1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %\documentstyle[aasms4,psfig]{article}
4: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4,flushrt,psfig]{article}
5: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
6: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\sol}{M_{\sun}}
11: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al. }}
12: %\slugcomment{KUNS-1722}
13:
14: %\shorttitle{GL Statistics and Dark Halos}
15: %\shortauthors{Takahashi \& Chiba}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \title{
19: Gravitational Lens Statistics and The Density Profile of Dark Halos
20: }
21: \author{Ryuichi Takahashi and Takeshi Chiba}
22: \affil{Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
23:
24: %\received{}
25: %\accepted{}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We investigate the influence of the inner profile of lens objects on
29: gravitational lens statistics taking into account of
30: the effect of magnification bias and both the evolution and
31: the scatter of halo profiles. We take the dark halos as the lens
32: objects and consider
33: the following three models for the density profile of dark halos;
34: SIS (singular isothermal sphere), the NFW (Navarro Frenk White) profile,
35: and the generalized NFW profile which has a different slope at smaller radii.
36: The mass function of dark halos is assumed to be given by the Press-Schechter
37: function. We find that magnification bias for the NFW profile is order
38: of magnitude larger than that for SIS.
39: We estimate the sensitivity of the lensing probability of distant sources
40: to the inner profile of lenses and to the cosmological parameters.
41: It turns out that the lensing probability is strongly dependent on the inner
42: density profile as well as on the cosmological constant.
43: We compare the predictions with the largest observational sample,
44: the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey.
45: The absence or presence of large splitting events in larger surveys
46: currently underway such as the 2dF and SDSS
47: could set constraints on the inner density profile of dark halos.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \keywords{cosmology: gravitational lensing --- dark matter:clusters}
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53: It has been known since the 1930s that dark matter is the gravitationally
54: main component in a variety of astrophysical objects such as galaxies and
55: clusters of galaxies, but the nature of dark matter still eludes us.
56: (\cite{peebles93}).
57: Recently, the systematic discrepancy between numerical simulations and
58: observations regarding the inner density profile of dark halos has been
59: reported.
60: For the inner density profile of dark halos $\rho(r) \propto
61: r^{-\alpha}$, numerical simulations suggest the steeper profile $\alpha
62: \sim 1-1.5$, while observations suggest the shallower profile
63: $\alpha \sim 0-1$.
64: Numerical simulations of CDM halos by Navarro, Frenk \& White
65: (1996,1997, hereafter NFW) have shown that the density profile has
66: the ``universal'' form $\rho \propto r^{-1} (r+r_s)^{-2}$,
67: where $r_s$ is the scale length, irrespective of the cosmological parameters,
68: the initial power spectrum and the formation histories.
69: Following NFW, higher-resolution simulations have been performed,
70: and the results suggest the steeper inner slope $\rho(r) \propto r^{-1.5}$
71: (\cite{moore99,fm00}).
72: On the other hand, observations of rotation curves of the spiral and
73: the low surface brightness galaxies indicate the shallower halo profile
74: $\alpha \sim 0-1$ (\cite{bosch00a,blok01,bs01}).
75: The mass distribution of the cluster CL0024+1654 is reconstructed from
76: lensed images and indicates the flat core (\cite{tyson98}).
77: It is important to resolve the discrepancy to get clues to
78: the nature of dark matter.
79:
80: In this regard, strong gravitational lensing effects can provide an
81: important method to probe the nature of dark matter.
82: Strong lensing probes the inner dense region of lens objects, and
83: the impact parameter is estimated as
84: \beq
85: \xi \simeq 6.2~{h_{70}}^{-1}~~\mbox{kpc}~\frac{H_0 D_L}{0.3} \frac{\theta}
86: {1^{\prime \prime}} ,
87: \label{xi}
88: \eeq
89: where $D_L$ is the distance to the lens and $\theta$ is the image separation.
90: So it is sensitive to the inner profile of lenses
91: and can be a useful method for probing the inner profile of dark halos.
92: In fact, $\xi$ in Eq.(\ref{xi}) is comparable to the scale length $r_s$ in the
93: NFW profile $\rho \propto r^{-1} (r+r_s)^{-2}$ (\cite{nfw97}).
94: Dark halos is gravitationally dominant in galactic halos
95: and clusters of galaxies.
96: However, at the inner region of galaxies, baryonic components such as bulge
97: and disk are also gravitationally dominant, and dissipation processes among
98: the baryons are important.
99: On the other hand, since clusters of galaxies are formed only
100: recently, the baryonic component distributes broadly as gas (\cite{ro77})
101: and the radial distribution of gas mass is similar to the total
102: mass (\cite{ee00}). Hence, in order to study strong gravitational lensing
103: without the need to include the gravitational effects of baryonic components,
104: we shall mainly concentrate on clusters of galaxies as the lens objects and
105: look for large-separation images (the effect of baryons on lensing was studied
106: in (\cite{pm00,kw01,keeton01})).
107:
108: In this paper, we examine the effect of the inner density profile of
109: lens objects on gravitational lens statistics, including the effect of
110: magnification bias and both the evolution and the scatter of halo profiles.
111: Statistics of gravitational lensing of QSOs provides a useful
112: tool to set constraints on the cosmological constant (\cite{ffkt92,k96}).
113: However, it depends on the lens model such as the profile of lenses
114: and its number density as well as cosmology.
115: Hence, in using it as a tool to limit the cosmological constant, we must be
116: careful about the uncertainties concerning the lens model.
117: We estimate the sensitivity of the lensing probability of distant sources
118: to the inner profile of lenses and to the cosmological constant.
119: We consider three kinds of density profile of lens objects :
120: SIS ($\rho(r) \propto r^{-2}$),
121: the NFW ($\rho(r) \propto r^{-1}$ for the inner profile),
122: the generalized NFW ($\rho(r) \propto r^{-\alpha}$ for the inner profile).
123: Only smooth and spherical models are considered.
124: Subclumps (cluster galaxies) in clusters do not affect the cross section
125: of lensing (\cite{flores00}). Nonsphericity can affect the relative
126: frequency of four-image lenses (\cite{rt00}).
127: The distribution of lenses is taken to be the Press-Schechter function.
128: We compare the predictions with the large observational data,
129: CLASS (the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey), and predict for larger surveys
130: such as 2dF and SDSS.
131: Multiple images of large separation angles are expected to be caused by
132: clusters of galaxies, so when we compare the observational data,
133: we will use the large angle images ($\theta \geq 6^{\prime \prime}$).
134: The statistics of wide-separation lenses ($\xi \geq 10 \mbox{kpc}$) has been
135: used to probe the distributions of mass inhomogeneities derived from
136: the CDM scenarios, since one does not need to be concerned with
137: the physics of baryonic components and bias (\cite{wcot95}).
138: By studying the lensing properties in this regime assuming the CDM
139: scenarios, theoretical calculations based on N-body simulations
140: (\cite{cen94,wcot95,wco98}) and semi-analytical method using the
141: Press-Schechter function (\cite{nw88,k95,ns97,mw00}) have been
142: used to place limits on cosmological parameters.
143: Similarly, incorporating realistic input for mass profile and number
144: density of clusters, analytical calculations have been used to set
145: constraint to cosmological models (\cite{tomita96}) and lens models
146: (\cite{maoz97}).
147: We pay particular attention to the influence of the inner lens structure
148: on the statistics of wide-separation lenses (for earlier discussion before
149: NFW profile, see \cite{fp96}).
150:
151: Recently a similar analysis has been performed by several authors
152: (\cite{wyithe00,fp01,lo00,km01}).
153: Wyithe, Turner \& Spergel (2001) used the generalized NFW lens model and
154: suggested the optical
155: depth to multiple imaging of the distant sources is very sensitive to the
156: inner lens profile, but no comparison with observational data was made.
157: Li \& Ostriker (2000) found that the lensing probability is very sensitive
158: to the density profile of lenses, and somewhat less so to the cosmological
159: parameters such as the mean mass density in the universe and the amplitude
160: of primordial fluctuations.
161: However, they did not take into account the scatter of dark halo profiles
162: (concentration parameter) and the uncertainty in the treatment of
163: magnification bias.
164: Keeton \& Madau (2001) found that the number of
165: predicted lenses is strongly correlated with the core mass fraction.
166: In this paper, we present a systematic study of the effect of the inner
167: dark halo profile and cosmological parameters on gravitational lens
168: statistics. It is very important to be careful about both the effect of
169: magnification bias, which depends on the lens profile and
170: magnification of each images, and both the evolution and the scatter of
171: halo profiles in N-body simulations
172: (\cite{bullock01}).
173:
174: This paper is organized as follows.
175: In section 2, we briefly summarize the basic formulae of gravitational
176: lens statistics for various lens models.
177: In section 3, we examine the effect of magnification bias and compare the
178: theoretical prediction with observation.
179: In section 4, we estimate the number of lensed images expected in
180: larger surveys.
181: Finally, in section 5, we summarize the main results of this paper.
182: We use the units of $c=G=1$.
183:
184: \section{Basics}
185:
186: \subsection{SIS Lens}
187:
188: The SIS (singular isothermal sphere) model is frequently used in the lensing
189: analysis, since it is supported by observed flat rotation curves and
190: moreover the density profile is very simple and quantities related to
191: gravitational lensing can be written in simple analytic
192: forms (\cite{tog84}).
193: SIS is characterized by the one-dimensional velocity dispersion $v$, and
194: the density profile is $\rho (r) = {v^2}/{2 \pi}{r^2}$ .
195: The lens equation leads to the two solutions (image positions) at
196: $x_{\pm} = y \pm 1$ with magnifications $\mu_{\pm}=\left| (y/x_{\pm})
197: (dy/dx_{\pm}) \right|^{-1}= 1/y \pm 1$, where
198: dimensionless quantities $x$ and $y$ are the impact parameter
199: divided by the Einstein radius in the lens plane and the source
200: position divided by it in the source plane (\cite{sef92}).
201: Magnification of the brighter (fainter) image is $\mu_{+} (\mu_{-})$,
202: and the total magnification is $\mu (y)= 2/y$.
203: The splitting angle between the two images is $\theta = 8 \pi v^2
204: {D_{LS}}/{D_S}$, where $D_L$, $D_S$ and $D_{LS}$ are the angular diameter
205: distances between the observer, lens and source.
206: We shall adopt the so-called filled beam distance (\cite{dr73}), since
207: the ray shooting in an inhomogeneous universe created by N-body simulations
208: is consistent with it (\cite{tomita98,tah99}).
209:
210: When the light ray from the source passes near the lens object,
211: if $\left| y \right| \leq 1$, double images form.
212: We define the cross section ${\sigma} (v,z_L,z_S)$ as the area of a
213: region in the source plane which satisfies the following criteria;
214: (i)double images are formed,
215: and (ii)the magnification is
216: larger than the minimum amplification $\mu_{*}$.
217: The second condition is needed for the calculation of magnification
218: bias (see Eq.(\ref{st19}) below).
219: Then, the cross section is given by,
220: \beq
221: \sigma(v,z_L,z_S) = \pi r_E^2
222: \times 2 \int_0^1 dy y \Theta (\mu (y) - \mu _{*}) ,
223: \label{st13}
224: \eeq
225: where $r_E (=4 \pi v^2 D_{LS})$ is the Einstein radius in the source plane,
226: and $\Theta (x)$ is the step function.
227:
228: \subsection{Generalized NFW Lens}
229:
230: In this section we consider the generalized NFW profile for dark halos
231: (\cite{wyithe00,lo00}),
232: \beq
233: \rho (r) = \frac{\rho _s}{\left( \frac{r}{r_s} \right)^{\alpha}
234: \left( \frac{r}{r_s}+1 \right)^{3 - \alpha}} ,
235: \label{gnfw1}
236: \eeq
237: where $\rho_s$ and $r_s$ are parameters which depend on the mass of halo $M$
238: and redshift $z$, and $\alpha (0 \leq \alpha \leq 2)$ is a constant.
239: The scale radius $r_s$ is about $10$ kpc on a galactic halo scale
240: ($M \sim 10^{12} M_{\odot}$) and $100$ kpc on a cluster scale
241: ($M \sim 10^{15} M_{\odot}$) (\cite{nfw97}).
242: Since the impact parameter $\xi$ is comparable to the scale radius $r_s$
243: (see Eq.(\ref{xi})), we could set a strong constraint on inner slope
244: $\alpha$ in Eq.(\ref{gnfw1}) by using strong gravitational lensing.
245: We consider the case of $\alpha=0.5, 1, 1.5$.
246:
247: The concentration parameter $c$ and the characteristic density $\delta_c$
248: are respectively defined by
249: \beqa
250: c &=& \frac{r_{vir}}{r_s}, \\
251: \delta_c &=& \frac{\rho_s}{\rho_{m}(z)}
252: = \frac{\Delta_{vir}}{3} \frac{c^3}{\int_0^c dx~x^{2-\alpha}
253: (1+x)^{\alpha-3}}.
254: \label{gnfw2}
255: \eeqa
256: $c$ represents degree of the mass concentration at the inner region of a halo.
257: The virial radius of the halo $r_{vir}$ is related to the mass $M$ and
258: redshift $z$ as
259: \beq
260: H_0 r_{vir}=5.643 \times 10^{-5} h^{1/3} \Omega_0^{-1/3} (1+z)^{-1}
261: \left( \frac{\Delta_{vir}}{18 \pi^2} \right)^{-1/3}
262: \left( \frac{M}{10^{12} M_{\odot}} \right)^{1/3} ,
263: \label{gnfw3}
264: \eeq
265: where $\Delta_{vir}$ is the overdensity of the halo
266: ($\Delta_{vir}=18 \pi^2$ for EdS $(\Omega_0=1)$ model, and for other
267: cosmological models we use the fitting formulae given in \cite{ks96} and
268: \cite{ns97}).
269:
270: For the NFW profile ($\alpha=1$), $c$ is fitted by the numerical
271: simulation (\cite{nfw97}).
272: For the generalized NFW profile, following the recent work
273: (\cite{bullock01,km01}), we define $c$ to be $c=r_{vir}/r_{-2}$, where
274: $r_{-2}$ is the radius at which the logarithmic slope of the density profile
275: is $-2$ ($r_{-2}$ is equivalent to $r_s$ for the NFW profile).
276: Thus we obtain $c=(2-\alpha)^{-1} r_{vir}/r_s$.
277:
278: However, there is a scatter in the concentration parameter $c$ at fixed mass
279: and redshift (\cite{bullock01,jing00}).
280: Keeton \& Madau (2001) pointed out the importance of the scatter of $c$
281: on the lensing statistics.
282: We adopt a log-normal function as the probability distribution function
283: of $c$,
284: \beq
285: p(c)dc=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}\sigma_c} \exp \left[ -\frac{\left( \ln c
286: - \ln c_{med} \right)^2}{2 \sigma_c^2} \right] d\ln c,
287: \label{pdf}
288: \eeq
289: with $\sigma_c=0.18$ (\cite{bullock01,jing00}).
290:
291: Using the toy model of a $c_{med}-M$ relation found by Bullock \etal (2001),
292: we estimate the concentration of the halos,
293: \beq
294: c_{med} = \frac{10}{1+z} \left( \frac{M}{M_*} \right)^{-\beta},
295: \label{cmed}
296: \eeq
297: where the fitting parameters $(M_*, \beta)$ are $(7.0 \times 10^{13}
298: M_{\odot}, 0.16)$ for EdS ($h=0.5, \Omega_0=1, \lambda_0=0, \sigma_8=0.67$)
299: model, $(2.1 \times 10^{13} M_{\odot}, 0.14)$ for $\Lambda$ ($h=0.7,
300: \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0.7, \sigma_8=1$) model and $(2.6 \times 10^{13}
301: M_{\odot}, 0.19)$ for open ($h=0.7, \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0,
302: \sigma_8=0.85$) model.
303: Recent high resolution numerical simulations (\cite{bullock01})
304: show that $c$ does depend on $z$ contrary to the earlier suspicious
305: that $c$ does not vary much with the redshift (\cite{nfw97}).
306:
307:
308: The lens equation for the halo with the generalized NFW profile is
309: \beq
310: y = x-A~\frac{g( x )}{x}
311: \label{gnfw4}
312: \eeq
313: where $x=\xi/r_s$ ($\xi$ is the impact parameter in the lens plane),
314: $y =(D_L/D_S) (\eta / r_s)$ ($\eta$ is source position in the source plane),
315: and
316: \beqa
317: g ( x ) &=& \int_0^x dz~z^{2 - \alpha} \int_0^{\pi / 2}
318: d\theta~\frac{\cos {\theta}}{(\cos {\theta} + z)^{3 - \alpha}} ,
319: \label{gnfw5} \\
320: A &=& 16 \pi~\rho _s~\frac{D_L D_{L S}}{D_S}~r_s .
321: \label{gnfw6}
322: \eeqa
323: For $\alpha=0, 1, 2$, the integration of the Eq.(\ref{gnfw5}) can be
324: carried out analytically (the lens equation for the NFW lens was obtained by
325: Bartelmann (1996)).
326: In Fig.2, we show the lens equation for the NFW lens with $A=10$.
327: If $|y| \leq y_{crit}$, three images $x_i~(i=1, 2, 3, x_3 \geq x_2
328: \geq x_1 )$ form.
329: The image positions $x_i=x_i(y)$ with magnifications $\mu_{i}(y)$
330: can be obtained numerically.
331: The image separation angle $\theta$ is defined as the separation between
332: the outer two images and depends on the source position $y$. We use the
333: averaged value in the source plane.
334: \beq
335: \theta (M,z_L) = \frac{1}{\pi {y_{crit}^2 }} \int_0^{y_{crit}}
336: d(\pi y^2) ( x_3 - x_1 ) \frac{r_s(M,z_L)}{D_L} .
337: \label{gnfw8}
338: \eeq
339: The total magnification is the sum of the magnifications of
340: three images ($\sum_{i=1}^3 \mu_i$) and the magnification of the fainter
341: image is smaller magnification of outer two images
342: (min \{ $\mu_1, \mu_3$ \}).
343: Following the case of SIS (see Eq.(\ref{st13})), the cross section is
344: defined by
345: \beq
346: \sigma(M,z_L,z_S) =\pi~\left( \frac{D_S}{D_L} r_s \right)^2
347: \times 2 \int_0^{y_{crit}} dy y~\Theta (\mu (y) - \mu _{*}) .
348: \label{gnfw9}
349: \eeq
350:
351: \subsection{Lensing Probability}
352:
353: The lensing probability for a source at redshift $z_S$ is (\cite{sef92})
354: \beq
355: P (z_S) = \int_0^{\infty} dM \int_0^{z_S} dz_L~\frac{1}{{D_S}^2}
356: ~\frac{(1+z_L)^2}{H(z_L)} {D_L}^2~\sigma (M,z_L,z_S)~N_M (M,z_L),
357: \label{gnfw10}
358: \eeq
359: where $H(z) = H_0 \left[~\Omega_0 (1+z)^3 +(1-\Omega_0-\lambda_0)
360: (1+z)^2 +\lambda_0~\right]^{1/2}$ is the Hubble parameter at redshift $z$,
361: and $N_M (M,z_L)$ is the comoving number density of lenses and
362: is assumed to be given by the Press-Schechter mass function.
363: The one-dimensional velocity dispersion $v$ is related to the mass through
364: $v = \left( {M}/{2 r_{vir}} \right) ^{1/2}$, and this relates the PS mass
365: function to the SIS lens profile.
366: The probability of the image separation angle is obtained by computing
367: $dP/d\theta$.
368:
369: Since gravitational lensing causes a magnification of images, lensed sources
370: are over-represented in a magnitude-limited sample and
371: the actual lensing probability is enhanced.
372: This selection effect is called magnification bias.
373: Let $\Phi _S (z_S,L)~dL$ be the luminosity function of sources.
374: The observed flux $S$ for a lensed source is related to the luminosity $L$,
375: $L=4 \pi (1+z_S)^4~D^2_S~(1+z_S)^{\gamma - 1} S$,
376: where the factor $(1+z_S)^{\gamma - 1}$ is the K-correction, which assumes
377: that the energy spectrum of source is of the form $E \propto \nu^{-\gamma}$.
378: When one searches for lensed source of the observed flux $S$, the lensing
379: probability increases as
380: \beq
381: P^{B} (z_S,L) = \frac{1}{\Phi _S (z_S,L)} \int_1^{\infty} d\mu _{*}
382: ~\left| \frac{d}{d\mu_{*}} P (z_S) \right|~\Phi _S (z_S,L / \mu _{*})
383: ~1/ \mu_{*} .
384: \label{st19}
385: \eeq
386:
387: Including magnification bias, the lensing probability $P^B (z_S,L)$
388: for the generalized NFW lens
389: is expressed as Eq.(\ref{gnfw10}) with
390: $\sigma(M,z_L,z_S)$ replaced by
391: \beq
392: \sigma^B(M,z_L,z_S,L) = \pi~\left( \frac{D_S}{D_L} r_s \right)^2
393: \times~\frac{2}{\Phi _S (z_S,L)} \int_0^{y_{crit}} dy~y
394: ~\Phi _S (z_S,L / {\mu (y)}) / {\mu (y)}.
395: \label{bias}
396: \eeq
397: $\mu (y)$ can be the magnification of the total images or the
398: fainter image.
399: We will discuss each case in Sec. 3.1.
400:
401:
402: \subsection{Press-Schechter Function}
403: We use the Press-Schechter (PS) function (\cite{ps74}) for computing
404: the number density of the halos.
405: The PS mass function is given by
406: \beq
407: N_M (M,z)~dM = \sqrt{\frac{2} {\pi}}~\frac{\rho_0}{M}
408: ~\frac{\delta _{crit} (z)}{\sigma (R)}~\left| \frac{d\ln \sigma}{d\ln M}
409: \right|~\exp \left[ - \frac{{\delta}^2 _{crit} (z)}
410: {2 {\sigma}^2 (R)} \right]~\frac{dM}{M} .
411: \label{ps1}
412: \eeq
413: Here $\rho_0$ is the mean mass density of the universe at present and
414: $\sigma(R)$ is the linear density fluctuation presently on the
415: comoving scale $R$,
416: \beq
417: {\sigma}^2 (R) = \frac{1}{2 {\pi}^2} \int_0^{\infty} dk~k^2~P(k)
418: ~W^2 (kR)
419: ~,~~~R = \left( \frac{2 M}{\Omega _0 {H_0}^2} \right) ^{1/3} ,
420: \label{ps2}
421: \eeq
422: where $P(k)$ and $W(kR)$ are the power spectrum at present
423: (\cite{bbks86,sugiyama95}) and the top-hat window function.
424: We normalize $\sigma(R)$ so that $\sigma(R=8h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})=\sigma_8$, and
425: the critical density contrast is $\delta_{crit}(z)=1.686/{D_1(z)}$,
426: where $D_1(z)$ is the linear growth rate normalized to unity at $z=0$.
427:
428:
429:
430: \section{Results}
431: In order to explore the dependence of the lensing probability on cosmological
432: models, we consider three representative models;
433: EdS model ($h=0.5, \Omega_0=1, \lambda_0=0, \sigma_8=0.67$),
434: $\Lambda$ model ($h=0.7, \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0.7, \sigma_8=1$),
435: open model ($h=0.7, \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0, \sigma_8=0.85$).
436:
437: \subsection{The Effect of Magnification Bias}
438:
439: We demonstrate the effect of magnification bias by calculating the biased
440: lensing probability Eq.(\ref{gnfw10}, \ref{st19}).
441: In calculating magnification bias, we use an optical QSO luminosity
442: function. We adopt the 2dF QSO redshift survey data which include about 6000
443: QSOs with the redshift distribution $0.35 < z < 2.3$ (\cite{boyle00}).
444: The QSO luminosity function is fitted by the two-power-law model
445: \beqa
446: \Phi _S (z_S,L) dL &=& \frac{\Phi_S^{*}~dL}{(L/L_{*})^{c_1}
447: + (L/L_{*})^{c_2}}, \label{st19-1} \\
448: L_{*} (z_S) &=& L_{0 *} 10^{k_1z_S+k_2z_S^2} .
449: \label{st20}
450: \eeqa
451: The fitting parameters for $\Lambda$ model are given by
452: \beqa
453: (c_1, c_2, M_{B *}, k_1, k_2)
454: &=& (3.41, 1.58, -21.14+5 \log h, 1.36, -0.27), \\
455: \Phi_S^{*} &=& 2.88 \times 10^{-6} h^3
456: \mbox{Mpc}^{-3} \mbox{mag}^{-1},
457: \eeqa
458: where $M_{B *}$ is the absolute B-band magnitude corresponding
459: to $L_{0 *}$ (Eq.(\ref{st20})).
460: We take the absolute magnitude of a source is $M_B=-25.8$ mag in
461: Eq.(\ref{st20}) and consider the image separation range $\theta
462: \geq 0.3^{\prime \prime}$.
463: For the energy spectrum index of source (see section 2.3),
464: we use $\gamma=0.5$ for the optical QSOs (\cite{boyle88}).
465: In Fig.2, the effect of magnification bias for SIS and the NFW is shown
466: for $\Lambda$ model.
467: The vertical axis is the lensing probability with magnification bias divided
468: by that without it.
469: As the source redshift is higher, the amplitude of magnification bias
470: is smaller. This is because the number of fainter QSOs
471: (its luminosity is $L \leq L_{*}$) is smaller at higher redshift
472: (Eq.(\ref{st19-1})), so the integration of luminosity function
473: Eq.(\ref{bias}) takes a smaller value.
474: {}From Fig.2, we find that the magnification bias effect for the NFW
475: is order of magnitude larger than that for SIS.
476: This is due to the fact that the magnification for the NFW is divergent at
477: $y=y_{crit}$ and $y=0$ (see Fig.2).
478: Hence, if we attempt to predict lensing
479: frequencies by using the NFW lens model, magnification bias should not
480: be ignored.
481:
482: In Fig.2, we also compare the case when $\mu$ in Eq.(\ref{bias})
483: is the magnification of the total images with the case
484: of the fainter image.
485: Depending on the properties the gravitational lensing configuration,
486: we should use $\mu$ in the bias factor as the magnification of the total
487: images (we call ``$\mu$ total'') or the fainter image among the outer
488: two images (``$\mu$ fainter''). If individual sources in a sample are not
489: examined closely enough to
490: determine whether they are lensed or not, the magnification of the
491: fainter image should be used (\cite{st93,cen94}) because the fainter image
492: should be bright enough to be recognized as one of the multiple images.
493: On the contrary, if one searches for lensed source of small separation
494: angles, then the total magnification may be relevant, because it is likely
495: that the brightness of a lensed source with a small separation is
496: recognized as the total brightness of all the images.
497: So as far as images of large separation angles are concerned,
498: it may be better to use $\mu$ as the magnification of the fainter image.
499:
500: {}From Fig.2, different choice of $\mu$ in the bias
501: factor greatly changes the amplitude of magnification bias for SIS,
502: but does not change it so much for the NFW; the difference is only factor
503: of three. This is because the magnification for the NFW is divergent at
504: $y=0$ more strongly than at $y=y_{crit}$ and the magnifications of
505: both of the outer two images (including the fainter image) are divergent
506: at $y=0$ (see Fig.1).
507: In the following we will consider both cases ($\mu$ total or $\mu$ fainter),
508: since the degree of the magnification bias depends on the method of
509: gravitational lensing search and thus the expected number of lensed sources
510: will be in between.
511:
512: \subsection{Comparison with the CLASS Data}
513: In this section, we compare predicted lens statistics with a well-defined
514: observational sample.
515: The Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) is the largest statistically
516: homogeneous search for gravitational lenses (\cite{bm00}).
517: The sample comprises 10,499 flat-spectrum radio sources with flux $S >
518: 30$ mJy at 5 GHz, and includes 18 gravitational lenses with image
519: separations $0.3^{\prime \prime} \leq \theta \leq 6.0^{\prime \prime}$.
520: An explicit search for lenses with image separations $6.0^{\prime \prime} \leq
521: \theta \leq 15.0^{\prime \prime}$ has found no lenses (\cite{phillips00}).
522: The flux distribution of flat-spectrum radio sources in the CLASS samples
523: can be described as a power-law (\cite{rt00})
524: \beq
525: \Phi_S(z_S,L) dL \propto L^{-2.1} dL.
526: \eeq
527: It is a steeper number-flux relation than predicted by the Dunlop \& Peacock
528: (1990) luminosity function (whose slope is $-1.8$ for the faint sources).
529: The redshift distribution of the full CLASS sample is not known.
530: Marlow \etal (2000) reported the redshifts for a small subsample of 27 sources.
531: We assume that the redshift distribution of the full sample
532: is identical to that of the subsample.
533: We need not consider the magnitude distribution of the sample, since
534: the lensing probability does not depend on the magnitude of the
535: source for the power-law luminosity function.
536:
537: In Fig.3-5, we show the predicted image separation distribution of expected
538: number of lensed source's in the CLASS with magnification bias for each case
539: of $\mu$.
540: The angular resolution of parent survey in the CLASS is very low.
541: The survey flux encompasses all the flux of even the widest separation
542: lenses observed to date. The CLASS survey then reimages the systems
543: looking for multiple imaging (\cite{myers95,mw00,helbig00}).
544: Hence, for the lensed source, $\mu$ is given by summing the fluxes of all
545: images (i.e. ``$\mu$ total'' is appropriate).
546: In these figures, we also show the case of ``$\mu$ fainter '' for comparison.
547: We note that the lenses of large separation angle ($\theta \geq
548: 6^{\prime \prime}$) is expected to be lensed by clusters of galaxies
549: (or equally dark halos), so we should compare the theoretical prediction
550: with large image separation side in CLASS data.
551: In Fig.3, we take the NFW profile and compare the dependence
552: on the cosmological models.
553: The lensing probability is the highest for EdS model.
554: This is due to the fact that the PS mass function is proportional to
555: $\Omega_0$ (see Eq.(\ref{ps1})) and the concentration parameter $c$ is
556: the highest (see Eq.(\ref{cmed})).
557: In Fig.4, we show the lens model dependence for $\Lambda$ model.
558: Since there are no lenses for large image separations ($6^{\prime \prime}
559: \leq \theta \leq 15^{\prime \prime}$) in CLASS sample,
560: the steeper inner profile ($\alpha > 1.5$) seems disfavored.
561: However, it is preliminary, since we do not know whether the subsample
562: by Marlow et al. is a fair sample.
563:
564: We estimate the sensitivity of the lensing probability to the model
565: parameters.
566: Using Eq.(\ref{gnfw10},\ref{st19}) and the CLASS data with
567: the magnification of total images, it is estimated around $\alpha=1,
568: \sigma_8=1, \lambda_0=1-\Omega_0=0.7, w=-1$
569: \beqa
570: \left. \frac{\delta N_{\theta}}{N_{\theta}} \right|_{\theta=6^{\prime
571: \prime}} \simeq
572: 7.4~\frac{\delta \alpha}{\alpha}
573: + 5.7~\frac{\delta c_{med}}{c_{med}}
574: + 4.3~\frac{\delta \sigma_8}{\sigma_8}
575: -5.7~\frac{\delta \lambda_0}{\lambda_0}
576: + 0.35~\frac{\delta w}{w} ,
577: \label{lnfw21} \\
578: \left. \frac{\delta N_{\theta}}{N_{\theta}} \right|_{\theta=12^{\prime
579: \prime}} \simeq
580: 7.3~\frac{\delta \alpha}{\alpha}
581: + 6.3~\frac{\delta c_{med}}{c_{med}}
582: + 6.1~\frac{\delta \sigma_8}{\sigma_8}
583: -6.3~\frac{\delta \lambda_0}{\lambda_0}
584: + 0.27~\frac{\delta w}{w} ,
585: \label{lnfw22}
586: \eeqa
587: where $w$ is the equation of state of dark energy ($w=-1$ for the
588: cosmological constant) and a flat FRW model is assumed.
589: Eqs.(\ref{lnfw21}) and (\ref{lnfw22}) indicate clearly that the lensing
590: probability is very sensitive to the lens model parameters ($\alpha,c_{med}$)
591: as well as the cosmological parameters ($\lambda_0,\sigma_8$),
592: but not sensitive to dark energy parameter ($w$).
593: For example, in order to put constraint on $\lambda_0$ within
594: ${\cal O}(10)\%$ accuracy, one needs to determine the inner profile $\alpha$
595: and the concentration parameter $c$ with similar accuracy.
596: The dispersion of concentration parameter $c$ is about $0.2$
597: (\cite{jing00,bullock01}). However, the current uncertainty in $\alpha$ is
598: ${\cal O}(50)\%$ ($\alpha \sim 1 - 1.5$).
599: Hence, it may be more useful to use the number of
600: large image separation lenses to constrain the inner density profile $\alpha$.
601: Cosmological parameters $\lambda_0$ and $\sigma_8$ could be determined
602: within ${\cal O}(10)\%$ by using CMB, SNIa and number count of clusters
603: data (\cite{bernardis01,fc01}). The sensitivity of the lensing probability
604: to the model parameters was also estimated by Li \& Ostriker (2000),
605: but they assumed a single source at $z=1.5$ and did not include the effect of
606: magnification bias.
607: So the detailed comparison may not be so meaningful. However, we note that
608: the dependence on $c$ and the cosmological constant parameter
609: is slightly larger than that found by Li \& Ostriker (2000).
610:
611:
612: In Fig.5, we show the effect of the scatter in N-body simulation on the
613: image separation distribution.
614: The dispersion of $N_{\theta}$, $\sigma_{\theta}^2$, is calculated by using
615: the probability distribution function of $c$ (Eq.(\ref{pdf})).
616: We use the NFW profile for $\Lambda$ model and compare the amplitude of the
617: square of the dispersion $\sigma_{\theta}^2$ with the predicted number of
618: lenses $N_{\theta}$. We find that the amplitude of $\sigma_{\theta}$
619: is comparable to or larger than $N_{\theta}$, so the scatter of halo
620: profiles strongly affect the lensing probability. When compared with
621: Fig.3, we also find that the scatter is too large to distinguish the
622: different cosmological models, even if the lens model ($\alpha$) is fixed.
623:
624: \section{Prediction for Future Survey}
625: With the current data, the constraints on the parameters are not sufficient.
626: However, we expect that larger surveys currently underway such as the 2dF and
627: SDSS detect a larger number of lenses.
628: For example, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) plans a spectroscopic survey
629: of $10^5$ QSOs over $\pi$ steradian brighter than $i^{\prime} \sim 19$ at
630: $z \leq 3.0$; at redshift between 3.0 and about 5.2, the limiting magnitude
631: will be $i^{\prime} \sim 20$ (\cite{york00}).
632: In this section, we will make predictions for the SDSS.
633:
634: Let $N_{\theta}d\theta$ be the expected number of lensed QSOs with image
635: separation $\theta \sim \theta+d\theta$ within solid angle $\pi$ in the sky.
636: We use the QSOs luminosity function $\Phi_S$ for $z \geq 3$ in SDSS
637: data (\cite{fan01}), since $\Phi_S$ from 2dF redshift survey is known only
638: for lower redshift QSOs ($z \leq 3$) (\cite{boyle00}).
639: $\Phi_S$ is fitted by a power-law,
640: \beq
641: \Phi_S (z_S,M_{1450}) = \Phi_S^{*} 10^{-0.4 \left\{ M_{1450}+26-\alpha
642: \left( z_S-3 \right) \left( \beta+1 \right) \right\} },
643: \eeq
644: where $M_{1450}$ is the absolute AB magnitude of the quasar continuum
645: at $1450 \AA$ in the rest frame.
646: We assume $m_{i^{\prime}}=m_{1450}+0.7$.
647: The fitting parameters for $\Lambda$ model are given by (\cite{fan01})
648: \beq
649: (\Phi_S^{*},\alpha,\beta) = (2.6 \times 10^{-7} h^3 \mbox{Mpc}^{-3}
650: \mbox{mag}^{-1}, 0.75, -2.58).
651: \eeq
652: Similarly, for lower redshift sources ($z \leq 3$) the QSO luminosity
653: function (Eq.(\ref{st19-1},\ref{st20})) is used (\cite{boyle00}).
654: Then, using the QSO luminosity function $\Phi_S$, $N_{\theta}(\theta)$ can be
655: calculated as
656: \beqa
657: N_{\theta}(\theta) &=& \int_{0}^{z_{max}} dz \frac{dV_{\pi}}{dz}
658: \int_{L_{lim}(z)}^{\infty} dL~\frac{dP}{d\theta} (\theta,z,L)
659: \Phi_S (z,L) ,\\
660: \frac{dV_{\pi}}{dz} &=& \pi \frac{ (1+z)^2 D(z)^2}{H(z)}, \nonumber
661: \eeqa
662: where $z_{max}=5.2$ and $L_{lim}(z)$ is calculated from the limiting magnitude.
663: In Fig.6, we show the predicted image separation distribution for SDSS.
664: We use various lens model for $\Lambda$ model.
665: In this model, the number of QSOs is expected to be about 26,000.
666: In Table 1, the expected number of large image separation lenses
667: ($6^{\prime \prime} \leq \theta \leq 30^{\prime \prime}$) is shown.
668: We find that the ambiguity resulting from the treatment of magnification
669: bias is not so large. {}From this table, we expect that the future SDSS
670: data could set constraint on the inner density profile.
671:
672: \section{Summary and Discussion}
673: We have examined the influence of the inner density profile of lenses on
674: gravitational lens statistics carefully taking into account of the effect
675: of magnification bias and the evolution and the scatter in halo profiles.
676: We have estimated the sensitivity of the lensing probability
677: to the inner density profile of lenses and to the cosmological constant.
678: We have found that lensing probability is strongly dependent on the inner
679: density profile as well as on the cosmological constant.
680: We have also shown that magnification bias for the NFW is order of magnitude
681: larger than that for SIS. There is an uncertainty in the treatment of
682: magnification bias: fainter image should be detected in the survey, or
683: the light from both the fainter and brighter images is initially unresolved
684: in a single image and thus the total image should be detected.
685: However, for NFW profile, difference between
686: the magnification bias of the fainter image and that of the total image is
687: found to be only by factor of three.
688: In any case, we should be careful about magnification bias which strongly
689: depends on the lens profile.
690: We have compared the predictions with the CLASS data and suggested that
691: the steeper inner profile ($\alpha > 1.5$) seems disfavored.
692: The absence or presence of large splitting events in larger surveys
693: currently underway such as the 2dF and SDSS
694: could set constraints on the inner density profile of dark halos.
695:
696: Recently, using the arc statistics of gravitational lensing, various authors
697: have examined the inner profile of dark halos
698: (\cite{bartelmann98,mh00,oguri01}).
699: Comparing with the existing observational data,
700: Molikawa \& Hattori (2001) and Oguri, Taruya \& Suto (2001) suggested that
701: the steeper inner profile of
702: dark halos ($\alpha >1$ or even $\alpha > 1.5$) is favored.
703: On the other hand, the absence of large images separations in
704: QSOs multiple images in the CLASS sample constrains the inner profile and
705: rather disfavors the steeper profile.
706: Combining the arc statistics and the statistics of QSOs multiple image,
707: we could narrow the allowed range of the inner profile of
708: dark halos, or more interestingly both methods might exhibit discrepancy.
709:
710: In any event, larger surveys will produce a lot of QSOs multiple
711: images in near future and theoretical development especially concerning
712: the uncertainties of various models will be expected.
713: So we will get clues to the nature of dark matter.
714:
715:
716: \acknowledgments
717: We would like to thank Professor Yasushi Suto, Dr. Ryoichi Nishi
718: for useful discussion and comments. One of the authors (RT) also thanks
719: Dr. Atsushi Taruya and Dr. Masamune Oguri for useful comments.
720: This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
721: Research (No.13740154) from the Japan Society for
722: the Promotion of Science.
723:
724:
725: \begin{thebibliography}{}
726:
727: \bibitem[Bartelmann 1996]{bartelmann96} Bartelmann, M. 1996,
728: A\&A, 313, 697
729:
730: \bibitem[Bartelmann \etal 1998]{bartelmann98}
731: Bartelmann, M., Huss, A., Colberg, J.M., Jenkins, A. \& Pearce, F.R. 1998,
732: A\&A, 330, 1
733:
734: \bibitem[Bardeen \etal 1986]{bbks86} Bardeen, J.M., Bond, J.R., Kaiser, N.
735: \& Szalay, A.S. 1986, ApJ, 304, 15
736:
737: \bibitem[Borriello \& Salucci 2001]{bs01} Borriello, A. \& Salucci, P. 2001,
738: MNRAS, 323, 285
739:
740: \bibitem[Boyle \etal 1988]{boyle88}
741: Boyle, B.J., Shanks, T. \& Peterson, B.A. 1988,
742: MNRAS, 235, 935
743:
744: \bibitem[Boyle \etal 2000]{boyle00} Boyle, B.J. \etal 2000
745: MNRAS, 317, 1014
746:
747: \bibitem[Browne \& Myers 2000]{bm00} Browne, I.W.A. \& Myers, S.T. 2000,
748: IAU Symposium 201, 47
749:
750: \bibitem[Bullock \etal 2001]{bullock01} Bullock, J.S. \etal 2001,
751: MNRAS, 321, 559
752:
753: \bibitem[Cen \etal 1994]{cen94} Cen, R., Gott, J.R.,III,
754: Ostriker, J.P. \& Turner, E.L. 1994, ApJ, 423, 1
755:
756: \bibitem[de Bernardis \etal 2001]{bernardis01} de Bernardis, P. \etal 2001,
757: astro-ph/0105296
758:
759: \bibitem[de Blok \etal 2001]{blok01} de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S.,
760: Bosma, A. \& Rubin, V.C. 2001, astro-ph/0103102
761:
762: \bibitem[Dunlop \& Peacock 1990]{dp90} Dunlop, J.S. \& Peacock, J.A. 1990,
763: MNRAS, 247, 19
764:
765: %\bibitem[Dyer \& Roeder 1972]{dr72} Dyer, C.C. \& Roeder, R.C. 1972,
766: % ApJ, 174, L115
767:
768: \bibitem[Dyer \& Roeder 1973]{dr73} Dyer, C.C. \& Roeder, R.C. 1973,
769: ApJ, 180, L31
770:
771: \bibitem[Einasto \& Einasto 2000]{ee00} Einasto, J. \& Einasto, M. 2000,
772: Publ.Astron.Soc.Pac., 209, 360 (astro-ph/9909437)
773:
774: \bibitem[Fan \etal 2001]{fan01} Fan, X. \etal 2001,
775: AJ, 121, 54
776:
777: \bibitem[Fan \& Chiueh 2001]{fc01} Fan, Z. \& Chiueh, T. 2001,
778: ApJ, 550, 547
779:
780: \bibitem[Flores \& Primack 1996]{fp96} Flores, R.A. \& Primack, J.R. 1996,
781: ApJ, 457, L5
782:
783: \bibitem[Flores \etal 2000]{flores00} Flores, R.A., Maller, A.H.,
784: \& Primack, J.R. 2000, ApJ, 535, 555
785:
786: \bibitem[Fox \& Pen 2001]{fp01} Fox, D.C. \& Pen, U-L. 2001,
787: ApJ, 546, 35
788:
789: \bibitem[Fukugita \etal 1992]{ffkt92} Fukugita, M., Futamase, T., Kasai, M.,
790: \& Turner, E.L. 1992, ApJ, 393, 3
791:
792: \bibitem[Fukushige \& Makino 2001]{fm00} Fukushige, T. \& Makino 2001,
793: ApJ, 557, 533
794:
795: \bibitem[Helbig 2000]{helbig00} Helbig, P. 2000,
796: astro-ph/0008197
797:
798: \bibitem[Jing 2000]{jing00} Jing, Y.P. 2000,
799: ApJ, 535, 30
800:
801: \bibitem[Keeton \& Madau 2001]{km01} Keeton, C.R. \& Madau, P. 2001,
802: ApJ, 549, L25
803:
804: \bibitem[Keeton 2001]{keeton01} Keeton, C.R. 2001,
805: astro-ph/0105200
806:
807: \bibitem[Kitayama \& Suto 1996]{ks96} Kitayama, T. \& Suto, Y. 1996,
808: ApJ, 469, 480
809:
810: \bibitem[Kochanek 1995]{k95} Kochanek, C.S. 1995,
811: ApJ, 453, 545
812:
813: \bibitem[Kochanek 1996]{k96} Kochanek, C.S. 1996,
814: ApJ, 466, 638
815:
816: \bibitem[Kochanek \& White 2001]{kw01} Kochanek, C.S. \& White, M. 2001,
817: astro-ph/0102334
818:
819: \bibitem[Li \& Ostriker 2000]{lo00} Li, Li-Xin \& Ostriker, P.J. 2000,
820: astro-ph/0010432
821:
822: \bibitem[Maoz \etal 1997]{maoz97} Maoz, D. \etal 2000,
823: ApJ, 486, 75
824:
825: \bibitem[Marlow \etal 2000]{marlow00} Marlow, D.R. \etal 2000,
826: AJ, 119, 2629
827:
828: \bibitem[Molikawa \& Hattori 2000]{mh00} Molikawa, K. \& Hattori, M. 2000,
829: astro-ph/0009343
830:
831: \bibitem[Moore \etal 1999]{moore99} Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F.,
832: Stadel, J. \& Lake, G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147
833:
834: \bibitem[Mortlock \& Webster 2000]{mw00} Mortlock, D.J. \& Webster, R.L. 2000,
835: MNRAS, 319, 872
836:
837: \bibitem[Myers \etal 1995]{myers95} Myers, S.T. \etal 1995,
838: ApJ, 447, L5
839:
840: \bibitem[Nakamura \& Suto 1997]{ns97} Nakamura, T.T. \& Suto, Y. 1997,
841: Prog. Theor. Phys., 97, 49
842:
843: \bibitem[Narayan \& White 1988]{nw88} Narayan, R. \& White, S.D.M. 1988,
844: MNRAS, 231, 97p
845:
846: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White 1996]{nfw96}
847: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
848:
849: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White 1997]{nfw97}
850: Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \& White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493
851:
852: \bibitem[Oguri, Taruya \& Suto 2001]{oguri01}
853: Oguri, M., Taruya, A. \& Suto, Y. 2001, astro-ph/0105248
854:
855: \bibitem[Peebles 1993]{peebles93} Peebles, P.J.E. 1993,
856: {\it Principles of Physical Cosmology},
857: (Princeton University Press, Princeton)
858:
859: \bibitem[Phillips \etal 2000]{phillips00} Phillips, P.M., Browne, I.W.A.
860: Wilkinson, P.N. \& Jackson, N.J. 2000, astro-ph/0011032
861:
862: \bibitem[Porciani \& Madau 2000]{pm00} Porciani, O. \& Madau, P. 2000,
863: ApJ, 532, 679
864:
865: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter 1974]{ps74} Press, W.H. \& Schechter, P. 1974,
866: ApJ, 187, 425
867:
868: \bibitem[Rees \& Ostriker 1977]{ro77} Rees, M.J. \& Ostriker, J.P. 1977,
869: MNRAS, 179, 541
870:
871: \bibitem[Rusin \& Tegmark 2001]{rt00} Rusin, D. \& Tegmark, M. 2001,
872: ApJ, 553, 709
873:
874: \bibitem[Sasaki \& Takahara 1993]{st93} Sasaki, S. \& Takahara, F. 1993,
875: MNRAS, 262, 681
876:
877: \bibitem[Schneider, Ehlers \& Falco 1992]{sef92}
878: Schneider, P. Ehlers, J. \& Falco, E.E. 1992, {\it Gravitational Lenses},
879: (Springer-Verlag, New York)
880:
881: \bibitem[Sugiyama 1995]{sugiyama95} Sugiyama, N. 1995,
882: ApJS, 100, 281
883:
884: \bibitem[Tomita 1996]{tomita96} Tomita, K. 1996,
885: PASJ, 48, 265
886:
887: \bibitem[Tomita 1998]{tomita98} Tomita, K. 1998,
888: Prog.Theor.Phys., 100, 79
889:
890: \bibitem[Tomita, Asada \& Hamana 1999]{tah99}
891: Tomita, K., Asada, H. \& Hamana, T. 1999,
892: Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl., 133, 155
893:
894: \bibitem[Turner, Ostriker \& Gott 1984]{tog84}
895: Turner, E.L., Ostriker, J.P. \& Gott, J.R. 1984,
896: ApJ, 284, 1
897:
898: \bibitem[Tyson \etal 1998]{tyson98}
899: Tyson, J.A., Kochanski, G.P. \& Dell'Antonio, I.P. 1998,
900: ApJ, 498, L107
901:
902: \bibitem[van den Bosch \etal 2000]{bosch00a} van den Bosch, F.C.,
903: Robertson, B.E., Dalcanton, J.J. \& de Blok, W.J.G. 2000, AJ, 119, 1579
904:
905: \bibitem[York \etal 2000]{york00} York, D.G. \etal 2000,
906: AJ, 120, 1579
907:
908: \bibitem[Wambsganss \etal 1995]{wcot95} Wambsganss, J. \etal 1995,
909: Science, 268, 174
910:
911: \bibitem[Wambsganss \etal 1998]{wco98} Wambsganss, J., Cen, R. \&
912: Ostriker, J.P. 1998, ApJ, 494, 29
913:
914: \bibitem[Wyithe, Turner \& Spergel 2000]{wyithe00}
915: Wyithe, J.S.B., Turner, E.L. \& Spergel, D.N. 2001, ApJ, 555, 504
916:
917: \end{thebibliography}
918:
919: \clearpage
920:
921: \begin{figure}
922: \begin{center}
923: \epsfxsize=120mm
924: \epsfbox{f1.eps}
925: \end{center}
926: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=\columnwidth}}
927: \caption{The lens equation for the NFW.
928: The case with $A=10$ is shown.
929: The horizontal axis is $x$, which is the impact parameter normalized
930: by a scale radius $r_s$ in the lens plane;
931: the vertical axis is $y$, which is the source position normalized by a scale
932: radius $r_s$ in the source plane.
933: Multiple images are formed when $\left| y \right| \leq y_{crit}$.}
934:
935: \end{figure}
936: %\newpage
937: \begin{figure}
938: \begin{center}
939: \epsfxsize=120mm
940: \epsfbox{f2.eps}
941: \end{center}
942: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=\columnwidth}}
943: \caption{The amplitude of magnification bias for $\Lambda$ model
944: $(h=0.7, \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0.7, \sigma_8=1.0)$ with the absolute
945: magnitude of a source being $M_B=-25.8$ mag.
946: The horizontal axis is $z_S$, which is the source redshift; the vertical
947: axis is a ratio lensing probability with the magnification bias to
948: that without it. Image separation range $\theta \geq
949: 0.3^{\prime \prime}$.
950: The solid (dotted) line is the NFW profile for the case of the
951: magnification of the total images (the fainter image).
952: The short (long dashed) line is SIS for the case of the magnification
953: of the total images (the fainter image). }
954:
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \begin{figure}
958: \begin{center}
959: \epsfxsize=120mm
960: \epsfbox{f3.eps}
961: \end{center}
962: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1.ps,width=\columnwidth}}
963: \caption{The distribution of image separations for the NFW lens model.
964: The assumed cosmologies are
965: EdS model(short-dashed: $h=0.5, \Omega_0=1, \lambda_0=0, \sigma_8=0.67$),
966: $\Lambda$ model (solid: $h=0.7, \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0.7, \sigma_8=1$) and
967: open model(long-dashed: $h=0.7, \Omega_0=0.3, \lambda_0=0, \sigma_8=0.85$).
968: The left figure is for the selection condition in which
969: fainter image should be detected in the survey, and
970: the right figure is for the selection condition that the light from
971: both the fainter and brighter images is initially unresolved in a single
972: image. ``$\mu$ total'' is appropriate in the CLASS.
973: The observational data from CLASS are shown by the histogram.}
974:
975: \end{figure}
976: %\newpage
977: \begin{figure}
978: \begin{center}
979: \epsfxsize=120mm
980: \epsfbox{f4.eps}
981: \end{center}
982: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=\columnwidth}}
983: \caption{Same as Fig.3, but for various lens models (dotted: SIS,
984: long-dashed: the generalized NFW with $\alpha=1.5$,
985: solid: NFW ($\alpha=1$), short-dashed: the generalized NFW
986: with $\alpha=0.5$). $\Lambda$ model is assumed for cosmology.
987: The observational data from CLASS are shown by the histogram.}
988:
989: \end{figure}
990: %\newpage
991: \begin{figure}
992: \begin{center}
993: \epsfxsize=120mm
994: \epsfbox{f5.eps}
995: \end{center}
996: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=\columnwidth}}
997: \caption{The dispersion of the predicted number of lenses caused by
998: the scatter of halo profiles in N-body simulation.
999: The solid line is the square of the dispersion (standard deviation),
1000: the dashed line is the averaged distribution of image separations.
1001: $\Lambda$ model and the NFW profile ($\alpha=1$) are assumed.}
1002:
1003: \end{figure}
1004: %\newpage
1005: \begin{figure}
1006: \begin{center}
1007: \epsfxsize=120mm
1008: \epsfbox{f6.eps}
1009: \end{center}
1010: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=\columnwidth}}
1011: \caption{The image separation distribution expected for SDSS data for
1012: various lens models. $\Lambda$ model is assumed for cosmology.
1013: The total QSOs number is estimated to be 26,000.}
1014:
1015: \end{figure}
1016:
1017: \begin{table}
1018: \begin{center}
1019: % \tabcolsep=2mm
1020: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
1021: % \small
1022: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|r|} \hline
1023: &SIS &$\alpha=1.5$ &$\alpha=1$ &$\alpha=0.5$ \\ \hline
1024: $N_{\theta}(6^{\prime \prime} \leq \theta \leq 30^{\prime \prime})$
1025: $\mu$ total& 197.5 & 31.0 & 7.3 & 1.6 \\ \hline
1026: $\mu$ fainter& 37.5 & 10.9 & 2.4 & 0.43 \\ \hline
1027: \end{tabular}
1028: \end{center}
1029: \caption{The expected number of large image separation lenses
1030: $(6^{\prime \prime} \leq \theta \leq 30^{\prime \prime})$ for SDSS data
1031: for $\Lambda$ model with magnification bias of the fainter image
1032: (bottom) and the total images (top).
1033: The total QSOs number is expected to be about 26,000.}
1034: \end{table}%
1035:
1036: \end{document}
1037:
1038:
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050: