ and $\Sigma_s\propto \exp(-R/R_s)$, and
921: $R_s/R_m=0.5$. See Section~\ref{notwofold} for details.}
922: \label{bisectorR7}
923: \end{figure}
924:
925: \begin{figure}
926: \epsscale{1}
927: \plotone{f9.eps}
928: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{bisectorRT}, only for the lens shown in the
929: lower left. The two secondary galaxies together comprises about 0.4\% of the total
930: lensing mass. The surface density profiles of the main and the two secondary
931: galaxies are, respectively, $\Sigma_m\propto \exp(-R/R_m)^{0.25}$ and
932: $\Sigma_s\propto \exp(-R/R_s)$, and $R_s/R_m=0.2$.
933: See Section~\ref{notwofold} for details.}
934: \label{bisectorR6}
935: \end{figure}
936:
937: \begin{figure}
938: \epsscale{1}
939: \plotone{f10.eps}
940: \caption{The distribution of angles between two images of a double. The thick
941: line histogram shows 39 real doubles. The other four histograms represent
942: synthetic lenses. The two thin solid line histograms correspond to galaxy
943: lenses with projected density profiles $\propto \exp(-R^{0.25})$. The two
944: dashed histograms represent ``isothermal'', $\propto R^{-1}$ lenses with a
945: small core. The ellipticities, $e=0.1$ (axis ratio=0.82) and $e=0.2$
946: (axis ratio=0.67) of the lenses are labeled in the plot.
947: See Section~\ref{doub} for details.}
948: \label{doubles}
949: \end{figure}
950:
951: \begin{figure}
952: \epsscale{1}
953: \plotone{f11.eps}
954: \caption{All four panels show the caustics of the same lens as in
955: Figure~\ref{fourpanels}, but four different source positions, empty (green)
956: circle. Solid (magenta) dots numbered 1-5 are the {\em scaled down} positions
957: of images, i.e. angles from the lens center are preserved, but distances are
958: not. The two bisector rays, shown by straight (yellow) lines are labeled in
959: each of the panels.}
960: \label{bisec}
961: \end{figure}
962:
963: \begin{figure}
964: \epsscale{0.9}
965: \plotone{f12.eps}
966: \caption{The histogram of the PA of the axis containing the bisector ray
967: $\beta_{12}$ for the lens shown in Figures~\ref{fourpanels} and \ref{bisec}.
968: Each source position contributes one value to the histogram.
969: The thick arrow indicates the {\it actual} PA of the major axis of the
970: diamond caustic. The actual PA is very nearly the same as the mode and
971: the median (central thin arrow) of the $\beta_{12}$ distribution.
972: The other two thin arrows mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. The plot
973: illustrates that the PA of the axis containing the bisector ray $\beta_{12}$
974: coincides, to within a few percent, with the major axis of the diamond caustic,
975: and hence the major axis of the lens' mass ellipticity in the image circle.
976: See Section~\ref{estimatingPA} for details.}
977: \label{angles5}
978: \end{figure}
979:
980: \clearpage
981:
982:
983: \begin{deluxetable}{rrl}
984: \tablewidth{0pc}
985: \tablecaption{Lens with unambiguous arrival time ordering}
986: \tablehead{
987: \colhead {$\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$} & {$\theta_{23}$} & Lens name }
988: \startdata
989: 103.71 & 19.08 & MG0414+0534 \\
990: 110.59 & 24.13 & PG1115+080 \\
991: 116.09 & 40.85 & HE0230-2130 \\
992: 97.74 & 47.00 & SDSS0924+0219 \\
993: 111.27 & 10.25 & B0712+472 \\
994: 108.25 & 22.46 & HS0810+2554 \\
995: 110.84 & 15.01 & B1933+503 (lobe) \\
996: 104.77 & 29.05 & WFI2026-4536 \\
997: 98.41 & 36.14 & WFI2033-4723 \\
998: 91.74 & 36.11 & B1608+656 \\
999: 95.23 & 29.95 & RXJ0911+0551 \\
1000: 90.76 & 31.25 & SDSSJ125107 \\
1001: 108.89 & 21.79 & B1555+375 \\
1002: 94.61 & 62.47 & SDSS1138+0314 \\
1003: 95.97 & 28.37 & B1422+231 \\
1004: 93.38 & 11.66 & B2045+265 \\
1005: \enddata
1006: \label{table1}
1007: \end{deluxetable}
1008:
1009: \clearpage
1010:
1011: \begin{deluxetable}{rrl}
1012: \tablewidth{0pc}
1013: \tablecaption{Lens with ambiguous arrival time ordering}
1014: \tablehead{
1015: \colhead {$\beta_{12}-\beta_{34}$} & {$\theta_{23}$} & Lens name }
1016: \startdata
1017: 91.10 & 32.34 & RXJ1131-1231 \\
1018: 88.90 & 33.67 & `` \\
1019: 93.39 & 74.05 & HST12531-2914 \\
1020: 86.61 & 75.83 & `` \\
1021: 84.80 & 88.77 & B1933+503 (core) \\
1022: 95.20 & 56.57 & `` \\
1023: 91.39 & 85.29 & SDSS1011+0143 \\
1024: 88.61 & 84.44 & `` \\
1025: 85.73 & 89.28 & H1413+417 \\
1026: 94.27 & 71.07 & `` \\
1027: 95.55 & 75.77 & HST14176+5226 \\
1028: 84.45 & 87.34 & " \\
1029: 96.39 & 70.73 & HST14113+5211 \\
1030: 83.61 & 92.51 & `` \\
1031: 87.24 & 79.19 & Q2237+030 \\
1032: 92.76 & 67.11 & `` \\
1033: 90.09 & 75.88 & HE0435-1223 \\
1034: 89.91 & 79.25 & `` \\
1035: 93.72 & 68.65 & HE1113-0641 \\
1036: 86.28 & 85.76 & `` \\
1037: \enddata
1038: \label{table2}
1039: \end{deluxetable}
1040:
1041: \end{document}
1042: