1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}
2:
3: \usepackage{url}
4: \usepackage[varg]{txfonts}
5: \usepackage{color}
6:
7: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Author definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: %%%%% 1. Journals
12: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ} % Astronomical Journal
13: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A} % Astronomy and Astrophysics
14: \newcommand{\aaps}{A\&AS} % Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series
15: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ} % Astrophysical Journal
16: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJ} % Astrophysical Journal Letters
17: \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS} % Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series
18: \newcommand{\araa}{ARAA} % Annual Reviews in Astronomy and Astrophysics
19: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS} % Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
20: \newcommand{\pasp}{PASP} % Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
21:
22: %%%%% 2. Other commands
23: \DeclareRobustCommand{\ion}[2]{%
24: \textup{#1\,{\mdseries\textsc{#2}}}%
25: }
26:
27: \renewcommand\vec[1]{\bmath{#1}}
28: \newcommand\mat[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
29:
30: \newcommand{\veceta}{\vec{\eta}}
31: \newcommand{\vecalp}{\vec{\alpha}}
32: \newcommand{\noise}{\vec{\epsilon}}
33: \newcommand{\ang}{\varphi}
34: \newcommand{\vc}{v_{\mathrm{c}}}
35: \newcommand{\Rc}{R_{\mathrm{c}}}
36: \newcommand{\model}{\mathcal{M}}
37: \newcommand{\nTIC}{N_{\mathrm{TIC}}}
38: \newcommand{\nE}{N_{E}}
39: \newcommand{\nLz}{N_{L_{z}}}
40: \newcommand{\de}{\mathrm{d}}
41: \newcommand{\vphi}{\langle v_{\varphi} \rangle}
42: \newcommand{\evid}{\mathcal{E}}
43: \newcommand{\ty}{\tilde{y}'}
44: \newcommand{\zl}{z_{\mathrm{l}}}
45: \newcommand{\zs}{z_{\mathrm{s}}}
46: \newcommand{\lamlen}{\lambda_{\mathrm{len}}}
47: \newcommand{\lamx}{\lambda^{\mathrm{dyn}}_{L}}
48: \newcommand{\lamy}{\lambda^{\mathrm{dyn}}_{E}}
49: \newcommand{\cauldron}{\textsc{cauldron}}
50: \newcommand{\fvfps}{\textsc{fvfps}} %\cn
51: \newcommand{\galaxy}{SDSS\,J2321$-$097}
52: \newcommand{\Lz}{L_{z}}
53: \newcommand{\DF}{f(E, \Lz)}
54: \newcommand{\mt}{\tilde{m}}
55: \newcommand{\talp}{\alpha_{0}}
56: \newcommand{\PA}{\vartheta_{\mathrm{PA}}}
57: \newcommand{\Nrealiz}{{128}}
58: \newcommand{\diffEv}{{60}}
59: \newcommand{\slope}{\gamma'}
60: \newcommand{\shear}{\zeta}
61: \newcommand{\angshear}{\vartheta_{\zeta}}
62: \newcommand{\qiso}{q_{\mathrm{iso, 2D}}}
63: \newcommand{\qlight}{q_{\mathrm{\star, 3D}}}
64: % \newcommand{\Reff}{R_{\mathrm{eff}}}
65: \newcommand{\Reff}{R_{\mathrm{e}}}
66: \newcommand{\Leff}{L_{\mathrm{eff}}}
67: \newcommand{\Meff}{M_{\mathrm{eff}}}
68: \newcommand{\REin}{R_{\mathrm{Einst}}}
69: \newcommand{\MEin}{M_{\mathrm{Einst}}}
70: \newcommand{\Jz}{J_{z}}
71: \newcommand{\xy}{$xy$-plane}
72: \newcommand{\yz}{$yz$-plane}
73: \newcommand{\zx}{$zx$-plane}
74: \newcommand{\Rcore}{R_{\mathrm{s}}}
75:
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77:
78: \title{Crash-testing the CAULDRON code for joint lensing and dynamics analysis of early-type galaxies}
79:
80: \author[M. Barnab\`e et al.]{%
81: Matteo Barnab\`e$^{1}$\thanks{E-mail: M.Barnabe@astro.rug.nl},
82: Carlo Nipoti$^{2}$,
83: L\'eon V. E. Koopmans$^{1}$,
84: Simona Vegetti$^{1}$
85: \newauthor
86: and Luca Ciotti$^{2}$\\
87: $^{1}$Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen,
88: PO Box 800, 9700\,AV Groningen, the Netherlands\\
89: $^{2}$Astronomy Department, University of Bologna, via Ranzani 1,
90: 40127 Bologna, Italy}
91:
92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93:
94: \begin{document}
95:
96: \date{Published as MNRAS 393, 1114}
97:
98: \maketitle
99:
100: \label{firstpage}
101:
102: \begin{abstract}
103: We apply the joint lensing and dynamics code for the analysis of
104: early-type galaxies, {``\cauldron''}, to a rotating N-body stellar
105: system with dark matter halo which significantly violates the two
106: major assumptions of the method, i.e. axial symmetry supported by a
107: two-integral distribution function. The goal is to study how
108: {\cauldron} performs in an extreme case, and to determine which
109: galaxy properties can still be robustly recovered. Three data sets,
110: corresponding to orthogonal lines of sight, are generated from the
111: N-body system and analysed with the identical procedure followed in
112: the study of real lens galaxies, adopting an axisymmetric power-law
113: total density distribution. We find that several global properties
114: of the N-body system are recovered with remarkable accuracy, despite
115: the fact that the adopted power-law model is too simple to account
116: for the lack of symmetry of the true density distribution. In
117: particular, the logarithmic slope of the total density distribution
118: is robustly recovered to within less than $10\%$ (with the exception
119: of the ill-constrained very inner regions), the inferred
120: angle-averaged radial profile of the total mass closely follows the
121: true distribution, and the dark matter fraction of the system
122: (inside the effective radius) is correctly determined within $\sim
123: 10\%$ of the total mass. Unless the line of sight direction is
124: almost parallel to the total angular momentum vector of the system,
125: reliably recovered quantities also include the angular momentum, the
126: $V/\sigma$ ratio, and the anisotropy parameter $\delta$. We conclude
127: that the {\cauldron} code can be safely and effectively applied to
128: real early-type lens galaxies, providing reliable information also
129: for systems that depart significantly from the method's assumptions.
130: \end{abstract}
131:
132: \begin{keywords}
133: gravitational lensing ---
134: methods: N-body simulations ---
135: galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD ---
136: galaxies: kinematics and dynamics ---
137: galaxies: structure.
138: \end{keywords}
139:
140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
141:
142: \section{Introduction}
143: \label{sec:introduction}
144:
145: Determining the structure of early-type galaxies and reliably pinning
146: down their dark matter content is a crucial step in order to fully
147: understand the formation and evolution processes of these
148: systems.
149:
150: Within the currently favoured cosmological scenario, the $\Lambda$CDM
151: paradigm, early-type galaxies are thought to be formed via
152: hierarchical merging of lower mass galaxies \citep{Toomre1977,
153: White-Frenk1991, Barnes1992, Cole2000}. While very successful in
154: reproducing many observational features of elliptical galaxies,
155: including complex ones \citep[see e.g.][]{Jesseit2007}, these
156: formation models are still encountering difficulties in explaining the
157: origin of the empirical scaling laws that correlate the global
158: properties of early-type galaxies \citep[see
159: e.g.][]{Robertson2006}. Providing a reliable and detailed description
160: of the mass density distribution, orbital structure and intrinsic
161: properties of early-type galaxies is therefore critical in order to
162: enable stringent tests of galaxy formation models.
163:
164: For this reason, considerable effort has been devoted during the last
165: decades towards the observation and the modelization of nearby
166: early-type galaxies, by means of both stellar dynamics and X-ray
167: studies, finding more or less strong evidence for a dark matter halo
168: component (e.g. \citealt{Fabbiano1989}, \citealt{Mould1990},
169: \citealt*{Saglia1992}, \citealt{Bertin1994}, \citealt{Franx1994},
170: \citealt{Carollo1995}, \citealt{Arnaboldi1996}, \citealt{Rix1997},
171: \citealt{Matsushita1998}, \citealt{Loewenstein1999},
172: \citealt{Gerhard2001}, \citealt{Borriello2003},
173: \citealt{Romanowsky2003}, \citealt{Humphrey2006}, \citealt{Forbes2008}
174: and more recently the SAURON collaboration: see
175: e.g. \citealt{SauronII}, \citealt{SauronIII},
176: \citealt{SauronIV}). Both methods, however, present some difficulties.
177: In the case of stellar dynamics it is believed that some degeneracy
178: can be present between the mass profile of the galaxy and the
179: anisotropy of the stellar velocity dispersion tensor, which can be
180: alleviated when higher order velocity moments are available \citep[see
181: e.g.][]{Gerhard1993} or by using physically motivated distribution
182: functions \citep[see e.g.][for a discussion of this
183: point]{Bertin2000}. X-ray analyses, on the other hand, can seriously
184: overestimate the total mass of the system if the assumption of
185: hydrostatic equilibrium for the hot gas does not hold, especially near
186: the center \citep[see e.g.][]{Pellegrini2006, Ciotti-Pellegrini2008}.
187:
188: A full understanding of the evolution of early-type galaxies cannot be
189: achieved without extending the study also to the mass density profile
190: of objects at higher redshift ($z \ga 0.1$). This, however, has not
191: been attempted until recently, due to observational limitations and to
192: the increased difficulty in extracting detailed kinematic information,
193: which hinders traditional analyses based on stellar dynamics only. An
194: effective solution in order to overcome these issues is constituted by
195: a joint analysis which combines the constraints from stellar dynamics
196: with the information obtained from gravitational lensing, when the
197: early-type galaxy also happens to act as a lens with respect to a
198: background source at higher redshift \citep{Treu-Koopmans2002,
199: Koopmans-Treu2002, Treu-Koopmans2003, Treu-Koopmans2004,
200: vandeVen2008}. \citet{Koopmans2006} have successfully used this
201: combined approach to analyse fifteen early-type lens galaxies (within
202: a redshift range $z = 0.06 - 0.33$) discovered in the Sloan Lens ACS
203: Survey (SLACS, \citealt{Bolton2006}) as well as six systems between $z
204: \sim 0.5$ and $1$ from the Lenses Structure and Dynamics (LSD) Survey,
205: showing that all of the examined systems are well described by a
206: power-law total density distribution very close to $r^{-2}$. The
207: technique for the joint lensing and dynamics analysis has been
208: expanded by \citet[][hereafter BK07]{Barnabe-Koopmans2007} into a
209: general and self-consistent method, completely embedded within the
210: framework of Bayesian statistics, which puts constraints on the total
211: density distribution of the lens galaxy by taking advantage of all the
212: available data, i.e. not only the lensed image and a single stellar
213: velocity dispersion measurement, but also the surface brightness
214: distribution and the 2D kinematic maps (first and second projected
215: velocity moments).
216:
217: Similar to other methods for the determination of the structure and
218: internal dynamics of early-type galaxies, already mentioned above, the
219: joint lensing and dynamics analysis also relies on a certain number of
220: assumptions. For example, the simple and robust approach of
221: \citet{Koopmans2006} treats the gravitational lensing and the stellar
222: dynamics as independent problems. The projected mass distribution of
223: the lens galaxy is modelled as a singular isothermal ellipsoid in order
224: to determine the total mass within the Einstein radius, which is then
225: used as a constraint for the dynamical model, where spherical symmetry
226: and a specific prescription for the stellar orbital anisotropy are
227: assumed. The more sophisticated framework of BK07 is designed to be
228: very general and allows in principle for an arbitrary choice of the
229: total potential. In practice, however, such freedom must balance
230: against technical and computational limitations. Therefore, in order
231: to have a fast and efficient algorithm, the current implementation of
232: the method, the {\cauldron} code\footnote{Combined Algorithm for
233: Unified Lensing and Dynamics \mbox{ReconstructiON}}, is restricted to
234: axisymmetric potentials and two-integral stellar phase-space
235: distribution functions (DFs). Under these hypotheses, it has been
236: shown in BK07 that the method is capable of recovering with
237: considerable accuracy the correct potential parameters and inclination
238: angle, even in the presence of realistic noise.
239:
240: The point above raises the question of whether (and to what extent)
241: the simplifying assumptions can be deemed valid for the astrophysical
242: systems to which such methods are applied. In fact, real galaxies are
243: not idealized objects, and there is no reason to expect them to be
244: exactly axisymmetric (and neither triaxial ellipsoids) or to have two
245: or three integrals of motion. Whereas axial symmetry generally seems
246: to constitute a fairly good approximate description for most
247: early-type galaxies, a more detailed inspection, such as that allowed
248: by the SAURON observations \citep[see][]{SauronIII, SauronVIII},
249: reveals a multitude of features indicating departure from axisymmetry,
250: e.g. the presence of isophotal twist in the surface brightness
251: distribution, minor axis rotation and kinematically decoupled cores.
252:
253: For this reason, in the present paper we apply our algorithm to the
254: end-product of a two-component (stars plus dark matter) N-body
255: simulation of a merger process, i.e. to a system which does not obey
256: any restrictive prescription of symmetry, and therefore violates the
257: assumptions of the method. We aim to study how the {\cauldron}
258: algorithm performs when subjected to this kind of ``crash-test'', and
259: which quantities can be robustly recovered even in such an extreme
260: case. A similar approach has been followed by \citet{Thomas2007}, who
261: have applied their three-integral axisymmetric Schwarzschild code to
262: the study of non axisymmetric N-body merger remnants, although without
263: any gravitational lensing information, and by \citet{Meneghetti2007}
264: in the case of clusters of galaxies.
265:
266: The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:code} we
267: provide an overview of the {\cauldron} algorithm for combined lensing
268: and dynamics analysis. In Section~\ref{sec:simulation} we summarize
269: the properties of the N-body system that we use as lens galaxy. In
270: Section~\ref{sec:observables} we describe how the 2D maps of the
271: simulated data with added realistic noise are obtained from the
272: particle distribution. In Section~\ref{sec:results} we apply the joint
273: lensing and dynamics analysis to the simulated data and we present the
274: results, which are then further discussed in
275: Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}, where also conclusions are drawn.
276:
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CAULDRON CODE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278:
279: \section{The cauldron algorithm for joint lensing and dynamics analysis}
280: \label{sec:code}
281:
282: In this Section we recall the main features of the {\cauldron}
283: algorithm. We refer the reader to BK07 for a fully detailed
284: description of the method.
285:
286: The central tenet of a self-consistent joint analysis is to adopt a
287: total gravitational potential $\Phi$ (or, equivalently, the total
288: density profile $\rho$, from which $\Phi$ is calculated via the
289: Poisson equation), parametrized by a set $\veceta$ of non-linear
290: parameters, and use it simultaneously for both the gravitational
291: lensing and the stellar dynamics modelling of the data. As shown in
292: BK07, these two modelling problems, while different from a physical
293: point of view, can be expressed in an analogous way as a single set of
294: coupled (regularized) linear equations. For any given choice of the
295: non-linear parameters, the equations can be solved (in a direct,
296: non-iterative way) to simultaneously obtain as the best solution for
297: the chosen potential model: (i) the unlensed source surface brightness
298: distributions, and (ii) the weights of the elementary stellar dynamics
299: building blocks \citep[e.g.\ orbits or two-integral components,
300: TICs,][]{Schwarzschild1979, Verolme-deZeeuw2002}. This linear
301: optimization scheme is consistently embedded in the framework of
302: Bayesian statistics. As a consequence, it is possible to objectively
303: assess the probability of each model by means of the evidence merit
304: function and, therefore, to rank different models
305: \citep[see][]{MacKay1992, MacKay1999, MacKay2003}. In this way, by
306: maximizing the evidence, it is possible to recover the set of
307: non-linear parameters $\veceta$ corresponding to the ``best''
308: potential model. Here, in the context of Bayesian statistics, the
309: ``best model'' means the most plausible model in an Occam's razor
310: sense, given the data and the adopted form of the regularization (the
311: optimal level of the regularization is also set by the evidence).
312:
313: Whereas the method is in principle extremely general\footnote{One
314: could adopt for example a completely general pixelized potential for
315: which the best profile is then determined via Bayesian statistics only
316: by the data.}, its current practical implementation, which will be
317: referred to as the {\cauldron} algorithm, is more restricted in order
318: to make it computationally efficient and applies specifically to
319: axisymmetric potentials, $\Phi(R,z)$, and two-integral DFs $f = f(E,
320: \Lz)$ (where $E$ and $\Lz$ are, respectively, the energy and the
321: angular momentum along the rotation axis). Under these assumptions,
322: the dynamical model can be constructed by making use of the fast BK07
323: numerical implementation of the two-integral Schwarzschild method
324: developed by \citet{Cretton1999} and \citet{Verolme-deZeeuw2002},
325: whose building blocks are not stellar orbits (as in the classical
326: Schwarzschild method) but TICs.\footnote{A TIC can be visualized as an
327: elementary toroidal system, completely specified by a particular
328: choice of energy $E$ and axial component of the angular momentum
329: $\Lz$. TICs have simple $1/R$ radial density distributions and
330: analytic unprojected velocity moments, and by superposing them one can
331: build $f(E, \Lz)$ models for arbitrary spheroidal potentials
332: \citep[cf.][]{Cretton1999}: all these characteristics contribute to
333: make TICs particularly valuable and ``inexpensive'' building blocks
334: when compared to orbits.} The weights map of the optimal TIC
335: superposition which best reproduces the observables is yielded as an
336: outcome of the joint analysis.
337:
338: The {\cauldron} algorithm has been successfully tested against the
339: analytic power-law galaxy models of \citet{Evans1994}, which respect
340: by construction the assumptions of axisymmetry and two-integral DF,
341: and afterwards has been employed for the detailed analysis of the
342: SLACS lens galaxy {\galaxy} \citep[][hereafter C08]{Czoske2008}. The
343: latter is a case study which presents a benchmark data set
344: particularly well suited to the needs of {\cauldron},
345: i.e. high-resolution HST/ACS images of the gravitational lensed source
346: and of the surface brightness distribution of the lens galaxy, and 2D
347: maps of the projected velocity moments of the lens galaxy derived from
348: VLT-VIMOS observations. Therefore, the observations of {\galaxy} will
349: be used as a reference in order to generate the simulated observables
350: for the present study (see Section~\ref{sec:observables}).
351:
352: It has been shown by the work of \citet{Koopmans2006} that a simple
353: power-law model for the total density distribution provides a
354: satisfactory description for all of the SLACS lens galaxies examined
355: so far. This has been further confirmed in the case of {\galaxy},
356: where a fully self-consistent analysis was performed. In the present
357: work, we aim to study the simulated galaxies exactly as we would do
358: for real objects, without assuming any \mbox{a priori} knowledge, and
359: therefore we still adopt the same power-law model that has been used
360: in C08. In particular, the total mass density distribution of the
361: galaxy is taken to be a power-law stratified on axisymmetric
362: homoeoids:
363: %
364: \begin{equation}
365: \label{eq:rho}
366: \rho(m) = \frac{\rho_{0}}{m^{\slope}}, \quad 0 < \slope < 3,
367: \end{equation}
368: %
369: where $\rho_{0}$ is a density scale, $\slope$ will be referred to as
370: the (logarithmic) slope of the density profile, and
371: %
372: \begin{equation}
373: \label{eq:m}
374: m^2 = \frac{R^2}{a_0^2} + \frac{z^2}{c_0^2}
375: = \frac{R^2}{a_0^2} + \frac{z^2}{a_0^2 q^2} ,
376: \end{equation}
377: %
378: where $c_0$ and $a_0$ are length-scales and $q\equiv c_0/a_0$.
379:
380: The (inner) gravitational potential associated with a homoeoidal
381: density distribution $\rho(m)$ is given by \citet{Chandrasekhar1969}
382: formula. In our case, for $\slope \ne 2$, one has
383: %
384: \begin{equation}
385: \label{eq:pot}
386: \Phi(R,z) = - \frac{\Phi_{0}}{\slope-2} \int_{0}^{\infty}
387: \frac{{\mt}^{2-\slope}}
388: {(1+\tau) \sqrt{q^2 + \tau}} \,\mathrm{d} \tau\;,
389: \end{equation}
390: %
391: while for $\slope = 2$
392: \begin{equation}
393: \label{eq:pot.2}
394: \Phi(R,z) = \Phi_{0} \int_{0}^{\infty}
395: \frac{\log \mt}
396: {(1+\tau) \sqrt{q^2 + \tau}}\, \mathrm{d} \tau ,
397: \end{equation}
398: %
399: where $\Phi_{0} = 2 \pi G q a_{0}^2 \rho_{0}$ and
400: %
401: \begin{equation}
402: \label{eq:mt}
403: \mt^{2} = \frac{R^2}{a_{0}^2 (1+\tau)} + \frac{z^2}{a_{0}^2 (q^2+\tau)} .
404: \end{equation}
405: %
406:
407: There are three free non-linear parameters in the potential to be
408: determined via the evidence maximization: $\Phi_{0}$ (or equivalently,
409: through equation [B4] of BK07, the lens strength $\talp$), the slope
410: $\slope$ and the axial ratio $q$. When required by the data, it is
411: straightforward to include a core radius $\Rcore$ in the
412: density distribution. Beyond the previously mentioned parameters,
413: there are four additional parameters which determine the geometry of
414: the observed system: the position angle $\PA$, the inclination $i$ and
415: the coordinates of the centre of the lens galaxy with respect to the
416: sky grid. The position angle and the lens center can usually be
417: accurately determined by means of a preliminary exploration and kept
418: fixed afterwards in order to reduce the number of free
419: parameters. Finally, for a proper modelling of the lensed image it can
420: be necessary to include two more parameters (shear strength $\shear$
421: and shear angle $\angshear$) in order to account for external shear.
422:
423: A curvature regularization (as described in \citealt{Suyu2006} and
424: appendix~A of BK07) is adopted for both the gravitational lensing and
425: the stellar dynamics reconstructions. As discussed in BK07, the
426: initial guess values of the hyperparameters (defining the level of the
427: regularization) are chosen to be quite large, since the convergence to
428: the maximum is faster when starting from an overregularized system.
429:
430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SIMULATION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
431:
432: \section{The N-body system}
433: \label{sec:simulation}
434:
435: % ...................................................................
436: \begin{figure}
437: \centering
438: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1.eps}}
439: \caption{Axis ratios $b/a$ (solid curves) and $c/a$ (dotted curves)
440: as functions of radius for the stellar (thin curves) and total
441: (thick curves) density distributions of the N-body system used as
442: lens (we assumed $r_*=1.969$ arcsec).}
443: \label{fig:axisratio}
444: \end{figure}
445: % ...................................................................
446:
447: The model galaxy that we use as lens in the present work is the
448: end-product of a numerical N-body simulation of a dissipationless
449: merging between two equal-mass spherical galaxies embedded in their
450: dark matter halos. The simulation, run with the treecode {\fvfps}
451: (Fortran Version of a Fast Poisson Solver; \citealt*{Londrillo2003};
452: \citealt*{Nipoti2003}), has been already presented and described in a
453: previous paper \citep*{Nipoti2007}, in which it is named E25o. Here we
454: recall the main properties of the end-product of this simulation,
455: while we refer the reader to \citet{Nipoti2007} for a detailed
456: description of the initial conditions.
457:
458: The simulation end-product is a nearly ellipsoidal virialized system,
459: comprising a stellar component and a dark-matter component. The total
460: number of particles is $\sim 1.2 \times 10^6$, and all particles have
461: the same mass. The stellar component has total mass $\sim 2 \, M_*$
462: and angle-averaged half-mass radius $\sim 3.8 \, r_*$, where $M_*$ and
463: $r_*$ are the code length and mass unit. The dark matter component is
464: more massive and more extended than the stellar component, having mass
465: $\sim 10 \, M_*$ and half mass radius $\sim 19.3 \, r_*$. The system
466: has a virial velocity dispersion $\sim 0.55 (G M_*/r_*)^{1/2}$ and
467: non-vanishing total angular momentum ${\bf L}$, corresponding to a
468: value $\lambda \sim 0.07$ in terms of the spin parameter $\lambda
469: \equiv {|E_{\rm tot}|^{1/2} ||{\bf L}|| G^{-1} M_{\rm tot}^{-5/2}}$,
470: where $E_{\rm tot}$ is the total energy, and $M_{\rm tot}\sim 12 \,
471: M_*$ is the total mass. Of course, the model can be rescaled to
472: represent physical systems of any size and mass by choosing proper
473: values of $M_*$ and $r_*$.
474:
475: We define the minor-to-major ($c/a$) and intermediate-to-major ($b/a$)
476: axis ratios of the system at a radius $r$ as the corresponding axis
477: ratios of the inertia ellipsoid of particles within an ellipsoid of
478: angle-averaged radius $r$ \citep*[for details, see][]{Nipoti2002}.
479: We find that the system is triaxial, with direction of the principal
480: axes and axis ratios depending on radius. Figure~\ref{fig:axisratio}
481: shows $b/a$ (solid curve) and $c/a$ (dotted curve) as functions of
482: radius for the stellar (red) and total (black) density distributions
483: within about the half-mass radius of the stellar component (we assumed
484: $r_*=1.969$ arcsec, see Section~\ref{sec:observables}). Both the
485: stellar and the total distribution are strongly triaxial at $r \ga 5$
486: arcsec and mildly triaxial (almost prolate) at $r \la 5$ arcsec. The
487: angle-averaged total density and mass profiles of the model are
488: plotted as solid black curves in Figs.~\ref{fig:prof_dens}
489: and~\ref{fig:prof_mass}, respectively.
490:
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CONSTRUCTION OF THE OBSERVABLES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492:
493: \section{Construction of the observables}
494: \label{sec:observables}
495:
496: In this Section we detail how the simulated observables (or ``mock
497: data'') are generated from the dark matter and stellar particle
498: distribution taken from the virialized end-product of the N-body
499: simulation described in Section~\ref{sec:simulation}.
500:
501: In order to convert the N-body simulation in a realistic data set with
502: plausible physical characteristics (effective radius, redshift of lens
503: galaxy and source, Einstein radius), we use as a reference the actual
504: lens galaxy {\galaxy}, for which both data analysis and joint lensing
505: and dynamics study are presented in C08. Therefore, we will adopt for
506: the noise level and the sampling of the data (i.e. size and binning of
507: the data grids) the corresponding values of {\galaxy}.
508:
509: % ...................................................................
510: \begin{figure}
511: \centering
512: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig2.ps}}
513: \caption{Mock source to be lensed. This is an elliptical Gaussian
514: brightness distribution with $\sigma_{x} = 0.2$ arcsec, $\sigma_{y}
515: = 0.1$ arcsec, position angle $\PA = 115\degr$ and with a slight
516: offset with respect to the lens center.}
517: \label{fig:LENsource}
518: \end{figure}
519: % ...................................................................
520:
521: First, we impose for the simulated galaxy the same redshift of
522: {\galaxy}, i.e. $\zl = 0.0819$. The adopted source
523: (Fig.~\ref{fig:LENsource}) to produce the artificial lensed image is
524: an elliptical Gaussian distribution, slightly offset with respect to
525: the center of mass of the lens galaxy and (again in analogy with
526: {\galaxy}) located at a redshift $\zs = 0.5342$. We then fix the
527: values $r_* = 3$ kpc ($\simeq 1.969$ arcsec at redshift $\zl$) and
528: $M_* = 3 \times 10^{11} \, M_{\odot}$ for, respectively, the length
529: and mass units of the simulated galaxy. This setup produces a galaxy
530: that, when is observed along an arbitrary line of sight, displays
531: realistic values for both the effective radius $\Reff$ ($\sim 5 - 6$
532: arcsec, corresponding to $\sim 8$ kpc at the redshift~$\zl$), and for
533: the Einstein radius $\REin$ ($\sim 2$ arcsec).
534:
535: With this choice of $r_{*}$ and $M_{*}$, the simulated galaxy is a
536: massive system of total mass $3.6 \times 10^{12} \, M_{\sun}$, with a
537: dark halo which extends up to several hundred kpc. In analogy with the
538: data set of {\galaxy}, the spatial coverage of our data is confined to
539: the very inner regions of the galaxy, approximately corresponding to
540: $\Reff/2$. However, a fair amount of information comes also from more
541: distant regions of the system which are seen in projection along the
542: line-of-sight (see discussion in C08).
543:
544: We define for the galaxy an orthogonal reference frame with the origin
545: in the center of mass of the simulated system; the $z$ axis is
546: oriented along the direction of the total angular momentum of the
547: stellar component. Since all the observables are quantities projected
548: in the sky plane, we select three orthogonal lines of sight along which
549: the simulated galaxy is assumed to be observed. In this way, from a
550: single simulation, we obtain three different data sets. The first line
551: of sight is chosen to be approximately oriented along the $z$ axis of
552: the galaxy, and therefore in the following we will refer to the
553: corresponding projection as the {\xy} projection or, for simplicity,
554: the ``face-on'' projection. The remaining two projections are taken
555: along mutually orthogonal axes both perpendicular to the first line of
556: sight and will be called the $yz$- and {\zx} projections or, for
557: brevity sake, the ``edge-on'' projections.
558:
559: The circularized half-light radii for the three projections are found
560: to be $\Reff = 5.227$ arcsec ({\yz}), $5.359$ arcsec ({\zx}) and
561: $6.156$ arcsec ({\xy}).
562:
563: When considering any one of the three projections, we will always
564: indicate as $z'$ the direction of the particular line-of-sight. For
565: each projection, the observables are then calculated following the
566: same procedure:
567:
568: \begin{enumerate}
569:
570: \item \emph{Lensed image.} All the particles (both stellar and dark
571: matter ones), properly weighted by the respective masses, are cast in
572: projection along the line-of-sight and binned in a 2D-grid along the
573: sky plane in order to generate from the total density
574: $\rho_{\mathrm{tot}}$ a projected density map
575: $\Sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}$. The latter, once normalized to the critical
576: density $\Sigma_{\mathrm{cr}} = (c^{2}/4 \pi G) \, (D_{\mathrm{s}}/
577: D_{\mathrm{d}} D_{\mathrm{ds}})$, a quantity which depends only on
578: geometry of the system\footnote{$D_{\mathrm{s}}$, $D_{\mathrm{l}}$ and
579: $D_{\mathrm{ls}}$ are the angular diameter distances from the observer
580: to the source, from the observer to the lens and from the lens to the
581: source, respectively.}, yields the convergence field $\kappa$ on the
582: projection plane. The two-dimensional Poisson equation $\nabla^{2}
583: \psi = 2 \kappa$ relates the convergence to the projected potential
584: $\psi$, whose gradient immediately gives the deflection angle vector
585: field: $\vecalp = \nabla \psi$ \citep*[see e.g.][]{SEF1992}.
586:
587: We make use of a square grid of $3000 \times 3000$ bins for the
588: convergence. The grid size (equivalent to $\sim 40$ arcsec) is such
589: that it contains, in projection, about half of the total number of
590: particles. Including more distant particles does not have any
591: discernible effect on the outcome, except slowing down all the related
592: calculations, since the number of bins must be increased in order to
593: keep the resolution constant. The Poisson equation is then solved via
594: fast Fourier transform, using the freely available package FFTW
595: \citep{FFTW}, and enabling us to obtain, from the convergence
596: (appropriately padded in order to avoid numerical issues with the
597: Fourier transform), the two components of deflection angle
598: $\vecalp$. With these deflection angle maps and the mock source
599: described above, the {\cauldron} code can straightforwardly generate
600: the lensed image, already convolved with the HST/ACS F814W point
601: spread function (PSF) obtained with \textsc{tiny tim}
602: \citep{Krist1993}. The lensed image is constructed (in analogy with
603: the lensing data for {\galaxy}) on $100 \times 100$ grid, with each
604: pixel corresponding to $0.05$ arcsec. Finally, a noise distribution
605: based on the covariance maps of the HST images of {\galaxy} is added
606: to the lensed image map in order to produce the final data set.
607:
608: The obtained lensing data sets for the three projections are shown in
609: the upper right panel of Figs~\ref{fig:YZ-LEN}, \ref{fig:ZX-LEN}
610: and~\ref{fig:XY-LEN}.
611:
612: \item \emph{Surface brightness distribution.} We assume
613: that the stellar mass-to-light ratio is independent of position. The
614: stellar particles are cast along the chosen line-of-sight on a 2D-grid
615: in the sky plane. Such grid is padded and oversampled by a factor of
616: $3$ with respect to the final grid adopted for this observable (see
617: later). This is necessary since, in order to take into account the
618: effect of seeing, we have to convolve this quantity with the PSF (here
619: modelized as a Gaussian distribution of FWHM $= 0.10$ arcsec). The map
620: is then resampled, generating the surface brightness distribution of
621: the galaxy on a $50 \times 50$ grid ($1$ pixel $ = 0.10$ arcsec). Mock
622: noise is then added consistently with the corresponding variance maps
623: of {\galaxy}. These images are to first-order equivalent to HST-NICMOS
624: images.
625:
626: The obtained data sets for the surface brightness distribution of the
627: three projections are shown in the upper left panel of
628: Figs~\ref{fig:YZ-DYN}, \ref{fig:ZX-DYN} and~\ref{fig:XY-DYN}.
629:
630: \item \emph{Line-of-sight projected velocity moments.}
631: The procedure to generate the kinematic maps is similar to the one
632: described above for the surface brightness distribution, including the
633: oversampling and convolution with the Gaussian PSF (but with a broader
634: FWHM $= 0.90$ arcsec, typical for ground-based observations with the
635: VLT).
636:
637: The only difference is that now the velocities projected along the
638: line-of-sight ($v_{z'}$ and $v^{2}_{z'}$ for the two kinematic maps
639: respectively) associated with each particle are summed up on each
640: cell, producing the unweighted maps to be used by {\cauldron}. These
641: maps can be divided by the surface brightness distribution sampled on
642: the same grid (the ``kinematic'' grid) in order to obtain the weighted
643: maps, i.e. the quantities $\langle v_{z'} \rangle$ and $\langle
644: v^{2}_{z'} \rangle$. The projected velocity dispersion is obtained as
645: $\sigma^{2}_{z'} = \langle v^{2}_{z'} \rangle - {\langle v_{z'}
646: \rangle}^{2}$.
647:
648: Due to the challenges of spectroscopic observations of distant
649: early-type galaxies, the kinematic grids of {\galaxy} have only $9
650: \times 9$ elements, with $1$ pixel $ = 0.67$ arcsec (i.e. the
651: VLT-VIMOS IFU fiber size). Since we are mimicking those observation,
652: we adopt the same grid. As usual, the mock noise is added according
653: to what we know from {\galaxy}.
654:
655: The obtained kinematic data sets for the three projections are
656: presented in the upper central (for the line-of-sight velocity) and
657: upper right (for the line-of-sight velocity dispersion) panels of
658: Figs~\ref{fig:YZ-DYN}, \ref{fig:ZX-DYN} and~\ref{fig:XY-DYN}.
659:
660: \end{enumerate}
661:
662: % ---
663: % \subsection{Results}
664: % \label{ssec:ana:results}
665:
666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ANALYSIS AND RESULTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
667:
668: \section{Analysis and results}
669: \label{sec:results}
670:
671: In this section we illustrate the results of the joint lensing and
672: dynamics analysis performed with {\cauldron} on the three data sets
673: generated (as described in Section~\ref{sec:observables}) from
674: orthogonal projections of the simulated galaxy.
675:
676: % ...................................................................
677: \begin{table}
678: \centering
679: \caption{Recovered non-linear parameters of the best power-law
680: models for the three data sets (obtained as projection of the
681: simulated systems on the three orthogonal planes indicated in the
682: columns): inclination $i$ (in degrees), shear strength $\shear$
683: and angle $\angshear$ (in degrees), lens strength $\talp$,
684: logarithmic slope $\slope$ and flattening $q$.}
685: \smallskip
686: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c }
687: \hline
688: \noalign{\smallskip}
689: & {\yz} & {\zx} & {\xy} \\
690: \noalign{\smallskip}
691: \hline
692: \noalign{\smallskip}
693: $i$ & 56.5 & 88.9 & 53.6 \\
694: $\shear$ & $ 5.36 \times 10^{-2} $ & $ 8.71 \times 10^{-2} $ & $ 5.99 \times 10^{-2} $ \\
695: $\angshear$ & $ -24.6 $ & 32.4 & 27.8 \\
696: $\talp$ & 0.652 & 0.642 & 0.520 \\
697: $\slope$ & 2.214 & 2.078 & 2.234 \\
698: $q$ & $ 1.000 $ & $ 1.124 $ & 0.864 \\
699: \noalign{\smallskip}
700: \hline
701: \end{tabular}
702: \label{tab:eta}
703: \end{table}
704: % ...................................................................
705:
706: % ---------------
707:
708: \subsection{Recovered structure}
709: \label{ssec:structure}
710:
711: As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:code}, we have adopted an
712: axisymmetric power-law profile as a model for the total density
713: distribution. The recovered non-linear parameters of the best models
714: for the three data sets are reported in Table~\ref{tab:eta}. The
715: non-linear parameters listed in the Table are the inclination $i$ (in
716: degrees), the shear strength $\shear$ and angle $\angshear$ (in
717: degrees), the lens strength $\talp$, the logarithmic slope $\slope$
718: and the flattening $q$ (a $q$ larger than $1$ denotes a prolate
719: axisymmetric shape). In order to speed up the optimization routine,
720: the best values for the lens center and galaxy position angle were
721: determined via preliminary runs, and afterwards were kept fixed (this
722: procedure is commonly used in this kind of analysis: see
723: e.g. C08). The core radius $\Rcore$ was initially set free as an
724: additional non-linear parameter, but, in order to make the
725: optimization faster, it was later fixed to a negligibly small value
726: after verifying that the introduction of this new parameter did not
727: lead to an increase of the value of the evidence merit function (and
728: therefore in a Bayesian sense the additional complexity was not
729: justified). The optimization routine yields also the best value for
730: the three hyperparameters which set the ideal level of regularization.
731:
732: The reconstructed observables for gravitational lensing and stellar
733: dynamics that correspond to the best model for the {\yz} data set are
734: presented and compared to the data in Figs~\ref{fig:YZ-LEN}
735: and~\ref{fig:YZ-DYN}, respectively. Analogously,
736: Figs.~\ref{fig:ZX-LEN}-\ref{fig:ZX-DYN}
737: and~\ref{fig:XY-LEN}-\ref{fig:XY-DYN} show the same quantities for the
738: {\zx} and {\xy} (i.e. face-on projection) data sets.
739:
740: It is apparent that the residuals of the reconstructed lensed image
741: are fairly large, in particular in the cases of the $zx$- and {\xy}
742: projections, where moreover the reconstructed source appears patchy
743: and unrealistically pixelized, despite the regularization. The same
744: effects, while less pronounced, are discernible also in the case of
745: the {\yz} projection, where the reconstruction was most
746: successful. This is a clear indication that the underlying total
747: density distribution is actually more complex or inhomogeneous than
748: the simple power-law profile that we are using as a model (see
749: Section~\ref{ssec:source} for a more extended discussion) and that the
750: model is unable to de-lens all lensed images simultaneously into a
751: single well-defined source.
752:
753: The surface brightness distribution and the kinematics appear to be
754: reasonably well reconstructed. However, in the inner region the
755: reconstructed velocity dispersion is more peaked than in the data,
756: with the possible exception of the {\zx} data set (the one for which
757: the recovered slope is the most shallow,
758: cf. Table~\ref{tab:eta}). Together with the faint central image
759: visible in all the lensing data sets, this indicates that the total
760: density distribution of the system is shallower in the central regions
761: than in the outer regions, as confirmed by the direct analysis of the
762: angle-averaged density profile of the object (see
763: Fig.~\ref{fig:prof_dens}).
764:
765: % ...................................................................
766: \begin{figure}
767: \centering
768: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig3.ps}}
769: \caption{Angle-averaged total density profile of the simulated system
770: (black line) compared with the density profiles of the recovered
771: best models (see Table~\ref{tab:eta}) for the three orthogonal
772: projections data sets. The {\yz} model (red line) has a
773: logarithmic density slope $\slope_{yz} = 2.214$, the {\zx}
774: model (blue line) has a slope $\slope_{zx} = 2.078$, and the
775: {\xy} model (green line) has a slope $\slope_{xy} = 2.234$.}
776: \label{fig:prof_dens}
777: \end{figure}
778: % ...................................................................
779: % ...................................................................
780: \begin{figure}
781: \centering
782: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig4.ps}}
783: \caption{Angle-averaged total mass distribution of the simulated
784: system (black line) compared with the total mass profiles of the
785: recovered best models (see Table~\ref{tab:eta}) for the three
786: orthogonal projections data sets: {\yz} model (red line),
787: {\zx} model (blue line) and {\xy} model (green line).}
788: \label{fig:prof_mass}
789: \end{figure}
790: % ...................................................................
791:
792: Despite several indications from the reconstructed observables that
793: the adopted power-law model is probably oversimplified for the data at
794: hand, we find that such a model still provides a satisfactory
795: description of the essential features of the system, and various
796: important physical quantities are robustly recovered.
797:
798: The angle-averaged total density profiles corresponding to the best
799: models of Table~\ref{tab:eta} for the three data sets are plotted in
800: Fig.~\ref{fig:prof_dens} and compared with the true profile of the
801: simulated system. The density slope, which is very close to $\slope
802: \sim 2.2$, is quite accurately recovered beyond the inner $\sim 0.5$
803: arcsec. The {\zx} model presents a slightly shallower profile ($\slope
804: \sim 2.1$), although the discrepancy is small. The {\xy} model, which
805: in general provides the worst recovery of the true quantities (as it
806: will be further discussed in this Section), has a density
807: normalization which is lower than the real one, but manages to catch
808: almost perfectly the correct density slope. In the inner half
809: arcsecond, the density profile of the simulated galaxies becomes
810: shallower ($\rho \sim 1/r$), a feature that the power-law model is
811: obviously unable to capture, although, as already discussed, we have
812: other signals (e.g. from the velocity dispersion) that the model
813: breaks down in that approximate region, and that this is due to
814: the presence of a break in the density profile. Slightly more
815: sophisticated models, such as a double power-law or a single power-law
816: with an added break radius, have also been explored, but the
817: reconstruction of the observables does not improve significantly and
818: the additional complexity is therefore penalized by the Bayesian
819: evidence in favour of the single power-law. In light of what we know
820: from the direct examination of the simulated object, the reason for
821: this failure is that the transition from the $\rho \sim 1/r^2$ region
822: to the $\rho \sim 1/r$ region is too abrupt to be adequately
823: reproduced by these models, and therefore they do not perform
824: significantly better than the simpler single power-law.
825:
826: Whereas the density slope is a substantially unharmed survivor of the
827: crash test, the recovered flattening and inclination angle are not
828: reliable parameters in case the systems deviate too drastically from
829: the model's assumptions. One should note, however, that these
830: quantities are only properly defined for an axisymmetric object, and
831: therefore do not have a straightforward interpretation when directly
832: applied to a simulated system which is approximately triaxial and
833: whose axis ratios also change as a function of radius (as seen in
834: Section~\ref{sec:simulation}). The best models for the {\yz} and {\xy}
835: data set both give an inclination close to $\sim 55\degr$, so there is
836: no sign that the latter is interpreted as a face-on system. The {\zx}
837: best model, on the other hand, turns out quite correctly to be an
838: almost edge-on system ($i \simeq 90\degr$). As for the flattening, it
839: appears that the axisymmetric model, faced with the insurmountable
840: problem of triaxiality, tends to adopt a density profile close to
841: spherical (almost exactly spherical in the case of the {\yz} data set,
842: slightly prolate or oblate in the cases of the $zx$- and {\xy} data
843: sets, respectively).
844:
845: % ---------------
846:
847: % ...................................................................
848: \begin{table}
849: \centering
850: \caption{Dark matter fraction within a sphere of radius $r = \Reff$
851: (first column) and within the line-of-sight oriented cylinder of
852: radius $R = \Reff$ (second column) for the three best models. The
853: corresponding quantities for the true system within the same radius
854: are also presented.}
855: \smallskip
856: \begin{tabular}{ c c c }
857: \hline
858: \noalign{\smallskip}
859: & DM fraction & DM fraction \\
860: & (sphere) & (cylinder) \\
861: \noalign{\smallskip}
862: \hline
863: \noalign{\smallskip}
864: {\yz} model ($\Reff = 5\farcs 23$) & 0.20 & 0.29 \\
865: true system (at the same radius) & 0.16 & 0.33 \\
866: \noalign{\smallskip}
867: \hline
868: \noalign{\smallskip}
869: {\zx} model ($\Reff = 5\farcs 36$) & 0.24 & 0.37 \\
870: true system (at the same radius) & 0.16 & 0.34 \\
871: \noalign{\smallskip}
872: \hline
873: \noalign{\smallskip}
874: {\xy} model ($\Reff = 6\farcs 16$) & 0.19 & 0.25 \\
875: true system (at the same radius) & 0.20 & 0.35 \\
876: \noalign{\smallskip}
877: \hline
878: \end{tabular}
879: \label{tab:DM}
880: \end{table}
881: % ...................................................................
882:
883: \subsection{Total mass distribution and dark matter fraction}
884: \label{ssec:mass}
885:
886: % ...................................................................
887: \begin{figure}
888: \centering
889: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig5a.ps}}
890: \caption{Best model lens image reconstruction for the {\yz}
891: data set (the generation of the simulated observables is detailed
892: in Section~\ref{sec:simulation}). From the top left-hand to bottom
893: right-hand panel: reconstructed source model; simulated noisy data
894: showing the lensed image; lensed image reconstruction; residuals.}
895: \label{fig:YZ-LEN}
896: \end{figure}
897: % ...................................................................
898: \begin{figure}
899: \centering
900: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig5b.ps}}
901: \caption{Best dynamical model for the {\yz} data set. First
902: row: simulated noisy surface brightness distribution, projected
903: line-of-sight velocity and line-of-sight velocity
904: dispersion. Second row: corresponding reconstructed quantities for
905: the best model. Third row: residuals.}
906: \label{fig:YZ-DYN}
907: \end{figure}
908: % ...................................................................
909:
910: Closely connected to the density profile is the (angle-averaged) total
911: mass distribution, plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:prof_mass} for the three
912: best models and the true system. We find that in the case of the
913: edge-on projections models ($yz$- and {\zx}s) the mass profile is very
914: well reproduced within a few percent. The mass profile of the face-on
915: projection model is instead underestimated of about $25$ percent
916: within a sphere of radius $\sim 5$ arcsec: this is a consequence of
917: the too low density normalization which is recovered for this model,
918: as previously seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:prof_dens}. Because of the tight
919: constraints imposed by the lensing, the total projected mass enclosed
920: within $\REin$ is within a few percent from the correct value for all
921: three models.
922:
923: A quantity of extreme interest in the study of early-type galaxies is
924: the dark matter fraction of these objects. It is therefore important
925: to be able to test how reliable is the {\cauldron} method in
926: estimating this parameter also for systems that defy its assumptions
927: of axisymmetry and two-integral DF. Since the method only provides a
928: total density distribution, however, it is necessary to make further
929: assumptions to be able to constrain the stellar density profile. In
930: order to limit as much as possible the arbitrariness of such
931: assumptions we adopt, as in the analysis of real galaxies, the
932: so-called ``maximum bulge'' approach (cf. C08). This consists in
933: maximizing the contribution of the luminous component (which is
934: obtained as an output of the best model reconstruction),
935: i.e. maximally rescaling the stellar density distribution without
936: exceeding the total density distribution, assuming that the stellar
937: mass-to-light ratio is independent of position. This method gives a
938: lower limit for the dark matter fraction, provided that the model's
939: assumptions hold true.
940:
941: % ...................................................................
942: \begin{figure}
943: \centering
944: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig6a.ps}}
945: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:YZ-LEN}, but relative to the
946: {\zx} data set.}
947: \label{fig:ZX-LEN}
948: \end{figure}
949: % ...................................................................
950: \begin{figure}
951: \centering
952: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig6b.ps}}
953: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:YZ-DYN}, but relative to the
954: {\zx} data set.}
955: \label{fig:ZX-DYN}
956: \end{figure}
957: % ...................................................................
958:
959: % ...................................................................
960: \begin{figure}
961: \centering
962: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig7a.ps}}
963: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:YZ-LEN}, but relative to the
964: {\xy} data set.}
965: \label{fig:XY-LEN}
966: \end{figure}
967: % ...................................................................
968: \begin{figure}
969: \centering
970: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig7b.ps}}
971: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:YZ-DYN}, but relative to the
972: {\xy} data set.}
973: \label{fig:XY-DYN}
974: \end{figure}
975: % ...................................................................
976:
977: Under the maximum bulge hypothesis, we study both the volume mass
978: ratio (i.e. the dark matter fraction within a sphere of radius taken
979: to be equal to the effective radius of the considered data set) and
980: the projected mass ratio (i.e. the dark matter fraction within a
981: cylinder oriented along the line-of-sight with a radius equal to
982: $\Reff$). The results of this analysis for the three best models are
983: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:DM}, which also shows the corresponding
984: quantities for the true system (at the appropriate radii). We find
985: that the dark matter fraction is remarkably well recovered for all
986: three models, and it is within $10 \%$ (in total mass) of the correct
987: value for both the volume and the projected mass ratio. The largest
988: discrepancy ($10 \%$ within the cylinder) is found for the face-on
989: model, as usual the most problematic one, while the {\yz} model (which
990: is the one that best reproduces the observables, in particular the
991: lensed image) manages to accurately recover the dark matter fraction
992: within $\la 5 \%$ of the correct value.
993:
994: It must be noted that we assumed a position-independent stellar
995: mass-to-light ratio both in constructing the surface-brightness map
996: from the N-body system and in estimating the maximum stellar mass for
997: the best-fit models. In real galaxies the stellar mass-to-light ratio
998: might depend on position, though the effect of a non-uniform stellar
999: mass-to-light ratio is not expected to be strong based on observed
1000: colour gradients \citep[e.g.][]{Kronawitter2000}.
1001:
1002: % ---------------
1003:
1004: \subsection{Reconstructed source}
1005: \label{ssec:source}
1006:
1007: As it can be immediately seen by an examination of
1008: Figs~\ref{fig:YZ-LEN}, \ref{fig:ZX-LEN} and~\ref{fig:XY-LEN}, the
1009: lensed image reconstruction for the three models is far from the noise
1010: level, and the reconstructed source -- with the partial exception of
1011: the {\yz} model -- has little in common with the simulated source
1012: (Fig.~\ref{fig:LENsource}) used to generate the lensed images. Even
1013: assuming that one has no information about the actual source (as it
1014: would be the case for real data sets) it is evident that the
1015: reconstructed sources are unrealistically irregular and pixelized. We
1016: remark that this is a consequence of having an underlying density
1017: distribution for the system which is more complex and less homogeneous
1018: than the assumed power-law density model. As the present test neatly
1019: displays, gravitational lensing is very sensitive to the features of
1020: the potential within the Einstein radius, and even small
1021: inhomogeneities and departures from the assumed model will generally
1022: have a detectable effect\footnote{As a consequence, gravitational
1023: lensing can actually be used to quantify the level of mass
1024: substructure in massive galaxies, through their effect on
1025: highly-magnified arcs and Einstein rings \citep[see e.g.][hereafter
1026: VK08]{Vegetti2008}.}. Significantly, such large residuals have never
1027: been encountered so far when analysing real lens galaxies, with all
1028: the examined SLACS lenses being accurately reconstructed by means of
1029: single power-law models, possibly with the inclusion of external shear
1030: (\citealt{Koopmans2006}, \citealt{Czoske2008}, Barnab\`e et al., in
1031: preparation). This strengthens the statement that the simulated system
1032: under analysis, while not being utterly unrealistic, constitutes an
1033: extreme case and is therefore well suited for the ``crash test'' of
1034: the code that we aim to conduct. It should be emphasized that, if
1035: these were real data sets, from the mere visual inspection of the
1036: results of the best lensed image reconstruction provided by
1037: {\cauldron}, we would already be able to conclude that we are dealing
1038: with a unusually complex galaxy, which would surely deserve a more
1039: sophisticated modelling once the preliminary study is completed.
1040:
1041: In order to better understand the limitations of the axisymmetric
1042: approach and the cause for the large residuals in the
1043: reconstructed image, the same data set (i.e. {\yz} projection) has
1044: been analysed by means of the adaptive Bayesian strong lensing code of
1045: VK08, which can account for small corrections in the projected
1046: potential, and therefore for departures from symmetry and for
1047: the presence of clumpiness and substructure in the convergence, but
1048: which does not include any constraint from the dynamics. Starting from
1049: the best model axisymmetric potential of Table~\ref{tab:eta} and then
1050: introducing small potential corrections and letting the parameters
1051: vary, it is found that the lensed image can be reconstructed down to
1052: the noise level, and the source is quite accurately recovered, by
1053: making use of an adaptive grid, as shown in
1054: Fig.~\ref{fig:adaptive}. As it is visible in the convergence map of
1055: Fig.~\ref{fig:adaptive} (bottom-right panel), there are two main
1056: overdensities (with respect to the best model density profile),
1057: located on opposite sides with respect to the center. These
1058: overdensities are at least an order of magnitude too weak to be
1059: indicative of the presence of a genuine localized massive
1060: dishomogeneity in the simulated system (cf. VK08 and in particular
1061: their Figs.~8 and~9), which is rather smooth and does not present
1062: massive substructures. These features in the convergence map are
1063: therefore due, rather than to clumpiness, to the deviation of the true
1064: (projected) mass distribution from the simple assumption of elliptical
1065: shape.
1066:
1067: % ...................................................................
1068: \begin{figure*}
1069: \centering
1070: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{fig8.ps}}
1071: \caption{Result of the linear source and potential reconstruction
1072: for the {\yz} dataset, as obtained by applying the adaptive
1073: Bayesian lensing code of VK08. The first row shows,
1074: from left to right, the lensed image data set, the reconstructed
1075: image and best source. The second row presents, from left to right,
1076: the image residuals, the total potential correction and the
1077: substructure convergence.}
1078: \label{fig:adaptive}
1079: \end{figure*}
1080: % ...................................................................
1081:
1082: % ---------------
1083:
1084: \subsection{Recovered dynamical quantities}
1085: \label{ssec:dynamics}
1086:
1087: A reliable knowledge of the dynamical structure of early-type galaxies
1088: would constitute a valuable asset for all the formation and evolution
1089: models. Therefore, in this Section we investigate how accurately the
1090: axisymmetric {\cauldron} code can recover the essential dynamical
1091: characteristics of the simulated system. We expect comparable
1092: performances (and typically better ones) when the code is applied to
1093: real galaxies.
1094:
1095: Since the dynamical modelling block of {\cauldron} (see
1096: Section~\ref{sec:code}) does not employ an actual orbit-superposition
1097: method, a detailed analysis of the orbital families of the galaxy is
1098: beyond reach. However, we are able to study fundamental global
1099: dynamical quantities such as angular momentum, $V/\sigma$ and
1100: anisotropy parameters. The results of this study for the three models,
1101: compared with the true quantities calculated directly from the
1102: simulated system, are listed in Table~\ref{tab:dyn}.
1103:
1104: The total angular momentum along the principal rotation axis, $\Lz$,
1105: has been calculated for the three models and the simulated system
1106: within the same cylindrical region of radius $R = 5 \arcsec $ and
1107: height $z = 5 \arcsec$ (this is a square box in the meridional plane,
1108: of linear size comparable to the effective radius; all the dynamical
1109: quantities have been calculated within this region). As seen in
1110: Table~\ref{tab:dyn}, $\Lz$ is accurately recovered for the two edge-on
1111: projection models, with discrepancies of less than $10 \%$ from the
1112: correct value, despite the fact that the line-of-sight velocity maps
1113: are considerably noisy\footnote{The mock galaxy displays also some
1114: rotation along the orthogonal axes, although the angular momentum
1115: along these directions is only of order \mbox{$\la 1 \%$} of
1116: $\Lz$. Because of its intrinsic properties, the model is not capable
1117: of reproducing this kind of rotation (in other words, $L_{x}$ and
1118: $L_{y}$ are always $0$ by construction).}. On the contrary, in the
1119: case of the face-on projection model, where little or no information
1120: about the rotation is available from the kinematic data (see
1121: top-middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:XY-DYN}: the map displays
1122: essentially no rotation) the recovered $\Lz$ is obviously incorrect,
1123: being of the opposite sign and, more importantly, quite close to
1124: zero. This clearly highlights the great importance of the information
1125: enclosed in the kinematic maps, despite the fact that such maps are
1126: usually much more noisy and considerably more coarsely sampled, in
1127: terms of number of pixels, than the surface brightness or lensed image
1128: maps. On the opposite side, this result also cautions us in being
1129: aware of the possible shortfalls of the method when studying galaxies
1130: whose data show no discernible rotation.
1131:
1132: % ...................................................................
1133: \begin{table}
1134: \centering
1135: \caption{Recovered dynamical quantities for the three best models
1136: (last three columns) compared with the true values directly
1137: calculated from the N-body system (second column). The dynamical
1138: quantities are $\Lz$ (in units of kpc km s$^{-1}$), the $V/\sigma$
1139: ratio, and the three global anisotropy parameters $\delta$,
1140: $\beta$ and $\gamma$. See text for a more exhaustive description.}
1141: \smallskip
1142: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c }
1143: \hline
1144: \noalign{\smallskip}
1145: & true value & {\yz} & {\zx} & {\xy} \\
1146: \noalign{\smallskip}
1147: \hline
1148: \noalign{\smallskip}
1149: $\Lz$ & -143.1 & -142.6 & -143.3 & 16.8 \\
1150: $V/\sigma$ & 0.170 & 0.152 & 0.214 & 0.130 \\
1151: $\beta$ & 0.301 & $\equiv 0$ & $\equiv 0$ & $\equiv 0$ \\
1152: $\gamma$ & 0.208 & -0.470 & -0.645 & -0.986 \\
1153: $\delta$ & 0.219 & 0.190 & 0.244 & 0.330 \\
1154: \noalign{\smallskip}
1155: \hline
1156: \end{tabular}
1157: \label{tab:dyn}
1158: \end{table}
1159: % ...................................................................
1160:
1161: The global quantity $V/\sigma$ \citep[see][]{Binney2005,SauronX} is an
1162: indicator of the importance of rotation with respect to the random
1163: motion. We find here that a value not too far from the correct one is
1164: recovered for the edge-on projection models, although the
1165: discrepancies are larger than in the case of the angular momentum (the
1166: difference is of order $10 \%$ for the {\yz} model and $25 \%$ for the
1167: {\zx} model), and even the face-on projection model, while
1168: underestimating the importance of rotation of about $25 \%$, gives a
1169: quite reasonable result.
1170:
1171: The anisotropy distribution is another very relevant dynamical
1172: quantity, often considered an important indicator of the galaxy
1173: formation processes. Since the simulated system is severely
1174: non-spherical, however, the anisotropy profile cannot be reliably
1175: described and compared to the models by making use of a simple radial
1176: parameter such as the commonly used $\beta_{r}(r) \equiv 1 -
1177: \sigma^{2}_{\rm tan}(r) / \sigma^{2}_{\rm rad}(r)$, where $\sigma_{\rm
1178: tan}$ and $\sigma_{\rm rad}$ are the tangential and radial velocity
1179: dispersioni, respectively. Instead, a more robust and consistent
1180: indicator is provided by the three global anisotropy parameters
1181: defined in \citet{SauronX} and \citet{BT08}:
1182: %
1183: \begin{equation}
1184: \label{eq:AP:beta}
1185: \beta \equiv 1 - \frac{\Pi_{zz}}{\Pi_{RR}},
1186: \end{equation}
1187: %
1188: \begin{equation}
1189: \label{eq:AP:gamma}
1190: \gamma \equiv 1 - \frac{\Pi_{\varphi\varphi}}{\Pi_{RR}},
1191: \end{equation}
1192: %
1193: \begin{equation}
1194: \label{eq:AP:delta}
1195: \delta \equiv 1 - \frac{2 \Pi_{zz}}{\Pi_{RR} + \Pi_{\varphi\varphi}} =
1196: \frac{2 \beta - \gamma}{2 - \gamma},
1197: \end{equation}
1198: %
1199: where
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \label{eq:AP:PI}
1202: \Pi_{kk} = \int \rho \sigma^{2}_{k}\, \mathrm{d}^{3}x
1203: % = \sum_{n=1}^{N} M_{n} \sigma^{2}_{k,n},
1204: \end{equation}
1205: %
1206: and $\sigma_{k}$ denotes the velocity dispersion along the direction
1207: $k$ at any given location in the galaxy. For a two-integral DF
1208: $\sigma_{R}^{2} = \sigma_{z}^{2}$ everywhere, which implies $\Pi_{RR}
1209: = \Pi_{zz}$, so that the value of $\beta$ is always zero. Therefore,
1210: due to the simplifying assumptions on the distribution function, our
1211: method will generally fail in recovering the true $\beta$ value when
1212: analysing a more complex system. We clearly observe this in the
1213: present study, where $\beta = 0.301$ for the simulated system (see
1214: again Table~\ref{tab:dyn}). Not too unexpectedly, since the global
1215: anisotropy parameters are related, this has disrupting consequences
1216: also on the recovered $\gamma$, which is always negative,
1217: indicating mild tangential anisotropy in the models, while the mildly
1218: radially anisotropic N-body system has a positive $\gamma$. This
1219: discrepancy is confirmed by inspecting the radial behaviour of a
1220: kinetic energy proxy for $\beta_{r}(r)$, i.e. the quantity
1221: $\beta_{K}(r) \equiv 1 - K_{\rm tan}(r) / K_{\rm rad}(r)$, where $
1222: K_{\rm tan}$ and $K_{\rm rad}$ are, respectively, the
1223: spherically-averaged tangential and radial components of the kinetic
1224: energy. Interestingly, however, the global parameter $\delta$ is
1225: remarkably robust, particularly for the two edge-on projection models,
1226: with a discrepancy of order $\sim 15 \%$ from the true value.
1227:
1228: % ---------------
1229:
1230: % ...................................................................
1231: \begin{figure*}
1232: \centering
1233: \resizebox{1.00\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{fig9.ps}}
1234: \caption{Posterior probability distribution for the non-linear
1235: parameters of the best power-law model for the {\yz} projection data
1236: set, as obtained from the Nested Sampling evidence
1237: exploration. The width of the posterior probability
1238: distribution has been calculated for each of the parameters, by
1239: considering the region around the peak which contains 99\% of the
1240: probability, yielding: $i = [57.81, 58.45]$, $\shear = [0.05273,
1241: 0.05455]$, $\angshear = [-26.55, -25.47]$, $\talp = [0.6512,
1242: 0.6550]$, $\slope = [2.231, 2.244]$, $q = [1.008, 1.023]$.}
1243: \label{fig:YZ-NSerr}
1244: \end{figure*}
1245: % ...................................................................
1246:
1247: \subsection{Uncertainties}
1248: \label{ssec:errors}
1249:
1250: In this section we present the statistical uncertainties on the model
1251: parameters calculated by making use of the identical procedure which
1252: is used when dealing with real systems.
1253:
1254: Bayesian statistics represents a powerful tool for data analysis,
1255: model comparison and model parameters constraining. A major
1256: improvement in this direction has been made with the introduction of
1257: the Nested Sampling technique developed by \citet{Skilling2004} (see
1258: also \citealt{SS2006} and e.g. \citealt*{Mukherjee2006} for an
1259: astrophysical application). This method provides a computationally
1260: efficient way to calculate the total marginalised evidence, which is
1261: the key quantity for model comparison, and in addition yields other
1262: valuable information, such as the posterior probability density
1263: distributions, the mean values and the standard deviations for each of
1264: the model parameters. The Nested Sampling technique has been applied
1265: in the context of lensing and model-comparison by VK08.
1266:
1267: Bayesian statistics requires to formalize one's assumptions by
1268: defining priors $P$ on the parameters $\eta_{\mathrm{i}}$ \citep[see
1269: e.g.][]{MacKay1992}. We choose the priors to be uniform in a symmetric
1270: interval of size $\delta \eta_{\mathrm{i}}$ around the best recovered
1271: values $\eta_{\mathrm{b,i}}$, that is:
1272: %
1273: \begin{equation}
1274: P\left(\eta_i\right)= \left\{
1275: \begin{array}{ll}
1276: \mathrm{constant} & \mathrm{for} \quad
1277: | \eta_{\mathrm{b,i}} - \eta_{\mathrm{i}} |
1278: \leq \delta \eta_{\mathrm{i}} \\
1279: & \\
1280: 0 & \mathrm{for} \quad | \eta_{\mathrm{b,i}} - \eta_{\mathrm{i}} |
1281: > \delta \eta_{\mathrm{i}} .
1282: \end{array}
1283: \right.
1284: \end{equation}
1285: %
1286: In order to make sure that the priors include the bulk of the evidence
1287: likelihood, very conservative estimates of the intervals $\delta
1288: \eta_{\mathrm{i}}$ are obtained by means of fast preliminary runs.
1289:
1290: The posterior probability distributions (PPDs) for each parameter
1291: obtained from the Nested Sampling analysis are shown in
1292: Fig.~\ref{fig:YZ-NSerr} for one of the models ({\yz}
1293: projection). Within the context of Bayesian statistics, each PPD
1294: histogram quantifies the error for the considered parameter given the
1295: data and all the assumptions (i.e. under the hypothesis that the
1296: adopted model is the correct one); since the many pixels in the data
1297: sets provide a lot of constraints, these errors are typically very
1298: small, as is the case in the plot presented here. It should be noted
1299: that, because of the marginalization over all the parameters except
1300: the one under analysis, the PPD usually provides the most conservative
1301: estimate of statistical errors. At the same time, however, due to
1302: projection effect arising from the marginalization itself, the mean
1303: value of the parameter obtained from the PPD can be significantly
1304: skewed with respect to the best recovered value of the corresponding
1305: parameter obtained from the best model (P. Marshall, private
1306: communication).
1307:
1308: However, the statistical errors cannot take into account or give an
1309: estimate of the systematic uncertainties, which are frequently much
1310: larger than the former. In our case, significant systematic errors
1311: arise mostly due to the adoption of an oversimplified
1312: model\footnote{In real datasets of lens galaxies, sources of
1313: systematic errors which raise particular concern are, for example, the
1314: PSF and the subtraction of the lens galaxy surface brightness
1315: \citep[see e.g. the detailed study of][]{Marshall2007}.}. The entity
1316: of the systematic uncertainties can be quantified, at least as a first
1317: order approximation, by looking at the discrepancies between the
1318: recovered parameters for the three data sets best models.
1319:
1320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CONCLUSIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1321:
1322: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
1323: \label{sec:conclusions}
1324:
1325: We have applied {\cauldron}, currently the most advanced code for
1326: joint gravitational lensing and stellar dynamics analysis of
1327: early-type galaxies, to a galaxy model with dark matter halo resulting
1328: from a numerical N-body simulation of galaxy merging. Such a N-body
1329: system, which we use as lens, significantly violates the two major
1330: assumptions upon which the algorithm is based, namely axial symmetry
1331: of the total density distribution and two-integral stellar
1332: distribution function. The purpose of this crash test is to
1333: investigate how the code will perform or fail in an extreme case, and
1334: to identify the quantities which can still be reliably recovered. Such
1335: robust quantities are expected to be recovered with at least
1336: comparable accuracy when {\cauldron} is employed in the analysis of
1337: real galaxies which, while not necessarily axisymmetric or described
1338: by a two- (or three-) integral DF, will hardly depart from the code's
1339: assumptions more severely than the simulated system studied here.
1340:
1341: Further complications can also arise, in general, due to the
1342: effects of the environment on the lens galaxy. However, the SLACS
1343: galaxies, despite living in overdense regions as expected for massive
1344: early-type galaxies, are not found to be significantly affected by the
1345: contribution of the environment or of line-of-sight contaminants
1346: \citep[see the in-depth study of][]{Treu2008}. Therefore, since the
1347: environment does not play a major role for lens galaxies at least in
1348: the redshift range $z \sim 0.1 - 0.4$, we have not considered this
1349: issue further in the present paper.
1350:
1351: From the N-body system we have generated three data sets corresponding
1352: to three orthogonal lines of sight, one of which has been chosen to be
1353: approximately oriented along the total angular momentum of the
1354: system, in order to obtain a ``face-on'' projection data set with
1355: little or no rotation discernible in the kinematic maps. An elliptical
1356: Gaussian surface brightness distribution has been constructed and then
1357: gravitationally lensed by the mock galaxy in order to create the
1358: lensing data set. We have also taken into account the effect of the
1359: PSF and added realistic noise to the simulated data, using as a
1360: reference the real data set for the SLACS lens galaxy {\galaxy}
1361: studied in C08.
1362:
1363: These data sets have been analysed with {\cauldron}, assuming as a
1364: model an axisymmetric power-law total density distribution, with the
1365: identical procedure followed in the study of real lens galaxies. In
1366: the three cases, the recovered best models, obtained via maximization
1367: of the Bayesian evidence, show clear difficulties in reconstructing
1368: the observables (in particular the lensed image and the velocity
1369: dispersion map) up to the noise level. This is a consequence of having
1370: adopted a very simple model which cannot account for the complexity
1371: and the lack of symmetry of the true density distribution.
1372:
1373: However, the method is still capable of recovering with remarkable
1374: accuracy several global structural and dynamical characteristics of
1375: the examined system, provided that some information about the galaxy
1376: rotation is available from the kinematic maps. In particular:
1377:
1378: \begin{enumerate}
1379: \item The logarithmic slope $\slope$ of the total density distribution
1380: is a robust quantity which is recovered with remarkable accuracy
1381: (within less than $10 \%$), even in the case of the face-on projection
1382: data set. While a power-law model cannot account for a break in the
1383: actual density profile, indications of its presence will show up in
1384: the observables as features which are not reproduced by the best model
1385: (e.g. a much flatter central velocity dispersion).
1386: \item The angle-averaged total density and total mass radial profiles
1387: for the edge-on projection best models are found to closely follow the
1388: corresponding true distributions, within approximately an effective
1389: radius. Discrepancies are larger for the face-on projection case.
1390: \item The best reconstructed inclination angle and flattening of the
1391: total density distribution have little or no relation with the
1392: corresponding quantities of the N-body system. We conclude that when
1393: the axisymmetric model is applied to a system with a more complex
1394: geometry, one can not expect to recover reliable information about its
1395: shape.
1396: \item By adopting the maximum bulge approach (i.e. maximizing the
1397: contribution of the luminous component, assuming a
1398: position-independent stellar mass-to-light ratio), it is possible to
1399: estimate within approximately $10 \%$ (in total mass) the dark matter
1400: fraction of the analysed system, whether the mass ratio is calculated
1401: within a sphere or within a line-of-sight oriented cylinder of radius
1402: $\simeq \Reff$.
1403: \item When rotation is present in the kinematic maps, global
1404: quantities such as the angular momentum $\Lz$ and the ratio $V/\sigma$
1405: (a measure of ordered vs chaotic motions) recovered from the best
1406: model describe quite reliably (i.e. within $\sim 10 \%$ and $25 \%$,
1407: respectively) the dynamical properties of the system under
1408: analysis. The global anisotropy parameters $\beta$ and
1409: $\gamma$ are not correctly estimated, i.e. the anisotropy
1410: distribution is not robustly recovered by the method unless the
1411: analyzed system effectively respects the assumptions of axisymmetry
1412: and two-integral distribution function. The anisotropy
1413: parameter~$\delta$, on the contrary, is found to be a robust quantity
1414: even when such assumptions are violated: we recover the correct value
1415: within $\la 15 \%$ for the edge-on projection data sets.
1416: \end{enumerate}
1417:
1418: The major conclusion of our study is that the joint lensing and
1419: dynamics code {\cauldron} can be effectively applied also to the
1420: analysis of galaxies which deviate from the (quite restrictive)
1421: assumptions of axial symmetry and two-integral stellar DF. This result
1422: is very relevant for the analysis of galaxies at $z \gtrsim 0.1$ for
1423: which, due to the data limitations, the more powerful methods available
1424: at lower redshifts are not viable techniques. Several fundamental
1425: structural and dynamical quantities, in particular the total density
1426: slope and the dark matter fraction within the region where the data
1427: are available, can be recovered with good accuracy. Other quantities,
1428: such as $\Lz$ and the anisotropy parameter $\delta$, can be reliably
1429: recovered provided that rotation is detected in the kinematic maps:
1430: when this is not the case (either because of intrinsic properties of
1431: the galaxy or because the system is observed face-on) the constraints
1432: are much looser and one needs to be very sceptical about the outcomes
1433: of the best model relative to these quantities. We point out that
1434: special care should be taken when the best model does not manage to
1435: reproduce the observables satisfactorily (i.e. at or close to the
1436: noise level), in particular the lensed image. This is a strong
1437: indication that the true density distribution deviates significantly
1438: from the assumptions of the adopted model family, and therefore, while
1439: there are still reliable recovered parameters (as listed above), more
1440: delicate quantities such as flattening and inclination angle, as well
1441: as the reconstructed source, should not be trusted. In these cases,
1442: the {\cauldron} code can provide a robust but only quite general
1443: description of the structure of the galaxy, paving the way for the
1444: more sophisticated modelling techniques which are necessary (together,
1445: if possible, with a better data set) to achieve a deeper and more
1446: detailed knowledge of the system.
1447:
1448: Interestingly, large residuals in the lensed images reconstruction
1449: such as the ones found in this study have never been encountered so
1450: far in the analysis of the SLACS sample of lens galaxies
1451: (\citealt{Koopmans2006}, C08) indicating that an axisymmetric single
1452: power-law total density distribution constitutes a satisfactory model
1453: for these systems.
1454:
1455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ACKNOWLEDGMENTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1456:
1457: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1458:
1459: M.~B. acknowledges the support from an NWO program subsidy (project
1460: number 614.000.417). L.~V.~E.~K. and S.~V. are supported (in part)
1461: through an NWO-VIDI program subsidy (project number
1462: 639.042.505). M.~B. and S.~V. are grateful to Phil Marshall for useful
1463: discussion.
1464:
1465: \bibliography{ms}
1466:
1467: \label{lastpage}
1468:
1469: \clearpage
1470:
1471: \end{document}
1472:
1473: