text:
# cD galaxy contribution to the strong lensing cross sections of galaxy clusters

## 1 Introduction

Many authors have pointed out that the observed abundance of gravitational arcs whose length-to-width ratio exceeds a given threshold can be used for constraining the cosmological model and its parameters. Indeed, the occurrence of those rare events caused by highly non-linear effects in cluster cores is determined by several factors related to the geometry of the universe, as well as to the abundance, evolution and internal structure of the lensing clusters, which all depend on cosmology.

Investigating the lensing properties of a large sample of numerically modelled galaxy clusters using the ray-tracing technique, Bartelmann et al. (1998) showed that the expected number of *giant* arcs, usually defined as arcs with length-to-width ratio exceeding 10 and apparent $`B`$-magnitude less than $`22.5`$ \[Wu & Hammer 1993\], changes by orders of magnitude between different cosmological models. In particular, they found that the expected number of giant arcs is smaller by a factor of ten in a flat, low density universe with a matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM) than in an open, low-density cosmological model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (OCDM).

Observations of the abundance of gravitational arcs in galaxy clusters seem to be consistent only with the predictions for an open universe \[Bartelmann et al. 1998, Le Fevre et al. 1994, Gioia & Luppino 1994, Luppino et al. 1999, Gladders et al. 2003, Zaritsky & Gonzalez 2003\]. This is in pronounced disagreement with other observational results, in particular those obtained from the recent experiments on the cosmic microwave background \[de Bernardis et al. 2002\] and the observations of high-redshift type-Ia supernovae \[Perlmutter et al. 1997, Perlmutter 1998\], which all suggest instead that the cosmological model most favoured by the data is spatially flat and dominated by a cosmological constant.

Several studies tried to resolve this inconsistency, but satisfactory explanations remain to be found. Similar estimates of the number of long and thin arcs were attempted adopting isothermal analytic instead of numerical cluster lens models \[Cooray, Quashnock & Miller 1999, Kaufmann & Straumann 2000\]. The results of these studies differ from those of Bartelmann et al. (1998) in that they are almost insensitive to the cosmological constant and predict similar abundances of arcs in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and in the OCDM models. However, Meneghetti, Bartelmann & Moscardini (2002) recently showed that analytic models are inadequate for quantitative studies of arc statistics, because asymmetries and substructures in the deflector play a relevant role for determining the galaxy cluster efficiency for strong lensing and cannot properly be taken into account when using simple analytic models for modelling cluster lenses. Moreover, Bartelmann et al. (2003) demonstrated that elliptical cluster models with the density profile found in numerical simulations by Navarro et al. (1996) were able to reproduce the relative change of an order of magnitude in the arc cross sections produced by clusters in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM models.

By investigating the properties of giant gravitational arcs in the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey, Gladders et al. (2003) found a surprisingly high frequency of arc systems in high redshift clusters ($`z>0.64`$). Their determination of lensing incidence is in agreement with the results by Zaritsky & Gonzalez (2003), who measured the abundance of strong gravitational lensing events in the Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey. As the authors of these studies suggest, some property associated with clusters at early times might result in a higher efficiency for strong lensing. Torri et al. (2003) have recently studied the effects on strong cluster-lensing cross sections induced by major merger events within the clusters. Their results indicate that the cross section for giant arcs can change by almost one order of magnitude while a massive substructure crosses the cluster centre. Numerical simulations show that mergers are frequent events in clusters. Therefore, they may offer an explanation as to why so many arc systems are observed in both high and low redshift clusters. Further investigations into the impact of mergers on arc statistics are now in progress.

Meneghetti et al. (2001) also investigated the effect of cluster galaxies on arc statistics but found that they do not introduce perturbations strong enough for significantly changing the number of arcs and the distributions of lengths, widths, curvature radii and length-to-width ratios of long arcs.

However, the possible effects due to the presence of a massive cD galaxy near the cluster centre were not investigated there. The centres of massive galaxy clusters are generally dominated by such very massive ($`10^{13}M_{}`$) galaxies, which could in principle noticeably affect the strong-lensing properties of their host clusters. In fact, due to their more concentrated dark matter halos, they may steepen the inner slope of the cluster density profile and push the cluster critical curves to larger distances from the centre. Thus, the length of the critical curves may be increased, and thus the probability for long arcs to form. Moreover, cD galaxies may help their host clusters to reach the critical central surface density for producing critical curves and becoming efficient strong lenses.

Understanding the effect of massive central galaxies on the strong lensing properties of galaxy clusters is an important issue also because several studies attempted using arc statistics for constraining the density profiles of lenses or the nature of the dark matter composing their halos \[Wu & Mao 1996, Molikawa et al. 1999, Oguri et al. 2001, Molikawa & Hattori 2001, Oguri et al. 2002, Meneghetti et al. 2001\]. The conclusions from all these studies may change should the effect of a central massive galaxy turn out to be relevant.

Thus, we investigate in this paper whether the presence of a massive cD galaxy at the centre of a galaxy cluster can significantly change the cluster’s ability to produce strong lensing events and reconcile the lensing cross section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM clusters with the observations. For doing so, we study the lensing properties of a sample of five galaxy clusters numerically simulated in both the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and the OCDM cosmological models, and we measure their efficiency for producing tangential and radial arcs before and after the inclusion of a cD galaxy. The central galaxy is modelled using both axially symmetric and elliptical models and assuming a range of virial masses and possible orientations with respect to the mass distribution of the host cluster.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we use simple analytic models for qualitatively estimating the impact of a cD galaxy on the strong lensing properties of galaxy clusters. In Section 3, we describe the numerical models used and the methods adopted for the lensing simulations. The results are discussed in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are summarised in Section 5.

## 2 Expectations

We begin by investigating with the help of analytical models what impact we can expect from cD galaxies on the strong-lensing properties of galaxy clusters. We will use two different analytic lens models, one with a singular isothermal density profile, and the other with the density profile found in numerical simulations by Navarro et al. (1996; hereafter NFW).

### 2.1 Axially symmetric models

The radial density profile of a singular isothermal sphere (hereafter SIS) is given by

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\sigma _v^2}{2\pi Gr^2},$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _v`$ is the velocity dispersion of the halo. The NFW density profile is instead given by

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _\mathrm{s}}{(r/r_\mathrm{s})(1+r/r_\mathrm{s})^2},$$
(2)
where $`\rho _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ are characteristic density and distance scales, respectively (see Navarro et al. 1997). These two parameters are not independent. The ratio between $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ and the radius $`r_{200}`$ within which the mean halo density is $`200`$ times the critical density is called concentration, $`c=r_{200}/r_\mathrm{s}`$. As results from numerical simulations show, the concentration parameter $`c`$ can be expressed as a function of the halo virial mass, which thus is the only free parameter. The concentration also depends on the cosmological model, implying that the lensing properties of haloes with identical mass are different in different cosmological models if they are modelled as NFW spheres. The NFW halo profile falls off steeper than isothermal at radii beyond $`r_\mathrm{s}`$, but flattens towards the halo centre. These different features lead to markedly different lensing properties of the NFW compared to the SIS model (see the discussions in Perrotta et al. 2002 and Meneghetti et al. 2003).

Several algorithms were developed for computing the concentration parameter from the halo virial mass \[Navarro et al. 1997, Bullock et al. 2001, Eke et al. 2001\]. They are all based on the findings that numerically simulated haloes tend to be more concentrated the earlier they form, and that their central density reflects the mean cosmic density at their formation time. Since haloes of lower mass form earlier in hierarchical models than haloes of higher mass, the concentration is a decreasing function of the halo mass.

In this work, we adopt the algorithm proposed by Navarro et al. (1997), which first assigns to a halo of mass $`M`$ a collapse redshift $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}`$ defined as the redshift at which half of the final mass is contained in progenitors more massive than a fraction $`f`$ of the final mass. Then the density scale of the halo is assumed to be some factor $`C`$ times the mean cosmic density at the collapse redshift. They recommend setting $`f=0.01`$ and $`C=3\times 10^3`$ because their numerically determined halo concentrations were well fit adopting these values.

In the case of axially symmetric models the computation of the deflection angles reduces to a one-dimensional problem. We define the optical axis as the straight line passing through the observer and the lens centre and introduce the physical distances perpendicular to the optical axis on the lens and source planes, $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$, respectively. We then fix a length scale $`\xi _0`$ on the lens plane and define the dimensionless distance $`x\xi /\xi _0`$ from the lens centre. By projecting $`\xi _0`$ on the source plane, we define a corresponding length scale $`\eta _0=\xi _0(D_\mathrm{s}/D_\mathrm{l})`$ on the source plane, where $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`D_\mathrm{l}`$ are the angular diameter distances to the source and lens planes, respectively. Like on the lens plane, we define a dimensionless distance from the optical axis $`y\eta /\eta _0`$ on the source plane.

Using this dimensionless formalism, the lensing potential of a SIS lens can be written as

$$\psi (x)=|x|,$$
(3)
if $`\xi _0=4\pi (\sigma _v/c)^2(D_\mathrm{l}D_{\mathrm{ls}}/D_\mathrm{s})`$ is chosen as a length scale, where $`D_{\mathrm{ls}}`$ is the angular-diameter distance between lens and source. The derivative of the lensing potential with respect to $`x`$ is the reduced deflection angle at distance $`x`$,

$$\alpha (x)=\frac{x}{|x|}.$$
(4)
For an NFW sphere, we choose $`\xi _0=r_\mathrm{s}`$ and define $`\kappa _\mathrm{s}\rho _\mathrm{s}r_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}=[c^2/(4\pi G)][D_\mathrm{s}/(D_\mathrm{l}D_{\mathrm{ls}})]`$ is the critical surface mass density for strong lensing. Its lensing potential then reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=4\kappa _\mathrm{s}g(x),$$
(5)
where

$$g(x)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{x}{2}+\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2\text{arctan}^2\sqrt{\frac{x1}{x+1}}& (x>1)\hfill \\ \hfill 2\text{arctanh}^2\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+x}}& (x<1)\hfill \\ \hfill 0& (x=1)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(6)
This implies the deflection angle

$$\alpha (x)=\frac{4\kappa _\mathrm{s}}{x}h(x),$$
(7)
with

$$h(x)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{x}{2}+\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{2}{\sqrt{x^21}}\text{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{x1}{x+1}}& (x>1)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{2}{\sqrt{1x^2}}\text{arctanh}\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+x}}& (x<1)\hfill \\ \hfill 1& (x=1)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(8)
\[Meneghetti et al. 2003, Bartelmann 1996\].

### 2.2 Elliptical model

Lensing by galaxy clusters can only crudely be described by axially symmetric models because their generally high level of asymmetry and substructure changes their lensing properties qualitatively and substantially. We thus perturb the axially symmetric lens models such that their lensing potentials (3)) and (5) acquire elliptical isocontours. We define the ellipticity as $`e1b/a`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the major and minor axes of the ellipse, respectively, and introduce it into (5) by substituting

$$x𝒳=\sqrt{\frac{x_1^2}{(1e)}+x_2^2(1e)},$$
(9)
where $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are the two Cartesian components of $`x`$, $`x^2=x_1^2+x_2^2`$. The Cartesian components of the new deflection angle are

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{(1e)𝒳}}\widehat{\alpha }(𝒳),`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{x_2}}={\displaystyle \frac{x_2(1e)}{𝒳}}\widehat{\alpha }(𝒳),`$ (10)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }(𝒳)`$ is the unperturbed (i.e. axially-symmetric) deflection angle at the distance $`𝒳`$ from the lens centre.

### 2.3 Estimates

Arcs form close to the tangential critical curve of a lens from sources close to the tangential caustic. The size of the lensing cross sections for the formation of tangential arcs is strictly connected to the extent of the tangential critical curves and caustics: the longer the critical curves and the corresponding caustics are, the larger are the lensing cross sections. For axially symmetric lens models, the tangential critical curve encloses a circle which encloses an average convergence of unity, so that

$$\frac{2}{\theta _\mathrm{t}^2}_0^{\theta _\mathrm{t}}\kappa (\theta ^{})\theta ^{}d\theta ^{}=1$$
(11)
defines the radius $`\theta _\mathrm{t}`$ of the tangential critical curve. For singular isothermal spheres,

$$\theta _\mathrm{t}=4\pi \left(\frac{\sigma _v}{c}\right)^2\frac{D_{\mathrm{ls}}}{D_\mathrm{s}},$$
(12)
which is approximately proportional to the lens mass. A similar closed expression cannot be given for an NFW sphere. The tangential critical radius of a set of concentrically superposed SIS lens models is simply the sum of the tangential critical radii of the individual components. This implies that adding a cD galaxy of $`10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ extends the tangential critical curve of a cluster of $`5\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$ by a few per cent only.

However, the situation changes remarkably if the cD galaxy, modelled as a SIS, is added to a cluster with an NFW density profile. The comparatively flatter density profile near the cluster centre causes the cD galaxy to have a much stronger effect, as Fig. 1 illustrates.

The solid and dashed curves shown in the figure are the ratios between the tangential critical radii of a cluster with virial mass $`7.5\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$ with and without a cD galaxy of virial mass $`10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ added to its centre. They are obtained for clusters with SIS and NFW density profiles, respectively. The curves show how these ratios change with the ellipticity $`e`$ of the cluster’s lensing potential. The tangential critical curves are circles only for $`e=0`$; for $`e>0`$, we use their maximum cluster-centric distance instead.

Two results can be read off Fig. 1. First, the effect of a cD galaxy of fixed mass on the tangential critical curves of a cluster of fixed mass is much more pronounced if the cluster has an NFW rather than a SIS density profile; and second, the effect of the cD decreases as the ellipticity of the cluster increases because the increased shear of the cluster makes the additional surface mass density relatively less important. For the axially symmetric NFW cluster, the cD extends the tangential critical curve by as much as $`38\%`$, although it has only a few per cent of the cluster’s mass! Numerical simulations suggest ellipticities of $`0.3`$, for which the effect drops $`12\%`$.

Since we have good reasons to believe that clusters are better described by NFW than by SIS density profiles, the figure illustrates that an estimate of the effect of cD galaxies on strong lensing by clusters based on SIS models alone can be highly misleading. In addition, the change with cluster ellipticity is important because it shows that the enhanced gravitational shear due to asymmetries and substructure in the cluster potential reduces the impact of the cD galaxy.

It is a second interesting question whether the impact of a cD galaxy on a cluster lens changes with cluster redshift. Again, for two concentrically superposed SIS lenses, the relative change in the tangential critical radii is exactly independent of redshift, but this does not need to hold true for cluster lenses with NFW density profile. We show in Fig. 2 as a function of lens redshift the maximum extent of the tangential critical curve and the corresponding caustic for a cluster with NFW density profile and virial mass $`7.5\times 10^{14}h^1M_{}`$, with and without a cD galaxy with singular isothermal density profile and virial mass $`10^{13}h^1M_{}`$. The cluster’s lensing potential is assumed to have ellipticity $`e=0.3`$, in good agreement with values found in numerical simulations.

The curves end where the maximum extent of the tangential critical curve drops below $`10^{\prime \prime }`$, because arcs formed near smaller tangential critical curves can hardly be classified as large arcs. The curves illustrate that the relative change in the dimensions of tangential critical curves and caustics is remarkably insensitive to the lens redshift, even if the cluster is assumed to have an NFW density profile.

Finally, we consider the effect of a cD galaxy on a cluster’s efficiency for producing radial arcs. The dotted curve shown in Fig. 1 is the ratio between the radial critical radii of a cluster with and without a cD galaxy added to its center. The virial masses of the cluster and the cD galaxy are the same as in the previously discussed tests. Again, the cD galaxy is modelled as a SIS while the cluster has an NFW density profile. As the figure shows, the impact of the cD galaxy is negligible when the cluster is axially symmetric. Indeed, the radial critical curve of such a cluster is a very small circle around the cluster center. Adding a cD galaxy modelled as a SIS does not change much because it dominates the density profile only close to the cluster core. Since for a SIS the derivative of the deflection angle, $`\mathrm{d}\alpha /\mathrm{d}x`$, is zero everywhere, while the condition for having a radial critical curve in an axially symmetric model is $`\mathrm{d}\alpha /\mathrm{d}x=1`$, the extent of the radial critical curve is not changed by the central galaxy. For it to be efficient, the radial critical curve or parts of it need to be pushed outward where the density and deflection-angle profiles are no longer dominated by the cD galaxy, and once this is achieved by the ellipticity, the cD galaxy can introduce considerable change. We thus expect that the impact of cD galaxies on the efficiency for producing radial arcs of realistic cluster models might be much larger than for tangential arcs.

We now turn to numerical cluster models in order to test the impact of cD galaxies on cluster lensing with more realistic cluster mass distributions.

## 3 Numerical models

### 3.1 Simulated Clusters

We investigate the lensing properties of a sample of five numerically simulated cluster-sized dark matter halos kindly made available by the GIF collaboration \[Kauffmann et al. 1999\]. The same clusters were used by Bartelmann et al. (1998). They were obtained from $`N`$-body simulations performed in the framework of several cosmological models. In this paper, we only use the simulations for a flat model with cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM), which has $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`h=0.7`$, and in an open model without cosmological constant (OCDM, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`h=0.7`$).

The initial matter density in these models is perturbed about the mean according to a CDM power spectrum \[Bond & Efstathiou 1984\] with primordial spectral index $`n=1`$, normalised such that the local abundance of massive galaxy clusters is reproduced (e.g. Viana & Liddle 1996). The complete list of cosmological parameters in these simulations is given in Bartelmann et al. (1998).

For each cosmological model, an initial simulation with $`N=256^3`$ particles in a box of $`141h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ side length was run. The mass of individual particles is $`1.4\times 10^{10}h^1M_{}`$. Clusters were obtained from initial cosmological simulations as follows. High density regions were identified by means of a standard friends-of-friends algorithm, selecting only the dense cores of the collapsed objects. Around the centres of those, all particles were collected which lie within a sphere of radius $`1.5h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, corresponding to the Abell radius. These objects are taken as clusters. For our analysis, we took the five most massive clusters in the simulation volumes.

As shown by Bartelmann et al. (1998), the maximum efficiency for the production of long and thin arcs is reached by these clusters when their redshift is in the range $`0.2z0.4`$. Since our analytic estimates showed that the lens redshift is highly irrelevant for the impact of a cD on strong cluster lensing, we only take the simulation snapshots at redshift $`z_\mathrm{L}=0.275`$, where the number of simulated arcs is largest and thus the uncertainties in the numerically determined cross sections are smallest.

### 3.2 Lensing simulations

The lensing properties of the numerical clusters are studied using the ray-tracing technique. Our method has been fully described in several earlier publications (see Meneghetti et al. 2000, 2001). We thus give only a brief description here, referring the reader to those papers for further detail.

Each numerical cluster is centred within a cube of $`3h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ side length. Within this box, we compute the three-dimensional density field $`\rho `$ by interpolating the mass density on a regular grid of $`256^3`$ cells, using the *Triangular Shape Cloud* method (TSC; see Hockney & Eastwood 1988). Finally, we project $`\rho `$ along the three independent box sides, obtaining three surface density maps for each cluster. These are used as lens planes. Adopting this *thin screen* approximation is justified because the distances between the sources and the lens and between the lens and the observer are much larger than the physical sizes of the galaxy clusters.

We then propagate a bundle of $`2048\times 2048`$ light rays through the central quarter of each of these maps. We focus on the central parts of the clusters because our analysis concerns their strong-lensing properties only. Thus, our ray-tracing simulations resolve scales of order $`0.2^{\prime \prime }`$, at the lens redshift. The deflection angles of each ray are computed by directly summing the contributions from each mass element of the cluster.

Once the deflection angles are known, we reconstruct the images of a large number of extended background sources. They are all placed on the same plane, located at the redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}=1`$. Although real sources are distributed in redshift, putting them at a single redshift is justified for the present purposes because the lens convergence changes very little with source redshift if the lens redshift is substantially smaller, as is the case here.

The sources have elliptical shape, with axial ratios randomly drawn from the range $`[0.5,1]`$, and their area is equal to that of a circle of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ diameter. We initially distribute them on a coarse regular grid in the source plane. Then, their spatial density is iteratively increased towards the caustic curves, where the lensing effects strengthen. This increases the probability of producing long arcs and thus the numerical efficiency of the method. In order to compensate for this artificial source-density increase, we assign in the following statistical analysis to each image a statistical weight proportional to the area of the grid cell on which the source was placed.

Image reconstruction and classification is done following the technique introduced by Bartelmann & Weiss (1994) and used in Meneghetti et al. (2000, 2001, 2003). For each image, we measure its length and width. This results in a catalogue of simulated images which is subsequently analysed statistically.

### 3.3 Inclusion of the cD galaxy

Being linear function of mass, the total deflection angle of a ray passing through a mass distribution is the sum of the contributions from each mass element of the deflector. Therefore, in the case of a galaxy cluster, we can decompose the cluster lens into its smoothed dark matter component, plus the granular component contributed by its galaxy population (see also Meneghetti et al. 2000). For both the cluster and the galaxies, the main constituent is given by the dark matter which forms their halos. Our model of the cluster containing a cD galaxy can thus be fairly simple; we take the smoothed dark matter distribution obtained from the numerical simulations described above, and introduce a dark-matter halo resembling the galaxy. For each ray traced through the lens plane, we compute the deflection angle by summing the contributions from the cluster itself and the galaxy haloes.

Using this approach, the reduced deflection angle of each ray parameterised by its cell numbers $`(i,j)`$ on the grid in the image plane is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{ij}=\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{ij}^{\mathrm{cl}}+\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{ij}^{\mathrm{cD}},$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{ij}^{\mathrm{cl}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{ij}^{\mathrm{cD}}`$ are contributions to the deflection angle from the original cluster and the cD galaxy, respectively.

The values of $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }_{ij}^{\mathrm{cD}}`$ depend on the model for the cD galaxy. We first apply two axially symmetric models, namely spheres with the NFW or the singular isothermal density profile. Second, we also apply the pseudo-elliptical NFW lens model \[Meneghetti et al. 2003\] in order to account for the possible elongation of the matter distribution of the cD galaxy.

cD galaxies typically appear to be of elliptical shape, with isophotal axis ratios $`b/a0.8`$ \[Porter et al. 1991\]. Moreover, the orientation of the brightest cluster ellipticals is usually not random, but correlates well with that of their host cluster \[Sastry 1968, Rood & Sastry 1972, Austin & Peach 1974, Carter 1980, Binggeli 1982, Struble & Peebles 1985, Rhee & Katgert 1987, Lambas et al. 1988, Garijo et al. 1997\]. Asymmetries in the lensing matter distribution are known to improve the ability of the cluster to produce long and thin arcs. We also expect that the impact of a cD galaxy described by an elliptical model is largest when its orientation is aligned with the elongation direction of the host galaxy cluster. In the case of different orientations, the cD galaxy tends to circularise the mass distribution of the cluster in its central region. In order to quantify this effect, we carry out two sets of simulations; in the first, we randomly choose the orientation of the cD galaxy inside the cluster, while in the second the orientation is chosen such that the directions of the major and minor axes of the galaxy align with the major and minor eigenvalues of the cluster’s deflection angle field, respectively. The galaxy ellipticity is assumed to be $`e=0.2`$ \[Porter et al. 1991\].

The position of the cD galaxy is chosen to coincide with the minimum of the deflection angle field of the numerical galaxy cluster. This choice intentionally maximises the contribution of the cD galaxy to the total deflection angles.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 Convergence maps and critical curves

We describe in this Section how the cD galaxy changes the projected mass distribution of the numerical clusters. The surface density map of a lens can be reconstructed from the deflection angles once the effect of the cD galaxy has been included. Indeed, the scaled surface density $`\kappa `$ (or convergence) at each position $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ on the lens plane is given by

$$\kappa (\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\stackrel{}{x})}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{cr}}}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(14)
Some examples for convergence maps are shown in Fig. (3). The original convergence map of the cluster, i.e. before adding the cD galaxy, is plotted in the top left panel. Then, starting from the top central panel, we show the convergence maps for all cD galaxy models we use, followed by the convergence map of the cluster including the cD galaxy: the NFW sphere (top central and top right panels), SIS (middle left and middle central panels), the pseudo-elliptical NFW model both randomly oriented (middle right and bottom left panels) and aligned with the orientation of the cluster mass distribution (bottom central and bottom left panels). The virial mass of the cD galaxy is the largest we have tested in our simulations ($`5\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$). The angular scale of each plot is approximately $`50^{\prime \prime }`$.

The contours of the convergence maps show that the presence of the cD galaxy affects the matter distribution of the cluster only in its very central part. The size of the region where the convergence enhancement is significant depends on the model which is used to describe the cD galaxy. For example, the SIS has a steeper density profile at the centre and thus its contribution to the host cluster’s surface density is significant only in a very limited region. On the other hand, due to its shallower density profile, the mass of a cD galaxy modelled as an NFW sphere or as a pseudo-elliptical NFW model is distributed across a larger region around the cluster centre. Moreover, when the pseudo-elliptical model is used, convergence contours appear to be more extended and particularly elongated if the cD galaxy is aligned with the orientation of the underlying cluster mass distribution.

Arcs form along the critical curves, where the determinant of the Jacobian matrix $`A(\stackrel{}{x})=\stackrel{}{y}/\stackrel{}{x}`$ vanishes. Given that the dimension-less coordinates on the source plane $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ and on the lens plane $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ are related by the lens equation, $`\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\stackrel{}{x})`$, the position of the critical curves can be easily found through numerical derivatives of the deflection angles. Then, using the lens equation, we can find the position of the caustics, near which sources must be located in order to be strongly magnified.

We show in Fig. (4) some examples of critical curves and caustics for the most massive (first two rows of panels) and the least massive (last two rows of panels) clusters in our sample (in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model). In each panel, we plot the results before adding the cD galaxy (thick curves), and after including the contribution to the deflection angles from a cD galaxy with a virial mass of $`5\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ (thin curves). In the first column on the left, we show the results obtained by modelling the cD as an NFW sphere; in the second column, we plot the critical curves and caustics found modelling the galaxy as pseudo-elliptical, randomly oriented NFW models; in the third column, we show the results for the pseudo-elliptical NFW model aligned with the orientation of the underlying cluster matter distribution; and in the fourth column we finally show the critical curves and the caustics obtained modelling the cD as a SIS.

As expected, the critical curves and the caustics appear to be pushed towards larger cluster-centric radii when the cD galaxy is included into the simulations. The largest effect is produced by the pseudo-elliptical cD if its orientation is aligned with that of the host cluster. The singular isothermal cD has the least effect on the critical curves. Of course, the impact of the cD galaxy is different on clusters with different masses. For example, the caustics of the most massive lens demonstrate that they are affected by the presence of the cD only far from the cusps. This is not the case for the least massive cluster, where also the cusp positions are pushed away from the lens centre. Also, the critical curves appear to be more extended once the cD is added to the least massive cluster. Of course, this is due to the fact that, by adding the cD, we are changing the cluster mass in its central region by a different percentage. Similar results are found for clusters in the OCDM model.

### 4.2 Tangential arcs

Tangential arcs are selected from the catalogues of simulated images for each numerical cluster model by requiring a minimal length-to-width ratio. We then quantify the cluster’s efficiency for producing this type of arcs by measuring its lensing cross section. This procedure is carried out for all numerical clusters before and after the inclusion of the cD galaxy.

By definition, the lensing cross section is the area on the source plane where a source must be located in order to be imaged as an arc with the specified property. As explained in Sect. 3.2, each source is taken to represent a fraction of the source plane. We assign a statistical weight of unity to the sources which are placed on the sub-grid with the highest resolution. These cells have area $`A`$. The lensing cross section is then measured by counting the statistical weights of the sources whose images satisfy a specified property. If a source has multiple images with the required characteristics, its statistical weight is multiplied by the number of such images. Thus, the formula for computing cross sections for arcs with a property $`p`$ is

$$\sigma _\mathrm{p}=A\underset{i}{}w_in_i,$$
(15)
where $`n_i`$ is the number of images of the $`i`$-th source satisfying the required conditions, and $`w_i`$ is the statistical weight of the source.

We compute the lensing cross sections for arcs whose length-to-width ratio $`(L/W)`$ exceeds a lower threshold $`(L/W)_{\mathrm{min}}`$. The results obtained for each cluster with and without the cD galaxy are compared by computing the relative change of the cross sections due to the presence of the cD.

We show in Figs. (5) and (6) the relative change of the lensing cross sections for long and thin arcs as a function of the cluster virial mass for the simulations in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and in the OCDM models. The panels in the left, central and right columns show the relative change of the cross sections for arcs with length-to-width ratios $`(L/W)>5`$, $`(L/W)>7.5`$ and $`(L/W)>10`$, respectively. In each panel, we plot the results for all four models used to describe the cD galaxy. The top, middle and bottom panels refer to simulations in which the virial mass of the cD galaxy is $`(5\times 10^{12},10^{13},5\times 10^{13})h^1M_{}`$, respectively.

As expected, the largest variations of the cross sections are typically found if the cD galaxy is modelled as a pseudo-elliptical NFW model whose orientation is aligned with that the host cluster. On the other hand, cD galaxies with SIS profiles change the ability of the numerical clusters for producing long and thin arcs only by a very small amount.

In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model, a cD galaxy with mass between $`M_{\mathrm{cD}}=5\times 10^{12}h^1M_{}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{cD}}=10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ produces maximal variations on the order of $`40\%50\%`$. More massive cDs have a stronger impact on the strong-lensing efficiency of the clusters: a galaxy with mass $`M_{\mathrm{cD}}=5\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ changes the lensing cross section by a maximum amount between $`60\%`$ and $`200\%`$, depending on the total cluster mass. The impact of the cD is generally larger in the less massive clusters.

A similar trend is found in the OCDM model, but the variations of the cross sections are smaller in this case. For example, in the simulations with the most massive cDs, the cross sections change by approximately $`40\%80\%`$ only. This behaviour was expected because the clusters in the OCDM model are generally more compact compared than those in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. Including the cD, the mass in the very central part of the clusters changes less compared to the clusters in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. Cross sections for arcs with different minimal length-to-width ratios show similar variations.

### 4.3 Radial arcs

The appearance and location of radial arcs within the lensing clusters is determined by several factors, among them the slope of the projected density profile and the central density of the lens. The steeper the density profile is, the closer to the centre the radial arcs move. Moreover, the higher the central surface density is, the larger is the extent of the radial critical line.

Radial arcs are quite rare events. Many clusters in our sample exhibit very short radial critical curves and are thus not very efficient in producing radially distorted images. In particular, the numerical clusters in our sample have significantly smaller cross sections for radial arcs in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM than in the OCDM model. The reason is that the clusters in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model are less concentrated than in the OCDM model. Given that we increase the mass in the inner part of the numerical clusters by quite a large amount by adding a massive cD galaxy, we expect that the capability of the cluster models for producing radial arcs should be increased when a cD galaxy is included. For investigating this question, we again compare the lensing cross sections for radial arcs of the numerical models before and after including a cD galaxy.

Radial arcs are identified from the complete sample of distorted images using the technique described by Meneghetti et al. (2001). It consists in selecting those arcs for which the measured radial magnification at their position exceeds a lower threshold. The relative change of the lensing cross section for this type of arcs as a function of the original lensing cross section of clusters not containing a cD galaxy is shown in Fig. (7). The cD galaxy mass is $`5\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$. In the left and right panels, we plot the results for the cluster models in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and in the OCDM models, respectively. Again we use circles, squares and triangles for identifying different cD galaxy models, using the same symbols as in Figs. (5) and (6).

As the figure shows, the cD galaxy increases the capability of the cluster models for producing radial arcs, but this enhancement depends on the original size of their lensing cross sections. Clusters which were less efficient in producing radial arcs increase their lensing cross sections by roughly $`500\%`$, while this increment is smaller for lenses which already produced a higher number of radial arcs. In particular, the effect of the cD galaxy on the lensing cross sections of clusters is significantly larger in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model compared to the OCDM model. One of the clusters in our sample (the least massive one) did not produce any radial arcs before a cD galaxy was included, thus the results for only four clusters are shown in Fig. (7).

## 5 Summary and Conclusions

We investigated the effect of massive cD galaxies on the strong-lensing properties of galaxy clusters. The main motivation behind our study is to identify possible reasons for the pronounced failure of numerical cluster-lensing models in the strongly favoured $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology in reproducing the observed abundance of giant luminous arcs.

Although inadequate for quantitatively reliable results, our analytic model demonstrated three interesting aspects of the problem. First, the effect of cD galaxies is much stronger in clusters with NFW rather than singular isothermal density profile because of the flatter central density profile of the former. Second, cD galaxies are expected to be much less efficient in asymmetric than in axially symmetric clusters because the stronger gravitational tidal field in asymmetric clusters makes the relative contribution of the additional central mass component less important. Third, the impact of cD galaxies on the strong-lensing properties of clusters is expected to be almost independent of lens redshift.

We then carried out ray-tracing simulations using massive numerically simulated galaxy clusters in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM cosmologies to which we added cD galaxies in four different ways; either modelled as singular isothermal spheres or modelled with the NFW density profile, either axially symmetric or elliptically distorted; and if distorted, either oriented randomly or aligned with the orientation of the cluster mass distribution. All cD galaxies are placed at the minima of the deflection-angle maps of the cluster models. They have masses of $`5\times 10^{12}`$, $`10^{13}`$, or $`5\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$, which are added to the cluster mass.

Note that these choices yield conservative results because they tend to exaggerate the possible effects. The cD-galaxy masses are *very* high, in particular compared to the least massive cluster of our sample, and they are *added* to the clusters without correspondingly decreasing the cluster mass.

Although we find relative enhancements of large-arc cross sections by up to $`200\%`$ for our least massive cluster if a cD galaxy with $`5\times 10^{13}h^1M_{}`$ and an elliptically distorted NFW density profile is added with its orientation aligned with the mass distribution of the cluster, such a situation can hardly be considered realistic because that cD galaxy has $`20\%`$ of the cluster mass. In more realistic cases of cD galaxies with $`10^{13}h^1M_{}`$, tangential-arc cross sections are increased by not more than $`50\%`$. It should be noted, however, that we have to compare the relative increase between clusters in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and OCDM models, which is typically not more than $`30\%`$.

Cross sections for the formation of radial arcs are much more affected because they are highly sensitive to the exact central density profile of the cluster lenses. The presence of a cD galaxy can multiply the radial-arc cross sections by factors of a few, typically up to five in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. This reinforces the finding by other authors that radial-arc statistics potentially is a highly significant tracer for central density profiles of clusters, but as such less suitable for constraints on cosmological parameters. Currently, also, the data base for radial arc statistics is rather too poor for any meaningful conclusions. In fact only few radial arcs have been discovered so far and all of them have been found in clusters which are dominated by a cD galaxy (e.g. AC 114, MS 2137; Natarajan et al. 1998, Hammer et al. 1997) or by one or two giant ellipticals (e.g. A 370; Bézecourt et al. 1999).

We thus conclude from our conservative estimates of the impact of cD galaxies on strong-lensing cross sections by galaxy clusters that they may increase the arc-formation probability by perhaps up to $`50\%`$ in realistic situations, but certainly by far not enough for explaining the discrepancy between simulations in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models and the observed abundance of arcs.

This result supports the view that we are still a long way from understanding what exactly makes real clusters efficient strong lenses. Numerous observational effects need to be taken into account in addition to careful numerical models before detailed comparisons between observed and simulated arcs can be carried out. The recent suggestion by Wambsganss et al. (2003) that arc statistics in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models can be reconciled with the observed frequency of arcs by adopting a broader source redshift distribution is certainly no solution either because the arc statistics problem as posed by Bartelmann et al. (1998) concerns the ability of a well-defined sample of massive clusters to form arcs from a photometrically limited sample of sources, rather than the strong-lensing optical depth of a section of the Universe for arbitrarily faint sources. It is very likely that careful comparisons between numerically simulated and observed strong-lensing clusters will tell us much about the detailed mass distribution and the history of mass assembly in individual clusters.

## Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by Italian MIUR (Grant 2001, prot. 2001028932, “Clusters and groups of galaxies: the interplay of dark and baryonic matter”), CNR and ASI. MM thanks the EARA for financial support and the Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik for the hospitality during the visits when part of this work was done. We are grateful to Bepi Tormen for clarifying discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Despite all the evidence for an entropy associated with the horizon of a black hole, a full understanding of its statistical origin is still lacking and it remains uncertain what “degrees of freedom” the entropy refers to.222The question is nicely posed in . Ideally one would appeal for the answer to some more fundamental quantum theory of spacetime structure, but unfortunately no approach to constructing such a “quantum gravity” theory has advanced far enough to offer a definitive account of what the horizon “degrees of freedom” might be. Nevertheless, it is hard to doubt that black hole thermodynamics has opened up a path leading to a better knowledge of the small scale structure of spacetime. Indeed, the role being played by black hole thermodynamics in this connection looks more and more analogous to the role played historically by the thermodynamics of a box of gas in revealing the underlying atomicity and quantum nature of everyday matter and radiation. We can bring out this analogy more clearly by recalling some facts about thermodynamics in the presence of event horizons.

One often thinks of entropy as measure of missing or “unavailable” information about a physical system, and from this point of view, one would have to expect some amount of entropy to accompany an event horizon, since it is by definition an information hider par excellence. In particular, one can associate to each quantum field in the presence of a horizon the “entanglement entropy” that necessarily results from tracing out the interior (and therefore inaccessible) modes of the field, given that these modes are necessarily correlated with the exterior modes. In the continuum, this entanglement entropy turns out to be infinite, at least when calculated for a free field on a fixed, background spacetime. However, if one imposes a short distance cutoff on the field degrees of freedom, one obtains instead a finite entropy; and if the cutoff is chosen around the Planck length then this entropy has the same order of magnitude as that of the horizon. Based on this appealing result, there have been many speculations attributing the black hole entropy to the sum of all the entanglement entropies of the fields in nature.

Whether or not the entanglement of quantum fields furnishes all of the entropy or only a portion of it, contributions of this type must be present, and any consistent theory must provide for them in its thermodynamic accounting. The case appears to be similar to that of an ordinary box of gas, where we know that, fundamentally, the finiteness of the entropy rests on the finiteness of the number of molecules, and to lesser extent on the discreteness of their quantum states. Indeed, at temperatures high enough to avoid quantum degeneracy, the entropy is, up to a logarithmic factor, merely the number of molecules composing the gas. The similarity with the black hole becomes evident when we remember that the picture of the horizon as composed of discrete constituents gives a good account of the entropy if we suppose that each such constituent occupies roughly one unit of Planck area and carries roughly one bit of entropy. A proper statistical derivation along these lines would require a knowledge of the dynamics of these constituents, of course. However, in analogy with the gas, one may still anticipate that the horizon entropy can be estimated by counting suitable discrete structures, analogs of the gas molecules, without referring directly to their dynamics.

Clearly, this type of estimation can succeed only if well defined, discrete entities can be identified which are available to be counted. Within a continuum theory, it is hard to think of such entities. Indeed, if one accepts the estimates carried out below, the entropy would come out infinite were spacetime a true continuum. It would diverge with the cutoff at the same rate as the aforementioned entropy of entanglement of an ambient quantum field. In causal set theory, on the other hand, the elements of the causal set serve as “spacetime atoms”, and one can ask whether these elements, or some related structures, are suited to play the role of “horizon molecules”. In this paper, we will identify a certain kind of “causal link” as one such structure and we will show that the black hole entropy can be equated to the number of such links crossing the horizon $`H`$ in proximity to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for which the entropy is sought. Moreover, almost all of these links will turn out to be localized very near to $`H`$. In consequence, conditions deep inside the black hole will become irrelevant to the counting, as indeed they must do if any interpretation of the entropy in terms of “horizon degrees of freedom” is to succeed.

## 2 Counting Links

Before proceeding, let us briefly review the terminology we will use. For a fuller introduction to causal sets, see  and references therein.

A causal set (or “causet”) is a locally finite, partially ordered set. We use $``$ to represent the order relation and adopt (in this paper) the reflexive convention, according to which every element precedes itself: $`xx`$. Let $`C`$ be a causet and let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be elements of $`C`$. The past of $`x`$ is the subset $`past(x)=\left\{yC\right|yx\}`$ and its future is $`future(x)=\left\{yC\right|xy\}`$. If $`x,yC`$, $`xy`$, and $`future(x)past(y)=\{x,y\}`$ then we call the relation $`xy`$ a link. Note that (thanks to the local finiteness) if the links of a causet are given, then all the other relations are implied by transitivity; hence the whole structure of the causet is encoded in its irreducible relations or links. An element of a causet (or of a subcauset) is maximal (resp. minimal) iff it is to the past (resp. future) of no other element in the causet (or subcauset).

Now the basic hypothesis of causal set theory is that spacetime, ultimately, is discrete, and its deep structure is that of a partial order rather than a differentiable manifold. The macroscopic spacetime continuum of experience must then be recovered as an approximation to the causet. Although a more sophisticated notion of approximation might ultimately be needed , the intuitive idea at work here is that of a “faithful embedding”. If $`M`$ is a Lorentzian manifold and $`C`$ a causal set, then a faithful embedding of $`C`$ into $`M`$ is an injection $`f:CM`$ of the causet into the manifold that satisfies the following requirements: (1) The causal relations induced by the embedding agree with those of $`C`$ itself, i.e $`f(x)J^{}(f(y))`$ iff $`xy`$, where $`J^{}(p)`$ stands for the causal past of $`p`$ in $`M`$; (2) The embedded points are distributed with unit density, and (3) the characteristic length over which the geometry varies appreciably is everywhere much greater than the mean spacing between the embedded points. When these conditions are satisfied, the spacetime $`M`$ is said to be a continuum approximation to $`C`$. From the point of view of an $`M`$, the causet resembles a “random lattice” obtained by “sprinkling in points” until the required density is reached. Thus, the probability that there will be $`n`$ embedded points in a given volume $`V`$ is given by the Poisson distribution, $`(\varrho _cV)^ne^{\varrho _cV}/n!`$, where the fundamental density $`\varrho _c`$ is unknown but presumed to be of Planckian magnitude.

Let us now consider the entropy associated with a horizon in a spacetime $`M`$ in which a causet $`C`$ is faithfully embedded. As discussed in the introduction, we expect that the entropy can be understood as entanglement in a sufficiently generalized sense, and we may hope to estimate its leading behavior by counting suitable discrete structures that measure the potential entanglement in some way. At the same time, we know that the entropy essentially just measures the horizon area, whence, phenomenologically, our discrete structures must turn out to be equal in number to the horizon area, up to small fluctuations.333In fact, it seems far from obvious that such structures must exist. If they do, then they provide a relatively simple, order theoretic measure of the area of a cross section of a null surface, and, unlike what one’s Euclidean intuition might suggest, it is known that such measures are not easy to come by. For example, no one knows such a measure of spacelike distance between two sprinkled points that works in even such a comparatively simple case as a sprinkling of Minkowski spacetime . From both points of view, a natural candidate for the structure we seek is a link of the causet. Indeed, we may think heuristically of “information flowing along links” and producing entanglement when it flows across the horizon during the course of the causet’s growth (or “time development”). Since links are irreducible causal relations (in some sense the building blocks of the causet), it seems natural that by counting links between elements that lie outside the horizon and elements that lie inside, one would measure the degree of entanglement between the two regions. Equally, it seems natural that the number of such causal links might turn out to be proportional to the horizon area, as desired.

### 2.1 An equilibrium black hole

Let us now consider a spherically symmetric collapsing star which produces a black hole with horizon $`H`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a (null or spacelike) hypersurface on which we wish to evaluate the horizon entropy. For simplicity we shall ignore the influence of the collapse and treat the black hole metric as exactly Schwarzschild in the region of interest. If our picture is consistent, doing so cannot change anything, and we will see evidence for this further into the calculation. Thus, we will work with an eternal black hole spacetime $`M`$, as shown in Figure 1. Notice, however, that only the portion of the extended Schwarzschild spacetime that could have arisen from a collapse is to be taken into consideration (i.e. the region exhibited in the diagram).

Now let $`C`$ be a causet produced by randomly sprinkling points into $`M`$ with density $`\varrho _c=1`$ in causal set units; by definition, then, $`C`$ is faithfully embedded in $`M`$. Let $`x`$ be a sprinkled point in the region $`J^{}(H)J^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, and let $`y`$ be a second sprinkled point in $`J^+(H)J^+(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. (In other words, $`x`$ is outside the black hole and to the past of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, while $`y`$ is inside the black hole and to the future of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.) To say that $`xy`$ is a link of $`C`$ means that the “Alexandrov interval”, $`J(x,y):=J^+(x)J^{}(y)`$, is empty of sprinkled points except for $`x`$ and $`y`$: no sprinkled point lies causally between $`x`$ and $`y`$. Such a pair $`(x,y)`$ might seem to be a good candidate for the sort of “horizon molecule” we wish to count.

In fact the counting reduces to the calculation of an integral, since, as a simple consideration shows , the expected number of such pairs is

$$<n>=_De^{V(x,y)}𝑑V_x𝑑V_y.$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`V(x,y)`$, whose presence serves to ensure the link condition, is the volume of $`J(x,y)`$, and $`D`$ is the domain of integration for $`x`$ and $`y`$. Unfortunately, if we impose no further conditions on $`x`$ and $`y`$, then the integral (1) can be shown to diverge when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is spacelike. Therefore, the links we have identified cannot be the ones we want.

To help understand the meaning of this divergence, let us remember that, intuitively, we are trying to estimate, not the sum total of all “lost information”, but only that corresponding “to a given time”, meaning in the vicinity of the given hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Hence, to associate one and the same causal link with more than one hypersurface would be to “overcount” it in forming our estimate, and it is this overcounting that seems to be the source of our divergent answer. Thus, what we need is a further condition or conditions on $`x`$ and $`y`$ that would be satisfied only by links that truly belong to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ rather than to some earlier or later hypersurface. Several possibilities suggest themselves for this purpose, for example the requirement that $`x`$ be maximal in $`J^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, but none seems to be clearly best. Fortunately, the end result seems to be relatively insensitive to which choice one makes. The precise conditions we will use will be specified below, and the general issue will be discussed further in Section 3.

Now, ideally we would have evaluated $`<n>`$ for a fully four dimensional Schwarzschild black hole, but unfortunately, this is rendered difficult by the need to know all the Alexandrov neighborhoods $`J(x,y)`$ of the Schwarzschild metric. For this reason, we will simplify the calculation by working with a “dimensionally reduced” two dimensional metric instead of the true, four dimensional one. As the calculation proceeds, it will become very plausible that (for macroscopic black holes) the full four-dimensional answer would differ from the two-dimensional one only by a fixed (albeit still unknown) proportionality coefficient of order unity, together with a factor of the horizon area. This will effectively accomplish our primary aim of demonstrating that the expected number of links is proportional to the area of the horizon in causet units.

A radial section of a four dimensional Schwarzschild spacetime has a line element obtained by omitting the angular coordinates from the four dimensional line element, namely

$$ds^2=\frac{4a^3}{r}e^{r/a}dudv,$$

where $`a`$ is the radius of the black hole (Schwarzschild radius) and $`u`$ and $`v`$ are the usual Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, with $`r`$ defined implicitly by the equation444Our signs are such that $`utr`$, $`vt+r`$, and the horizon $`H`$ will correspond to $`u=0`$.

$$uv=\left(1\frac{r}{a}\right)e^{r/a}.$$
$`(2)`$
The associated volume element is

$$d^2V=\sqrt{g}dudv=\frac{2a^3}{r}e^{r/a}dudv.$$
$`(3)`$
Now let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the ingoing null hypersurface defined by the equation $`v=v_0`$, and let $`(x,y)`$ be a pair of sprinkled points satisfying the following conditions:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}xJ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })J^{}(H)\\ yJ^+(\mathrm{\Sigma })J^+(H)\\ xy\text{ a link }\\ x\text{ maximal in }J^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })J^{}(H)\\ y\text{ minimal in }J^+(H)\end{array}\right\}$$
$`(4)`$
(For a null $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in two dimensions, the fourth condition is actually redundant, but it would be needed with a spacelike $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.) In order that these conditions be fulfilled, no sprinkled point (other than $`x`$ or $`y`$) must fall into the shaded region depicted in Figure 1. The volume of this excluded region is readily evaluated and is given by

$$V=a^2+r_{xy}^2r_{xx}^2r_{yy}^2,$$

where we have adopted the notation,

$$u_iv_j=\left(1\frac{r_{ij}}{a}\right)e^{r_{ij}/a}.$$
$`(5)`$
In analogy with equation (1), the expected number of links satisfying our conditions is therefore

$$<n>=\left(2a^3\right)^2_0^{v_0}𝑑v_x_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑u_x_{v_0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v_y_0^{1/v_y}𝑑u_y\frac{e^{r_{xx}/ar_{yy}/a}}{r_{xx}r_{yy}}e^V$$

A change of integration variables from $`(u_x,v_x,u_y,v_y)`$ to $`(r_{xx},r_{x0},r_{xy},r_{yy})`$, followed by the notational substitutions $`x=r_{xy}`$, $`y=r_{x0}`$, $`z=r_{xx}`$, now reduces $`<n>`$ to the form,555Here $`r_{x0}`$ is of course the radial variable corresponding via (5) to the product $`u_xv_0`$. To avoid confusion, notice that the dummy integration variables $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ are real numbers entirely distinct from the sprinkled points $`x`$ and $`y`$.

$$<n>=4I(a)J(a),$$

where

$$I(a)=_a^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x}{xa}e^{x^2}_a^x𝑑y\frac{y}{ya}_a^ye^{z^2}𝑑z$$
$`(6)`$
and

$$J(a)=e^{a^2}_0^ae^{r_{yy}^2}𝑑r_{yy}.$$
$`(7)`$
Notice that $`<n>`$ does not depend on $`v_0`$, reflecting the stationarity of the black hole.

Now, inasmuch as comparison with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is meaningful only for macroscopic black holes, we might as well assume that $`a1`$, and in that regime, $`I(a)`$ can be shown  to have the following asymptotic behavior:

$$I(a)=\frac{\pi ^2}{12}a+O\left(\frac{1}{a}\right).$$

On the other hand it is not difficult to see that

$$J(a)=\frac{1}{2a}+O\left(\frac{1}{a^3}\right).$$

Putting everything together, we end up with

$$<n>=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+O\left(1/a\right).$$
$`(8)`$
Although our calculation has been carried out in two dimensions, a study of the integrals $`I(a)`$ and $`J(a)`$ indicates that, were we to redo it in four dimensions, the expected number of links would reduce to essentially the same expression. Indeed, the dominant contribution to the integral $`J(a)`$ plainly comes from $`r_{yy}a`$, but since $`r_{yy}`$ is the radial coordinate $`r`$ of sprinkled point $`y`$, and since $`r=a`$ is the horizon, this implies that $`y`$ resides near the horizon. Similarly, the dominant contribution to the integral $`I(a)`$ comes from $`za`$, which, since $`z=r_{xx}`$, implies in turn that sprinkled point $`x`$ resides near the horizon as well. Consequently our counting can be said to be controlled by the near horizon geometry. But in four dimensions, this geometry is locally just the two dimensional one times the Euclidean plane. Thus, one would expect $`<n>`$ to be simply proportional to the area of the horizon. Moreover, from (8), one would expect the coefficient of proportionality to be of order unity, although there is of course no reason for it to be exactly $`\pi ^2/6`$.

It is interesting that part of what makes the near horizon pairs special is the vanishing of the denominators in $`I(a)`$ when the dummy integration variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ tend to $`a`$. To the extent that it is this divergence which makes the horizon such a strong source for the links, we may be reminded of the analogous fact that the strong redshift in the vicinity of the horizon allows modes of arbitrarily high (local) frequency to contribute to the entanglement entropy without influencing the energy as seen from infinity. Notice also that the clustering of $`x`$ and $`y`$ near the horizon is not simply a consequence of the maximality and minimality conditions we imposed on them. For instance, pairs $`(x,y)`$ sitting arbitrarily close to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`y`$ arbitrarily close to the horizon, still do not contribute to the leading term in $`I(a)`$ if $`x`$ is far from the horizon, namely with coordinate $`\left|u_x\right|1`$.

### 2.2 A black hole far from equilibrium

Turning now to a case which, though still spherically symmetric, is very far from equilibrium, let us consider a shell of null matter which collapses to form a Schwarzschild black hole. The Penrose diagram for this spacetime666A fuller description of this spacetime may be found, for example, in . is shown in Figure 2. Let the shell sweep out the world sheet $`v=b`$ and let us choose for our hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a second ingoing null surface defined by $`v=a`$, with $`a<b`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies wholly in the flat region. Here $`u`$ and $`v`$ are null coordinates, chosen so that the horizon first forms at $`u=v=0`$ and normalized for convenience such that

$$ds^2=2dudv+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$

Since our interest is again in macroscopic black holes, we will assume as before that the horizon radius is large in units such that $`\varrho _c=1`$; and to simplify matters further, we will also restrict ourselves to a time well before the infalling matter arrives (as judged in the center of mass frame). We thus have the double inequality, $`ba1`$. Once again, we will perform the calculation for the two dimensional radial section rather than the full four dimensional spacetime.

Now since we are assuming that the infalling matter is far to the future of the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, points $`y`$ sprinkled into that region should not contribute significantly when our minimality and link conditions are taken into account. For this reason, we shall, for convenience, restrict our counting to pairs $`(x,y)`$ with $`v_y<b`$. Imposing, then, the same conditions (4) introduced above, we obtain for the expected number of causal links

$$<n>=_a^b𝑑v_y_0^{v_y}𝑑u_y_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑u_x_0^a𝑑v_xe^V$$

where $`V=u_yv_yu_x(v_yv_x)u_y^2/2`$.

It is not difficult to derive the leading behavior of this integral for large $`a`$, and here we quote only the final result:

$$<n>=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}l\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)+O(1/a),$$

where $`l(x)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}x^k/k^2`$, a convergent series that vanishes in the limit $`x0`$. Since we have assumed that $`ab`$, we can write this more simply as

$$<n>=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+O(a/b)+O(1/a).$$
$`(9)`$
Notice that the presence of a negative contribution like $`l(a/b)`$ was to be expected, since we have omitted to count links that extend past the shell into the Schwarzschild region. For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ near to the shell, one obviously should not neglect such links, and our counting is incomplete.

Two features of the result (9) are especially noteworthy. The first is its independence of the value of $`a`$. As with the equilibrium black hole above, this indicates that the analogous four dimensional computation would produce (at leading order) an answer proportional to the horizon area. What is then even more striking is the occurrence of the same numerical coefficient $`\pi ^2/6`$ in both (8) and (9). This agreement furnishes a nontrivial consistency check of the suggestion that one can attribute the horizon entropy to the “causal links” crossing it.

Now what can one say about the case where the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is spacelike? In two dimensions it can be shown that $`<n>`$ is again finite and independent of $`a`$ to leading order. Although we have not carried the calculation far enough to verify explicitly that one obtains for it the same numerical answer $`\pi ^2/6`$, one can make it plausible on general grounds that this would have to happen. The point is that (in the flat case) the definition of $`<n>`$ is manifestly Lorentz invariant, whence any spacelike plane (or in this case line) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must give the same answer as any other related to it by a boost. But in the limit of tilting, a spacelike line becomes null, and by continuity the corresponding $`<n>`$ should go over to $`\pi ^2/6`$ in this limit. Now observe that a suitable boost transformation will convert any nearly null line $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into one which is “purely spacelike” (and with a larger value of $`a`$). This gives a good reason to expect that both null and spacelike $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must yield the same result. Observe also, that a similar argument can be made for the Schwarzschild case, using the time-translation Killing vector instead of the boost Killing vector.

In four dimensions, the calculation of $`<n>`$ needs a much more elaborated technique, both for null and spacelike hypersurfaces. The calculation of the volumes needed to insure the conditions (4) is lengthy, and it turns out that one has to distinguish many cases depending on the relative positions of the linked points $`x`$ and $`y`$, each case making its own contribution to $`<n>`$. Fortunately, only a few of these contributions survive for macroscopic black holes ($`a1`$), and it should be possible to evaluate them all with sufficient effort. Here we give only the final result for one such contribution, referring the reader to reference  for further detail:

$$<n>_1=\frac{\pi ^3a^2}{16}\left(c+O\left(1/a\right)\right)$$

where

$$c=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_0^x𝑑y\left(xy\right)^4e^{\frac{\pi }{3}\left(x^4+y^4\right)}0.0419$$

As indicated above, it is not difficult to convince oneself on the basis of our two dimensional experiences that the number of links in four dimensions must turn out to be proportional to the area of the horizon, or more precisely, to the area of the two-surface $`S=H\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To recall the reasoning: The surfaces $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will look locally like their two dimensional analogs extended trivially by a portion of $`\text{}^2`$, but since, as we saw, the main contribution to $`<n>`$ in two dimensions came from pairs just straddling $`H\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and since locally $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will also look flat (like our two dimensional $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ was), and since (as we argued) all flat $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (null or spacelike) give the same (finite) answer in two dimensions, so in four dimensions the density of links per unit surface area of $`S`$ will be constant, that is to say, their total number will be proportional to the area of $`S`$, modulo subleading corrections. Moreover, the same should hold for arbitrary hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and arbitrarily curved horizons $`H`$, as long as neither is so badly distorted as to exhibit significant curvature in the vicinity of a horizon point. Accepting all this, we can anticipate the general formula for four dimensions:

$$<n>=\gamma \frac{A\left(H\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{l_c^2}\left(1+O\left(\frac{l_c}{\sqrt{A\left(H\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}}\right)\right),$$

where $`A(H\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the area of the 2-surface in which the horizon meets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`l_c=\varrho _c^{1/4}`$ is the fundamental causal set length, and $`\gamma `$ is a number of order unity. For macroscopic black holes we can safely neglect the second term and conclude that the number of links will just be proportional to the area of the horizon in causal set units, with a coefficient of order unity. From this we can infer that, if the entropy really does measure the number of causal links, then $`l_c`$ must be of Planckian order, as was anticipated a long time ago.

## 3 On the minimality and maximality conditions

Now we return to the “max/min” conditions we introduced in Section 2, in order to prevent the double counting of causal links to which we attributed the initially divergent character of our integral for $`<n>`$. In (4), these conditions are the last two in the list. Other possibilities exist, however, and we know of nothing particularly sacred about the conditions used in (4), which we selected partly with an eye to the simplicity (for evaluation) of the resulting integral. One must be careful not to use something like “$`y`$ minimal in $`J^+(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$”, which would drive $`<n>`$ to zero in the limit of null $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, but this does not rule out, for example, a condition like “$`x`$ maximal in $`J^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$”.

Fortunately, the finiteness of the answer — and even its exact numerical value — seems to be insensitive to variations in the max/min conditions. Consider, for example, repeating the calculation of Section 2.2 with the different set of conditions illustrated in Figure 3. (We have weakened the fifth condition to “$`y`$ minimal in $`J^+(H)J^+(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$” and strengthened the fourth to “$`x`$ maximal in $`J^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$”.) With this alternative set of conditions, the integral for $`<n>`$ is modified (because $`V`$ is modified), but it can be shown  to have the same asymptotic behavior as before, namely

$$<n>=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+O(1/a).$$

Thus, in this case at least, we obtain exactly the same numerical answer as in Section 2.

Another feature that our counting must have if it is to yield the horizon area is that, within reason, the expected number of links should depend only on the intersection $`H\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and not on how the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is prolonged outside or (especially) inside the horizon $`H`$. For example one should get the same answer for both of the continuations shown in Figure 4. (The case where the difference is confined to the interior black hole region is of particular significance for the entanglement interpretation of horizon entropy, since such a difference cannot, by definition, influence the effective density operator for the external portion of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (at least to the extent that unitary quantum field theory is a good guide).) From this point of view, those max/min conditions are most satisfactory that depend least on conditions outside the black hole. In this sense, the condition used in Section 2 that $`y`$ be minimal in $`J^+(H)`$ has an advantage over the alternative, “dual” condition that $`x`$ be maximal in $`J^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$; for the former, at least in the case of null $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, refers only to the interior region.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

In Sections 2 and 3 we have reported some calculations, in the context of causal set theory, of the expected number of irreducible causal relations (links) that cross the horizon $`H`$ of a black hole in proximity to a specified spacelike or null hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, as determined by the satisfaction of certain “max/min” conditions. Limiting ourselves to the case of spherical symmetry, we considered both equilibrium and nonequilibrium examples of macroscopic black holes in both 3+1 and 1+1 dimensions, together with both null and spacelike hypersurfaces. We also considered variants of the max/min conditions. In all these cases one obtains finite answers, but we computed exact numbers only for null $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and only for the two dimensional reductions of the corresponding four dimensional black holes. The expected number of links was always $`\pi ^2/6`$. Moreover, we saw that the bulk of the links always resided in close proximity to the horizon, meaning that the result was being controlled by the near horizon geometry. From this we inferred the likelihood of a universal relationship in four dimensions, with the number of links being proportional to the horizon area, modulo corrections down by a factor of $`l_c/R`$ where $`l_c`$ is the fundamental discreteness length and $`R`$ the black hole size.777Interestingly, these corrections are – in 4 dimensions – comparable in order of magnitude to the inherent $`\sqrt{n}`$ fluctuations that one would expect in $`n`$ itself purely for statistical reasons.

What seems significant about these results is not so much the proportionality to horizon area per se. One might have expected as much. However the coefficient of proportionality might have turned out to be either infinite or zero in the limit of large black hole radius (as in fact it does if one omits the max/min conditions introduced to prevent “double counting” of links). Moreover, for the nonequilibrium horizon, the coefficient might have varied with time or it might have differed from its equilibrium (Schwarzschild) value. In the event, none of these things occurred, at least in the cases checked. Rather we found a universal answer which took the same value in all cases where we succeeded in evaluating it exactly. The agreement between the equilibrium and nonequilibrium cases seems especially noteworthy, inasmuch as this is the first time, to our knowledge, that such an entropy has been computed for a non-stationary horizon.

The weakness of our result, of course, is that it remains at a purely kinematic level: we believe to have found something like the number of “horizon atoms”, whose multiplicity is the ultimate source of black hole entropy, but this belief cannot be substantiated or refuted before we possess a fully quantum dynamics for causal sets. Short of this, many interesting extensions and cross-checks of our conclusions can still be pursued, however.

Of greatest immediacy is the need to carry out a full calculation in four-dimensions. Not only would this provide an important test of our reduction to two dimensions, but it would furnish the correction to the two-dimensional value of $`\pi ^2/6`$, thereby laying the basis for a future determination of the fundamental length $`l_c`$. (Comparison of the known entropy with a calculation from first principles is probably the most reliable way to get a handle on the basic parameters of any quantum gravity theory, as entropy, being an absolute number, should not be subject to “renormalization”.)

Completing the evaluation of the two dimensional integrals for spacelike $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also desirable in order to decide whether they indeed give the same result as for null $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.888In this connection, we note that the case of null $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is of particular interest for the “Generalized Second Law” of entropy increase. It is difficult to imagine proving this law — or even formulating it — without being able to specify in a well defined manner the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to which the entropy is being referred. Within a semiclassical spacetime with its fixed metric, this is not a problem, but the semiclassical framework is overly restrictive, since it cannot accommodate, for example, such a mundane entropy as that due to the spread in position of the individual members of “gas” of black holes. Fortunately, recourse to a semiclassical spacetime is unnecessary in the case of a null hypersurface, since then one can specify $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by “anchoring it to the environment” (say to the walls of the proverbial thermodynamic box), and with this accomplished, one can envisage proving the second law as sketched in . But no similarly robust technique seems available in the case of a spacelike $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It would also be good to explore further the extent to which the results we have obtained depend on the details of the max/min conditions chosen (or indeed, whether other conditions, not of the max/min type might possibly offer a better solution to the “double counting” problem). The generalization to rotating and deformed black holes is another obvious direction for further work.

With respect to the causal set, there can of course be no horizon as such, only a division of the elements into those which can and cannot communicate with distant regions. The closest one can come to the horizon as a null surface is probably the collection of linked pairs we have counted in this paper.999Another possibility might be the minimal layer $`L`$ of the subcauset corresponding to the interior region of the black hole. However, $`L`$ is by definition an antichain and therefore more akin to a spacelike surface than a horizon, which, though not everywhere null, is ruled by null geodesics. More importantly, as one moves along $`H`$ toward the future, the elements of $`L`$ probably become sparse too rapidly to mark out $`H`$ correctly. This difficulty is even clearer for the dually defined set $`L^{}`$ of maximal elements of the exterior region, which probably is empty! But these correspond to a “thickened hypersurface” in the continuum. It would be interesting to compute the amount of this “kinematical thickening”, especially as there are hints from a very different direction of a pronounced “dynamical thickening” of the horizon (possibly of order $`a^{1/3}`$) resulting from the influence of quantum fluctuations in fields propagating near $`H`$ .

A further direction for generalization would be the substitution of some different structure for the links we have considered in this paper. One such possibility might be a “triad” of elements, say $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ with $`x`$ and $`y`$ to the past of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`z`$ to its future, and with $`x`$ inside the black hole and $`y`$ outside it. The requirement that the triad be “small” in a suitable sense might then be able to replace our max/min conditions. In the same spirit one could consider inverted triads or even “diamonds” containing both types of triad simultaneously. There is however some suggestion that triads of the first type are naturally related to the kind of correlation responsible for entanglement entropy in a quantum field theory framework .

A final remark concerns the finiteness of our integrals in two spacetime dimensions. Although this was necessary in order that the four dimensional result scale correctly with area, it could nonetheless seem surprising that the counting of two dimensional links remains finite even in the continuum limit where the fundamental length is sent to zero. In this sense, the replacement of continuous spacetime by a causal set could appear in two dimensions as more of a regularization device than something fundamental. We do not know whether this has any deeper meaning, or whether it might be related to some of the other special properties that both quantum field theory and quantum gravity possess in two dimensions (cf. ).

In concluding, we would like to dedicate this article to our friend and colleague, Jacob Bekenstein. Not only does Jacob’s work lie at the origin of our understanding of black hole entropy and the “generalized second law”, but it also raised explicitly the theme of missing information which forms the backdrop to, and inspiration for, the work reported herein.

The work of RDS was partly supported by NSF grant PHY-0098488, by a grant from the Office of Research and Computing of Syracuse University, and by an EPSRC Senior Fellowship at Queen Mary, University of London. The work of DjD was partly supported by grant number ERBFMRXCT 960090. RDS would like to thank Goodenough College, London for its hospitality during the writing of this paper. DjD would like to thank the General Relativity group of Syracuse University and the High Energy group of ICTP for their kind hospitality during different stages of the work.

References

 J.D. Bekenstein, “Do we understand black hole entropy?”, in The Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories, proceedings of the MG7 meeting, held Stanford, July 24–30, 1994, edited by R.T. Jantzen, G. Mac Keiser and R. Ruffini (World Scientific 1996) $``$gr-qc/9409015$``$

 L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer and R.D. Sorkin, “Spacetime as a Causal Set”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59: 521-524 (1987); David Porter Rideout and Rafael Dolnick Sorkin, “A Classical Sequential Growth Dynamics for Causal Sets”, Phys. Rev. D 61: 024002 (2000) $``$gr-qc/9904062$``$

 L. Bombelli, “Statistical Lorentzian geometry and the closeness of Lorentzian manifolds”, J. Math. Phys. 41: 6944-6958 (2000) $``$gr-qc/0002053$``$

 G. Brightwell and R. Gregory, “The Structure of Random Discrete Spacetime”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66: 260-263 (1991)

 Djamel Dou, Causal Sets, a Possible Interpretation for the Black Hole Entropy, and Related Topics, Ph. D. thesis (SISSA, Trieste, 1999) $``$gr-qc/0106024$``$

 Rafael D. Sorkin and Daniel Sudarsky, “Large Fluctuations in the Horizon Area and What They Can Tell Us About Entropy and Quantum Gravity”, Class. Quant. Grav. 16: 3835-3857 (1999) $``$gr-qc/9902051$``$

 R.D. Sorkin, “Toward an Explanation of Entropy Increase in the Presence of Quantum Black Holes”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56: 1885-1888 (1986); R.D. Sorkin, “The Statistical Mechanics of Black Hole Thermodynamics”, in R.M. Wald (ed.) Black Holes and Relativistic Stars, (U. of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 177-194 $``$gr-qc/9705006$``$

 R.D. Sorkin, “How Wrinkled is the Surface of a Black Hole?”, in David Wiltshire (ed.), Proceedings of the First Australasian Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, held February 1996, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 163-174 (University of Adelaide, 1996) $``$gr-qc/9701056$``$

 R.D. Sorkin, “Quantum Measure Theory and its Interpretation”, in Quantum Classical Correspondence: Proceedings of the $`4^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Drexel Symposium on Quantum Nonintegrability, held Philadelphia, September 8-11, 1994, edited by D.H. Feng and B-L Hu, pages 229–251 (International Press, Cambridge Mass. 1997) $``$gr-qc/9507057$``$

 Thomas M. Fiola, John Preskill, Andrew Strominger, and Sandip P. Trivedi, “Black hole thermodynamics and information loss in two dimensions”, $``$hep-th/9403137$``$ Phys.Rev. D 50: 3987-4014 (1994)