1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \def\kann{\langle\kappa\rangle}
4: \def\simgt{\hbox{\rlap{\raise 0.425ex\hbox{$>$}}\lower 0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
5: \def\simlt{\hbox{\rlap{\raise 0.425ex\hbox{$<$}}\lower 0.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
6: \def\hoverarrow#1{\setbox0\hbox to 0pt{\hss
7: $\scriptscriptstyle\rightharpoonup$}#1\kern.4ex
8: \raise 1.5ex\box0\kern-0.1ex}
9: \def\btheta{{\hoverarrow\theta}}
10:
11:
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{Gravitational lensing model degeneracies: Is steepness all-important?}
16:
17: \author{Prasenjit Saha\altaffilmark{1,2}}
18: \author{Liliya L.R. Williams\altaffilmark{3}}
19:
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Z\"urich,
21: Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Z\"urich, Switzerland}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Astronomy Unit, Queen Mary and Westfield College,
23: University of London, London E1~4NS, UK}
24: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Minnesota,
25: 116 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: In gravitational lensing, steeper mass profiles generically produce
29: longer time delays but smaller magnifications, without necessarily
30: changing the image positions or magnification ratios between different
31: images. This is well known. We find in this paper, however, that
32: even if steepness is fixed, time delays can still have significant
33: model dependence, which we attribute to shape modeling degeneracies.
34: This conclusion follows from numerical experiments
35: with models of 35 galaxy lenses. We suggest that varying and twisting
36: ellipticities, features that are explored by pixelated lens models but
37: not so far by parametric models, have an important effect on time
38: delays.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{gravitational lensing}
42:
43: \section{Introduction: why steepness?}
44:
45: In the gravitational lensing of quasars by galaxies, time delays
46: between images are highly prized because they are proportional to the
47: Hubble time \citep{schech04,jakob05,kochanek06,morgan06,vuissoz06,scmw06}.
48: But a given set of image positions and brightness ratios---in fact any
49: images of sources at single redshift---can be produced by very
50: different lensing-mass distributions. In particular, making a lens
51: profile steeper lengthens the time delays and reduces the overall
52: magnification, but otherwise has little or no effect on the images.
53:
54: A more precise version of the previous statement is that replacing
55: $(1-\kappa)$ everywhere on a lens by $\lambda(1-\kappa)$---where
56: $\kappa$ is the projected density in units of the critical density and
57: $\lambda$ is a constant---multiplies all time delays by $\lambda$ and
58: multiplies all magnifications by $\lambda^{-2}$, but changes nothing
59: else. In fact the transformation only needs to be applied within a
60: circle larger than all the images. The simplest interpretation is a
61: stretching of the arrival-time surface by a factor of $\lambda$ along
62: the time axis.
63: Multiplying $(1-\kappa)$ by a
64: constant naturally makes the mass profile steeper or shallower. That is
65: not exactly the same as changing the radial index, but quite similar to
66: it over the scales of interest.
67:
68: This degeneracy has a long history and several names, having been
69: independently discovered at least four times. \cite{fgs85} derived it
70: as a consequence of the lens equation, and the same authors in
71: \cite{gfs88} named it the `magnification transformation'.
72: \cite{paczynski86} discovered it in the context of microlensing.
73: \cite{ss95} found it in cluster lensing and called it a `global
74: invariance transformation'. \cite{wp94} came upon it as a parameter
75: degeneracy in galaxy-lens models. Nowadays the common name is
76: `mass-sheet degeneracy'; ADS first shows the phrase used by \cite{bn95},
77: but it seems the name was already in spoken usage by then. Unfortunately, the
78: name `mass-sheet degeneracy' can give the incorrect impression that
79: simply adding/removing a mass sheet is a degeneracy. It seems preferable
80: to use the more descriptive term {\em steepness degeneracy,} thus avoiding
81: the possible confusion. In this paper we will use `steepness degeneracy'
82: in both strict and rough senses: the strict meaning being rescaling
83: $(1-\kappa)$ within a circle enclosing all the images, and the rough
84: meaning being changing the radial index.
85:
86: Whatever the name, the steepness degeneracy has been much discussed in
87: recent years \citep{bradac04,schech04,treu04,oguri02,wuck02}.
88: On the other hand, there has been
89: little research on whether any other degeneracies are important for the
90: time-delay problem. Several known lensing degeneracies are summarized
91: in \cite{saha00}, along with a derivation of the arrival-time interpretation
92: above, but apart from steepness and the obvious monopole
93: degeneracy, none of them are applicable in the context of lensed
94: quasars.
95:
96: It is easy to imagine further degeneracies: we can simply make the
97: stretching factor a function of position. In other words we replace
98: the arrival-time surface $\tau(\btheta)$ by
99: \begin{equation}
100: \tau'(\btheta) = \lambda(\btheta) \tau(\btheta) .
101: \label{trans}
102: \end{equation}
103: We must require $\nabla\lambda=0$ at the image positions to preserve
104: said image positions, $\nabla(\lambda\tau)\neq0$ except at the images
105: so as not to introduce new images, and $\nabla^2(\lambda\tau)\geq0$
106: everywhere to keep the density non-negative. But otherwise the
107: transformation (\ref{trans}) are arbitrary.
108: We may call such transformations {\em shape
109: degeneracies,} because they change the shape of the arrival-time
110: surface and the mass profile in some complicated way. General shape
111: degeneracies change magnification ratios between different images and
112: time-delay ratios between different pairs of images, though particular
113: shape degeneracies may preserve some or all of these. In contrast, the
114: steepness degeneracy preserves all time-delay ratios and magnification
115: ratios. Hence the effect of steepness degeneracies will be reduced if
116: such data are present. If sources at multiple redshifts are present,
117: then steepness degeneracy is broken, while shape degeneracies can be
118: greatly reduced.
119:
120: The only explicit example of a shape degeneracy in the literature is a
121: special but intriguing model constructed by \cite{zq03}, to which we
122: will return later. The main aim of this paper, however, is to assess
123: whether shape degeneracies are important in galaxy lenses independently
124: of particular examples. We can do so using pixelated modeling, which is
125: the best available way to explore the full range of shape degeneracies
126: because shape degeneracies are generically present in free-form lens models.
127: (Parametric modeling, on the other hand, allows only for a restricted set
128: or sets of shape degeneracies.) The trick is to somehow `turn off' the
129: steepness degeneracy, and then see how degenerate time delays remain.
130:
131:
132: \section{Numerical experiments with lens models}\label{exper}
133:
134: The {\em PixeLens\/} code \citep{sw04} is particularly well-suited to
135: exploring a large variety of models, because it can automatically
136: generate ensembles of models constrained to reproduce observed image
137: positions, and also observed time delays and tensor magnifications if
138: available. The models are also constrained by a prior reflecting
139: conservative assumptions about what galaxy mass profiles can be
140: like.\footnote{We do not have dynamical models for the lenses, in the
141: sense of phase-space distribution functions that self-consistently
142: generate the three-dimensional gravitational potential. Models of
143: this type are commonly fitted to stellar-dynamical data
144: \citep{bender05,capellari06}. But getting the stellar dynamics
145: self-consistent while also fitting the lensing data has not yet been
146: attempted.} Details and justification of the prior are given in the
147: earlier paper, but basically the mass maps must be non-negative and
148: centrally concentrated with a projected radial profile steeper than
149: $R^{-0.5}$.
150:
151: In {\em PixeLens\/} it is easy to turn off the steepness
152: degeneracy: we can simply constrain the `annular density' $\kann$,
153: meaning the average $\kappa$ in an annulus between the innermost and
154: outermost images, to some pre-specified value. Since $\kann$ is linear
155: in the mass profile, it is easily incorporated by {\em PixeLens\/} as
156: an additional constraint. Doing so naturally blocks any global
157: rescaling of $(1-\kappa)$.
158:
159: That $\kann$ is strongly coupled to the steepness degeneracy was
160: pointed out by \cite{kochanek02}, who derived the relation
161: \begin{equation}
162: H_0 = A(1-\kann) + B\kann\alpha + C + O\left((\Delta R/R)^2\right) \; .
163: \label{csk1}
164: \end{equation}
165: for lens models with given image positions and time delays. Here
166: $\alpha$ is the radial index as in $\kappa\sim R^{-\alpha}$, $A,B,C$
167: are constant for any given lens system, and $\Delta R/R$ expresses the
168: thickness of the image annulus. The $A$ coefficient is, roughly speaking,
169: the highest $H_0$ allowed by a given set of image positions and time
170: delays. If steepness dominates, then $B,C,$ and the error term will be
171: small. A test of Eq.~(\ref{csk1}) for pixelated models of six time-delay
172: lenses has already been presented in \cite{sw04} (Figs.~11 and 14). In
173: order to test it also for lenses without measured time-delays, it is
174: convenient to rewrite (\ref{csk1}) in dimensionless form, which we now do.
175:
176: Consider the scaled time delay for a given lens defined by
177: \begin{equation}
178: \varphi = {16\over(R_1+R_2)^2\,D}\,H_0\,\Delta t ,
179: \end{equation}
180: where $\Delta t$ is the time delay between the first and last images
181: in arrival-time order, $R_1,R_2$ are the lens-centric sky distances of
182: the same images, and $D$ is the dimensionless cosmology-dependent
183: factor $(1+z_{\rm L})(H_0/c)D_{\rm L}D_{\rm S}/D_{\rm LS}$. The factor
184: $\frac1{16}(R_1+R_2)^2$ in steradians is roughly the fraction of the
185: sky covered by the lens, and it turns out to be of the same order as
186: $H_0\Delta t$. In other words, the sky-fraction of the lens is
187: roughly the time delay divided by the Hubble time \citep{saha04}. The
188: scaled time delay $\varphi$ ranges from 0 to about 8, and correlates
189: with the image morphology. We will see this in detail later.
190:
191: Multiplying Eq.~(\ref{csk1}) by $16\Delta t/(R_1+R_2)^2D$ gives
192: the dimensionless relation
193: \begin{equation}
194: \varphi = a(1-\kann) + b\kann\alpha + c + O\left((\Delta R/R)^2\right) \; .
195: \label{csk2}
196: \end{equation}
197: with new constants $a,b,c$ proportional to $A,B,C$. $H_0$ is now
198: eliminated. If we now examine the model-dependence of $\varphi$ at
199: fixed $\kann$ for any lens, we will have the size of the error term,
200: or alternatively the contribution of degeneracies not considered in
201: Kochanek's derivation.
202:
203: To investigate the model-dependence of $\varphi$ we considered 35
204: galaxy lenses in three modeling stages. The purpose of the first stage
205: is to `fill in' the information gaps in the observed lensing data, mostly
206: time delays, with plausible values.\footnote{We do not claim that the
207: time delays we generate are accurate estimates of the actual time
208: delays---for the purposes of this paper it is adequate to use
209: reasonable values.} The models resulting from the second stage modeling
210: allow for both the steepness and shape degeneracies. But the models of
211: the third stage have the steepness degeneracy suppressed, leaving shape
212: degeneracies only.
213:
214: In the first modeling stage, we generated ensembles of 200 models for
215: all 35 lenses, using image positions, plus time delays if available,
216: and imposing $H_0^{-1}=14\,\rm Gyr$. The image positions were taken
217: from the CASTLES compilation \citep{castles} in most
218: cases.\footnote{We tried to include all the well-studied lenses, but
219: omitted the `cloverleaf' H1413+117 because there seems to be a
220: significant uncertainty in the galaxy position. In such a highly
221: symmetric system, an uncertain lens center position causes ambiguity
222: in the time-ordering of images, which is fundamental to our modeling
223: technique.} For one lens, J0414+053, we specified three VLBI
224: components \citep{twh00} as distinct image systems, thereby
225: constraining the relative tensor magnifications. In 27 of the lenses
226: we required the models to have inversion symmetry. In 8 lenses we let
227: the models be asymmetric, either because secondary lensing galaxies
228: have been identified or because symmetric and asymmetric assumptions
229: led to very different mass distributions. Earlier blind tests
230: \citep{ws00} indicate that the latter procedure is quite successful at
231: identifying asymmetric lenses.
232:
233: In the second modeling stage, we used the ensemble-average values from
234: the first stage to fill in all unmeasured time delays. Then we
235: removed the constraint on $H_0$, and generated model ensembles again.
236: In second-stage models, all members of a model-ensemble for a given
237: lens have the same image positions and time delays, but $\varphi$ and
238: $\kann$ vary. Fig.~(\ref{corr1}) shows the variation of $\varphi$ with
239: $\kann$ in second-stage models for the long-axis quad\footnote{We will
240: use the names core quad, inclined quad, long- and short-axis quad,
241: axial double, and inclined double to describe image morphologies. See
242: \cite{sw03} for details.} B1422+231. Clearly $\varphi$ is nearly
243: linear in $\kann$, and moreover the intercept on the $\kann$ axis is
244: close to $\kann=1$, hence $a(1-\kann)$ is a good fit. The dispersion
245: in $\varphi$ is $\sim25\%$.\footnote{By fractional dispersion we mean
246: $\frac12({\rm 84th\ percentile}-{\rm 16th\ percentile})/{\rm median}$.
247: For a Gaussian, that would be $\sigma/m$.}
248:
249: For the third modeling stage, we constrained $\kann$ to its average
250: value for first-stage models. Thus, all third-stage models of a lens
251: have their time-delays and $\kann$ fixed at either the measured or
252: some plausible value, thus suppressing the steepness degeneracy, while
253: the variation of $\varphi$ charts the $b$, $c$ and error terms in
254: Eq.~(\ref{csk2}). Fig.~(\ref{corr2}) shows this variation for
255: B1422+231 again. A small positive $b$ coefficient ($b\approx a/10$) is
256: noticeable, but is largely drowned out by variation from other
257: degeneracies. Clearly, if steepness is the dominant degeneracy, as is
258: the case with B1422+231, the correction terms given by Kochanek ($B$
259: and $C$, and the error term) provide little improvement.
260:
261: Detailed results from the third-stage modeling, i.e., with steepness
262: degeneracy turned off, are shown in Figs.~\ref{map1}--\ref{map4}.
263: These figures show the $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$ (meaning the fractional
264: dispersion of $\varphi$ in third-stage models) against the mean
265: $\varphi$ for all 35 lenses, using mass maps of the lenses themselves
266: as plotting symbols. Figs.~\ref{map1}--\ref{map3} should be considered
267: overlaid, while Fig.~\ref{map4}, containing the highly asymmetric
268: lenses, uses a different scale. The dispersion $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$
269: quantifies the relative effects of the steepness and shape
270: degeneracies. Systems where steepness dominates have small
271: $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$, for example 4\% in the case of B1422+231, while
272: systems where shape degeneracies dominate have considerably larger
273: $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$, $\simlt$ 40\%.
274:
275: The immediately striking conclusion is that although in some lenses
276: (including B1422+231) the time delay variation is dominated by the
277: steepness degeneracy, in general shape degeneracies are important.
278:
279: Could this result be an artifact of the pixelated method? We must
280: consider the possibility that the ensembles contain models with
281: irregular structures not present in real galaxies, because irregular
282: structures would tend to get washed out in ensemble averages while
283: still contributing a large scatter to $\Delta\varphi$. We can
284: spot-check for this possibility by inspecting individual models from
285: the ensembles. In Figs.~\ref{isol1} and \ref{isol2} we do so for
286: B1422+231 and J1411+521 respectively. B1422+231 is an axial quad, as
287: we have already noted, and has $\Delta\varphi/\varphi\simeq4\%$, while
288: J1411+521 is a core quad with $\Delta\varphi/\varphi\simeq20\%$. For
289: each of these lenses, we arbitrarily select model no.~100 out of the
290: ensemble of 200, and show its mass profile, lens potential, and
291: arrival-time surface. Comparing the two mass maps with the
292: corresponding ensemble-average mass maps shown in miniature in
293: Figs.~\ref{map1} and \ref{map2}, it is clear that ensemble averages
294: smooth out pixel-to-pixel variation. But such variation affects only
295: the second derivative of the lens potential; the potential itself is
296: always smooth, as these figures show. Furthermore, the arrival-time
297: contours show no spurious extra images. When we examine many more
298: individual models spurious images do sometimes appear, but rarely
299: (perhaps 10\% of models). The remaining noticeable difference between
300: the sample and ensemble-average maps is varying ellipticity,
301: especially the twisting ellipticity in Fig.~\ref{isol2} for J1411+521.
302: Roughly speaking, the sample model for J1411+521 suggests a bar but
303: the ensemble as a whole does not.
304:
305: We can further test whether our models are exaggerating the scatter in
306: time delays by comparing with Table~2 in \cite{kochanek02}. The table
307: shows that (a)~for the axial doubles 1520+530, 1600+434, 2149-274, the
308: approximation $H_0\simeq A(1-\kann)+B\kann\alpha+C$ comes to within
309: $\sim5\%$ of a full model, and is a slight improvement on the lowest
310: order approximation $H_0\simeq A(1-\kann)$, while (b)~for the inclined
311: quad B1115+080, the simpler approximation comes within about $15\%$ of
312: a full model, and introducing $B,C$ makes the approximation worse.
313: The $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$ that we compute are very consistent with
314: these levels. In other words, for these lenses pixelated models give
315: a similar estimate for the size of the error term in Eq.~(\ref{csk2})
316: as do Kochanek's original parameterized models.
317:
318: We thus conclude that the identification by Kochanek of $\kann$ as a
319: tracker of the steepness degeneracy was an important insight, but the
320: attempt to improve beyond $H_0\simeq(1-\kann)$ had limited success
321: because correction term(s) due to shape degeneracies are not a function
322: of $\kann$. Consequently, the error term in Eq.~(\ref{csk2}) is not
323: in practice a negligible effect: on the one hand $\Delta R/R$ is not
324: $\ll1$ except in core quads; on the other hand, in core quads
325: $\varphi$ is itself small, and hence small changes in the mass profile
326: can produce large fractional changes in $\varphi$. Furthermore, the
327: possibility of shape degeneracies of order $\Delta R/R$ (i.e., lower
328: order than the error term) is not ruled out.
329:
330: Returning to Figs.~\ref{map1}--\ref{map4} and examining them in more
331: detail, we see that both $\varphi$ and its dispersion depend on the
332: morphology, but in different ways. The time delay increases with
333: morphology as follows:
334: \begin{enumerate}
335: \item core quads ($\varphi\leq1.5$),
336: \item inclined quads ($1.5\leq\varphi\leq2$),
337: \item axial quads ($2\leq\varphi\leq4$),
338: \item doubles ($3\leq\varphi\leq8$).
339: \end{enumerate}
340: The relation of $\varphi$ to the morphology of the image distribution
341: in the lens is discussed in \citet{saha04}.
342:
343: The total dispersion in $\varphi$ {\em without\/} constraining $\kann$ is
344: of order 25\% for all morphologies, though we have only shown
345: B1422+231 here. But if $\kann$ is constrained, thus pegging the
346: steepness degeneracy, the residual variation in time delays increases
347: not like $\varphi$, but as follows:
348: \begin{enumerate}
349: \item axial systems, whether doubles or quads have
350: $\Delta\varphi/\varphi\sim$ 5--15\%,
351: \item inclined systems have $\Delta\varphi/\varphi\sim$ 5--20\%,
352: \item core quads $\Delta\varphi/\varphi\sim$ 5--20\%,
353: \item and strongly asymmetric lenses have $\Delta\varphi/\varphi\sim$ of 25\% or more.
354: \end{enumerate}
355: $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$ tracks the relative contribution of shape degeneracies.
356: Perhaps not surprisingly, shape degeneracies are most important in asymmetric
357: lenses.
358:
359: \section{Discussion}\label{disc}
360:
361: The steepness degeneracy in lensing is now well understood. The above
362: numerical experiments attempt to estimate the effect of other
363: degeneracies. This is done by searching through mass models at fixed
364: image-positions, time-delay ratios (where applicable), and mean
365: annular density $\kann$. The additional degeneracies, quantified
366: approximately by $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$ at fixed $\kann$, turn out
367: for some lenses to be as important as steepness.
368:
369: What then are the additional important degeneracies beyond steepness?
370: Do common parametric forms for lenses already allow for the other
371: degeneracies, and if not, what new parameters are needed?
372: Detailed answers to these questions require more research, but we can
373: deduce partial answers by thinking about the arrival-time surface.
374: In the Introduction we classified degeneracies into steepness and
375: shape, with the stipulation that the latter category can be further
376: subdivided depending on how many image observables we care to consider.
377: In this Section we go a little further and attempt a more quantitative,
378: but still intuitive classification.
379:
380: Recall that the steepness degeneracy amounts to a homogeneous
381: stretching or shrinking of the time scale in the arrival-time surface.
382: Imagine now that we stretch the time scale on the E side and shrink it
383: on the W side, preserving the image positions. No change is required
384: in the circularly averaged $\kann$. The resulting models are not
385: steepness-degenerate, but the time delay between E and W images will change,
386: producing a shape-degeneracy transformation. This particular kind
387: is allowed only in asymmetric lenses, but there it
388: may well be as important as the steepness degeneracy. Next, let us
389: imagine stretching the time scale on the E and W quadrants while
390: shrinking it on the N and S quadrants. Such a transformation, allowed
391: in inversion symmetric lenses, is likely to most affect core quads,
392: and inclined quads and doubles to a lesser extent, but not axial
393: systems. Further, we can imagine a transformation that shrinks the
394: time scale at small radii and stretches it at large radii.
395:
396: We can thus imagine a hierarchy of lensing degeneracies, from an $m=0$
397: mode (the steepness degeneracy) through $m=1,2,$ etc.\ representing various
398: shape degeneracies. This is reminiscent of basis functions in cylindrical
399: coordinates, but we emphasize that shape degeneracies are not
400: additive modes in the arrival-time surface,
401: still less so in the mass profile --- they are multiplicative modes in
402: the arrival-time surface, and in the mass profile their form will be
403: more complicated.
404:
405: The steepness degeneracy is special in that it rescales the arrival
406: time surface homogeneously, leaving time-delay ratios and
407: magnification ratios unaffected, while there is no guarantee that
408: shape degeneracies will preserve time-delay and magnification ratios.
409: The image elongation information by itself, as measured in weak lensing
410: does not break shape degeneracies, but having having many weakly lensed
411: images would help to constrain the shape of the arrival time surface.
412: Sources at multiple redshifts will break steepness, and help reduce
413: shape degeneracy.
414:
415: We can try and guess the sort of mass-profile feature that
416: will produce an $m=2$ mode. By analogy with the steepness degeneracy,
417: suppose an elliptical mass profile is steeper along the long axis than
418: the short axis; this corresponds to ellipticity decreasing with
419: increasing radius, and it seems plausible that it will increase time
420: delays along the long-axis direction and decrease delays along the
421: short-axis direction. In general we suggest that ellipticity varying or
422: twisting with radius as the signature of $m=2$ and higher modes.
423: Re-examining our early models of the inclined quad B1115+080
424: \citep{sw97} the role of such features in fitting time delays is already
425: apparent; at the time we commented briefly on it but had no
426: interpretation.
427:
428: The above suggests interpreting the degeneracy given by \cite{zq03} as
429: a mixture of steepness and shape degeneracies. Their Fig.~2 illustrates
430: the transformation of an arrival-time surface, which appears to be an
431: $m=2$ stretching/shrinking followed by an $m=0$ stretching with the
432: effects canceling at the image positions but not globally. (Note that
433: the left- and right-hand sides of their arrival-time plot actually
434: correspond to a $90^\circ$ change of position angle, not $180^\circ$.)
435:
436: In the Zhao-Qin example, the ellipticity in the potential comes
437: entirely from external shear and the main lens is circular. But in
438: our Figs.~\ref{map1}--\ref{map4}, varying and twisting ellipticity is
439: a common feature, especially in inclined systems. The axial systems
440: in these figures tend not to show twisting ellipticity. Recall also
441: from our numerical results that axial systems like B1422+231 tend to
442: have the lowest $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$, that is to say, steepness
443: dominates. Individual models of axial systems may still contain
444: twisting ellipticity; however, clockwise and anti-clockwise twists are
445: equivalent if the image morphology is axial, hence such twists will
446: tend to cancel in the ensemble average. For inclined image
447: morphologies, clockwise and anti-clockwise twists in the density are
448: not equivalent, and will tend to survive in an ensemble average. We
449: may ask whether the pixelated method tends to exaggerate twisting
450: ellipticity. The blind tests in \cite{ws00} are reassuring in this
451: regard; no spurious twisting appears in the ensemble-average models.
452:
453: We remark that in galaxy dynamics, twisting ellipticity arises
454: naturally in at least two ways: differential rotation leading to
455: spiral features, and projection of triaxial features. Because these and
456: other shape features can be important in real lenses, the errors in
457: derived $H_0$ must incorporate all of the degeneracies\citep{scmw06}.
458:
459: The arguments in this Discussion are hand-waving, but they indicate
460: that the issue of
461: varying/twisting ellipticity needs closer attention. One project that
462: is now called-for is to map the degeneracies in pixelated models in
463: detail, using principal components analysis or similar on model
464: ensembles, to see if a hierarchy of degeneracies indeed emerges.
465: Another project is to incorporate ellipticities that can vary or twist
466: with radius into parametric models.
467:
468: %\acknowledgements
469:
470: %\newpage
471:
472: \begin{thebibliography}{}
473:
474: \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Narayan(1995)]{bn95}
475: Bartelmann. M. \& Narayan, R, 1995, Proceedings,
476: Dark Matter, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, October, 1994.
477: New York: American Institute of Physics (AIP).
478: Eds: S.S. Holt \& C.L. Bennett. AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 336, 1995, p.307
479:
480: \bibitem[{\em e.g.,} Bender et al.(2005)]{bender05}
481: Bender, R. et al. 2005, \apj, 631, 1
482:
483: \bibitem[Bradac et al.(2004)]{bradac04}
484: Brada\v c, M., Lombardi, M. \& Schneider, P. 2004, \AA, 424, 13
485:
486: \bibitem[Capellari et al.(2006)]{capellari06}
487: Capellari, M. 2006, \mnras, 366, 1126
488:
489: \bibitem[Falco et al.(1985)]{fgs85}
490: Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V. \& Shapiro, I. I.
491: 1985, \apj, 289, L1
492:
493: \bibitem[Gorenstein et al.(1988)]{gfs88}
494: Gorenstein, M. V., Shapiro, I. I. \& Falco, E. E.
495: 1988, \apj, 327, 693
496:
497: \bibitem[Jakobsson et al.(2005)]{jakob05}
498: Jakobsson, P., Hjorth, J., Burud, I., Letawe, G., Lidman, C. \& Courbin, F.
499: 2005, A\&A, 431, 103
500:
501: \bibitem[Kochanek et al.(1998)]{castles}
502: Kochanek, C.S., Falco, E.E., Impey, C., Leh\'ar, J., McLeod, B., Rix,
503: H.-W. 1998,\\
504: {\tt cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata}
505:
506: \bibitem[Kochanek(2002)]{kochanek02}
507: Kochanek, C.S. 2002, \apj, 578, 25
508:
509: \bibitem[Kochanek et al.(2006)]{kochanek06}
510: Kochanek, C.S, Morgan, N.D, Falco, E.E., McLeod, B.A., Winn, J.N.,
511: Dembicky, J., \& Ketzeback, B. 2006, \apj, 640, 47
512:
513: \bibitem[Morgan et al.(2006)]{morgan06}
514: Morgan, N.D., Kochanek, C.S., Falco, E.E., \& Dai, X. 2006,
515: {\tt astro-ph/0605321}
516:
517: % \bibitem[Ofek \& Maoz(2003)]{om03}
518: % Ofek, E. O. \& Maoz, D. 2003, \apj, 594, 101
519:
520: \bibitem[Oguri \& Kawano(2002)]{oguri02}
521: Oguri, M. \& Kawano, Y. 2002, \mnras, 338, L25
522:
523: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1986)]{paczynski86}
524: Paczy\'nski, B. 1986, \apj, 301, 503
525:
526: \bibitem[Raychaudhury et al.(2003)]{rsw03}
527: Raychaudhury, S., Saha, P. \& Williams, L.L.R. 2003, \aj, 126, 29
528:
529: \bibitem[Saha(2000)]{saha00}
530: Saha, P. 2000, \aj, 120, 1654
531:
532: \bibitem[Saha(2004)]{saha04}
533: Saha, P. 2004, A\&A, 414, 425
534:
535: \bibitem[Saha et al.(2006)]{scmw06}
536: Saha, P., Coles, J., Macci\`o,
537: A.V., \& Williams, L.L.R. 2006, \apjl, in press, {\tt astro-ph/0607240}
538:
539: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(1997)]{sw97}
540: Saha, P., \& Williams, L.L.R. 1997, \mnras, 292, 148
541:
542: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(2003)]{sw03}
543: Saha, P., \& Williams, L.L.R. 2003, \aj, 125, 2769
544:
545: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(2004)]{sw04}
546: Saha, P., \& Williams, L.L.R. 2004, \aj, 127, 2604
547:
548: \bibitem[Schneider \& Seitz(1995)]{ss95}
549: Schneider, P. \& Seitz, C. 1995, A\&A, 294, 411
550:
551: \bibitem[{\em e.g.,} Schechter(2004)]{schech04} %0408338
552: Schechter, P.L. 2004, Proceedings of IAU Symposium No. 225,
553: The Impact of Gravitational Lensing on Cosmology,
554: eds: Y. Mellier \& G. Meylan
555:
556: \bibitem[Treu \& Koopmans(2004)]{treu04}
557: Treu, T. \& Koopmans, L.V.E. 2004, \apj, 611, 739
558:
559: \bibitem[Trotter et al.(2000)]{twh00}
560: Trotter, C.S., Winn, J.N. \& Hewitt, J.N. 2000, \apj, 535, 671
561:
562: \bibitem[Vuissoz et al.(2006)]{vuissoz06}
563: Vuissoz, C., et al., 2006, {\tt astro-ph/0606317}
564:
565: \bibitem[Wambsganss \& Paczy\'nski(1994)]{wp94}
566: Wambsganss, J. \& Paczy\'nski, B. 1994, \aj, 108, 1156
567:
568: \bibitem[Williams \& Saha(2000)]{ws00}
569: Williams, L.L.R. \& Saha, P. 2000, \aj, 119, 439
570:
571: \bibitem[Wucknitz(2002)]{wuck02}
572: Wucknitz, O. 2002, \mnras, 332, 951
573:
574: \bibitem[Zhao \& Qin(2003)]{zq03}
575: Zhao, H.-S. \& Qin, B. 2003, \apj, 582, 2
576:
577: \end{thebibliography}
578:
579: \begin{figure}
580: \epsscale{0.6}
581: \plotone{f1.eps}
582: \caption{Plot of $\kann$ against $\varphi$ for an ensemble of 200
583: models of B1422+231, using the observed image positions and some
584: plausible time delays.}
585: \label{corr1}
586: \end{figure}
587:
588: \begin{figure}
589: \epsscale{0.6}
590: \plotone{f2.eps}
591: \caption{Plot of $\alpha$ against $\varphi$ for 200 models of
592: B1422+231, with $\kann$ fixed at the ensemble average from
593: Fig.~\ref{corr1}.}
594: \label{corr2}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: \begin{figure}
598: \epsscale{1}
599: \plotone{f3.eps}
600: \caption{Plot of the dispersion $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$ against median
601: $\varphi$ at fixed $\kann$. Each plotting symbol is the ensemble-average mass
602: map of the lens, with the image-positions indicated. The mass
603: contours are in logarithmic steps of $10^{0.4}$ (like a magnitude
604: scale) and the third contour from the outside is always $\kappa=1$.
605: But note that the spatial scale is different for different
606: lenses. Lens names on the upper right form a key. All models except
607: J0414+053 have inversion symmetry.}
608: \label{map1}
609: \end{figure}
610:
611: \begin{figure}
612: \epsscale{1}
613: \plotone{f4.eps}
614: \caption{Continuation of Figure~\ref{map1}. All models have inversion
615: symmetry.}
616: \label{map2}
617: \end{figure}
618:
619: \begin{figure}
620: \epsscale{1}
621: \plotone{f5.eps}
622: \caption{Continuation of Figures~\ref{map1} and \ref{map2}. In the
623: case of the ten-image system B1933+503, we used all images for
624: modeling, but considered $\varphi$ for the core quad, as
625: indicated. All models have inversion symmetry.}
626: \label{map3}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \begin{figure}
630: \epsscale{1}
631: \plotone{f6.eps}
632: \caption{Similar to Figs.~\ref{map1}--\ref{map3}, but using a
633: different scale. All the lenses are asymmetric with very large
634: $\Delta\varphi/\varphi$.}
635: \label{map4}
636: \end{figure}
637:
638: \begin{figure}
639: \epsscale{.25}
640: \plotone{f7a.eps} \goodbreak
641: \plotone{f7b.eps} \goodbreak
642: \plotone{f7c.eps} \goodbreak
643: \plotone{f7d.eps}
644: \caption{Models for B1422+231. Top panel:~ensemble-average mass map,
645: a miniature of which appears in Fig.~\ref{map1}. Second panel:~mass
646: map of a randomly chosen sample model from the ensemble; note the
647: larger pixel-to-pixel variation. Third panel:~lens potential for the
648: galaxy in the sample model (external shear potential omitted);
649: we see here how solving for the potential automatically smoothes
650: out small-scale fluctuations in the mass. Bottom
651: panel:~arrival-time surface for the sample model; note that no
652: spurious extra images are present.}
653: \label{isol1}
654: \end{figure}
655:
656: \begin{figure}
657: \epsscale{.25}
658: \plotone{f8a.eps} \goodbreak
659: \plotone{f8b.eps} \goodbreak
660: \plotone{f8c.eps} \goodbreak
661: \plotone{f8d.eps}
662: \caption{Like Fig.~\ref{isol1} but for J1411+521. The top panel
663: appears in miniature in Fig.~\ref{map2}. The sample model (middle panel)
664: has a bar, while the ensemble as a whole does not.}
665: \label{isol2}
666: \end{figure}
667:
668: \end{document}
669:
670:
671: