1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: %\documentclass[usenatbib,referee]{mn2e}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand\aj{{AJ}}% % Astronomical Journal
7: \newcommand\araa{{ARA\&A}}% % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys
8: \newcommand\apj{{ApJ}}% % Astrophysical Journal
9: \newcommand\apjl{{ApJ}}% % Astrophysical Journal, Letters
10: \newcommand\apjs{{ApJS}}% % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement
11: \newcommand\apss{{Ap\&SS}}% % Astrophysics and Space Science
12: \newcommand\aap{{A\&A}}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics
13: \newcommand\aapr{{A\&A~Rev.}}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews
14: \newcommand\aaps{{A\&AS}}% % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement
15: \newcommand\mnras{{MNRAS}}% % Monthly Notices of the RAS
16: \newcommand\pasp{{PASP}}% % Publications of the ASP
17: \newcommand\nat{{Nature}}% % Nature \newcommand\aas{{AAS}}%
18:
19: \def\omega0{\Omega_{\\rm m,0}}
20: \def\fsub{f_{\rm sub}}
21: \def\fcool{f_{\rm cool}}
22: \def\rv{r_{\rm vir}}
23: \def\rs{r_{\rm s}}
24: \def\reff{r_{\rm eff}}
25: \def\kms{\,\rm km\,{s}^{-1}}
26: \def\kpc{\,\rm kpc}
27: \def\mpc{\,\rm Mpc}
28: \def\LCDM{\Lambda{\rm CDM}}
29: \def\Ds{D_{\rm s}}
30: \def\sigmasim{\sigma_{\rm 1''}}
31: \def\tausim{\tau_{\rm 1''}}
32: \def\sigmacr{\Sigma_{\rm cr}}
33: \def\deff{d_{\rm eff}}
34: \def\msun{M_\odot}
35: \def\pc{\,{\rm pc}}
36: \def\ns{n_{\rm s}}
37: \def\Rcut{R_{\rm cut}}
38: \def\zs{z_{\rm s}}
39: \def\zl{z_{\rm l}}
40: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
41: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
42: \def\xcenter{x_{\rm center}}
43: \def\pppm{\,\rm P^3M}
44:
45: \date{
46: Accepted 2006 August 7.
47: Received 2006 August 4;
48: in original form 2006 July 5}
49:
50: \pubyear{2006}
51:
52: \title{The giant arc statistics in the three year WMAP cosmological model}
53: \author[Li et al.]{
54: G. L. Li$^{1,2}$\thanks{E-mail: {\tt lgl@shao.ac.cn}},
55: S. Mao$^3$,
56: Y.P. Jing$^{1,2}$,
57: H.J. Mo$^{4}$,
58: L. Gao$^{5}$,
59: W.P. Lin$^{1,2}$
60: \\
61: $^{1}$ Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Nandan Road 80, Shanghai 200030, China \\
62: $^2$ Joint Institute for Galaxy and Cosmology (JOINGC) of SHAO and USTC \\
63: $^3$ University of Manchester, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9DL, U.K. \\
64: $^4$ Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA 01003-9305, USA \\
65: $^5$ Institute for Computational Cosmology, Physics Department, Durham, DH1 3LE, U.K.
66: }
67:
68: \begin{document}
69: \maketitle
70:
71: \begin{abstract}
72: We use high-resolution $N$-body simulations to investigate the
73: optical depth of giant arcs with length-to-width ratio larger than 7.5
74: and 10 in the `standard' $\LCDM$ model with $\sigma_8=0.9$ and
75: $\Omega_{\rm m,0}=0.3$ and a model based on three-year Wilkinson
76: Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data. We find that, in dark-matter
77: only simulations, the lensing probability in the three-year WMAP
78: model (with $\sigma_8=0.74$ and $\Omega_{\rm m,0}=0.238)$
79: decreases by a factor of $\sim 6$ compared with that in the `standard'
80: $\LCDM$ model. The effects of baryonic cooling, star formation and
81: feedbacks are uncertain, but we argue that baryons will only increase
82: the the lensing cross-section by a moderate factor, $\sim 2$. We
83: conclude that the low central value of $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$
84: preferred by the WMAP three-year data may be too low to be compatible with
85: observations if conventional assumptions of the background source
86: population are correct.
87: \end{abstract}
88: \begin{keywords}
89: cosmology: galaxy clusters -- gravitational lensing
90: \end{keywords}
91:
92: \section{INTRODUCTION}
93:
94: In the hierarchical scenario of structure formation,
95: structures in the universe are assumed to have grown
96: from tiny quantum fluctuations generated during an inflation
97: period through gravitational instability. Inflationary
98: models predict that the initial fluctuations are Gaussian and
99: have a roughly scale-free power-spectrum: $P(k) \propto k^n$
100: with $n \sim 1$. The amplitude of the power spectrum, for which
101: a reliable prediction from inflationary theory is still lacking,
102: has to be determined from observations. This amplitude is
103: usually represented by a quantity, $\sigma_8$, which is
104: the {\it RMS} of the linear density perturbations within
105: a spherical window of radius $8h^{-1}\mpc$, where $h$ the Hubble
106: constant in units of 100$\kms\mpc^{-1}$.
107:
108: The linear power spectrum can be probed with a variety of
109: observations, ranging from abundances of clusters, weak
110: gravitational lensing, large-scale structure in galaxy distribution,
111: galaxy motions, Lyman-$\alpha$ forests, and most importantly, the
112: temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (see
113: Spergel et al. 2006, and references therein). Recent results from the
114: three-year data of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
115: alone prefers a $\sigma_8$ value of $0.74^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$. Although
116: the errorbar is still quite large, the median value is lower than the
117: value, $\sigma_8=0.9$, adopted in the `standard' $\LCDM$ model. The
118: lower value of $\sigma_8$ is favored by a number of other observations
119: related to the clustering of galaxies (e.g. Jing, Mo \& B\"orner 1998;
120: Yang et al. 2004, 2005; van den Bosch, Mo \& Yang 2003;
121: Tinker et al. 2006; S\'{a}nchez et al. 2006), but weak lensing results
122: (e.g. \citealt{Bacon02,Van Waerbeke02} ) and data on Lyman alpha
123: forests (Viel, Haehnelt \& Lewis 2006; Seljak, Slosar \& McDonald
124: 2006) seem to prefer a higher value.
125:
126: As the largest bound structures in the universe, clusters of galaxies
127: provide a sensitive probe for $\sigma_8$, because their abundance in
128: the universe depends sensitively on the amplitude of the density
129: perturbations (and also the matter content in the universe,
130: $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$). The abundance of clusters can be determined from
131: X-ray (e.g. \citealt{Rosati02,Pop04, RB02, R06}) and optical surveys
132: (e.g. \citealt{Gladders06}). However, in order to use the observed
133: abundance to constrain model of structure formation, one has to know
134: the masses of these objects accurately. This is in general difficult
135: to do. For example, X-ray studies usually assume hydrostatic
136: equilibrium in order to derive the cluster mass, which may be
137: invalid for many (such as merging) clusters (e.g. Gao \& White
138: 2006). Another probe of the abundance of clusters is giant arcs
139: that are produced when background galaxies are tangentially stretched
140: by foreground clusters (e.g. \citealt{Luppino99, ZG03, Gladders03, Sand05}).
141: A number of recent investigations made comparisons between the
142: observed abundance of giant arcs with that expected in the
143: `standard' $\LCDM$ model with $\sigma_8=0.9$ (\citealt{Dalal04};
144: \citealt{Li05}; \citealt{Hen05}; \citealt{Horesh05}),
145: finding agreement between model and observation
146: (\citealt{Dalal04, Wambsganss04}). In light of the change in
147: cosmological parameters preferred by the WMAP three-year data,
148: it becomes important to re-evaluate how the predicted lensing probability changes.
149:
150: In this paper, we study the number of giant arcs expected in the new
151: cosmological model, using high resolution $N$-body simulations. We
152: compare the results with those obtained from similar simulations of
153: the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, and with current observations. The
154: plan of the paper is as follows. In \S2, we describe the simulations
155: we use and the analysis to predict giant arcs in the $N$-body
156: simulations. Our main results are presented in \S3, and we finish
157: with a discussion in \S4.
158:
159: \section{Cosmological models, numerical simulations, and lensing method}
160:
161: In this paper, we use two sets of simulations, one for the `standard'
162: $\LCDM$ model with $\sigma_8=0.9$, and the other for the cosmological
163: model given by the recent three-year WMAP data with
164: $\sigma_8=0.74$. For brevity, these two models will be referred to as
165: $\LCDM$0, and WMAP3, respectively, and the corresponding cosmological
166: parameters are:
167: \begin{enumerate}
168: \item $\LCDM$0: $\Omega_{\rm m,0}=0.3,\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.7,h=0.7,
169: \sigma_8=0.9, n=1$;
170: \item WMAP3: $\Omega_{\rm m,0}=0.238,\Omega_{\Lambda,0}=0.762,
171: h=0.73,\sigma_8=0.74, n=0.95$.
172: \end{enumerate}
173: The assumed initial transfer function in each model was generated
174: with {\small CMBFAST} (Seljak \& Zaldarriaga 1996). Notice that both
175: $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$ differ in these two models.
176:
177: \begin{table}
178: \caption{Cosmological simulation parameters. The columns are
179: cosmology, box size, number and mass of dark matter particles, and the softening length.}
180: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
181: \hline
182: model & box size & $N_{\rm DM}$ & $m_{\rm DM}$ & softening \\
183: & $(h^{-1}\mpc)$ & & $(h^{-1} M_\odot)$ & ($h^{-1}$\kpc) \\\hline
184: $\LCDM$0 & 300 & $512^3$ & $1.67\times 10^{10}$ & 30 \\
185: WMAP3 & 300 & $512^3$ & $1.32\times 10^{10}$ & 30 \\
186: \hline
187: \end{tabular}
188: \label{table:simu}
189: \end{table}
190:
191: We use a vectorized-parallel ${\rm P^3M}$ code (Jing \& Suto 2002)
192: and a {\small PM-TREE} code -- GADGET2 \citep{Springel01, Springel05} to
193: simulate the structure formation in these models; the details of
194: the simulations are given in Table 1. Both are $N$-body simulations
195: which evolve $N_{\rm DM}=512^3$ dark matter particles in a large cubic
196: box with sidelength equal to $300 h^{-1} \mpc$. The $\LCDM$0
197: simulation was performed using the ${\rm P^3M}$ code of Jing \& Suto
198: (2002) and has been used in \citet{Li05} to study the properties of
199: giant arcs. We refer the readers to that paper for the detail.
200: The WMAP3 simulation is a new simulation carried out with GADGET2.
201: With their large volumes, these two simulations sample the
202: corresponding cluster mass functions reasonably well, and they will
203: be used to compare the optical depths of giant arcs in the $\LCDM$0
204: and WMAP3 models.
205:
206: For each simulation, we identify virialised dark matter halos using the
207: friends-of-friends method with a linking length equal to 0.2 times the mean
208: particle separation. The halo mass $M$ is defined as the virial mass
209: within the virial radius according to the spherical collapse
210: model (Kitayama \& Suto 1996; Bryan \& Norman 1998; Jing \& Suto 2002).
211: Giant arcs are produced mainly by clusters of galaxies, and so we focus
212: on massive haloes with $M\ga 10^{14}h^{-1} M_\odot$.
213:
214: For a given cluster, we calculate the smoothed surface density maps
215: using the method of \citet{Li06}. Specifically, for any line
216: of sight, we obtain the surface density on a $1024 \times 1024$ grid
217: covering a square of (comoving) sidelength
218: of $4h^{-1}\mpc$ centered on each cluster. The projection depth is
219: chosen to be $4h^{-1}\mpc$.
220: %Notice that the size of the region is chosen such
221: %that particles within a few virial radii are included.
222: Particles
223: outside this cube and large-scale structures do not contribute
224: significantly to the lensing
225: cross-section (e.g. \citealt{Li05}; \citealt{Hen05}). Our
226: projection and smoothing method uses a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) kernel to distribute
227: the particle mass on a 3D grid and then integrate along the line
228: of sight to obtain the surface density (see \citealt{Li06} for detail).
229: In this work, the number of neighbors used in the SPH smoothing kernel
230: is fixed to be 32. Once a surface density map is obtained,
231: we compute the cross-section of giant arc formation following
232: the method given in \citet{Li05}.
233: We consider seven source redshifts, $\zs=0.6, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0$ and 7.0.
234: The background sources are assumed to be elliptical
235: with random position angles and a fixed angular surface
236: area, $S_{\rm source}=\pi \times 0.5\arcsec^2$. The axis ratio is randomly drawn between
237: 0.5 and 1. This choice of axis ratio and source size is in good agreement with
238: the study of high-redshift galaxies using HST by \citet{Fer04}.
239: We generate a large number of background sources within a rectangle box
240: with area $S_{\rm box}$. This rectangle is chosen to enclose all the high-magnification
241: regions that can potentially form giant arcs. The number of sources
242: generated is given by $n_{\rm source}=9S_{\rm box}/S_{\rm source}$.
243: For each source, ray-tracing is used to find the resulting image(s).
244: Giant arcs are identified as elongated
245: images with length-to-width ($L/W$) ratio exceeding 7.5 or 10, the usual
246: criterion used to select giant arcs in observations.
247: We calculate the total cross sections of the top 200 most massive clusters in each
248: simulation output and obtain the average cross section per unit comoving volume by:
249: \beq
250: \overline\sigma(\zl, \zs) = {\sum\sigma_i(\zl,\zs) \over V},
251: \eeq
252: where $\sigma_i(\zl, \zs)$ is the average cross-section of the
253: three projections of the $i$-th
254: cluster at redshift $\zl$, $\zs$ is the source redshift, and $V$ is
255: the comoving volume of the simulation box.
256: The optical depth can then be calculated as:
257: \beq \label{eq:tau}
258: \tau(\zs) = {{1\over{4\pi{\Ds}^2}} {\int_0}^{\zs}\, dz \, \overline\sigma(z,\zs)
259: (1+z)^3\, {dV_{\rm p}(z)\over dz}},
260: \eeq
261: where $\Ds$ is the angular diameter distance to the source, and
262: $dV_{\rm p}(z)$ is
263: the proper volume of a spherical shell with redshift from $z$ to $z+dz$.
264: The integration step size is the same as the redshift interval of
265: simulation output ($d z\approx 0.1$).
266:
267: \section{Results}
268:
269: The left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:massfunc} shows the mass functions in
270: the two cosmological models at redshift 0.3, the optimal lensing redshift
271: for a source at redshift 1 (see the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:tau}).
272: The mass functions are calculated following Sheth \& Tormen
273: (2002), which is based on the Press-Schechter (1974) formalism and the
274: ellipsoidal collapse model (Sheth, Mo \& Tormen 2001). The mass functions (shown as histograms) in
275: simulations clearly match the predictions well.
276: We can see that the number density of haloes in the WMAP3 model is always
277: smaller than that in the $\LCDM$0 model on cluster mass scale.
278: For $M \sim 10^{14} h^{-1}M_\odot$, the abundance of haloes
279: is lower by a factor of 2.6 in the WMAP3 model compared with that in the
280: $\LCDM$0 model; for $M \sim 10^{15}h^{-1}M_\odot$, the reduction factor is $\sim 8.3$.
281: The lower abundance of clusters in the WMAP3 model implies that
282: ideally a larger simulation box is required to sample a similar number of
283: massive clusters as in the $\LCDM$0 model, a point we return to briefly in the discussion.
284:
285: \begin{figure}
286: {
287: \centering
288: \leavevmode
289: \columnwidth=.48\columnwidth
290: \includegraphics[width={\columnwidth}]{f1a.eps}%
291: \hfil
292: \includegraphics[width={\columnwidth}]{f1b.eps}
293: }
294: \caption{The left panel shows the number density of halos in the
295: $\LCDM$0 (thick) and WMAP3 (thin) cosmological models (see text) at
296: redshift 0.33 obtained using the Sheth-Tormen mass function (2002). The thin solid histogram
297: shows the number density of haloes found in a simulation with box size
298: $300 h^{-1}\mpc$ in the WMAP3 model at $z=0.33$.
299: The thick solid histogram shows the number density of halos
300: in the $\LCDM$0 simulation at $z =0.2896$ (the corresponding
301: theoretical prediction is shown as the thick dashed line).
302: The right panel shows how the number density of haloes with mass $M>10^{14}h^{-1}
303: M_\odot$ evolves as a function of redshift in the two cosmologies.
304: }
305: \label{fig:massfunc}
306: \end{figure}
307:
308: The right panel in Fig. \ref{fig:massfunc} shows how the predicted number density
309: of haloes above $10^{14}h^{-1} M_\odot$ evolves as a function of redshift in these two cosmologies.
310: The ratio of the number density of massive haloes in the WMAP3 model and
311: that in the $\LCDM$0 model as a function of redshift is well approximated (within 10\%) by
312: $0.4-0.2\,z$ for $z<1.5$. At redshift 0.3, 0.5 and 1, the number density of haloes
313: above $10^{14}h^{-1} M_\odot$ is about 1/3, 1/5 and 1/10 of that in the
314: $\LCDM$0 respectively. Notice that the cosmological distances and volumes also differ in the
315: three models, but the differences (which are accounted for in our calculations)
316: are small, ranging from 11\% for the angular diameter distances and
317: 6\% for the volume out to a source redshift of 2. These differences
318: are much smaller than the change in the cluster abundance.
319:
320: As a consequence of the lower cluster abundance
321: in the WMAP3 model, one expects the lensing optical depth will also be much lower
322: compared with that in the $\LCDM$0 model. This is illustrated in
323: the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:tau} which shows the optical depths as a function of the source
324: redshift in the $\LCDM$0 and WMAP3 models. First, we
325: notice that the optical depth is a strong function of the source
326: redshift, $\zs$, particularly when $\zs<3$, a trend first emphasized by \citet{Wambsganss04}.
327: Second, it is clear that the optical depth in the WMAP3 model is much
328: lower: compared with that in the $\LCDM$0 model, the optical depth
329: is reduced by more than a factor of $\sim 6$ for $L/W>7.5$ and
330: 10 at all source redshifts. The right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:tau} shows the differential
331: probability distribution of the optical depth for giant arcs with $L/W>7.5$
332: as a function of the lens redshift for $\zs=1, 2$, and 7; the trends (not shown)
333: are similar for $L/W>10$. For a source at redshift 1, 2
334: and 7, the optimal lensing redshift is around 0.3, 0.5 and 0.75,
335: respectively, in the two cosmologies considered here. Note that the
336: normalised shapes are quite similar in the two cosmological models
337: but the overall optical depth is much lower in the WMAP3 model.
338:
339: \begin{figure}
340: {
341: \centering
342: \leavevmode
343: \columnwidth=.48\columnwidth
344: \includegraphics[width={\columnwidth}]{f2a.eps}%
345: \hfil
346: \includegraphics[width={\columnwidth}]{f2b.eps}
347: }
348: \caption{The left panel shows the optical depth as a function
349: of source redshift in the $\LCDM$0 and WMAP3 models for giant
350: arcs with $L/W>7.5$ and $L/W>10$. The right panel shows the
351: differential probability distribution for the optical depth as a function of lens redshift
352: for $\zs=1, 2$ and 7 respectively. In both panels, the results for
353: the $\LCDM$0 and WMAP3 models are shown as thick and thin curves
354: respectively.
355: }
356: \label{fig:tau}
357: \end{figure}
358:
359: \section{Discussions}
360:
361: We have compared, using high-resolution $N$-body simulations,
362: the lensing probabilities of giant arcs in two
363: cosmological models: the old `concordance' model with $\sigma_8=0.9$,
364: and the model with parameters given by the three-year WMAP data.
365: We find that the lensing probability decreases by a factor of $\sim 6$
366: in the 3-year WMAP model compared to that in the $\LCDM$0 concordance model.
367: This decrease is largely a result of the much lower number density of
368: massive haloes in the WMAP3 model (see Fig. 1).
369:
370: There has been a long debate whether the number of observed giant arcs
371: is consistent with theoretical predictions. Early comparisons use
372: simple analytical models (\citealt{Kormann94, WH93, Wu96};
373: see also \citealt{Oguri03}), which were later shown to severely
374: under-estimate the lensing optical depth
375: (Bartelmann \& Weiss 1994; Bartelmann, Steinmetz \& Weiss 1995; Meneghetti et al. 2003a; Torri et al. 2004).
376: Many recent studies use N-body simulations,
377: but with only dark matter (e.g. \citealt{Wambsganss04}; \citealt{Dalal04},
378: see \citealt{Puchwein05} for an exception). Below we discuss the
379: uncertainties in both observations and predictions, and examine
380: the consistency found in several previous works in the $\LCDM$0 cosmology.
381:
382: \subsection{Consistency in the $\LCDM$0 cosmology}
383:
384: Several previous studies concluded that the observational results
385: of giant arcs are compatible with theoretical predictions (\citealt{Oguri03,
386: Wambsganss04, Dalal04}) in the $\LCDM$0 cosmology.
387: However, there are uncertainties in such conclusion.
388:
389: The study by \citet{Oguri03} used
390: the axis ratio distributions in the tri-axial model of Jing \& Suto
391: (2002), and assumed a central profile, $\rho \propto r^{-1.5}$,
392: that are steeper than the \citet{NFW97} form. Gas cooling
393: can steepen the halo density profile, but it also makes the central
394: mass distribution rounder. In this case, the shape distributions obtained
395: in dark matter-only simulations are not suitable for clusters
396: where gas cooling steepens the density profile dramatically.
397: Since a shallower profile or a more spherical shape will reduce the
398: giant arc cross-sections, it is unclear whether or not the conclusion
399: of \citet{Oguri03} still holds if consistent models for density profile
400: and halo shape are used.
401: \citet{Wambsganss04} assumes that the $L/W$ ratio
402: can be approximated by the magnification. This assumption is valid
403: for isothermal spheres, but not for real clusters which appear to be well
404: fit by the \citet{NFW97} profile (\citealt{vdM00, Com06, VF06}).
405: This assumption over-estimates the
406: optical depth by a factor of few (\citealt{Dalal04, Li05}). Furthermore,
407: they also assumed a slightly higher normalization, $\sigma_8 (0.95)$,
408: which also increases the optical depth. The study by \citet{Dalal04}
409: assumes that arcs can be approximated as rectangles,
410: which may overestimate the total cross-section by a factor of two
411: compared to the perhaps more realistic assumption of elliptical arcs.
412: In summary, even in the $\LCDM$0 cosmology, the consistency between
413: observations and predictions requires somewhat optimistic assumptions.
414: The WMAP3 model, which predicts an optical depth by a factor of
415: $\sim 6$ smaller, makes it even harder to explain the observed giant
416: arcs.
417:
418: \subsection{Effects of baryons}
419:
420: In the real universe,
421: baryons account for roughly 20\% of the total mass, which
422: can cool (form stars) and sink toward the centres of clusters.
423: The radiative cooling likely has two effects: it will
424: increase the concentration of baryons at the center of clusters,
425: and at the same time, make the clusters more spherical (e.g.
426: \citealt{Dubinski94, Kaz04}). The former increases while the latter
427: decreases the lensing cross-sections, and so the overall influence
428: depends on which effect dominates.
429:
430: Puchwein et al. (2005) studied the lensing cross-sections of clusters with $M \ga 10^{15}h^{-1}
431: M_\odot$ with different prescriptions of numerical viscousities. They concluded
432: that the higher concentrations due to baryons dominate and the baryons increase the
433: lensing cross-sections by a factor of $\sim 2$. However, they cautioned that
434: their clusters may suffer from overcooling, as the stellar density in
435: the core is larger than observed, and so the effect of baryons may be
436: over-estimated. Notice also that their simulations did not
437: include feedbacks from active galactic nuclei, which may
438: further decrease the cooling of baryons at cluster centres
439: and the corresponding lensing cross-sections. As the star formation
440: treatment in hydrodynamical simulations is uncertain,
441: \citet{Mene03b} adopted an alternate empirical approach. They studied the effect of
442: baryons by including a central cD galaxy
443: in clusters. They found that the increase in the lensing cross-section
444: due to cD galaxies is again quite moderate, by a factor of $ \la 2$.
445: Such an enhancement cannot compensate the reduction in the optical depth
446: due to the lower abundance of clusters in the WMAP3 model compared with the
447: $\LCDM$0 model.
448:
449: \subsection{Uncertainties in the cluster and background source populations}
450:
451: The cluster abundance (but not internal structures, particularly when star formation is
452: included) can now be reliably predicted from both numerical simulations and the
453: extended Press-Schechter analytic formalism. In the $\LCDM$0 cosmology,
454: various investigations, using similar assumptions of the background
455: source population and definition of the length-to-width ratio,
456: predict lensing optical depths that agree with one another within a
457: factor of 1.5 (e.g. \citealt{Dalal04, Li05}; see \citealt{Li05} for
458: a detailed discussion). We caution, however, that
459: even our $300 h^{-1}\mpc$ box size still appears to be somewhat too small
460: to sample the tail of the cluster mass function well, as is shown by
461: the large noise in the right panel of Fig. 2. We have
462: 158 clusters with $M>10^{14} h^{-1}M_\odot$ (7 clusters with $M>3.8\times10^{14}h^{-1} M_\odot$).
463: At redshift $z=0.3$ for $\zs=3$, 50\% of the giant arc cross-section is
464: contributed by clusters with $M>3.8\times10^{14}h^{-1} M_\odot$. The
465: larger noise may also be partly due to our inadequate sampling of
466: merger events as we only dump the simulation data with a redshift
467: interval of $d z \approx 0.1$. As shown by a number of previous works
468: (Torri et al 2004; Hennawi et al. 2005; Fedeli et al. 2006), merger
469: events can boost the lensing cross-sections significantly. To examine
470: the importance of this effect, we ran a lower resolution simulation in
471: the WMAP3 model which evolves $N_{\rm DM}=512^3$ dark matter particles
472: in a box with sidelength of $600 h^{-1} \mpc$. Due to the larger volume,
473: the new simulation
474: better samples the high mass tail of the cluster mass function and merger events. The
475: optical depth decreases by a factor of $\sim 2$.
476: The larger optical depth in our first WMAP3 simulation is partly
477: because it has relatively more massive
478: clusters than the larger simulation due to cosmic variance. Furthermore, the poorer resolution of
479: the larger simulation may have also reduced the optical depth, and
480: so the real change should be $\la 2$.
481:
482: Substructures along the line of sight may be important for
483: the anomalous flux ratio problem (\citealt{Metcalf05}), but are unlikely to
484: be important for the lensing cross-sections as they are expected
485: to contribute only a few per cent of the surface density.
486: Notice that we use a cube of $4h^{-1}\mpc$ to evaluate the lensing
487: cross-sections. In \citet{Li05} the sidelength is chosen to be $2r_{\rm vir}$. These two choices give
488: almost identical optical depths (compare Fig. 2 with Fig.7 in
489: \citealt{Li05}). This demonstrates that the influence of matter
490: (including substructures) in the outer skirts of
491: clusters is not important.
492:
493: A much larger uncertainty concerns the background source population,
494: including their ellipticity, size and redshift distributions.
495: While the former two appear to have modest
496: effects on the lensing cross-sections (e.g. \citealt{Oguri02, Li05}),
497: the source redshift distribution
498: has quite dramatic effects on the lensing cross-section (Wambsganss et al. 2004), as can be
499: seen in Fig. \ref{fig:tau}. This is
500: the biggest uncertainty in the predictions of giant arcs.
501: More redshift measurements of giant arcs will be particularly useful
502: to clarify the situation (see \citealt{Cov06} for a recent effort).
503:
504: Currently the giant arc samples are still small.
505: The largest dedicated search for giant arcs in X-ray clusters was performed by
506: Luppino et al. (1999) who found strong lensing in 8 out of 38 clusters.
507: In the optical, Zaritsky \& Gonzalez (2003) found two giant
508: arcs using the Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey between redshift 0.5
509: and 0.7 in an effective search area of 69 square degrees while
510: Gladders et al. (2003) found eight clusters with giant arcs
511: using the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey over $\sim 90$ square degrees.
512: %
513: The largest arc sample found from HST archives was presented by Sand et
514: al. (2005) with 116 arcs from 128 clusters, although its selection
515: function is likely heterogeneous. Clearly the current giant arc samples
516: are somewhat limited, although future weak lensing surveys (e.g. \citealt{Wittman06}) may
517: yield a large number of giant arcs as a by-product. A combined analysis of
518: strong and weak lensing will be particularly useful for constraining
519: $\sigma_8$ and the cluster inner mass profiles.
520:
521: Until larger arc samples become available and our understanding
522: of the background source population is improved, it is difficult to
523: reach firm conclusions concerning the consistency of the WMAP three-year model with
524: observations. Nevertheless, it appears difficult to reconcile
525: the giant arc statistics with the low central $\sigma_8$ value (0.74) preferred
526: by the WMAP three-year data.
527:
528:
529: \section*{Acknowledgment}
530: We thank Volker Springel for providing the code GADGET2 and the referee
531: for insightful comments. This work is supported by grants from
532: NSFC (No. 10373012, 10533030) and Shanghai Key Projects in Basic research
533: (No. 04JC14079 and 05XD14019). HJM, LG and SM acknowledge travel support from
534: the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
535: The simulations were performed at the Shanghai Supercomputer Center.
536:
537: \begin{thebibliography}{}
538: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon et al.}{2004}]{Bacon02}Bacon D. J., Massey R. J., Refregier A. R., Ellis R. S., 2003, MMRAS, 344, 673
539: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann \& Weiss}{1994}]{BW94} Bartelmann M., Weiss A., 1994, \aap, 287, 1
540: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann et al.}{1995}]{B95} Bartelmann M., Steinmetz M., Weiss A., 1995, \aap, 297, 1
541: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann \& Meneghetti}{2004}]{Bartelmann04} Bartelmann M., Meneghetti M., 2004, \aap, 418, 413
542: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bryan \& Norman}{1998}]{BN98} Bryan G. L., Norman M. L. 1998, ApJ, 495, 80
543: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Comerford et al.}{2006}]{Com06} Comerford J. M., Meneghetti M., Bartelmann M., Schirmer M., 2006, ApJ, 642, 39
544: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Covone et al.}{2006}]{Cov06} Covone G.,
545: Kneib J.-P., Soucail G., Richard J., Jullo E., Ebeling H., 2006, \aap, submitted
546: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dalal et al.}{2004}]{Dalal04} Dalal N., Holder G., Hennawi J.F., 2004, \apj, 609, 50
547: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dubinski}{1994}]{Dubinski94} Dubinski J., 1994, \apj, 431, 617
548: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fedeli et al.}{2006}]{Fedeli06}
549: Fedeli C., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann M., Dolag K., Moscardini L., 2006, A\&A, 447, 419
550: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferguson et al.}{2004}]{Fer04} Ferguson H. C., et al., 2004, \apj, 600, L107
551: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gao \& White}{2006}]{Gao06} Gao L.,
552: White S.~D.~M., 2006, \mnras, submitted (astro-ph/0605087)
553: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gladders et al.}{2003}]{Gladders03} Gladders M. D., Hoekstra H., Yee H. K. C., Hall
554: Patrick B., Barrientos L. F., 2003, \apj, 593, 48
555: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gladders et
556: al.}{2006}]{Gladders06}Gladders M. D., Yee H. K. C., Majumdar S., Barrientos L. F., Hoekstra, H., Hall, Patrick, B., Infante, L. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0603588)
557: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hennawi et al.}{2005}]{Hen05} Hennawi J. F., Dalal N., Bode
558: P., Ostriker J. P., 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0506171)
559: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Horesh et al.}{2005}]{Horesh05} Horesh A., Ofek E. O., Maoz
560: D., Bartelmann M., Meneghetti M., Rix H.-W., 2005, \apj, 633, 768
561: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jing \& Suto}{2002}]{JS02} Jing Y. P., Suto Y. 2002, ApJ, 574, 538
562: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jing, Mo, \& B\"orner}{1998}]{JMB98} Jing Y. P., Mo H. J., B\"orner G. 1998, \apj, 494, 1
563: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kazantzidis et al.}{2004}]{Kaz04}
564: Kazantzidis S., Kravtsov A. V., Zentner A. R., Allgood B., Nagai D., Moore B., 2004, \apj, 611, L73
565: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kitayama \& Suto}{1996}]{KS96} Kitayama T., Suto Y., 1996, \mnras, 280, 638
566: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kormann et al.}{1994}]{Kormann94}Kormann R., Schneider P., Bartelmann M., 1994, AA, 284, 285
567: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Li et al.}{2005}]{Li05} Li G. L., Mao S., Jing Y. P., Bartelmann M., Kang X., Meneghetti M., 2005, ApJ, 635, 795
568: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Li et al.}{2006}]{Li06} Li G. L., Mao S., Jing Y. P., Kang X., Bartelmann M., 2006, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0603557)
569: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Luppino et al.}{1999}]{Luppino99} Luppino G. A., Gioia I. M., Hammer F., Le F{$\grave{e}$}vre O., Annis J. A., 1999, AAS, 136, 117
570: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Metcalf}{2005}]{Metcalf05} Metcalf R. B., 2005, \apj, 629, 673
571: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Meneghetti et al.}{2003a}]{Mene03a} Meneghetti M., Bartelmann M., Moscardini L., 2003a, \mnras, 340, 105
572: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Meneghetti et al.}{2003b}]{Mene03b} Meneghetti M., Bartelmann M., Moscardini L., 2003b, \mnras, 346, 67
573: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Navarro, Frenk \& White}{1997}]{NFW97} Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, \apj, 490, 493
574: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oguri et al.}{2003}]{Oguri03} Oguri M., Lee J., Suto Y., 2003, \apj, 599, 7
575: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oguri}{2002}]{Oguri02} Oguri M., 2002, \apj, 573, 51
576: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popesso et al.}{2004}]{Pop04} Popesso P., B\"oringer H.,
577: Brinkmann J., Voges W., York D. G., 2004, \aap, 423, 449
578: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press \& Schechter (1974)}{1974}]{PS74} Press W. H., Schechter P. L. 1974, \apj, 187, 425
579: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Puchwein et al.}{2005}]{Puchwein05} Puchwein E., Bartelmann M., Dolag K., Meneghetti M., 2005, \aap, 442, 405
580: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reiprich}{2006}]{R06} Reiprich, T. H., 2006, astro-ph/0605009
581: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reiprich \& B\"ohringer}{2002}]{RB02} Reiprich T. H., B\"oringer H., 2002, \apj, 567, 716
582: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rosati et al.}{2002}]{Rosati02}
583: Rosati P., Borgani S., Norman C., 2002, \araa, 40, 539
584: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sanchez et al.}{2006}]{Sanchez06}
585: S\'anchez A.~G. et al., 2006, \mnras, 366, 189
586: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sand et al.}{2005}]{Sand05} Sand D. J., True T., Ellis R. S., Smith G. P., 2005, \apj, 627, 32
587: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seljak, Slosar, \& McDonald}{2006}]{Seljak06} Seljak U., Slosar A., McDonald P., 2006, astro-ph/0604335
588: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seljak \& Zaldarriaga}{1996}]{Seljak96} Seljak U., Zaldarriaga M., 1996, ApJ, 469, 437
589: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheth \& Tormen}{2002}]{ST02} Sheth R. K., Tormen G., 2002, 329, 61
590: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheth, Mo \& Tormen}{2001}]{SMT01} Sheth R. K., Mo H. J., Tormen G., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1
591: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel et al.}{2006}]{Spergel06} Spergel D.N., et al., 2006,
592: preprint (astro-ph/0603449)
593: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel}{2005}]{Springel05} Springel V., 2005, \mnras 364, 1105
594: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel, Yoshida, White}{2001}]{Springel01} Springel V., Yoshida N., White S.D.M., 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79
595: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tinker et al.}{2006}]{Tinker06} Tinker J. L., Norberg P., Weinberg D. H., Warren M. S., 2006, astro-ph/0603543
596: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Torri et al.}{2004}]{Torri04} Torri E., Meneghetti M., Bartelmann M., Moscardini L., Rasia E., Tormen G., 2004, \mnras, 349, 476
597: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van den Bosch et al.}{2003}]{van03} van den Bosch F., Mo H. J., Yang X. H., 2003, \mnras, 345, 923
598: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van de Marel et al.}{2000}]{vdM00} van de Marel R. P., Magorrian J., Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E. 2000, AJ, 119, 2039
599: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Waerbeke et al.}{2002}]{Van Waerbeke02}Van Waerbeke L., Mellier Y., Pello R., Pen U.L., McCracken H.J., Jain B. 2002, AA, 393, 369
600: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Viel et al.}{2006}]{Viel06} Viel M., Haehnelt M. G., Lewis A. 2006, astro-ph/0604310
601: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Voigt \& Fabian}{2006}]{VF06} Voigt L. M., Fabian A. C., 2006, \mnras, 368, 518
602: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wambsganss et al.}{2004}]{Wambsganss04} Wambsganss J., Bode P., Ostriker J. P., 2004, ApJ, 606, L93
603: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wittman et al.}{2006}]{Wittman06}{} Wittman D., Dell\'Antonio I. P., Hughes J. P., Margoniner V. E., Tyson J. A., Cohen J. G., Norman D. 2006, ApJ, 643, 128
604: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wu \& Hammer}{1993}]{WH93} Wu X. P., Hammer F., 1993, \mnras, 262, 187
605: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wu \& Mao}{1996}]{Wu96} Wu X. P., Mao S., 1996, \apj, 463, 404
606: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yang et al.}{2004}]{Yang04} Yang X. H., Mo H. J., Jing Y. P., van den Bosch F. C., Chu Y. Q., 2004, \mnras, 350, 1153
607: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yang et al.}{2005}]{Yang05} Yang X. H., Mo H. J., van den Bosch F. C., Jing Y. P., 2005, \mnras, 356, 1293
608: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zaritsky \& Gonzalez}{2003}]{ZG03} Zaritsky D. Gonzalez A. H., 2003, ApJ, 584, 691
609: \end{thebibliography}
610: \end{document}
611:
612: % LocalWords: WMAP baryonic Spergel al errorbar orner Waerbeke Viel Haehnelt
613: % LocalWords: Seljak Slosar Rosati Gladders Luppino ZG Dalal Horesh Wambsganss
614: % LocalWords: CDM lcccc DM Suto Springel SPH virialised virial Kitayama haloes
615: % LocalWords: comoving sidelength dV Sheth Tormen Schechter normalised Kormann
616: % LocalWords: WH Oguri Bartelmann Meneghetti Torri Puchwein tri NFW vdM Kaz cD
617: % LocalWords: centres Dubinski viscousities overcooling Mene Hennawi Fedeli JC
618: % LocalWords: Metcalf vir Cov Zaritsky Campanas Wittman Volker NSFC XD HJM ApJ
619: % LocalWords: Refregier MMRAS Comerford Schirmer Covone Kneib Soucail Jullo ph
620: % LocalWords: Ebeling Dolag Moscardini Hoekstra Yee Barrientos Majumdar astro
621: % LocalWords: Infante Ostriker Ofek Maoz Rix Kazantzidis Kravtsov Zentner vre
622: % LocalWords: Allgood Nagai Gioia AAS Frenk Popesso oringer Brinkmann Voges de
623: % LocalWords: Reiprich ohringer Borgani MNRAS Yoshida Norberg Marel Magorrian
624: % LocalWords: Carlberg Ellingson AJ Mellier Pello Voigt Margoniner Chu nchez
625: % LocalWords: Gao CMBFAST Zaldarrriaga Zaldarriaga anchez
626:
627:
628: