1: %version 20/10/00
2: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4,psfig]{article}
3: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp,psfig]{article}
4:
5: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
6: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
7: % Define "greater than or approximately" symbol.
8: %\def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
9: %\def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
10: % e.g. $a \simlt b$ gives a~< b
11: % e.g. $a \simgt b$ gives a~> b
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: \title
15: {Evidence for a source size of less than 2000 AU in Quasar 2237+0305}
16:
17: \author{Atsunori Yonehara\altaffilmark{1,2,3}}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku,
20: Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
21: \altaffiltext{2}{e-mail: yonehara@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp}
22: \altaffiltext{3}{Research Fellow of the Japan Society
23: for the Promotion of Science}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: Recently, OGLE team have reported clear
27: quasar microlensing signal in Q2237+0305.
28: We have analyzed the microlens event of ``image C''
29: by using their finely and densely sampled lightcurves.
30: From lightcurve fitting, we can unambiguously set
31: the source size of $\lsim 0.98$ Einstein Ring radius
32: as a conservative limit.
33: This limit corresponds to $2000 {\rm (AU)}$, if we adopt
34: $M_{\rm lens} \sim 0.1M_{\odot}$ obtained by
35: a recent statistical study of mean mass of lens object.
36: This gives a clear evidence for the existence of an accretion disk
37: in the central region of the quasar.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- galaxies: active
42: --- gravitational lensing --- quasars: individuals (Q2237+0305)}
43:
44: \section{INTRODUCTION}
45:
46: It is widely believed that central origins driving activity
47: of quasars and AGNs (Active Galactic Nuclei) is
48: an accretion disk surrounding a $10^{6 \sim 9} M_{\odot}$
49: SMBH (supermassive black hole).
50: To find a direct evidence for this general belief is
51: one of the most exciting subjects in the current research
52: in astronomy and astrophysics, but unfortunately,
53: the expected angular size of accretion disks is too small ($\lsim 1~\mu as$)
54: to directly resolve spatially by using present observational instruments.
55: For this reason, a proof of SMBH hypothesis remains as an unsolved problem
56: in fields of quasar/AGN.
57: Such a situation will not alter in near future.
58:
59: However, there is a strong tool to make it possible.
60: That is so-called ``quasar microlensing''.
61: Following the first report of a detection of quasar microlensing
62: in Q2237+0305 (``Einstein Cross'' or ``Huchra's lens'')
63: by Irwin et al. (1989) and subsequent extensive theoretical works
64: (e.g., Wambsganss 1990),
65: many researchers focused on this interesting
66: subject and presented many meaningful results.
67:
68: Roughly speaking, there are two different approaches
69: to probe a structure of the central region of quasars.
70: One is statistical approach by using long term monitoring data
71: (e.g., {\O}stensen et al. 1996)
72: that are expected to contain many microlens events.
73: Recently, Wyithe et al. have performed thorough statistical study;
74: they compare real and mock observational results,
75: and constrain transverse velocities of lens, the mean mass of the lens,
76: source size, and so on (Wyithe, Webster, \& Turner 1999, 2000b, 2000c).
77: Another is to focus on a single HME (High Magnification Event),
78: on the basis of reasonable assumptions and/or some statistical features,
79: and constrain a source size or structure
80: (e.g., Wyithe et al. 2000a, and references therein).
81:
82: In this {\it letter}, thus we take the latter approach and
83: performed lightcurve fitting for the accurately and densely observed
84: microlensing event that OGLE team have detected in Q2237+0305 lately
85: (Wozniak et al. 2000a, 2000b),
86: to put a limit on the microlensed source size.
87: In section 2, we briefly present our method to fit an observed lightcurve
88: and the results and discussions are shown in section 3.
89:
90: \section{LIGHTCURVE FITTING}
91:
92: The {\it V}-band monitoring data of OGLE team show that
93: there is a dramatic brightening in image A and
94: abrupt brightening and subsequent decay in image C ($> 0.5 {\rm mag}$),
95: whereas flux changes have been less significant in images B and D
96: (they have only $\sim 20$ \% flux variation) compared with image A and C.
97: This suggest that microlens events have occurred
98: in images A and C independently.
99: While the behavior of image A was complicated
100: and could be caused by complicated (many) caustics,
101: that of image C seems to be quite simple and
102: can be understood in terms of a single-caustic induced HME.
103: Therefore, applying approximate magnification formulae
104: which are appropriate in the vicinity of a caustic,
105: we try to fit the lightcurve of image C.
106: Concrete formulae of magnification ($\mu$) for a source position $(x, y)$
107: are shown in Fluke \& Webster (1999) for
108: ``fold caustic (hereafter, FC)'' case
109: and Zakharov (1995) for ``cusp caustic (hereafter, CC)'' case.
110:
111: To characterize properties of caustics, e.g., curvature of fold caustic,
112: we should evaluate derivatives of Fermat potential ($\phi$)
113: for gravitational lensing phenomena.
114: In quasar microlensing cases, Fermat potential is written as follows,
115: \begin{eqnarray}
116: \phi &=& \frac{1}{2} \{ (\eta -x)^2 + (\xi -y)^2 - \kappa_{\rm c}
117: (\eta^2 +\xi^2) - \gamma \left[ ( \eta^2 -\xi^2 ) \cos 2 \theta
118: + 2 \eta \xi \sin 2\theta \right] \} \nonumber \\
119: & ~ & - \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm lens}}
120: \log \{ \epsilon_i \left[ (\eta -\eta_i)^2 +(\xi -\xi_i)^2 \right]^{1/2} \},
121: \label{eq:lenspot}
122: \end{eqnarray}
123: where, $(\eta, \xi)$ is an image position,
124: $\gamma$ and $\theta$ is shear and its direction,
125: $\kappa_{\rm c}$ is convergence arising due to
126: continuous (smooth) mass distribution,
127: $(\eta_i, \xi_i)$ and $\epsilon_i$ in this equation
128: represent the $i$-th lens position and its normalized mass,
129: and $N_{\rm lens}$ is the total number of compact, stellar lens.
130: Here, $\kappa_{\rm c}$ plus contributions of
131: compact, stellar lens should be almost equal to
132: total convergence ($\kappa$) that is determined by macrolens model.
133: All the length scales are normalized by the Einstein-ring radius ($r_{\rm E}$).
134:
135: Unfortunately, we are not able to know complete spatial distribution
136: and mass of compact, stellar lens objects, and
137: it is impossible to characterize exact properties of caustics.
138: Therefore, in this study, we assume that only one single lens object plays
139: a significant role in the HME and
140: contributions from other lens objects are negligible ($N_{\rm lens} = 1$),
141: i.e., we only consider about so-called
142: ``Chang-Refsdal lens (Chang \& Refsdal 1984)'' situation
143: (single lens object plus external convergence and shear),
144: for simplicity, and characterize the properties.
145: Applied values of convergence and shear is
146: one of the best fit value on image C for macrolens model of Q2237+0305,
147: $\kappa = 0.69$ and $\gamma = 0.71$ (Schmidt, Webster \& Lewis, 1998).
148: In some complicated case (e.g., lens objects are clustering),
149: situation may be modified, or in the worst case,
150: above assumption will break down.
151: However, if this assumption holds (e.g., $\kappa _{\rm c} \sim \kappa$
152: is the case), we are able to
153: characterize the feature of FC and CC by only one parameter ($\theta$).
154:
155: In the case of the Chang-Refsdal lens, 2 different types of cusp caustic
156: will be formed at 4 or 6 angular positions of the closed caustic curve
157: (see Chang \& Refsdal 1984), and the fold caustics
158: appear as connecting these cusp caustics.
159: Thus, we consider 2 cusp cases and 4 representative fold cases
160: for an angle range of $\theta = 0 \sim \pi/2$ because of its symmetry.
161: Moreover, we only consider about circular-shape source
162: with top-hat brightness profile,
163: i.e., neglect the effect of inclination angle, brightness profile.
164: Therefore, magnification (${\cal M}$) at any given source position $(x, y)$
165: is obtained by the integration of $\mu$ on the circular disk with radius $R$.
166: Assuming top-hat brightness profile is fairly simple treatment
167: because the shape of microlensing lightcurve depends on
168: source brightness profile (e.g., Yonehara et al. 1999).
169: However, the resultant source size can be regarded as
170: an effective (equivalent) source size and we use
171: the top-hat brightness profile for convenience to numerical integrations
172: (with $1000$ mesh number in this study).
173:
174: To include magnification caused by macrolensing and
175: another caustics for microlensing,
176: here, we add constant magnification, $M_{\rm 0}$, plus
177: gradual change of the magnification, $\dot{M_{\rm 0}} \cdot t$,
178: to the total magnification.
179: The latter mimics magnification changes for the ensemble of
180: other microlens and this gradual change make the fits better
181: (Wyithe and Turner, private communication).
182: Furthermore, intrinsic variability of this quasar may be
183: long duration with small amplitude (Wyithe et al. 2000d),
184: and this term may also mimic the intrinsic variabilities of quasar.
185:
186: Additionally, we should evaluate the apparent magnitude of quasar
187: without any microlensing and macrolensing,
188: i.e., the intrinsic magnitude, $m_{\rm 0}$.
189: It is quite difficult because quasars have intrinsic variabilities and
190: also the observed magnitude of Q2237+0305 is affected by
191: small amplitude and/or long timescale microlensing.
192: Fortunately, from the monitoring data by {\O}stensen et al.(1996) and
193: the OGLE team, the observed magnitude of image C is roughly constant
194: at $\sim 18.6 ~{\rm mag}$ long before the recent HME.
195: We thus take this as the magnitude of this quasar without any microlensing.
196: Moreover, by using the previously applied value of $\kappa$ and $\gamma$,
197: we can evaluate the macrolens magnification of image C,
198: and the intrinsic magnitude is estimated to be
199: $m_{\rm 0} = 18.6-2.5\log \left[ (1-\kappa)^2 - \gamma^2 \right] \sim 19.6$.
200:
201: Finally, assuming the source trajectory is straight and
202: determine source velocity on the source plane,
203: $\vec{v} = (v_{\rm x}, v_{\rm y})$, time when the source crosses a caustic
204: (FC case) or $x$-axis (CC case), $T_{\rm 0}$,
205: the expected microlensing lightcurve for any given parameter is
206: obtained from
207: $m(t) = m_{\rm 0} - 2.5\log \left[ M_{\rm 0} + \dot{M}_{\rm 0} \cdot t
208: + {\cal M}(t) \right]$
209: (for CC case and fold caustic gazing case,
210: impact parameter, $d$ is also required).
211:
212: To obtain the best fit lightcurve and its parameter,
213: we minimize $\chi^2$ value between the observed lightcurve, $m_{\rm obs}(t)$,
214: and the mock lightcurve for a given parameter, $m(t)$,
215: for each caustic case (FC and CC) by using one of downhill simplex method,
216: so-called ``AMOEBA'' routine (Press et al. 1986).
217: Nonetheless, caustic is a kind of singularities,
218: and fitting methods including singularities do not work so well.
219: For this reason, we subdivide each caustic case into
220: all considerable path cases (depicted in figure~\ref{fig:sche})
221: and perform lightcurve fitting at every possible case.
222: After the best fit parameters are obtained, we compare reduce $\chi^2$ for
223: all the possible cases for each of FC and CC, and determine
224: the best fit (smallest $\chi^2$) parameters for each FC and CC case.
225:
226: In this lightcurve fitting, we only took into account data points
227: around the peak of image C ($JD-2450000 = 1289.905 \sim 1529.531$,
228: total number of used data points is $83$).
229: Of course, we can also taken into account data points
230: before and after the peak, but in those epochs,
231: distance between the source and caustic
232: could be larger than that in the peak region.
233: Thus, it is not clear whether the approximation for magnification
234: is reasonable or not before and after the peak.
235: And so, we have restricted data points only around the peak.
236:
237: \section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS}
238:
239: Our resultant, best fit parameters for all the cases
240: that we have considered are summarized in table~\ref{tab:wp}.
241: Some resultant path of source, the best fit lightcurve,
242: source size dependence of reduced $\chi^2$ are
243: also shown in figures~\ref{fig:resfold} and~\ref{fig:rescusp}
244: (degree of freedom is $83-5 = 78$ for FC, $83-6 = 77$ for CC).
245: In the case of a infinitely-small size source,
246: expected lightcurves for microlens event are
247: quite different from case to case, i.e.,
248: a lightcurve for FC case and that of CC case is clearly different,
249: and also, difference between that of fold-1 and fold-2
250: (figure~\ref{fig:sche}) is evident and so on.
251: But, as you can easily see in these table and figures,
252: the fitting for all cases works well
253: (the best-fit reduced $\chi^2$ is $\sim 1$).
254: This fact owing to the finite-size source effect,
255: and we can manage to reproduce the observed feature
256: at every considerable case.
257:
258: We also performed a Monte-Carlo simulation for every case to estimate
259: confidence region of best fit parameter by using following procedures;
260: (1)~Supposing that the best fit parameter is real parameter,
261: we calculate an ideal lightcurve without any errors,
262: (2)~Add random errors with the magnitude corresponding to
263: the observational error dispersion, and sample this lightcurve
264: at the times corresponding to the actually observed times,
265: we obtain a mock lightcurve.
266: (3)~By using this mock lightcurve,
267: we perform a lightcurve fitting again for all considerable cases
268: (at FC and CC case indicated before, see also fig~\ref{fig:sche})
269: and obtain a set of the best fit parameters for the mock lightcurve.
270:
271: Iterating procedure (2) and (3) for 100 times in this study,
272: summarizing the best fit values for mock lightcurves,
273: and we can evaluate a confidence region.
274: To evaluate the $90\%$ confidence region from Monte-Carlo results,
275: we calculate total $\chi^2$ between lightcurve which is actually observed
276: and that is obtained from the parameters of Monte-Carlo result.
277: Subsequently, we pick up $90\%$ parameter sets which have
278: smaller total $\chi^2$.
279: From these selected parameter sets, finally, we can obtain
280: maximum and minimum values of parameters and we define
281: ranges between these maximum and minimum as the $90\%$ confidence region.
282:
283: In figures~\ref{fig:resfold} and~\ref{fig:rescusp},
284: we also presented a histogram for the $\chi^2$ differences
285: between ``mock'' lightcurves and the best fit lightcurve,
286: and ideal $\chi^2$ distribution curves for corresponding degrees of freedom
287: (5 for FC, 6 for CC).
288: These two exhibit similar distributions and
289: our confidence region estimate seems to be reasonable.
290:
291: For every case, if the source size is larger than the best fit value,
292: expected magnification will be suppressed, lightcurve will become shallow,
293: and goodness of fit is reduced.
294: On the other hands, if the source is smaller than the best fit value,
295: expected magnification will be enhanced, lightcurve will become sharp,
296: and goodness of fit reduced, too.
297: These are qualitative reason
298: why the source size is limited in somewhat small range.
299:
300: Considering all our fitting result, at least,
301: we can say that the source size of Q2237+0305 should be smaller than
302: $\sim 0.98$ Einstein-ring radius (more than $90\%$ confidence level).
303: This upper limit is given in the case of FC (fold 3 in table~\ref{tab:wp}),
304: while another case suggests a much smaller source size.
305: Thus, this limit is a fairly conservative upper limit for the source.
306: Since the Einstein-ring radius of quasar microlensing is typically
307: $\lsim 1 ~\mu{\rm as}$,
308: our result indicates the existence of a sub-$\mu{\rm as}$ source in quasar !
309:
310: To obtain the actual size,
311: we have to calculate $r_{\rm E}$ for relevant parameters.
312: If we assume $1.0 M_{\odot}$ as a mass of lens object ($M_{\rm lens}$) and
313: the Hubble constant $H_{\rm 0} = 67 {\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$
314: (Kundi\'c et al. 1997), $r_{\rm E}$ will be corresponds to $10^{17} {\rm cm}$.
315: This value strongly depends on
316: $H_{\rm 0}$ ($r_{\rm E} \propto H_{\rm 0}^{-1/2}$) and
317: the lens mass ($r_{\rm E} \propto M_{\rm lens}^{1/2}$)
318: rather than the cosmological parameters in this case
319: ($\sim 10\%$ uncertainty covers roughly all the reasonable range).
320: And finally, we get $10^{17} {\rm cm} \sim 7 \times 10^3 {\rm AU}$
321: as the resultant upper limit to the source size.
322: This value is consistent with the result of the statistical research
323: performed by Wyithe et al. (2000c).
324: Moreover, for the $\sim 0.1M_{\odot}$ lens object case suggested
325: by Wyithe et al. (2000b) as a mean lens mass,
326: the size will be reduced by some factor
327: and become $\sim 2 \times 10^3 {\rm AU}$ !.
328: Alternatively, the lens object may be a stellar object,
329: and so, there is an upper mass limit to exist stably.
330: Even if we adopt this upper limit $\sim 100M_{\odot}$ for the lens mass,
331: the size will be $\sim 0.3 {\rm pc}$, at most.
332: Therefore, our result strongly supports the existence of an accretion disk
333: in a quasar and that the accretion disk smaller than this size
334: is a fairly dominant source of radiation from the quasar,
335: at least in the {\it V}-band at observer frame.
336: Additionally, resultant effective transverse velocity
337: on the source plane is $\lsim 10^5 {\rm (km~s^{-1})}$,
338: and is also consistent to the value presented by
339: Wyithe, Webster \& Turner, 1999.
340:
341: On the other hands, if we assume that the accretion disk is
342: a type described by the standard accretion disk model
343: (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973),
344: we can also estimate the effective source size from its luminosity.
345: The magnitude of this quasar in the absence of a macrolens effect is
346: easily converted into flux, $f_{\nu}$ (Wozniak et al. 2000a).
347: If we denote the absorption as $A_{\rm V} {\rm ~mag}$
348: and adopt the luminosity distance ($d_{\rm L}$) to the quasar,
349: luminosity of the quasar at this observed waveband ($L$)
350: will estimated to be
351: $L \sim \nu (f_{\nu} \cdot 10^{0.4A_{\rm V}}) 4 \pi d_{\rm L}^2
352: \sim 3.7 \times 10^{42+0.4A_{\rm V}} {\rm ~erg~s^{-1}}$.
353: Furthermore, radiation process of the standard accretion disk is
354: blackbody radiation, and the effective temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$)
355: of the accretion disk at this waveband corresponds to
356: $\sim 2.5 \times 10^4 ~{\rm K}$.
357: On the other hands, we can relate the effective temperature,
358: luminosity and the radius
359: through the central black hole mass and accretion rate,
360: \begin{equation}
361: T_{\rm eff} \sim \left( \frac{3}{4\pi \sigma} \right)^{1/4}
362: L^{1/4} r^{-1/2},
363: \label{eq:disk}
364: \end{equation}
365: where, $\sigma$ is the Thomson-scattering cross section.
366: Consequently, we are able to estimate the effective source size being
367: $ r \sim 2.0 \times 10^{14+0.2A_{\rm V}} {\rm ~cm}$.
368: There is an uncertainty in $A_{\rm V}$, but
369: this is consistent with our results
370: and strongly indicates the existence of an accretion disk.
371: We should pay attention that we do not insist the existing source
372: should be a standard-type accretion disk
373: (other accretion disk models may be also consistent with our results).
374: Rauch \& Blandford (1991) reported that the accretion disk in Q2237+0305
375: is non-thermal or optically thin.
376: But, there are some ambiguities in this work (e.g., absorption, lens mass),
377: and it is quite difficult to support or oppose the report from our results.
378: To specify disk models, we have to do more extensive monitorings
379: and/or analyze multi-band microlens lightcurves
380: to compare the resultant source sizes.
381:
382: The performed fitting procedure do work, but strictly speaking,
383: all our best-fit reduced $\chi^2$ are somewhat larger than $1$.
384: This means the goodness of fit of our results is not extremely good
385: and probably, there may be some systematic errors
386: that we do not take into account.
387: In this work, we neglect the detailed feature about source,
388: magnification patterns and intrinsic variabilities of the quasar.
389: However, if such effects are really existing,
390: the shape of the lightcurve will be systematically altered
391: and the best-fit reduced $\chi^2$ may be increased by these effects.
392: There are difficulties to be take into account all above possibilities
393: in our procedure, but it will be done in future.
394:
395: In future work, we should further develop
396: quasar microlens technique in two statistical ways.
397: One is to study statistical properties of magnification near FC and CC.
398: Although the statistical features have already been studied by
399: many researchers (e.g., Wambsganss \& Kundi\'c 1995),
400: the effect, such as, lens object clustering
401: that affect properties of magnification in the vicinity of caustic
402: is not well understood.
403: The other is to continue monitoring this kind of quasars,
404: sample similar microlensing events more and more.
405: Such analysis may be able to reduce ambiguities arising due to
406: unknown lens mass, and/or different features of caustic networks and so on.
407:
408:
409: \acknowledgements
410:
411: The author would like to express his thanks to
412: S. Mineshige for his extensive supports,
413: E.L. Turner, J.S.B. Wyithe, K. Ioka, K. Mitsuda, K. Yoshikawa, T. Takeuchi,
414: M. Umemura, A. Burkert and Y. Suto for their helpful comments, and
415: anonymous referee for his/her valuable suggestions and comments.
416: The author also acknowledge the OGLE team for making their monitoring data
417: publically available.
418: This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for
419: the Promotion of Science (9852).
420:
421: \begin{thebibliography}{}
422:
423: \bibitem[]{}
424: Chang, K., \& Refsdal, S., 1984, A\&A, 132, 168
425:
426: \bibitem[]{}
427: Fluke, C.J., \& Webster, R.L., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 68
428:
429: \bibitem[]{}
430: Irwin, M.J., Webster, R.L., Hewitt, P.C., Corrigan, R.T.,
431: \& Jedrzejewski, R.I. 1989, AJ, 98, 1989
432:
433: \bibitem[]{}
434: Kundi\'c T., et al. 1997, ApJ, 482, 75
435:
436: \bibitem[]{}
437: {\O}stensen, R., et al. 1996, A\&A, 309, 59
438:
439: \bibitem[]{}
440: Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., \& Vetterling, W.T.
441: 1992, ``Numerical Recipes'' (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
442:
443: \bibitem[]{}
444: Rauch, K.P., \& Blandford, R.D. 1991, ApJ, 381, L39
445:
446: \bibitem[]{}
447: Schmidt, R., Webster, R.L., \& Lewis, G.F., 1998, MNRAS, 295, 488
448:
449: \bibitem[]{}
450: Shakura, N.I., \& Sunyaev, R.A. 1973, A\&A, 24, 337
451:
452: \bibitem[]{}
453: Wambsganss, J. 1990, ``Gravitational Microlensing'',
454: Dissertation der Fakult\"at f\"ur Physik
455: der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at, M\"unchen
456:
457: \bibitem[]{}
458: Wambsganss, J., \& Kundi\'c, T. 1995, ApJ, 450, 19
459:
460: \bibitem[]{}
461: Wozniak, P.R., Alard, C., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M.,
462: Pietrzynski, G., \& Zebrun, K. 2000a, ApJ, 529, 88
463:
464: \bibitem[]{}
465: Wozniak, P.R., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G.,
466: Soszynski, I., \& Zebrun, K. 2000b, ApJ, 540, L65
467:
468: \bibitem[]{}
469: Wyithe, J.S.B., Webster, R.L., \& Turner E.L. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 261
470:
471: \bibitem[]{}
472: Wyithe, J.S.B., Webster, R.L., Turner, E.L., \& Mortlock, D.J. 2000a,
473: MNRAS, 315, 62
474:
475: \bibitem[]{}
476: Wyithe, J.S.B., Webster, R.L., \& Turner E.L. 2000b, MNRAS, 315, 51
477:
478: \bibitem[]{}
479: Wyithe, J.S.B., Webster, R.L., \& Turner E.L. 2000c, MNRAS, 318, 762
480:
481: \bibitem[]{}
482: Wyithe, J.S.B., Webster, R.L., Turner, E.L., \& Agol, E. 2000d,
483: accepted to MNRAS (astro-ph/0001306)
484:
485: \bibitem[]{}
486: Yonehara, A., Mineshige, S., Fukue, J., Umemura, M., \& Turner, E.L. 1999
487: A\&A, 343, 41
488:
489: \bibitem[]{}
490: Zakharov, A.F. 1995, A\&A, 293, 1
491:
492: \end{thebibliography}
493:
494: %TABLE 1
495: \begin{table}
496: \begin{center}
497: \begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
498: ~ & fold-1 & fold-2 & fold-3 & fold-4 & cusp-1 & cusp-2 \\ \hline
499: angle & $0.00$ & $0.50$ & $1.00$ & $1.50$ & $0.32$ & $1.57$ \\ \hline
500: best fit & FC1 & FC1 & FC2 & FC1 & CC2 & CC2 \\ \hline
501: $R (10^{-1})$ & $1.78^{-0.18}_{+0.19}$ & $2.42_{-0.22}^{+0.23} $
502: & $8.50_{-3.73}^{+1.32} $ & $7.64_{-0.72}^{+0.86} $
503: & $2.14_{-0.54}^{+1.36} $ & $1.00_{-0.24}^{+0.80} $ \\ \hline
504: $v_{\rm x} (10^{-2})$ & $0.30_{-0.06}^{+0.06}$
505: & $0.42_{-0.08}^{+0.08} $ & $ 0 $ & $1.31_{-0.25}^{+0.23} $
506: & $-0.04_{-0.03}^{+1.79} $ & $-0.02_{-0.02}^{+0.79} $ \\ \hline
507: $v_{\rm y} (10^{-2})$ & $0.38_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ & $0.49_{-0.14}^{+0.07} $
508: & $2.74_{-0.72}^{+0.73} $ & $1.57_{-0.13}^{+0.17} $
509: & $0.63_{-0.59}^{+0.10} $ & $0.30_{-0.30}^{+0.04} $ \\ \hline
510: $T_{\rm 0}$ & $1348_{-3}^{+3}$ & $1351_{-4}^{+2}$
511: & $1366_{-2}^{+2}$ & $1350_{-4}^{+2}$ & $1366_{-8}^{+348}$
512: & $1366_{-8}^{+308}$ \\ \hline
513: $d (10^{-1})$ & $0$ & $0$ & $6.38_{-0.84}^{+0.47}$ & $0$
514: & $3.24_{-6.58}^{+57.3} $ & $1.10_{-2.33}^{+20.8} $ \\ \hline
515: $M_{\rm 0}$ & $9.05_{-2.89}^{+2.37}$ & $9.23_{-2.27}^{+1.91}$
516: & $18.55_{-1.58}^{+1.12}$ & $9.03_{-2.31}^{+2.27}$ &
517: $20.06_{-5.83}^{+1.05}$ & $20.02_{-6.46}^{+1.09}$ \\ \hline
518: $\dot{M}_{\rm 0} (10^{-3})$ & $-3.05_{-1.59}^{+1.90}$
519: & $-3.12_{-1.26}^{+1.49}$ & $-8.82_{-0.68}^{+0.96}$
520: & $-3.02_{-1.52}^{+1.52}$ & $-9.88_{-0.18}^{+3.76}$
521: & $-9.86_{-0.20}^{+4.18}$ \\ \hline
522: $\bar{\chi}^2$ & $1.46$ & $1.49$ & $1.48$ & $1.47$ &
523: $1.33$ & $1.30$ \\ \hline
524: \end{tabular}
525: \end{center}
526: \caption{Best fit parameters for several possible HME
527: (see figure~\ref{fig:sche}) and their reduced $\chi^2$ ($\bar{\chi}^2$).
528: All the length scales and time scale is normalized by
529: $r_{\rm E}$ and one day.
530: The unit of velocity is the Einstein-ring radius divided by a day.
531: For $T_{\rm 0}$, $T_{\rm 0}=0$ correspond to $JD-2450000 = 0$.
532: Upper and lower value denoted beside the best fit parameters
533: show a $90\%$ confidence level which calculated from Monte-Carlo simulation
534: (see the text).}
535: \label{tab:wp}
536: \end{table}
537:
538:
539: %FIGURE 1
540: \begin{figure}[htbp]
541: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig01.eps,height=9cm}}
542: \caption{Schematic view of possible HME.
543: All the six cases to reproduce the observed, fairly symmetric HME event
544: are shown: 2 are fold caustic cases and 4 are cusp caustic.
545: }
546: \label{fig:sche}
547: \end{figure}
548:
549: %FIGURE 2
550: \begin{figure}[htbp]
551: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig02.eps,height=13cm}}
552: \caption{Fitting results in a case of fold caustic (fold-3).
553: In upper left panel, the best fit source path (dashed line) and
554: relative to caustic (bold line) is depicted.
555: Upper right panel is observed flux (error bar) and
556: the best fit lightcurve (bold line).
557: Lower left panel is total $\chi^2$ value respect to source size (bold line),
558: and result of Monte-Carlo simulation (histogram).
559: Lower right panel distribution of $\chi^2$ with
560: 5 degree of freedom (bold line)
561: and distribution of $\chi^2$ difference between mock lightcurve
562: and the best fit lightcurve (histogram).
563: All the length scale is $r_{\rm E}$.
564: Kinks in source size dependence of total $\chi ^2$ (lower left panel)
565: are caused by changes from a best-fit subdivided case
566: to another subdivided case, e.g., at source size $ \sim 0.6$,
567: the best-fit, subdivided case changes from FC1 to FC2.
568: }
569: \label{fig:resfold}
570: \end{figure}
571:
572: %FIGURE 3
573: \begin{figure}[htbp]
574: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig03.eps,height=13cm}}
575: \caption{Same as figure~\ref{fig:resfold} but cusp caustic case (cusp-1).
576: Degree of freedom of lower right panel is 6 in this case.
577: Kinks in source size dependence of total $\chi ^2$ value
578: (lower left panel) appeared
579: with the same reason as in figure~\ref{fig:resfold}
580: }
581: \label{fig:rescusp}
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: \end{document}
585:
586: