1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3:
4: \def\omega0{\Omega_{\rm m,0}}
5: \def\lambda0{\Omega_{\Lambda,0}}
6:
7: \def\fsub{f_{\rm sub}}
8: \def\fcool{f_{\rm cool}}
9: \def\rv{r_{\rm vir}}
10: \def\reff{r_{\rm eff}}
11: \def\kms{\,\rm km\,{s}^{-1}}
12: \def\kpc{\,\rm kpc}
13: \def\mpc{\,\rm Mpc}
14: \def\LCDM{\Lambda{\rm CDM}}
15: \def\sigmacr{\Sigma_{\rm cr}}
16: \def\msun{M_\odot}
17: \def\pc{\,{\rm pc}}
18:
19: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
20: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{Anomalous Flux Ratios in Gravitational Lenses: For or Against
25: CDM?}
26: \author{Shude Mao\altaffilmark{1},
27: Yipeng Jing\altaffilmark{2}, Jeremiah P. Ostriker\altaffilmark{3},
28: Jochen Weller\altaffilmark{3}
29: }
30: \altaffiltext{1}{ University of Manchester, Jodrell Bank Observatory,
31: Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, UK; smao@jb.man.ac.uk}
32: \altaffiltext{2}{ Shanghai Astronomical Observatory; the Partner Group
33: of MPA, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China; ypjing@center.shao.ac.cn}
34: \altaffiltext{3}{ Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University,
35: Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK; (jpo, jw249)@ast.cam.ac.uk}
36:
37: \shorttitle{Lensing and substructures in CDM}
38: \shortauthors{Mao, Jing, Weller \& Ostriker}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We review the evidence for substructures from the anomalous flux ratios
42: in gravitational lenses. Using high-resolution numerical simulations,
43: we show that at typical image positions, the fraction of surface mass
44: density in substructures is $\la 0.5\%$ with mass above
45: $10^{-4}$ virial masses in the ``concordance''
46: $\LCDM$ cosmology. Substructures outside
47: the virial radius (but projected at typical lens image positions)
48: only increase the fraction moderately. Several effects, in particular
49: baryonic settling and the requirement of compactness,
50: may further decrease the predictions by a factor of few.
51: The predicted fraction with appropriate properties
52: thus appears to be lower than that required
53: by lensing, although both are still uncertain.
54: More speculative substructures such as massive black holes
55: ($M \sim 10^5-10^6 M_\odot$) in the halo may offer viable alternatives.
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \keywords{
59: gravitational lensing - cosmology: theory - dark matter - galaxies:
60: structure, evolution
61: }
62:
63: \section{INTRODUCTION}
64:
65: Gravitational lenses on arcsecond scales
66: provide a unique sample to probe the mass distribution
67: in the lensing galaxies at intermediate redshift ($z\sim 0.5-1$).
68: Image positions in most lenses can be fitted adequately
69: using simple smooth galaxy mass models. But
70: observed flux ratios are more difficult to match
71: (e.g., Kochanek 1991). The discrepancy
72: between the predicted and observed flux ratios is
73: commonly referred to as the ``anomalous flux ratio problem.''
74: The most apparent cases are found in
75: quadrupole lenses where we observe a close pair or a close triple of images.
76: Here we know that the lensed source is close to
77: either a fold or a cusp caustic. The {\it asymptotic} magnification behavior
78: in such cases is well understood -- a close pair must have equal
79: brightness, while
80: for a close triple, the flux of the middle image should be equal to the
81: total fluxes of the two outer images. Virtually all the observed
82: pairs and triples disagree with these relations (\S2).
83: This has been argued as evidence for substructures
84: on the scale of the separations of the images
85: (a few tenths of arcseconds, e.g., Mao \& Schneider 1998;
86: Metcalf \& Zhao 2002). Another piece of evidence
87: for substructures is the
88: fact that saddle images are preferentially
89: dimmed compared to model predictions (Kochanek \& Dalal 2003).
90: This is expected from milli-lensing by substructures (Keeton 2003) or microlensing
91: by stars (Schechter \& Wambsganss 2002)\footnote{We refer to
92: lensing by substructures and lensing by stars as milli-lensing and
93: microlensing respectively because the angular scales
94: involved are $\sim$ mas and $\mu$as in these two cases.};
95: such a preferential
96: de-magnification of saddle images is not expected from
97: other propagational effects.
98:
99: The Cold Dark Matter (CDM) structure formation model predicts
100: the existence of just such substructures
101: from both semi-analytical studies and numerical simulations
102: (e.g., Kauffmann et al. 1993; Klypin et al. 1999;
103: Moore et al. 1999; Ghigna et al. 2000). About 5-10\% of
104: the mass is predicted to be in substructures with a
105: mass spectrum of $n(M)dM \sim M^{-1.8}dM$. Intriguingly, the predicted number of
106: subhaloes in CDM exceeds the observed number of {\it luminous}
107: satellite galaxies in a Milky-Way type galaxy
108: (e.g., Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999; see also Stoehr et al. 2002).
109: One solution for this disagreement may be that some
110: substructures, especially those of lowest mass, are dark. If this is true, then gravitational lensing
111: may be the best way to detect them. In this paper, we
112: examine the required amount of substructures in gravitational lenses
113: (\S2) and compare it with the predictions from
114: CDM (\S3). Finally, in \S4, we discuss several effects that affect the
115: predictions of numerical simulations.
116: Throughout this paper, we adopt the ``concordance'' $\LCDM$
117: cosmology (e.g., Ostriker \&
118: Steinhardt 1995; Spergel et al. 2003 and references therein),
119: with a density parameter $\omega0=0.3$, a cosmologically constant
120: $\lambda0=0.7$, a baryon density parameter $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.024h^{-2}$,
121: and we take the power-spectrum normalization $\sigma_8=0.9$. We write the
122: Hubble constant as $h=H_0/(100\kms\mpc^{-1})$ with $h=0.7$.
123:
124: \section{Required Amount of Substructures From Gravitational Lenses}
125:
126: A number of papers have discussed evidence for substructures
127: from gravitational lenses; most concentrated on the anomalous flux
128: ratios (e.g., Mao \& Schneider 1998;
129: Metcalf \& Madau 2001; Chiba 2002; Bradac et al. 2002; Dalal \&
130: Kochanek 2003; Keeton 2003), while several papers discussed
131: astrometric signatures, such as bent jets in B1152+199
132: (Metcalf 2002), and unusual VLBI structures for MG2016+112
133: (Kochanek \& Dalal 2002; see also Koopmans et al. 2002)
134: and B0128+437 (Phillips et al. 2000; Biggs et al. 2003).
135: %
136: It is illustrative
137: to see the issues using the largest homogeneous lens survey --
138: the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS, Myers et al. 2003 and
139: Browne et al. 2003). This radio survey has well defined selection criteria and
140: does not suffer from the effect of dust extinction. Radio lenses are
141: also not substantially affected by stellar microlensing
142: (see Koopmans et al. 2003 and references therein).
143:
144: In total, there are 22 new lenses discovered in CLASS.
145: Among these, 7 are simple quadrupole lenses,
146: including 5 close pairs
147: (B0128+437, Phillips et al. 2000;
148: MG0414+0534, Hewitt et al. 1992;
149: B0712+472, Jackson et al. 1998;
150: B1608+656, Myers et al. 1995;
151: B1555+375, Marlow et al. 1999),
152: and two close triples
153: (B2045+265, Fassnacht et al. 1999;
154: B1422+231, Patnaik et al. 1992).
155: For the five pairs listed above, the observed flux ratios are
156: $0.56$ (5GHz), $0.88$ (15GHz), $0.75$ (15GHz),
157: $0.51$ (8.4GHz), $0.56$(15GHz);
158: for each lens, the highest frequency where the pair has been
159: observed is shown in the bracket. For the
160: two close triples, the ratios of the flux of the middle image
161: to the total flux of the two outer images are, $0.32$
162: (14.9GHz) and $0.70$ (15GHz, Patnaik \& Narasimha 2001)
163: respectively. The typical errors on the flux ratios are $\sim 1-2\%$.
164: Except the case of MG0414+0534, the observed
165: values are all different from the asymptotic value (unity).
166:
167: However, not all these flux ratios are ``anomalous'' because some of
168: these systems may not yet reach the {\it asymptotic} regime.
169: Also some radio lenses may have been affected by scattering by free electrons
170: along the line of sight. In addition, most lens modelers adopt isothermal ellipsoidal
171: models or variants as an approximation for the lensing potentials.
172: Models with more complex radial and angular structures can usually better
173: reproduce the observed flux ratios (e.g., Evans \& Witt 2003; however, see
174: Kochanek \& Dalal 2003). Observationally, it is clear that some lens
175: systems are complex. For example, B1608+656 has two lensing galaxies and a model
176: which accounts for this fact can reproduce the observed flux ratio
177: (Koopmans \& Fassnacht 1999). For B0712+472, a singular isothermal
178: ellipsoid (SIE) model cannot reproduce the flux ratio, but a foreground group of galaxies
179: was subsequently found along the line of sight of the primary lensing galaxy
180: (Fassnacht \& Lubin 2002), so a more realistic model may match the flux ratio.
181: The close pair flux ratio in B1555+575 cannot be reproduced
182: by an SIE model (Meyers et al. 1995), but a more complex
183: model (e.g., with an additional shear) may be able to explain it.
184: For B0128+437, an SIE model
185: cannot fit the flux ratio, but the observed flux ratio can be
186: reproduced with an additional shear. However, in this case,
187: the relative orientations of jets in this system
188: appear difficult to match with a smooth model (Biggs et al. 2003),
189: so substructures may yet be called for. For
190: the two close triple lenses, the flux ratios appear
191: difficult to match with smooth models (Mao \& Schneider 1998; Fassnacht
192: et al. 1999).
193:
194: Mao \& Schneider (1998) showed that substructures preferentially
195: affect the flux ratios of highly magnified images. In order to
196: reproduce the flux ratios in B1422+231, they found that
197: the required perturbation in the dimensionless surface mass
198: density, $\delta\kappa/\kappa$, is of a few percent and
199: roughly corresponds to a physical surface density of a few tens
200: $\msun\pc^{-2}$. Dalal \& Kochanek (2002) performed a statistical study
201: of seven radio lenses using Monte Carlo simulations, six of which show
202: anomalous flux ratios. They find that the fraction of mass required
203: in substructures should be in the range of $\fsub =0.6\%-7\%$ (90\%
204: confidence limit) with
205: a best fit of $\fsub \approx 2\%$. More recently, Metcalf et al. (2003)
206: applied the method of Moustakas \& Metcalf (2003) to the quadrupole system
207: 2237+0305. They conclude that, in order to match the observed flux ratios
208: in the radio, infrared and narrow and broad emission lines,
209: 4\%-7\% of the surface mass density (95\% confidence limit)
210: must be in substructures with mass between $10^4M_\odot-10^8 M_\odot$.
211:
212: \section{Predicted Substructures in Numerical Simulations}
213:
214: We use the high resolution halo simulations of Jing \& Suto (2002;
215: 2000) to constrain the fraction of mass in substructures; similar
216: results (but with larger error bars) are found using the
217: simulation data obtained with the tree-particle-mesh code of Bode \& Ostriker (2003).
218: Twelve halos were selected from a cosmological simulation of box of $100h^{-1}\mpc$, with
219: four each at galactic, group, and cluster masses, respectively. These
220: simulations are evolved with a nested-grid PPPM code which was
221: designed to simulate high-resolution halos. The force resolution is
222: typically $0.004 \rv$, where $\rv$ is the virial radius.
223: At the end of each simulation, about $(0.5 - 1)\times 10^6$
224: particles are within $\rv$ of each halo (see
225: Jing \& Suto 2000 for details).
226:
227: We adopt the {\tt SUBFIND} routine of Springel et al. (2001) to find
228: disjoint self-bound subhalos within a parent halo. All subhalos with
229: more than 10 particles are included in our analysis.
230: Our numerical resolution implies that we can only identify subhaloes
231: with mass larger than about $10^{-4}$ of the parent halo mass;
232: the most massive subhalo has about $10\%$ of the parent halo
233: mass. For each halo, we make 30 random projections and calculate the
234: total mass within different annuli; the annuli
235: are equally spaced in $\log R/\rv$ from $-2.2$ to 0 with
236: a step size of 0.2, where $R$ is the projected radius and
237: the spherical radius is $r$.
238: The total mass in substructures within an annulus is calculated by summing
239: up all the mass of subhalos whose centers fall in it. Dividing the total
240: substructure mass by the total mass within the annulus yields
241: the fraction of the projected surface density in substructures, $\fsub$. The mean
242: value and variance of $\fsub$ are found from the 12 haloes and the 30 random projections.
243: %
244: In the upper left panel of Fig. 1, we show $\fsub$
245: as a function of $R/\rv$. The mean
246: fraction can be approximated as $\fsub \approx 0.25 (R/\rv)$. The scatter around the mean
247: among haloes is quite large. At $R \approx \rv$, the scatter is about 40\%;
248: at smaller $R$ the scatter is larger due to fewer subhaloes along the line of sight.
249: As lensing concerns only the projected surface density, we also
250: checked whether substructures outside the spherical virial radius can contribute
251: to the surface density at a given $R$ (Fig. 1, top right).
252: The increase is about a factor of two at $R \approx \rv$ (cf. Klypin et
253: al. 2001), but more modest ($\la 1.3$)
254: at typical image positions ($R \sim 0.01\rv-0.03\rv$), consistent with the
255: analytical estimate by Chen et al. (2003).
256:
257: Almost all subhaloes in the simulation have a spherical radius $r>0.1\rv$.
258: Most substructures at typical image positions ($R \sim 0.01\rv-0.03\rv$)
259: only appear along the line of sight due to projection. These subhaloes, especially those at $r
260: \sim \rv$, are extended, thus not all the bound
261: mass within the subhaloes can efficiently cause the flux anomaly (see \S4).
262: To illustrate this effect, $\fsub$ is recalculated by
263: including only the mass within a spherical radius of
264: $0.025\rv$ for each subhalo. Due to this compactness requirement, at
265: $R = 0.03\rv$, the average $\fsub$ value (for substructures with
266: $r<\rv$) is lowered from 0.8\% to 0.6\% (see the lower panels in Fig. 1).
267: We return to this compactness issue in the discussion.
268:
269: To compare the predicted fraction with lensing requirement we
270: need an estimate of the virial radius for the lensing
271: galaxies. If the lens and
272: source redshifts are known, then the separation
273: between images ($\propto \sigma^2$) can be used to determine
274: the velocity dispersion ($\sigma$) and the approximate
275: halo circular velocity ($V_{\rm c} \approx \sqrt{2} \sigma$), which
276: in turn allows us to determine the halo
277: virial radius (e.g., eqs. 2-3 in Mo, Mao \& White 1998). The lens
278: and source redshifts are known for
279: MG0414+0534, B0712+472, B1608+656,
280: B2045+265 and B1555+375. For these
281: systems, the image positions in units of the
282: virial radius are, 0.027, 0.012, 0.018, 0.017 and
283: 0.012, respectively. From Fig. 1 we can then infer the fraction of
284: mass in substructures is only around 0.2-0.8\%, with a large
285: scatter among different haloes.
286:
287: So far we have only considered the fraction of {\it dark matter} surface
288: density in substructures. However, the inner parts of galaxies are likely
289: dominated by baryons. To address this issue, we consider the cooling and
290: settling of baryons in an NFW halo (Navarro, Frenk \& White 1997), similar
291: to the procedure used by Keeton (2001). Initially
292: the baryons and dark matter follow the same
293: profile. The baryons then cool and condense into the center to form
294: a stellar component with a de Vaucouleurs profile while
295: the dark matter responds to the baryonic settling adiabatically.
296: The model is described by the
297: concentration parameter $c$ in the NFW profile, the
298: effective radius ($\reff$) in units of the halo virial radius,
299: and the ratio of the stellar mass to the total
300: mass, $\fcool$ (or equivalently, a mass-to-light ratio).
301:
302: For the five sources with known lens and source redshifts (MG0414+0534,
303: B0712+472, B1608+656, B2045+265 and B1555+375),
304: the effective radii have been determined using HST photometry
305: (Kochanek et al. 2000). In units of
306: the virial radius they are, respectively, 0.018, 0.006, 0.01,
307: 0.006 and 0.005. We take $c=10$ (appropriate for a galactic-sized halo)
308: and then carry out the procedure described above.
309: For the five systems, we find that
310: the stellar component contributes about 20\%-50\% of the projected
311: surface density at the image positions ($R \approx 1.5\reff-3\reff$)
312: for $\fcool$ ranging from 0.05 to 0.16
313: ($\approx \Omega_{\rm b}/\Omega_0$).
314: The fraction of surface mass density in dark matter is consistent with
315: that required by stellar microlensing ($\sim 70-90\%$ at 1.5$\reff$, Schechter
316: \& Wambsganss 2003),
317: but at odds with the recent claim of Romanowsky et al. (2003).
318: The effect of baryons hence reduces the
319: the mass fraction in substructures in typical lensing systems
320: to $\la 0.5\%$.
321:
322: \section{Discussion}
323:
324: We have reviewed the evidence for substructures from close pairs and
325: triples in quadruple lenses. As emphasized by
326: Kochanek \& Dalal (2003), the fact that saddle images are frequently dimmer than expected
327: is difficult to accommodate by other means. Quantitatively,
328: the anomalous flux ratios in lenses appear to require a few percent of
329: the surface mass density in substructures at typical image positions
330: (Dalal \& Kochanek 2002; Metcalf et al. 2003).
331: The required fraction is higher than that provided
332: by globular clusters and luminous satellite galaxies (Mao
333: \& Schneider 1998; Chiba 2002) and it also
334: appears to be higher than the predicted values
335: ($\fsub \la 0.5\%$) from the $\LCDM$ cosmology at typical image positions.
336: However, at present it is unclear how serious the discrepancy is because
337: of uncertainties in both observations and theoretical predictions.
338:
339: There are a number of issues that need to be understood better
340: in current numerical simulations. Even the basic question of the
341: identification of substructures needs to be
342: explored further. The {\tt SUBFIND} algorithm we adopted only identifies bound subhaloes,
343: however, tidal streams from disrupted systems (for examples in the Milky Way, see, e.g.,
344: Ibata et al. 2001; Yanny et al. 2003) may also contribute to
345: the budget of substructures. Another important issue is whether our
346: results have achieved convergence as a function of the spatial and
347: mass resolutions. New simulations are underway to address this issue. Presumably
348: when the numerical resolution becomes higher, the inner parts of subhaloes
349: are resolved better into higher-density regions that can survive
350: tidal disruptions longer. However,
351: the survival of substructures may be linked to another small-scale
352: problem of CDM: the central density profiles of low-surface
353: brightness galaxies (usually with circular velocities
354: of $\la 100\kms$) seem to be too concentrated compared with observed
355: galaxies (e.g., Bolatto et al. 2002; Weldrake et al. 2003;
356: see, however, Swaters et al. 2003). Therefore, if we put in observed mass
357: profiles, substructures may actually be more
358: easily destroyed by tidal forces due to their lower central
359: concentrations. There is another effect that
360: makes the survival of substructures in the central part more
361: difficult. In collisionless numerical simulations, the density profile
362: can be approximated by an NFW profile; the density scales as
363: $\propto r^{-1}$ out to $\sim 0.1\rv$ ($\sim 25$ kpc)
364: for typical galactic-sized haloes. However, the observed velocity
365: dispersion is nearly constant in the inner part
366: implying $\rho \propto r^{-2}$, i.e., the density in real galaxies
367: rises more quickly as the radius decreases. Hence substructures will be disrupted more
368: easily if they come close to the center and dynamical frictions dragging
369: them into the center would also be larger in realistically simulated
370: galaxies.
371:
372: Our simulations resolve substructure masses from $10^8
373: M_\odot$ to $10^{11} M_\odot$ for a $10^{12}M_\odot$ parent halo.
374: However, according to Metcalf et al. (2003), the
375: required substructure mass is in the range of $10^4M_\odot-10^8 M_\odot$ in
376: the case of 2237+0305. If the mass spectrum of substructures $n(M)dM \propto
377: M^{-1.8} dM$ extends all the way down
378: to $10^4 M_\odot$, one can estimate that the fraction of mass
379: in substructures with $10^4M_\odot<M <10^8 M_\odot$ is about a factor
380: of 3 smaller than that in substructures with $10^8M_\odot < M <M^{11}M_\odot$,
381: i.e., the mass fraction in substructures in the
382: range required by Metcalf et al. (2003) will be even lower than our
383: predicted value. This conclusion depends on the
384: mass spectrum. However, for any power-law spectrum with
385: a slope shallower than $-2$, the mass fraction in substructures
386: with $10^4 M_\odot<M <10^8 M_\odot$ is likely
387: smaller than that in higher-mass substructures identified in
388: numerical simulations.
389:
390: There is another effect that may reduce the utilizable mass in
391: substructures even further: the need for compactness, an issue we
392: already touched upon in \S2 (see Fig. 1).
393: In order to affect the flux ratios significantly, the
394: physical size of substructures must be sufficiently
395: compact (cf. Metcalf et al. 2003). The most efficient substructures should be of
396: the same order of the image separation of the pairs or
397: triples. For the five CLASS quadrupole lenses that have known lens and source
398: redshifts (see \S4), the closest pairs have projected separations
399: from $0.6h^{-1}$kpc (for B1422+231) to $2.3h^{-1}$kpc (for MG0414+0534).
400: At redshift of 0.5, dark matter haloes with $M \la 4\times 10^6M_\odot$
401: will have $\rv \sim 1h^{-1}$kpc, and so
402: they will be efficient in causing flux anomalies if they are
403: located between close pairs or triples. For larger masses, the
404: effect is reduced. We estimate the reduction by assuming that only the mass enclosed within
405: $1h^{-1}$kpc will affect the flux ratios. We adopt a mass spectrum for
406: dark matter haloes of $n(M) dM \propto M^{-1.8}$ for $10^4M_\odot < M < 10^{11} M_\odot$.
407: Each halo is described by an NFW profile with a concentration
408: parameter given by $c\approx 11(M/10^{12}h^{-1})^{0.15}$ (e.g.,
409: Zhao et al. 2003). Note that the substructures in the central parts
410: are tidally truncated and so cannot be fitted well by NFW profiles, but
411: as most substructures have $r>0.1\rv$ in spherical
412: radius, the effect of tidal truncation may be modest. We find that
413: the mass in substructures that
414: can efficiently cause flux anomalies is reduced by an additional factor of
415: five compared with the total mass in all substructures --
416: most substructures which are in the outer parts are too extended to
417: cause flux anomalies efficiently. Our rough estimate
418: shows that the compactness requirement is an issue that
419: needs to be addressed more carefully. The two additional effects noted
420: can reduce the likely mass fraction in substructures having the required
421: masses and sizes to as low as $\sim 0.03\%$, uncomfortably low compared
422: with the observational requirement.
423:
424: Progress can be made from both the observational and theoretical fronts
425: to reduce the uncertainties. Observationally, in the radio, the effect
426: of scattering can be studied with observations at high frequency where
427: it is expected to be
428: unimportant. In the infrared, it would be interesting to have more observations
429: with integral field spectroscopy similar to that
430: reported by Metcalf et al. (2003). This method offers a way to
431: separate stellar microlensing from substructure milli-lensing. More
432: astrometric signatures of substructures will be important as well (see \S2).
433: Theoretically, higher-resolution simulations
434: are needed and are already under-way. If future observations and numerical simulations
435: still indicate a discrepancy between lensing requirements and CDM
436: predictions, then alternatives must be sought.
437: One possibility is that these substructures are
438: massive black holes with $M \sim 10^5-10^6 M_\odot$ (Lacey \& Ostriker 1985; Xu
439: \& Ostriker 1994), which satisfy the mass and compactness requirements.
440: We require only a few percent of the surface density
441: in the substructures, so the density parameter in these
442: black holes is only $\fsub\Omega_0 \sim 0.012 (\fsub/0.04)$,
443: which is about $30\%(\fsub/0.04)$ of the baryon density in the
444: universe. These massive black holes will have other
445: observable signatures (e.g., Wambsganss \& Paczy\'nski 1992; Tremaine
446: \& Ostriker 1999) and can be further tested.
447:
448: \acknowledgments
449:
450: We thank I. Browne, H. J. Mo, T. York and S. White for helpful discussions, X. Kang for
451: identifying subhalos and V. Springel for providing us with his {\tt SUBFIND} code.
452: YPJ is supported in part by NKBRSF (G19990754) and by NSFC.
453:
454: \begin{references}
455: \reference{} Biggs, A. et al. 2003, \mnras, submitted
456: \reference{} Bode, P, Ostriker J. P. 2003, \apjs, 145, 1
457: \reference{} Bolatto, A. D., Simon, J. D., Leroy, A., Blitz, L. 2002,
458: \apj, 565, 238
459: \reference{} Bradac, M., Schneider, P., Steinmetz, M.,
460: Lombardi, M., King, L. J., Porcas R. 2002, \aap, 388, 373
461: \reference{} Browne, I.W.A., et al. 2003, \mnras, 341, 13
462: \reference{} Chen, J., Kravtsov, A.V., Keeton, C. R. 2003, \apj, 592, 24
463: \reference{} Chiba, M. 2002, ApJ, 565, 17
464: \reference{} Dalal, N., \& Kochanek, C. S. 2002, \apj, 572, 25
465: \reference{} Evans, N. W., \& Witt, H. J. 2003,
466: \mnras, 345, 1351
467: \reference{} Fassnacht, C. D. et al. 1999, \aj, 117, 658
468: \reference{} Ghigna, S., Moore, B. Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T.,
469: Stadel, J. 2000, \apj, 544, 616
470: \reference{} Hewitt, J. N. et al. 1992, \aj, 104, 968
471: \reference{} Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G. F., Stolte, A. 2001,
472: ApJ, 547, L133
473: \reference{} Jackson, N. J. et al. 1998, \mnras, 296, 483
474: \reference{} Jing, Y. P. \& Suto Y. 2000, ApJ, 529, L69
475: \reference{} Jing, Y. P. \& Suto Y. 2002, ApJ, 574, 538
476: \reference{} Lacey, C. G., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1985, \apj, 299, 633
477: \reference{} Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Guiderdoni, B. 1993,
478: \mnras, 264, 201
479: \reference{} Keeton, C. R. 2001, \apj, 561, 46
480: \reference{} Keeton, C. R. 2003, \apj, 584, 664
481: \reference{} Keeton, C. R., Kochanek, C. S., Seljak, U. 1997, ApJ, 482, 604
482: \reference{} Klypin, A., Kravtsov A. V., Valenzuela O. 1999, \apj, 522,
483: 82
484: \reference{} Kochanek, C.S. 1991, ApJ, 373, 354
485: \reference{} Kochanek, C.S. et al. 2000, \apj, 543, 131
486: \reference{} Kochanek, C.S., \& Dalal, N. 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0212274)
487: \reference{} Kochanek, C.S., \& Dalal, N. 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0302036)
488: \reference{} Koopmans, L. V. E., Fassnacht, C. D. 1999, \aj, 123, 627
489: \reference{} Koopmans, L. V. E. et al. 2002, \apj, 334, 39
490: \reference{} Koopmans, L. V. E. et al. 2003, \apj, 595, 712
491: \reference{} Mao, S., Schneider, P. 1998, \mnras, 295, 587
492: \reference{} Marlow, D. et al. 1999, \aj, 118, 654
493: \reference{} Metcalf, R. B. 2002, 580, 696
494: \reference{} Metcalf, R. B., \& Madau, P. 2001, \apj, 563, 9
495: \reference{} Metcalf, R. B., \& Zhao, H.S. 2002, \apj, 567, L5
496: \reference{} Metcalf, R. B., Moustakas, L. A., Bunker, A. J., Parry,
497: I. R. 2003, astro-ph/0309738
498: \reference{} Mo, H. J., Mao, S., White, S. D. M. 1998, \mnras, 295, 319
499: \reference{} Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F. et al. 1999, \apj,
500: 524, L19
501: \reference{} Moustakas, L.A., \& Metcalf R. B. 2003, \mnras, 339, 607
502: \reference{} Myers, S. T. et al. 1995, \apj, 447, L5
503: \reference{} Myers, S. T. et al. 2003, \mnras, 341, 1
504: \reference{} Patnaik, A. R. et al. 1992, \mnras, 259, 1P
505: \reference{} Patnaik, A. R., \& Narasimha, 2001 \mnras, 326, 1403
506: \reference{} Phillips, P. M. et al. 2000, \mnras, 319, L7
507: \reference{} Romanowsky, A. J. et al. 2003, astro-ph/0308518
508: \reference{} Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M. 1997,
509: \apj, 490, 493
510: \reference{} Schechter, P. L., \& Wambsganss J. 2002, \apj, 580, 685
511: \reference{} Schechter, P. L., \& Wambsganss J. 2003, astro-ph/0309163
512: \reference{} Springel, V., White, S.~D.~M., Tormen, G., \& Kauffmann, G.\ 2001, \mnras,
513: 328, 726
514: \reference{} Spergel, D.N.S. et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
515: \reference{} Stoehr, F., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., Springel, V. 2002,
516: \mnras, 335, L84
517: \reference{} Swaters, R. A., Madore, B. F., van den Bosch, F. C.,
518: Balcells, M. 2003, \apj, 583, 732
519: \reference{} Tremaine, S., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1999, \mnras, 306, 602
520: \reference{} Wambsganss, J., \& Paczy\'nski, B. 1992, \apj, 397, L1
521: \reference{} Weldrake, D. T. F., de Blok, W. J. G., Walter, F. 2003,
522: \mnras, 340, 12
523: \reference{} Xu, G., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1994, \apj, 437, 184
524: \reference{} Yanny, B. et al. 2003, \apj, 588, 824
525: \reference{} Zhao, D. H., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., \& Boerner G. 2003
526: \apj, 597, L9
527: \end{references}{}
528:
529: \begin{figure}
530: \epsscale{0.8}
531: \plotone{f1.eps}
532: \caption{
533: Predicted fractions of dark matter surface mass density in
534: substructures, $\fsub$,
535: as a function of the projected radius, $R$, in units of the virial radius, $\rv$.
536: The lensed images typically have $R/\rv =1\%-3\%$.
537: The left panels show $\fsub$ as a function of $R$ for
538: all substructures within the spherical radius $r<\rv$ while the right
539: panels include all substructures with $r<2\rv$.
540: In the lower panels we only include the mass
541: within $0.025\rv$ for each subhalo. The solid line in each panel
542: indicates an unweighted least-square fit ($\log \fsub=\log A + \log
543: R/\rv$, i.e., $\fsub=A R/\rv$).
544: The $A$ values are, 0.25, 0.31, 0.20 and 0.17, clockwise from
545: the top left to the bottom right panels, respectively.
546: }
547: \label{fig:fig1}
548: \end{figure}
549:
550:
551:
552: \end{document}
553:
554: % LocalWords: CDM Shude Macclesfield SK DL UK kpc Blandford Narayan Chae MPA
555: % LocalWords: astro ph Phys Nandan Madingley NJ arcsecond Kochanek Fabbiano eq
556: % LocalWords: Rix Witt Dalal arcseconds Metcalf Zhao microlensing Keeton Madau
557: % LocalWords: Schechter Wambsganss Kauffmann Klypin Ghigna Ostriker Steinhardt
558: % LocalWords: Spergel Chiba Bradac astrometric VLBI Biggs GHz Jing virial NFW
559: % LocalWords: baryons Navarro Frenk Bolatto Weldrake Blok Swaters Moustakas AJ
560: % LocalWords: Steinmetz Lombardi Porcas Kravtsov ApJ Governato Stadel Seljak
561: % LocalWords: Guiderdoni Valenzuela Charlot Bartelmann eds Dekel Netterfield
562: % LocalWords: Ofek Maoz Perlmutter Lett Riess Fukugita Zeeuw Carollo Cretton
563: % LocalWords: Marel Ehlers Falco Madore Bosch Balcells submass Koopmans Bruyn
564: % LocalWords: timescale redshifts Augusto nfw IAU microlensings Jodrell et al
565: % LocalWords: de propagational dM haloes normalization Suto PPPM vir SUBFIND
566: % LocalWords: Springel subhalos subhaloes center subhalo centers baryonic Kang
567: % LocalWords: Ibata Yanny Stolte der Tormen ps Yipeng Jochen practice Stoehr
568: % LocalWords: Fassnacht Patnaik SIE Lubin eqs Vaucouleurs Romanowsky Xu Paczy
569: % LocalWords: collisionless nski YPJ NKBRSF NSFC Andreea eps Boerner modelers
570: % LocalWords: utilizable behavior summarize normalized milli Narasimha jpo jw
571:
572: