1: %\documentclass{aastex}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \def\omega0{\Omega_{\rm m,0}}
5: \def\lambda0{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}
6: \def\nue{\nu_{\rm e}}
7: \def\nus{\nu_{\rm s}}
8: \def\etal{\rm et al.}
9: \def\kms{\rm km\,{s}^{-1}}
10: \def\LCDM{\Lambda{\rm CDM}}
11: %\def\Lmax{L_{\rm max}}
12: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{Limits on the evolution of galaxies from the statistics of
18: gravitational lenses}
19:
20: \author{
21: Kyu-Hyun Chae\footnote{Sejong University, Department of Astronomy and Space
22: Sciences, 98 Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-Gu, Seoul 143-747, Republic of Korea;
23: chae@arcsec.sejong.ac.kr} {}
24: and
25: Shude Mao\footnote{University of Manchester, Jodrell Bank Observatory,
26: Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK; smao@jb.man.ac.uk}
27: }
28:
29:
30: \shorttitle{Lensing limits on galaxy evolution}
31: \shortauthors{Chae \& Mao}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We use gravitational lenses from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS)
35: to constrain the evolution of galaxies since redshift $z \sim 1$ in the
36: current $\LCDM$ cosmology. This constraint is unique as it is based on a
37: mass-selected lens sample of galaxies.
38: Our method of statistical analysis is the same as in Chae (2003).
39: We parametrise the early-type number density evolution in the form of
40: $(1+z)^{\nu_n}$ and the velocity dispersion as $(1+z)^{\nu_v}$.
41: We find that
42: $\nu_n=-0.11^{+0.82}_{-0.89}$ ($1\sigma$) if we assume $\nu_v =0$,
43: implying that the number density of early-type galaxies is
44: within 50\% to 164\% of the present-day value at redshift $z=1$. Allowing
45: the velocity dispersion to evolve, we find that $\nu_v=-0.4^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$
46: ($1\sigma$), indicating that the velocity dispersion must be
47: within $57\%$ and $107\%$ of the present-day value at $z=1$. These results
48: are consistent with the early formation and passive
49: evolution of early-type galaxies. More stringent
50: limits from lensing can be obtained from future large
51: lens surveys and by using very high-redshift quasars ($z \ga 5$)
52: such as those found from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \keywords{
56: gravitational lensing - cosmology: theory - dark matter - galaxies:
57: structure, evolution
58: }
59:
60: \section{INTRODUCTION}
61:
62: Currently there are about 70 multiply-imaged systems due to
63: galactic mass scale gravitational lenses. The statistics of
64: gravitational lenses depend on three key ingredients, namely, the
65: cosmology, the number density of potential lenses as a function of
66: redshift and
67: the dynamical properties of galaxies (e.g., velocity dispersions and
68: the surface mass densities). Gravitational lenses hence encode
69: information of the cosmology, the galaxy mass profiles and the evolution
70: history of galaxies.
71: At present, the lens sample is too small to constrain all the
72: ingredients simultaneously. Most previous studies concentrated on
73: constraining the cosmological
74: constant assuming non-evolving populations of lenses (e.g.,
75: Fukugita et al.\ 1992; Kochanek 1996; Helbig et al.\ 1999).
76: Under this assumption,
77: the most recent lens statistics study of Chae et al.\ (2002) finds that
78: the lens statistics are best-fitted by a present-day matter density of
79: $\omega0 \approx 0.3$ and a cosmological constant
80: of $\lambda0 \approx 0.7$.
81: This result is consistent with results from a variety of other
82: studies, including the cosmic microwave background radiation
83: (e.g., de~Bernardis et al.\ 2000; Spergel et al. 2003), Type~Ia supernovae at
84: cosmological distances (e.g., Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999),
85: and the large-scale structures in the universe (e.g., Peacock et al. 2001).
86:
87: In light of the convergence of the cosmological model, it becomes
88: important to use gravitational lenses for a different purpose:
89: to study the evolution of galaxies
90: (their number density and dynamical properties) in the
91: $\omega0=0.3, \lambda0=0.7$ cosmology (hereafter $\Lambda$CDM).
92: Lensing limits on galaxy evolution have been
93: explored by Mao (1991), Mao \& Kochanek (1994), Rix et al.\ (1994), and
94: Jain et al.\ (2000), all of which used optically-selected lenses.
95: Lensing is sensitive to the evolution of galaxy properties as the
96: lensing probability is $\propto n\sigma^4$, while separations
97: are $\propto \sigma^2$; here $n$ is the number density
98: and $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion of typical lenses.
99: For example, (for a fixed cosmological model) a decreasing number density
100: of galaxies with redshift($z$) lowers the lensing rate and the mean redshift
101: of lenses while a decreasing velocity dispersion with $z$ lowers the
102: lensing rate, the mean lens redshift and the mean angular size of image
103: separations. Therefore, through a careful analysis of the lens redshifts,
104: image separations and lensing probability we can constrain the evolution of
105: the number density and dynamical properties of galaxies.
106:
107: Most lensing galaxies are massive early-type galaxies as they dominate the
108: lensing cross-sections due to their larger central mass concentrations.
109: Gravitational lenses therefore provide a unique mass-selected sample to
110: study the evolution of early-type galaxies,
111: independent of and complementary to the traditional redshift surveys of
112: galaxies (e.g., Fried et al. 2001; Im et al. 2002). This is a much
113: debated research area. There exist two different views on the formation
114: and evolution of early-type galaxies, namely a
115: monolithic collapse model (Eggen, Lynden-Bell, \& Sandage 1962)
116: and a merger hypothesis (Toomre \& Toomre 1972). In the monolithic collapse
117: model, early-type galaxies are thought to have formed rapidly at high
118: redshift and then evolve passively to the present-day. The merger model is
119: a natural consequence of the hierarchical structure formation theory.
120: Semi-analytic implementations of this model predict a continuous formation
121: of ellipticals and hence a certain fraction of massive
122: early-type galaxies must have formed since $z \sim 1$
123: (e.g.\ Kauffmann 1996; Baugh et al.\ 1996; Kauffmann et at.\ 1999);
124: the fraction depends on the assumed cosmology and other assumptions and
125: is typically one third or more (for more, see \S4).
126: An observational way of probing galaxy evolution is using redshift survey
127: of galaxies. However, no consensus has been reached either with this method.
128: For example, Kauffmann, Charlot, \& White (1996) found rapid evolutions
129: in the number density of ellipticals while Schade et al.\ (1999) advocated
130: the opposite conclusion using similar samples (see \S4 for more details).
131:
132: The purpose of this work is to use data from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky
133: Survey (CLASS) to provide independent constraints on galaxy evolution.
134: As we were completing this work, a complementary study
135: has been carried out by Ofek, Rix, \& Maoz (2003); their results are compared
136: with our results in \S2.
137:
138:
139: \section{DATA, METHOD AND RESULTS}
140:
141: We use data from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) for our study.
142: The survey is described extensively in Myers et al.\ (2003) and
143: Browne et al.\ (2003). We refer the readers to those papers for details,
144: and here we only give a brief summary. The CLASS well-defined statistical
145: sample contains 8958 radio sources including 13 multiply-imaged
146: sources.\footnote{The rest of $\sim 7000$ CLASS sources contain further 9
147: multiply-imaged sources which, however, do not fall into our statistical
148: sample (Myers et al. 2003; Browne et al. 2003).}
149: The advantage of the CLASS survey is that it uses very well-defined
150: observational selection criteria and does not suffer from the effect of
151: dust extinction in lenses. It is also the largest completed survey for
152: gravitational lenses, so it is the best sample for our purposes.
153:
154:
155: We assume the galaxy population is described by a Schechter
156: luminosity function (LF),
157: \beq
158: n(L)~d\left({L \over L_\star}\right) = n_\star \left({L\over
159: L_\star}\right)^{\alpha} \exp(-L/L_\star) d\left({L \over L_\star}\right).
160: \label{eq:schechter}
161: \eeq
162: Lensing galaxies are modelled as singular isothermal
163: ellipsoids, which are described by two parameters, the velocity
164: dispersion and the axial ratio (or equivalently, the ellipticity).
165: The galaxy luminosity is related to the velocity dispersion via
166: \beq \label{eq:sigma}
167: {L \over L_\star} = \left({\sigma \over \sigma_\star}\right)^\gamma.
168: \eeq
169: We divide galaxies into two populations, namely the early-type
170: (ellipticals and S0's) population and the late-type population and
171: assume that each population is described by its own LF.
172: The parameter values we take are identical to those in
173: Chae et al. (2002) (see also Chae 2003 for the details of the analysis
174: and further results); we refer the readers to those two papers.
175: In particular, we adopt the type-specific LFs based on
176: the galaxy classifications from the Second Southern Sky Redshift Survey
177: (SSRS2: Marzke et al.\ 1998); see Chae (2003) for the details.
178: Our adaptation of maximum likelihood analyses (Kochanek 1993) is identical
179: to that of Chae et al.\ (2002) and Chae (2003). Under the $\LCDM$ cosmology
180: we test two simple models of the evolution of early-type galaxies.
181: The evolution of late-type galaxies is not considered, as
182: we cannot obtain any useful limits due to the small number of
183: late-type lens galaxies in the current sample (i.e.\ 1 or 2).
184:
185: In the first model we adopt, we assume that the shape of the
186: luminosity function ($\alpha$) is a constant given by the SSRS2 (Chae 2003)
187: and the non-evolving (characteristic) velocity dispersion $\sigma_\star$
188: (defined in eq. \ref{eq:sigma}) is a constant to be determined from the data,
189: but the (characteristic) number density of galaxies
190: (defined in eq.\ \ref{eq:schechter}) evolves as a function of redshift;
191: we choose a power-law evolutionary shape of $1+z$,
192: \beq \label{eq:nz}
193: n_\star(z) = n_{\star,0} (1+z)^{\nu_n},
194: \eeq
195: where $n_{\star,0}$ is the present-day value.
196: The no-evolution model corresponds to $\nu_n=0$.
197: {Fig.}~1 shows confidence limits on the parameter $\nu_n$ and $\sigma_\star$.
198: The $\chi^2$ in {Fig.}~1 refers to $-2 \ln {\mathcal L}$ where
199: ${\mathcal L}$ is the likelihood function (Chae et al.\ 2002; Chae 2003).
200: As one can see, the lens statistics are consistent with a no-evolution model
201: in a $\LCDM$ cosmology at $1\sigma$ level.
202: We find $\nu_n = -0.11^{+0.82}_{-0.89}$; namely,
203: the number density of galaxies at redshift $z=1$
204: cannot be smaller by a factor of two or larger by $64\%$ than the
205: present day number density. From {Fig.}~1 the non-evolving characteristic
206: velocity dispersion is $\sigma_\star = 199^{+19}_{-16}$
207: km~s$^{-1}$($1\sigma$). This value is in good agreement with the values
208: from recent analyses of lensing statistics assuming no evolution of
209: galaxies (Chae et al.\ 2002; Chae 2003; Davis, Huterer, \& Krauss 2003).
210:
211: In the second model, we allow the velocity dispersion $\sigma_\star$
212: (as well as the number density) to vary as a function of redshift:
213: \beq \label{eq:nv}
214: \sigma_\star(z) =
215: \sigma_{\star,0} (1+z)^{\nu_v},
216: \eeq
217: where $\sigma_{\star,0}$ is the present-day characteristic velocity dispersion.
218: The no-evolution model corresponds to $\nu_v=0$.
219: {Fig.}~2 shows the limits in the parameter space of $\nu_n$, $\nu_v$ and
220: $\sigma_{\star,0}$. {Fig.}~2(a), (b) and (c) are the three projected parameter
221: planes. {Fig.}~2(d) shows the limits in the plane of $\nu_v$ and $\sigma_{\star,0}$
222: based only on the image separations and the available lens redshifts
223: (6 of them) of the nine single-galaxy induced multiply-imaged systems
224: (see Section~3.1 of Chae 2003), namely without using the lensing rate
225: [see below for a discussion of the {Fig.}~2(d)].
226: The contours shown on each plane represent 68\%, 90\%, 95\% and 99\%
227: confidence levels for one parameter.
228:
229: The contours in {Fig.}~2(a) are elongated parallel to a line
230: $\nu_n+4\nu_v={\rm constant}$. This is because along the
231: $\nu_n+4\nu_v={\rm constant}$ line the optical depth ($\propto n\sigma^4$)
232: is a constant. In other words, there is a degeneracy in determining the
233: evolutions of the velocity dispersion and the number density from the optical
234: depth alone. Notice, however, that the degeneracy is in part broken by
235: the observed image separations as a function of redshift.
236: The $1\sigma$ limits on the two evolutionary indices are:
237: $\nu_n=0.7^{+1.3}_{-1.4}$ and $\nu_v=-0.4^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$.
238: The limit on $\nu_v$ is particularly interesting: lensing
239: statistics demand that the velocity dispersion for an $L_\star$ galaxy
240: at $z=1$ must be between $57\%$ and $107\%$ of the present-day value.
241: This implies that dynamically, the population of lensing galaxies
242: cannot be much different from the present-day population. {From} Fig.\ 2(b) or
243: (c) the characteristic velocity dispersion of
244: the present-day early-type population is
245: $\sigma_{\star,0} = 223^{+38}_{-36}$~km~s$^{-1}$ ($1\sigma$).
246: This value has a relatively large uncertainty and is consistent with
247: the value for the non-evolving case shown in {Fig.}~1.
248: However, it is of interest to note that the best-fit value of
249: $\sigma_{\star,0}$ is somewhat larger than the non-evolving value. This is
250: then consistent with the best-fit value of $\nu_v$ being negative.
251:
252: Recently, Ofek et al.\ (2003) have used the redshifts of the
253: lensing galaxies in moderate-size source-redshift($z_s$)--limited
254: samples to constrain the galaxy mass evolution.
255: Our work is different as we use the well-defined uniform
256: CLASS sample and we include all the lensing information (lensing rate, image
257: separations and lens redshifts). Notice that our sample (13 lenses in total)
258: includes 6 systems with both lens and source redshifts measured while
259: the Ofek et al.\ (2003) samples have up to 17. They also
260: conclude that there is little evidence for rapid evolution of
261: early-type galaxies. They parameterize the evolutions in
262: different forms from ours. But equivalently, they find that
263: at 95\% confidence level, $\sigma_\star$ at $z=1$ should be at least
264: 63\% of the present value; this is similar to our $1\sigma$ limit.
265: Despite the small number of the measured redshifts in our
266: sample our limits on the evolution of $\sigma_\star$ are relatively
267: strong because of the additional constraint of the lensing rate.
268: This can be seen from the comparison of {Fig.}~2(c) and (d).
269: Without the lensing rate, we have $\nu_v=0.2^{+0.6}_{-1.0}$ [{Fig.}~2(d)],
270: which is significantly broader.
271: The Ofek et al.\ (2003) limit on the number density evolution is given by
272: $d\log_{10} n_\star(z)/dz = +0.7^{+1.4}_{-1.2}$, translating into
273: a $1\sigma$ lower limit of the number density of lenses at $z=1$
274: of 30\% of the present value; our limit (57\%) is significantly
275: stronger because of the strong effects of the lensing rate.
276: Our results are consistent with an
277: early-formation/passive-evolution picture (e.g.\ $z_{\rm formation} \ga 2$)
278: of early-type galaxies, as also inferred from studies of the fundamental plane
279: of lensing galaxies (see Kochanek et al.\ 2000; Rusin et al.\ 2003).
280:
281: \section{DISCUSSIONS}
282:
283: We have used the statistical properties of the CLASS strong lens sample
284: (i.e., the rate of multiple-imaging and the image separations as a function
285: of redshift) to constrain the evolution of galaxies. The lens sample is
286: unique as it is mass-selected and hence the constraints obtained from it
287: are independent of those from redshift surveys. The method we use
288: is based on Chae et al.\ (2002) and Chae (2003) and has some
289: uncertainties, such as the adopted luminosity function of early-type
290: galaxies and the redshift distribution of the source
291: population in the CLASS survey (see Chae 2003 for details). However,
292: these uncertainties are smaller than those arising from the
293: moderate-size CLASS sample of lenses.
294:
295: We find that the (comoving) number density of lensing galaxies
296: at redshift $z=1$ must be within 50\% to 164\% of the
297: present-day number density; their characteristic velocity
298: dispersion also must be within $57\%$ and $107\%$ of the
299: present value. The lensing statistics are therefore consistent
300: with a slow evolution of galaxies in both their
301: number density and their dynamical properties.
302: These results are inconsistent with very fast evolution of early-type
303: galaxies, where the number of early-types at $z = 1$ is
304: only 20\%-40\% or less of the present-day values
305: (e.g., Lin et al. 1999; Fried et al. 2001; Wolf et al.\ 2003).
306: Our results are, however, consistent with several other studies,
307: in particular the study based on the Hubble Space Telescope observations
308: of the Groth Strip (Im et al. 2002) where there find a number
309: density evolution of $n(z) \propto (1+z)^{-0.86\pm 0.68}$ (see their
310: Table 6) in the same underlying cosmology. In the Standard
311: Cold Dark Matter model with $\omega0=1$, the number density of
312: bright ellipticals at $z=1$ is predicted to be a factor of 2-3 smaller
313: than the local value (Kauffmann 1996; Baugh, Cole \& Frenk 1996),
314: inconsistent with our results. However, the evolution of galaxies
315: is expected to be slower in the $\LCDM$ cosmology. Indeed,
316: our results are consistent with the modest evolution out to redshift
317: $\sim 1$ predicted by Kauffmann et al.\ (1999; see their {Fig.}~9)
318: for the same cosmology. Quantitatively, for ellipticals with a
319: stellar mass $\ga 10^{10} M_\odot$, the space density at
320: $z=1$ is about 30\% lower than the present day value in the fiducial
321: model of Cole et al.\ (2000). This result is robust to changes in the
322: amount of star formation occurring in bursts at high redshift (C. Baugh,
323: private communication; Baugh et al.\ 1996). Our results are consistent
324: with these predictions.
325:
326: The effects of galaxy evolution on the lens statistics will be
327: more dramatic for very high-redshift quasars ($z \ga 5$, Fan et
328: al. 2003). For a source at $z=5$, half of the multiple-imaging
329: cross-section (with separations between 0.3 to 5 arcseconds)
330: is contributed by galaxies with redshifts greater than 1.2
331: if there was no evolution of galaxies. Hence the lensing
332: probability will be reduced significantly if the comoving
333: number density of early-type galaxies is much smaller at redshifts
334: $z \ga 1$ compared with the local number density. A large sample
335: of very high-redshift quasars is therefore an independent and
336: effective way of probing galaxy evolution.
337:
338: The lensing constraints on the galaxy evolution are already quite
339: competitive compared with those from other methods. However, they still
340: suffer from the small number of lenses ($13$) in our CLASS statistical
341: sample. With planned upgrades in major radio instruments (such
342: as eVLA and e-Merlin), it is possible to obtain a radio lens sample
343: that is an oder of magnitude larger. When such a sample
344: becomes available, the lensing constraint will become more stringent
345: and more physical evolution (rather than our toy) models can be tested.
346:
347: \acknowledgments
348: We thank I. Browne and C. Baugh for discussions and the anonymous referee
349: for constructive comments. KHC acknowledges support from
350: the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the
351: Cosmos (ARCSEC) which was established under the KOSEF SRC program.
352: KHC also acknowledges the hospitality provided by the Jodrell Bank
353: Observatory during the summer of 2003.
354:
355: \begin{references}
356: \reference{} Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S. 1996, \mnras, 283, 1361
357: \reference{} Browne, I. W. A., et al.\ 2003, MNRAS, 341, 13
358: \reference{} Chae, K.-H. 2003, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0211244)
359: \reference{} Chae, K.-H., et al. 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 151301
360: \reference{} Cole, S., Lacey, C. G., Baugh, C. M., \& Frenk,
361: C. S. 2000, \mnras, 319, 168
362: \reference{} Davis, A. N., Huterer, D., \& Krauss, L. M. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1029
363: \reference{} de Bernardis, P. et al. 2000, Nature, 404, 955
364: \reference{} Eggen, O. J., Lynden-Bell, D., \& Sandage, A. 1962, \apj, 136, 748
365: \reference{} Fan, X. H., et al. 2003, \aj, 125, 1649
366: \reference{} Fried, J. W., et al. 2001, A\&A, 367, 788
367: \reference{} Fukugita, M., Futamase, T., Kasai M., \& Turner, E. L. 1992, ApJ,
368: 393, 3
369: \reference{} Helbig, P., Marlow, D., Quast, R., Wilkinson, P. N., Browne,
370: I. W. A., \& Koopmans, L. V. E. 1999, A{\&}AS, 136, 297
371: \reference{} Im, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 136
372: \reference{} Jain, D., Panchapakesan, N., Mahajan, S., \& Bhatia, V. B. 2000,
373: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A, 15, 41
374: \reference{} Kauffmann, G. 1996, \mnras, 281, 487
375: \reference{} Kauffmann, G., Charlot S., \& White S. D. M. 1996, MNRAS, 283, L117
376: \reference{} Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J. M., Diaferio, A., \& White,
377: S. D. M. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 529
378: \reference{} Kochanek, C. S. 1993, ApJ, 419, 12
379: \reference{} Kochanek, C. S. 1996, ApJ, 466, 638
380: \reference{} Kochanek, C. S., et al.\ 2000, ApJ, 543, 131
381: \reference{} Lin, H., et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, 533
382: \reference{} Mao, S. 1991, ApJ, 380, 9
383: \reference{} Mao, S., \& Kochanek, C. S. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 569
384: \reference{} Marzke, R.~O., da Costa, L.~N., Pellegrini, P.~S., Willmer,
385: C.~N.~A., \& Geller, M.~J. 1998, ApJ, 503, 617
386: \reference{} Myers, S. T. et al. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1
387: \reference{} Ofek, E. O., Rix, H.-W., Maoz, D. 2003, \mnras, 343, 639
388: \reference{} Peacock, J. A., et al. 2002, \nat, 410, 169
389: \reference{} Perlmutter, S., Turner, M. S., White, M. 1999,
390: Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 670
391: \reference{} Riess, A. G., et al.\ 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
392: \reference{} Rix, H.-W., Maoz, D., Turner, E. L., \& Fukugita, M. 1994,
393: ApJ, 435, 49
394: \reference{} Rusin, D., et al.\ 2003, ApJ, 587, 143
395: \reference{} Schade, D., et al. 1999, \apj, 525, 31
396: \reference{} Spergel, D. N. S., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
397: \reference{} Toomre, A., \& Toomre, J. 1972, \apj, 178, 623
398: \reference{} Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Rix, H.-W., Borch, A., Dye, S.,
399: Kleinheirich, M. 2003, \aap, 401, 73
400: \end{references}{}
401:
402: \begin{figure}
403: \epsscale{0.8}
404: \plotone{f1.eps}
405: \caption{
406: Confidence limits on the number-density evolutionary index
407: for early-type galaxies, $\nu_n$ (see eq. \ref{eq:nz}), assuming no evolution
408: of the velocity dispersion. The lower panel shows the likelihood
409: contours in the $\nu_n$ and $\sigma_\star$ plane, with
410: the solid dot indicating the peak of the likelihood function.
411: The upper panel shows $\Delta\chi^2$ as a function of $\nu_n$ where
412: we have marginalized $\sigma_\star$. Here $\chi^2$ is defined as
413: $-2\ln {\mathcal L}$ where ${\mathcal L}$ is the likelihood function.
414: }
415: \label{fig:fig1}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418:
419: \begin{figure}
420: \epsscale{0.8}
421: \plotone{f2.eps}
422: \caption{
423: Confidence limits on the number density evolution index,
424: $\nu_n$, the velocity dispersion evolution index, $\nu_v$ (defined
425: in eqs. \ref{eq:nz} and \ref{eq:nv}), and the present-day velocity
426: dispersion $\sigma_{\star,0}$.
427: Panels (a), (b) and (c) show three different projections in
428: the $\nu_n$-$\nu_v$, $\nu_n$-$\sigma_{\star,0}$ and
429: $\nu_v$-$\sigma_{\star,0}$ planes, respectively; the third
430: remaining parameter has been marginalized. In each panel,
431: the solid dot indicates the peak of the likelihood function.
432: In Fig.\ 2(a), the dashed line shows the line where the optical depth is
433: kept as a constant ($\nu_n+4\nu_v={\rm constant}$), while
434: the origin (marked by a cross) corresponds to the no-evolution case.
435: Fig.\ 2(d) shows the likelihood contours on $\nu_v$ and $\sigma_{\star,0}$
436: where we do not incorporate the lensing rate information in our
437: maximum likelihood calculation.
438: }
439: \label{fig:fig2}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442:
443: \end{document}
444:
445:
446:
447:
448: