1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}

4: \usepackage{epsf}

5: \usepackage{graphics}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: 

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{

11: \def\@captype{figure}

12: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}

13: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

14: 

15: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{

16: \def\@captype{table}

17: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}

18: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

19: 

20: \medskip

21: 

22: \slugcomment{submitted to ApJ}

23: 

24: \shorttitle{}

25: 

26: \received{}

27: 

28: \title{Extrinsic Radio Variability of JVAS/CLASS Gravitational Lenses}

29: 

30: \author{L.V.E. Koopmans} 

31: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218\\

32: California Institute of Technology, 

33: Theoretical Astrophysics, 130-33, Pasadena, CA 91125\\

34: Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 9DL, UK\\}

35: \email{koopmans@stsci.edu}

36: 

37: \medskip

38: 

39: \author{A. Biggs} 

40: \affil{Joint Institute for VLBI in Europe,

41: P.O. Box 2, 7990 AA, Dwingeloo, The Netherlands\\

42: Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 9DL, UK}

43: 

44: \medskip

45: 

46: \author{R.D. Blandford}

47: \affil{California Institute of Technology, 

48: Theoretical Astrophysics, 130-33, Pasadena, CA 91125} 

49: 

50: \medskip

51: 

52: \author{I.W.A. Browne, N.J. Jackson, S. Mao, P.N. Wilkinson} 

53: \affil{Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 9DL, UK}

54: 

55: \medskip

56: 

57: \author{A.G. de Bruyn} 

58: \affil{ASTRON, P.O. Box 2, 7990 AA, Dwingeloo, The Netherlands\\

59: Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands}

60: 

61: \medskip

62: 

63: \author{J. Wambsganss} 

64: \affil{Universit\"{a}t Potsdam, Institut f\"{u}r Physik, Am Neuen Palais 10,  

65: 14469 Potsdam, Germany}

66: 

67: \medskip

68: 

69: \begin{abstract}

70: We present flux-ratio curves of the {\sl fold and cusp} (i.e. close

71: multiple) images of six JVAS/CLASS gravitational lens systems.  The

72: data were obtained over a period of 8.5 months in 2001 with the

73: Multi-Element Radio-Linked Interferometer Network (MERLIN) at 5--GHz

74: with 50~mas resolution, as part of a MERLIN Key-Project. Even though

75: the time delays between the fold and cusp images are small ($\la$1\,d)

76: compared to the time-scale of intrinsic source variability, all six

77: lens systems show evidence that suggests the presence of extrinsic

78: variability. In particular, the cusp images of B2045+265 -- regarded

79: as the strongest case of the violation of the cusp relation (i.e. the

80: sum of the magnifications of the three cusp images add to zero) --

81: show extrinsic variations in their flux-ratios up to $\sim$40\%

82: peak-to-peak on time scales of several months. Its low Galactic

83: latitude of $b\approx -10^\circ$ and a line-of-sight toward the Cygnus

84: superbubble region suggest that Galactic scintillation is the most

85: likely cause. The cusp images of B1422+231 at $b\approx +69^\circ$ do

86: not show strong extrinsic variability. Galactic scintillation can

87: therefore cause significant scatter in the cusp and fold relations of

88: some radio lens systems (up to 10\% rms), even though these relations

89: remain violated when averaged over a $\la$\,1 year time baseline.

90: \end{abstract}

91: 

92: \keywords{gravitational lensing --- scattering --- ISM: general }

93: 

94: \section{Introduction}

95: 

96: Cosmological Cold--Dark--Matter (CDM) simulations predict the

97: existence of condensed structures in the halos around massive galaxies

98: (e.g. Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999), if the initial

99: power-spectrum does not cut off at small scales and dark matter is

100: cold and not self-interacting. However, observationally, we see at

101: most the high-mass tail of these structures in the form of dwarf

102: galaxies. This raises the question of where most of their less massive

103: ($10^{6}-10^9$~M$_\odot$) counterparts are located. Either (i) these

104: CDM structures have not formed -- in conflict with CDM predictions --

105: or (ii) they consist predominantly of dark-matter and baryons have

106: been blown out, preventing star formation altogether, or (iii) baryons

107: are present but have not condensed inside their potential well to form

108: visible stars. If either one of the latter two is the case, the only

109: way to detected them is through their gravitational effect, in

110: particular through dynamics and lensing.

111: 

112: The initial suggestion by Mao \& Schneider (1998) that anomalous

113: flux-ratios in the lens system B1422+231 can be caused by small-scale

114: mass substructure in the lens galaxy, was recently extended to a

115: larger -- although still limited -- sample of gravitational-lens

116: systems with fold and cusp images (Metcalf \& Madau 2001; Keeton 2001;

117: Chiba 2002; Metcalf \& Zhao 2002; Dalal \& Kochanek 2002; Brada\v{c}

118: et al. 2002; Keeton et al. 2002). In particular, analyses have focused

119: on the so called normalized ``cusp relation'', which says that $R_{\rm

120: cusp}\equiv \Sigma \mu_i/\Sigma |\mu_i|\rightarrow 0$, for the

121: magnifications $\mu_i$ of the three merging images of a source well

122: inside the cusp (Blandford 1990; Schneider \& Weiss 1992). A similar

123: relation holds for the two fold images.  These relations are only two

124: of many (in fact $\infty$) scaling laws (Blandford 1990). Because

125: globular clusters and dwarf-galaxies are too few in number to explain

126: the rate of anomalous flux-ratios and cusp relations, this could be

127: used as an argument in favor of CDM substructure as the dominant cause

128: of these apparent anomalies (e.g. Kochanek \& Dalal 2003).

129: 

130: If the observed violations of the cusp relation (i.e. $R_{\rm cusp}\ne

131: 0$), as discussed above, are due to substructure on mass scales of

132: $10^6$ to $10^9$ M$_\odot$, the effect should be the same for radio

133: and optical flux ratios (if the latter are available), and it should

134: be constant in time. However, another possible explanation is

135: microlensing of stellar mass objects in combination with a smoothly

136: distributed (dark) matter component (Schechter \& Wambsganss

137: 2002). This one does not require the optical and radio flux ratios to

138: behave in the same way, and in particular it predicts the optical flux

139: ratios to {\em change} over time scales of years. Finally, there is

140: also the possibility that the flux-density and surface brightness

141: distribution of lensed radio images are affected by the ionized ISM in

142: the lens galaxy and/or our Galaxy, also leading to changes in the

143: apparent value of the cusp relation.

144: 

145: Hence, before one can confidently accept the detection CDM

146: substructure, it requires rigorous testing to see whether observed

147: flux ratios correspond to magnification ratios or whether they can be

148: affected by propagation effects (or microlensing). Here, we make the

149: first coordinated attempt to test the effects of propagation on the

150: observed {\sl radio} fluxes of lensed images.

151: 

152: In Sections 2 and 3 we present the first results of our MERLIN

153: Key-Project (Biggs et al. 2003) to search for extrinsic variability

154: between fold and cusp images (i.e. close multiple images), based on

155: their flux-density curves. A discussion and conclusions are given in

156: Sect.4.

157: 

158: \section{MERLIN 5--GHz Data}

159: 

160: MERLIN 5--GHz data were obtained between Feb 21 and Nov 7 2001. A

161: total of 41 epochs of 24 hours each were obtained, on average once per

162: week. Eight lens systems were observed (i.e. Table~1 plus B1608+656

163: and B1600+434) of which seven are four-image systems and one is a

164: double. The data acquisition and reduction is described in Biggs et

165: al. (2003), which also presents the flux-density curves of all the

166: lensed images.

167: 

168: In this paper, we focus on the {\sl flux-ratio} curves. This approach

169: has several advantages when looking for extrinsic variability. The

170: dominant errors on flux-density curves in the radio are those

171: resulting from residual noise in the maps and from multiplicative

172: errors as a result of erroneous flux calibration. Because

173: multiplicative errors are equal for each of the lensed images, they

174: disappear in the flux-ratio curves (not corrected for the time-delays)

175: which should therefore be flat and dominated by noise in the absence

176: of variability.

177: 

178: All presented lens systems also have small time-delays between

179: cusp/fold images ($\la$1\,d) compared to the time between observations

180: and the time-scale of intrinsic variability as seen in the

181: flux-density curves (Biggs et al. 2003). Hence, intrinsic flux-density

182: variations should effectively occur simultaneously in fold and cusp

183: images and thus disappear in the flux-ratio curves. Throughout this

184: paper we therefore assume that (i) due to the small time-delays

185: between fold/cusp images, intrinsic variability does not affect the

186: flux-ratio curves, (ii) systematic flux-density errors are

187: multiplicative and also do not affect the flux-ratio curves, and (iii)

188: extrinsic variability does not correlate between lensed images.

189: 

190: We exclude the double B1600+434 and the quad B1608+656 from our

191: analysis, which both have non-negligible time-delays (i.e. several

192: weeks to months; see Fassnacht et al. 1999a, 2002; Koopmans et

193: al. 2000; Burud et al. 2000).

194: 

195: \section{Results}

196: 

197: \subsection{Normalized Flux-ratio Curves}

198: 

199: In Fig.\ref{fig:rcurves} the resulting flux-ratio curves of all images

200: are shown with respect to image A which is often the brightest

201: image. We follow the labeling of these images as published in the

202: literature (e.g. Biggs et al. 2003). Each flux-ratio curve has been

203: normalized to unity by dividing them through the average flux-ratio of

204: all 41 epochs. The errors are the square root of the sum of the two

205: fractional (noise) errors on the flux-densities squared. The

206: flux-density errors are determined from the rms in the residual maps

207: (i.e. the radio maps with the lensed images subtracted).

208: 

209: In Table~1, we list (i) the average flux-ratios and the rms scatter

210: for each image pair, (ii) the reduced--$\chi^2$ values, by assuming

211: that each normalized flux-ratio should be unity in the case of no

212: extrinsic variability and under the assumptions mentioned in

213: Sect.2, and (iii) the values of $R_{\rm cusp}$ (see Mao \& Schneider

214: 1998; Keeton et al. 2002), which we discuss further in Sect.4.

215: 

216: \subsection{Evidence for Extrinsic Variability}

217: 

218: To test for extrinsic variability in the lensed images, on time-scales

219: less than the monitoring period of 8.5 month, we introduce the

220: following method:

221: 

222: Let us designate the normalized light curves of the individual

223: cusp/fold images as $a_n \equiv A/\langle A\rangle$, $b_n \equiv

224: B/\langle B\rangle$ and $c_n \equiv C/\langle C\rangle$, where their

225: average flux-densities over the 41 epochs are $\langle A\rangle$,

226: $\langle B\rangle$ and $\langle C\rangle$, respectively\footnote{We

227: use the notation $A$, $B$, $C$ and $a_n$, $b_n$, $c_n$ to indicate

228: both the light curves as a whole, as well as their individual

229: flux-density values.}

230: 

231: First, the points $(a_n,b_n,c_n)$ are plotted in a three-dimensional

232: Cartesian space, such that multiplicative errors {\sl and} intrinsic

233: flux-density variations (the latter because of the negligible

234: time-delays) move points parallel to the vector $(1,1,1)$.

235: 

236: Second, each point $(a_n,b_n,c_n)$ is projected on to a

237: two-dimensional plane that is normal to the vector $(1,1,1)$. Hence,

238: the projected points will {\sl not} move on that plane, either because

239: of intrinsic flux-density variations or multiplicative errors. Both of

240: these are movements perpendicular to the plane and thus translate to

241: the same projected point.

242: 

243: Third, if one defines the $x$--axis, $\hat x$, of this two-dimensional

244: plane to be the projected $a$--axis, $\hat a$, of the

245: three-dimensional space, and $\hat y$ to be perpendicular to $\hat x$ in the

246: same normal plane, one finds the following simple mapping:

247: \begin{eqnarray}

248:      x &=& (2 a_n - b_n -c_n)/\sqrt{6} \nonumber\\

249:      y &=& (b_n - c_n)/\sqrt{2}

250: \end{eqnarray}

251: or in polar coordinates

252: \begin{eqnarray}

253:   r^2      &=& {x^2 + y^2}\nonumber\\

254:   \theta &=& \arctan(x,y).

255: \end{eqnarray}

256: Because $\hat a$ projects on to $\hat x$, any uncorrelated

257: extrinsic variations in image A will only result in a movement of a

258: point along $\hat a$ and thus only along the $\hat x$ axis.

259: 

260: Because the 1--$\sigma$ errors on the normalized flux-densities $a_n$,

261: $b_n$ and $c_n$ are known from the observations, one can calculate the

262: corresponding expected 1--$\sigma$ errors on $x$ and $y$.

263: \begin{eqnarray}

264:     \sigma_x^2 & = & {2/3\, \sigma_{a}^2 + 1/6\, \sigma_{b}^2 + 1/6\, \sigma_{c}^2}\nonumber\\

265:     \sigma_y^2 & = & {1/2\, \sigma_{b}^2 + 1/2\, \sigma_{c}^2}

266: \end{eqnarray}

267: and similarly

268: \begin{eqnarray}

269:     \sigma_r^2 & = & ((2 a_n - b_n -c_n)^2\, \sigma_a^2 + (2 b_n - c_n -a_n)^2\, 

270:                     \sigma_b^2 + (2 c_n - a_n -b_n)^2\, \sigma_c^2)/(9 r^2).

271: \end{eqnarray}

272: Notice that the scatter in $x$ will be a combination of the scatter in

273: $a_n$, $b_n$ and $c_n$, if each image behaves independently.

274: 

275: On the other hand,

276: \begin{equation}

277:   \chi^2_r = \frac{1}{\rm DOF}\sum_i{(r_i/\sigma_{r,i})^2}

278: \end{equation}

279: is a direct estimator of the significance of the presence of extrinsic

280: variability on time-scales of $<$8.5 month, {\sl irrespective of the

281: image(s) it occurs in}. In other words, it does not tell us which

282: image or images exhibit extrinsic variability, only that extrinsic

283: variability is present if $\chi^2_r$ is significantly larger than

284: unity.

285: 

286: The significance of extrinsic variability in individual image is far

287: more difficult to assess.  However, we can estimate the level of

288: extrinsic variability in image A, for example, by knowing that the 

289: expected variance in that image, due to noise {\sl and} in the absence of

290: extrinsic variability, should be

291: \begin{equation}

292:   {\rm E}\{\langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle\} \approx 3/2\, {\rm var}(x) - 1/2\, {\rm var}(y).

293: \end{equation}

294: If the observed value of $\langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle = (\sum^N_i \sigma_{a,i}^2)/{N}$ is smaller than 

295: ${\rm E}\{\langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle\}$, the difference is due to extrinsic

296: variability with an estimated  variance of

297: \begin{equation}

298:   {\rm var}(a_{\rm ext}) \approx {\rm E}\{\langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle\} - \langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle.

299: \end{equation}

300: The same procedure can be repeated for each of the other images.  In

301: Table~2, we have listed the values of $\chi^2_r$ and the values of

302: ${\rm var}(a_{\rm ext},b_{\rm ext},c_{\rm ext})$, if larger than zero

303: (note that ${\rm E}\{\langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle\}$ is an estimate and

304: could therefore be smaller than $\langle \sigma_a^2 \rangle$ when

305: measured from a finite set of observations).

306: 

307: 

308: Finally, we further discuss whether correlations between the flux

309: measurements of the merging images could potentially occur. We note,

310: however, that $\sigma_{a/b/c}$ are noise errors as determined from

311: residual maps, i.e. the original maps after we subtract of the

312: best-fit model of the lensed images. The residual radio maps are

313: consistent with noise maps. Since the images are separated by many

314: beam sizes (i.e. resolution elements), the flux measurements of images

315: A, B and C -- even though measured from the same map -- are

316: independent, except for the multiplicative errors as explained

317: previously. Hence there should be {\sl no} effect of measurement

318: correlations in Eq.(3) or (4), which could skew our results.

319: 

320: Hence, the technique discussed above is explicitly designed to

321: separate the effects of multiplicative errors, extrinsic variability

322: and noise, and should also be free of measurement correlations. For

323: example, if one were to cross correlate (e.g.~using the Spearmann rank

324: correlation) the flux-ratio curves (Fig.1) of a single lens system

325: with each other, one would find that they correlate strongly, even in

326: the absence of extrinsic variability. The reason being that the same

327: noise variations in image A would be introduced in both $(B/A)_{\rm

328: n}$ and $(C/A)_{\rm n}$. A Spearman rank correlation on flux-ratio

329: curves without extrinsic variability but with similar noise properties

330: and number of epochs confirms this. However, one notices from

331: equations 3 and 4 that any multiplicative error does not affect

332: $\sigma^2_{x/y}$ or $\sigma^2_r$ (where it cancels out) or the

333: projection on the plane that we defined in equations 1 and 2, as

334: previously discussed. In addition, one finds from equations 1, 2 and 4

335: that if there is no extrinsic variability, $\chi^2_r \rightarrow 1$,

336: whereas the presence of extrinsic variability implies $\chi^2_r > 1$.

337: Hence, $\chi^2_r$ is indeed independent from multiplicative errors and

338: therefore the correct estimator of the significance of the presence of

339: extrinsic variability, in the (shown) absence of measurement

340: correlations.

341: 

342: \subsection{Individual Lens Systems}

343: 

344: Here, we discuss each case, based on their reduced $\chi^2$

345: values. Image D is not considered because of its faintness and larger

346: inferred time-delay compared with the other images.

347: 

348: \subsubsection{All systems, except B2045+265} 

349: 

350: Based on the relatively low values of $\chi^2_r$ and the estimated

351: levels of extrinsic variability (Table~2) for the images of B0128+437,

352: B1359+154 and B1422+231 and B1555+375, and the remaining possibility

353: that some minor undetected additive errors could be present, the

354: evidence for extrinsic variability in these four systems is not

355: totally convincing. We exclude these from further discussion.

356: 

357: In the case of B0712+472, the reduced $\chi^2$ values of the

358: $(B/A)_{\rm n}$ flux-ratio curves and also $\chi_r^2$ seem more 

359: significant. In Fig.1 we see that a large number of epochs are deviant

360: over the entire observing season. Deviations of the $(C/A)_{\rm n}$

361: flux-ratio curve from unity are less significant, probably because

362: image C has a larger fractional error than images A and B. Even though

363: there is some evidence in this system for extrinsic variability

364: between the two fold images, we conservatively regard it also as weak

365: and we will concentrate our discussion on B2045+265. In Sect.4,

366: however, we further discuss what a possible reason for some of the

367: higher values of $\chi_r^2$ and extrinsic variability can be.

368: 

369: \subsubsection{B2045+265} 

370: 

371: In Tables 1 and 2, we see that (i) both the $(B/A)_{\rm n}$ and

372: $(C/A)_{\rm n}$ flux-ratio curves have very high values of the reduced

373: $\chi^2$, reflected also in large rms values, (ii) the estimated rms

374: values of extrinsic variability and the value of $\chi_r^2$ are

375: very large, and (iii) a visual inspection of the $(B/A)_{\rm n}$ and

376: $(C/A)_{\rm n}$ flux-ratio curves shows changes of up to $\sim$40\% on

377: time scales of several months. Because the time delays between the

378: cusp images are only a fraction of a day (Fassnacht et al. 1999b),

379: residual intrinsic source variability can not cause these variations.

380: 

381: A more quantitative analysis based on the structure function

382: (e.g. Simonetti et al. 1985) of the flux-ratio curves (indicated by

383: $R(t)$) is shown in Fig.2. The structure function

384: $<D^{(1)}(\tau)>=<[R(t+\tau)-R(t)]^2>$ quantifies the average rms

385: fluctuations (squared) between two points on the same flux-ratio

386: curve, separated by a time lag $\tau$. A lower value of

387: $<D^{(1)}(\tau)>$ means a stronger correlation (assuming no errors).

388: Fig.2 shows that, even though $<D^{(1)}(\tau)>$ fluctuates

389: considerably, it continues to increase toward longer lags. Around

390: $\tau\sim 150$~d, the rms suddenly decreases considerably, suggesting

391: possible long-term correlated variations in the flux-ratios on that

392: time-scale. If $<D^{(1)}(\tau)>$ increases beyond $\tau\ga 200$~days,

393: flux-density variations of several tens of percent on a time-scale of

394: $\ga 1$\,yr could be present as well. However, we note that the

395: overlap of the flux-ratio curves becomes smaller for longer lags and

396: consequently the errors become larger. Longer observations are

397: required to make stronger statements about the longer time lags. Even

398: so, similar fluctuations of the structure function are seen in other

399: scintillating sources (e.g. Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn 2003).

400: 

401: Several reliability checks of the extrinsic variations of the cusp

402: images of B2045+265 are called for: First we note that the lensed

403: images are of roughly equal brightness and -- within a factor about

404: two -- as bright as the images in B0128+437, B1359+154, B0712+472 and

405: B1555+375. Hence there is no indication that the observed flux-ratio

406: variations are related to the faintness or brightness of the lensed

407: images. Second, there are no problems with the closeness between the

408: cusp images ($\ga 0.3''$) and the separation of their flux densities

409: because of the high resolution of the MERLIN radio maps

410: ($\sim$50~mas). Hence the fluxes of the three images are fully

411: independent. Third, we have calculated the Spearman rank correlation

412: coefficients ($r_{\rm S}$) between each of its images A, B and C and

413: those of the other five lens systems. This leads to 45 independent

414: values of $r_{\rm S}$ (i.e. noise does not introduce correlation in

415: this case), which on average should tend to zero. We find $<r_{\rm

416: S}>$=0.0024 and an rms of 0.153. The theoretical expectation value of

417: the rms value is $1/\sqrt{N-1}$=0.151, where $N=45$ in our

418: case. Hence, we recover the expectation values of both the average and

419: rms. This shows that any correlation between the images can not be the

420: result of obvious systematic errors in the data-reduction process, in

421: the creation of the flux-ratio curves, or in our analysis.

422: 

423: Hence, we confidently conclude that the cusp images of B2045+265 show

424: strong evidence for the presence of extrinsic variability.

425: 

426: \section{Discussion \& Conclusions}

427: 

428: We have presented the flux-ratio curves of six gravitational lens

429: systems, each composed of 41 epochs taken over a period of 8.5 months

430: in 2001 with MERLIN at 5 GHz, as part of a MERLIN Key-Project.  The

431: systems were chosen to have merging cusp or fold images, such that the

432: time-delays between these images are negligible ($\la$1\,d) compared

433: to the time-scale of intrinsic variability and the rate at which the

434: light curves are sampled. The flux-ratio curves should therefore be

435: void of intrinsic variability and multiplicative errors. The main goal

436: of our program was to find additional cases of extrinsic variability

437: other than radio-microlensing in B1600+434 (Koopmans \& de Bruyn 2000,

438: 2003).

439: 

440: We find some statistical evidence for extrinsic variability in all six

441: lens systems, based on reduced $\chi_r^2$ values larger than unity

442: (Sect.3.2; Tables~1 \& 2). Residual intrinsic variations -- due to the

443: finite time delays -- or small additive error are unlikely to be the

444: cause of this, but can not fully be excluded yet. The high resolution

445: of MERLIN also ensures negligible correlations between the fluxes of

446: the merging images. The evidence for B0128+437, B1359+154, B1422+231

447: and B1555+375 is fairly marginal. The case for B0712 is stronger,

448: however, and this object clearly deserves further study. The best case

449: is B2045+265, which we discuss further below.

450: 

451: Even though radio-microlensing cannot be excluded, we think at this

452: point that Galactic scintillation is the more likely cause of some of

453: the higher values of $\chi^2$ (Tables~1 \& 2). Indeed, {\sl all} compact

454: extragalactic radio sources should show refractive scintillation at

455: some level. At wavelengths of 5 GHz and for image sizes $\sim$1 mas,

456: the expected rms fluctuations due to scintillation, in a typical

457: line-of-sight out of the Galactic plane, are a few percent

458: (e.g. Walker 1998, 2001), which are comparable to the observed

459: flux-density errors.

460: 

461: One gravitational lens systems, B2045+265, shows unambiguous evidence

462: for extrinsic variability, based on the reduced $\chi^2$ values

463: significantly larger than unity (Tables~1 \& 2) and visually apparent

464: long-term variations in its flux-ratio curves (Fig.1). One possible

465: explanation for the variations is radio microlensing similar to

466: B1600+434 (Koopmans \& de Bruyn 2000, 2003). However, because

467: B2045+265 has a Galactic latitude $b \approx -10^\circ$ and is the

468: lowest Galactic latitude system in our sample, Galactic refractive

469: scintillation is the more likely explanation.

470: 

471: To examine this, first we naively use the revised electron-density

472: model of our Galaxy by Cordes \& Lazio (2003). This model gives a

473: scattering measure of $8\times 10^{-4}$~kpc~m$^{-20/3}$, an angular

474: broadening at 5~GHz of 50~$\mu$as and a transition frequency of 22~GHz

475: between the weak and strong scattering regimes. If we choose the

476: source size to be 250~$\mu$as, we find a modulation index of 7\% (from

477: Walker 1998, 2001) or an rms scatter of $\sim$10\% in the flux-ratio

478: curves (as observed; Table~1), and a typical variability time-scale of

479: $\sim$1~week for an effective transverse velocity (i.e. the velocity

480: of the ISM, earth, local and solar peculiar motions combined) of the

481: medium of 50~km\,s$^{-1}$. Note however that the time-scale of

482: variability might vary with time of the year due to the earth's motion

483: (e.g. Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn 2000, 2002).

484: 

485: Refractive scintillation could therefore explain the observed

486: extrinsic variations up to a time-scale of possibly several weeks in

487: B2045+265 for reasonable lensed-images sizes. However, the structure

488: function shows correlated variations on time-scales that are much

489: longer. These could either indicate modification(s) of the Kolmogorov

490: spectrum of density fluctuations that was assumed in the above

491: calculation or a very low transverse velocity of the medium,

492: i.e. 10~km\,s$^{-1}$. If there is more power in the spectrum on larger

493: scales, or a cutoff on smaller scales, fluctuations will become

494: stronger on longer time scales (e.g. Blandford et al. 1986; Romani,

495: Narayan \& Blandford 1986; Goodman et al. 1987). Such large-scale

496: electron density waves might also explain the apparent fluctuations in

497: the observed structure function (Fig.2).

498: 

499: On further examination, however, we find that B2045+265 is very close,

500: if not seen through, the Cygnus ``superbubble'' region (see Fig.6 in

501: Fey, Spangler \& Mutel 1989), making our analysis based on the model

502: in Cordes \& Lazio (2003) rather uncertain. This region has

503: considerably enhanced scattering measures and if this is the case for

504: B2045+265 as well, it would strongly support Galactic scintillation as

505: the cause of the observed flux-density variations. The complexity of

506: such regions, where turbulence in the ionized ISM presumably

507: originates, could be the reason why we see large-amplitude

508: fluctuations in the flux ratios with time scales that are not expected

509: from simple Kolmogorov turbulence models (see also e.g. J1819+3845;

510: Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn 2000, 2002).

511: 

512: Finally, it is interesting to note that B2045+265 has the strongest

513: and most significant violation of the cusp relation of all

514: known lens systems (Keeton et al. 2003). Even so, the values of

515: $R_{\rm cusp}$ of the systems discussed in this paper (see Table~1)

516: agree with those in Keeton et al. (2003). However, the strong observed

517: variations in the flux-ratio curves should caution against the

518: use of both flux-ratios and values of $R_{\rm cusp}$ (Sect.1) --

519: derived from single-epoch observations -- even if the inferred

520: time-delays are only a few hours! 

521: 

522: Whether the violation of the cusp relation in B2045+265, averaged over

523: 8.5 months (Table~1), and Galactic refractive scintillation and/or

524: scattering is completely coincidental, is not clear at this point. At

525: any instant in time, however, large scale electron-density

526: fluctuations in the Galactic ISM can focus {\sl or} defocus the

527: images with long time scales of variability -- as is apparent from our

528: observations -- probably even more so toward regions of enhanced

529: turbulence (i.e. the Cygnus region). CDM substructure mostly focuses

530: the images. It is interesting to note that B0712+472, probably the

531: system with second-best evidence for extrinsic variability in our

532: sample, also has a low Galactic latitude $b=+23^\circ$.

533: 

534: While the observations reported in this paper do not contradict the

535: exciting conclusion that CDM substructure might have been detected

536: within the central regions of lens galaxies, they do suggest that

537: extrinsic, refractive effects are also of importance and that it is

538: imperative to carry out further, multi-frequency monitoring to

539: distinguish them from achromatic, gravitational effects.

540: 

541: {\acknowledgments LVEK acknowledges the support from an STScI

542: Fellowship grant. RDB is supported by an NSF grant

543: AST--0206286. MERLIN is a National Facility operated by the University

544: of Manchester at Jodrell Bank Observatory on behalf of PPARC.  LVEK

545: thanks Chris Kochanek and Neal Dalal for suggestions that improved the

546: presentation of this work. We thank the referee for helping to clarify

547: the manuscript.}

548: 

549: \begin{thebibliography}{}

550: 

551: \bibitem[]{}Biggs, A., et al., 2003, in preparation

552: 

553: \bibitem[Blandford, Narayan, \& Romani(1986)]{1986ApJ...301L..53B} 

554: Blandford, R., Narayan, R., \& Romani, R.~W.\ 1986, \apjl, 301, L53 

555: 

556: \bibitem[Blandford(1990)]{1990QJRAS..31..305B} Blandford, R.~D.\ 1990, 

557: \qjras, 31, 305 

558: 

559: \bibitem[Brada{\v c} et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...388..373B} Brada{\v c}, M., 

560: Schneider, P., Steinmetz, M., Lombardi, M., King, L.~J., \& Porcas, R.\ 

561: 2002, \aap, 388, 373

562: 

563: \bibitem[Burud et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...544..117B} Burud, I.~et al.\ 2000, 

564: \apj, 544, 117

565: 

566: \bibitem[Chiba(2002)]{2002ApJ...565...17C} Chiba, M.\ 2002, \apj, 565, 17 

567: 

568: \bibitem[]{} Cordes, J. M.~\& Lazio, T. J. W., 2003, [astro-ph/0207156]

569: 

570: \bibitem[Dalal \& Kochanek(2002)]{2002ApJ...572...25D} Dalal, N.~\& 

571: Kochanek, C.~S.\ 2002, \apj, 572, 25 

572: 

573: \bibitem[Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn(2000)]{2000ApJ...529L..65D} 

574: Dennett-Thorpe, J.~\& de Bruyn, A.~G.\ 2000, \apjl, 529, L65 

575: 

576: \bibitem[Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn(2002)]{2002Natur.415...57D} 

577: Dennett-Thorpe, J.~\& de Bruyn, A.~G.\ 2002, \nat, 415, 57 

578: 

579: \bibitem[Dennett-Thorpe \& de Bruyn(2003)]{} 

580: Dennett-Thorpe, J.~\& de Bruyn, A.~G.\ 2003, \aap, accepted, [astro-ph/0303201]

581: 

582: 

583: \bibitem[Fassnacht et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...527..498F} Fassnacht, C.~D., 

584: Pearson, T.~J., Readhead, A.~C.~S., Browne, I.~W.~A., Koopmans, L.~V.~E., 

585: Myers, S.~T., \& Wilkinson, P.~N.\ 1999a, \apj, 527, 498 

586: 

587: \bibitem[Fassnacht et al.(1999)]{1999AJ....117..658F} Fassnacht, C.~D.~et 

588: al.\ 1999b, \aj, 117, 658

589: 

590: \bibitem[Fassnacht, Xanthopoulos, Koopmans, \& 

591: Rusin(2002)]{2002ApJ...581..823F} Fassnacht, C.~D., Xanthopoulos, E., 

592: Koopmans, L.~V.~E., \& Rusin, D.\ 2002, \apj, 581, 823 

593: 

594: \bibitem[Fey, Spangler, \& Mutel(1989)]{1989ApJ...337..730F} Fey, A.~L., 

595: Spangler, S.~R., \& Mutel, R.~L.\ 1989, \apj, 337, 730 

596: 

597: \bibitem[Goodman, Romani, Blandford, \& Narayan(1987)]{1987MNRAS.229...73G} 

598: Goodman, J.~J., Romani, R.~W., Blandford, R.~D., \& Narayan, R.\ 1987, 

599: \mnras, 229, 73 

600: 

601: \bibitem[]{}Keeping, E. S., 1962, Introduction to statistical inference,

602: Princeton, N.J, Van Nostrand

603: 

604: \bibitem[]{}Keeton, C. R., 2001, submitted to \apj, [astro-ph/0111595]

605: 

606: \bibitem[]{}Keeton, C. R., Gaudi, B. S., \& Petters, A. O., 2003, submitted to \apj, [astro-ph/0210318] 

607: 

608: \bibitem[Klypin, Kravtsov, Valenzuela, \& Prada(1999)]{1999ApJ...522...82K} 

609: Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.~V., Valenzuela, O., \& Prada, F.\ 1999, \apj, 522, 

610: 82 

611: 

612: \bibitem[]{} Kochanek, C.~S. \& Dalal, N.\ 2003, submitted to ApJ, [astro-ph/0302036]

613: 

614: \bibitem[Koopmans, de Bruyn, Xanthopoulos, \& 

615: Fassnacht(2000)]{2000A&A...356..391K} Koopmans, L.~V.~E., de Bruyn, A.~G., 

616: Xanthopoulos, E., \& Fassnacht, C.~D.\ 2000, \aap, 356, 391 

617: 

618: \bibitem[Koopmans \& de Bruyn(2000)]{2000A&A...358..793K} Koopmans, 

619: L.~V.~E.~\& de Bruyn, A.~G.\ 2000, \aap, 358, 793 

620: 

621: \bibitem[]{} Koopmans, L.~V.~E.~\& de Bruyn, A.~G.\ 2003, in preparation

622: 

623: \bibitem[Mao \& Schneider(1998)]{1998MNRAS.295..587M} Mao, S.~\& Schneider, 

624: P.\ 1998, \mnras, 295, 587

625: 

626: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Madau(2001)]{2001ApJ...563....9M} Metcalf, R.~B.~\& 

627: Madau, P.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 9 

628: 

629: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Zhao(2002)]{2002ApJ...567L...5M} Metcalf, R.~B.~\& 

630: Zhao, H.\ 2002, \apjl, 567, L5 

631: 

632: 

633: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1999)]{1999ApJ...524L..19M} Moore, B., Ghigna, S., 

634: Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., \& Tozzi, P.\ 1999, \apjl, 

635: 524, L19 

636: 

637: \bibitem[Romani, Narayan, \& Blandford(1986)]{1986MNRAS.220...19R} Romani, 

638: R.~W., Narayan, R., \& Blandford, R.\ 1986, \mnras, 220, 19 

639: 

640: \bibitem[Schechter \& Wambsganss(2002)]{2002ApJ...580..685S} Schechter, 

641: P.~L.~\& Wambsganss, J.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 685 

642: 

643: \bibitem[Schneider \& Weiss(1992)]{1992A&A...260....1S} Schneider, P.~\& 

644: Weiss, A.\ 1992, \aap, 260, 1 

645: 

646: \bibitem[Simonetti, Cordes, \& Heeschen(1985)]{1985ApJ...296...46S} 

647: Simonetti, J.~H., Cordes, J.~M., \& Heeschen, D.~S.\ 1985, \apj, 296, 46 

648: 

649: \bibitem[Walker(1998)]{1998MNRAS.294..307W} Walker, M.~A.\ 1998, \mnras, 

650: 294, 307 

651: 

652: \bibitem[Walker(2001)]{2001MNRAS.321..176W} Walker, M.~A.\ 2001, \mnras, 

653: 321, 176 

654: 

655: \end{thebibliography}

656: 

657: \clearpage

658: 

659: \begin{table*}

660: \begin{center}

661: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}

662: \hline

663: \hline

664:     & $<r_{(B/A)}>$ & $<r_{(C/A)}>$ & $<r_{(D/A)}>$ & $\chi^2$/DOF & $R_{\rm cusp}$ (ABC) \\

665: \hline

666: B0128+437 & 0.584(0.029) & 0.520(0.029) & 0.506(0.032) & 1.8/1.9/2.4 & 0.445 (0.018) \\

667: B0712+472 & 0.843(0.061) & 0.418(0.037) & 0.082(0.035) & 4.8/3.2/8.0 & 0.255 (0.030) \\

668: B1359+154 & 0.580(0.039) & 0.782(0.031) & 0.193(0.031) & 1.9/0.9/1.2 & 0.510 (0.024) \\

669: B1422+231 & 1.062(0.009) & 0.551(0.007) & 0.024(0.006) & 1.8/2.0/1.5  & 0.187 (0.004) \\

670: B1555+375 & 0.620(0.039) & 0.507(0.030) & 0.086(0.024) & 3.4/2.1/2.4 & 0.417 (0.024) \\

671: B2045+265 & 0.578(0.059) & 0.739(0.073) & 0.102(0.025) & 8.2/10.9/2.9 & 0.501 (0.035) \\

672: \hline

673: \hline

674: \end{tabular}

675: \end{center}

676: \noindent{\flushleft Table~1.--- \small The flux-ratios of each image

677: pair. The rms scatter in the flux-ratio is indicated between

678: parentheses, calculated from the 41 epochs. The reduced $\chi^2$

679: values are listed as well, calculated on the basis that each

680: normalized flux-ratio curve should be unity and that there is no

681: variability. In addition, the values of $R_{\rm cusp}$ (see Sect.1)

682: and its rms (between parentheses) are listed (e.g. Mao \& Schneider

683: 1998; Keeton et al. 2002).}

684: \end{table*}

685: 

686: \begin{table*}

687: \begin{center}

688: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

689: \hline

690: \hline

691:     & rms($a_{\rm ext}$) & rms($b_{\rm ext}$) & rms($c_{\rm ext}$) & $\chi^2_r/{\rm DOF}$ \\

692: \hline

693: B0128+437 & 2.9\% & 1.9\% & 2.5\% & 3.3 \\

694: B0712+472 & 4.8\% & 4.2\% & 4.8\% & 6.2 \\ 

695: B1359+154 & 1.0\% & 4.6\% &  --   & 2.8 \\

696: B1422+231 & --    & 0.6\% & 0.9\% & 3.7 \\

697: B1555+375 & 3.3\% & 4.2\% & 3.0\% & 5.3 \\

698: B2045+265 & 6.1\% & 7.0\% & 7.2\% & 17.1\\

699: \hline

700: \hline

701: \end{tabular}

702: \end{center}

703: \noindent{ Table~2.--- \small The estimated rms levels of extrinsic

704: variability in images A, B and C. The reduced values of $\chi^2_r$ are

705: given to indicate the significance of the presence of extrinsic

706: variability in the combined set of images. The dashes indicate that

707: the estimated variance was smaller than zero (see Sect.3.2 for more

708: details).}

709: \end{table*}

710: 

711: \clearpage

712: 

713: \begin{figure*}

714: \begin{center}

715: \leavevmode

716: \hbox{%

717: \epsfysize=0.8\vsize

718: \epsffile{f1a.eps}}

719: \end{center}

720: \caption{The normalized flux-ratio curves of the three independent

721: image pairs for all six quadruple lens systems.  The scale on the

722: y-axis is set to $\pm$5 times the rms scatter of the flux-ratio

723: curves. The errors on the flux-ratio curves are determined from the

724: errors on the individual flux-density curves.\label{fig:rcurves}}

725: \end{figure*}

726: 

727: \clearpage

728: 

729: %\begin{figure*}

730: \begin{center}

731: \leavevmode

732: \hbox{%

733: \epsfysize=0.8\vsize

734: \epsffile{f1b.eps}}

735: \end{center}

736: %\caption

737: {Fig. 1.--- Continued}

738: %\end{figure*}

739: 

740: \clearpage

741: 

742: %\begin{figure*}

743: \begin{center}

744: \leavevmode

745: \hbox{%

746: \epsfysize=0.8\vsize

747: \epsffile{f1c.eps}}

748: \end{center}

749: %\caption

750: {Fig. 1.--- Continued}

751: %\end{figure*}

752: 

753: \clearpage

754: 

755: \begin{inlinefigure}

756: \begin{center}

757: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\includegraphics{f2.eps}}

758: \end{center}

759: \figcaption{The structure functions of the normalized flux-ratio

760: curves $(B/A)_{\rm n}$ (circles) and $(C/A)_{\rm n}$ (open squares) of

761: B2045+265 between time-lags of 2 and 200 days. The break below

762: $\sim$10\,d is the result of variations in the flux-ratio curves that

763: correlate on that time scale, but are also affected by the on-average

764: 1-week time separation between observations. }

765: \end{inlinefigure}

766: 

767: \end{document}