text:
# Management of Grid Jobs and Information within SAMGrid

## I Introduction

Grid grid\_book  has emerged as a modern trend in computing, aiming to support the sharing and coordinated use of diverse resources by Virtual Organizations (VO’s) in order to solve their common problemsgrid\_anatomy . It was originally driven by by scientific, and especially High-Energy Physics (HEP) communities. HEP experiments are a classic example of large, globally distributed VO’s whose participants are scattered over many institutions and collaborate on studies of experimental data, primarily on data processing and analysis.

Our background is specifically in the development of large-scale, globally distributed systems for HEP experiments. We apply grid technologies to our systems and develop higher-level, community-specific grid services (generally defined in grid\_services ), currently for the two collider experiments at Fermilab, D0 and CDF. These two experiments are actually the largest currently running HEP experiments, each having over half a thousand users and planning to analyze repeatedly peta-byte scale data.

The success of the distributed computing for the experiments depends on many factors. In the HEP computing, which remains a principal application domain for the Grid as a whole, jobs are data-intensive and therefore data handling is one of the most important factors. For HEP experiments such as D0 and CDF, data handling is the center of the meta-computing grid system acat2002\_it . The SAM data handling system samwww  was originally developed for the D0 collaboration and is currently also used by CDF. The system is described in detail elsewhere (see, for example, sam\_chep2001 ; chep2001\_grid  and references therein). Here, we only note some of the advanced features of the system – the ability to coordinate multiple concurrent accesses to Storage Systems hpdc2001  and global data routing and replication acat2000 .

Given the ability to distribute data on demand globally, we face the similar challenges of distributing the processing of the data. Generally, for this purpose we need global job scheduling and information management, which is a term we prefer over “monitoring” as we strive to include configuration management, resource description, and logging.

In recent years, we have been working on the SAMGrid project acat2002\_gg , which addresses the grid needs of the experiments; our current focus is in the Jobs and Information Management (JIM), which is to complement the SAM grid data handling system with services for job submission, brokering and execution as well as distributed monitoring. Together, SAM and JIM form SAMGrid, a “VO-specific” grid system.

In this paper, we present some key ideas from our system’s design. For job management per se, we collaborate with the Condor team to enhance the Condor-G middleware so as to enable scheduling of data-intensive jobs with flexible resource description. For information, we focus on describing the sites’ resources in the tree-like structures of XML, with subsequent projections onto the Condor Classified Advertisements (ClassAd) framework, monitoring with Globus MDS and other tools.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We discuss the relevant job scheduling design issues and Condor enhancements in Section II. In Section III, we describe configuration management and monitoring. In Section IV, we present the status of the project and interfaces with the experiments’ computing environment and fabric; we conclude in Section V.

## II Job Scheduling and Brokering

A key area in Grid computing is job management, which typically includes planning of job’s dependencies, selection of the execution cluster(s) for the job, scheduling of the job at the cluster(s) and ensuring reliable submission and execution. We base our solution on the Condor-G framework condorg , a powerful Grid middleware commonly used for distributed computing. Thanks to the Particle Physics Data Grid (PPDG) collaboration ppdg , we have been able to work with the Condor team to enhance the Condor-G framework and then implement higher-level functions on top of it. In this Section, we first summarize the general Condor-G enhancements and then proceed to actually describing how we schedule data-intensive jobs for D0 and CDF.

### II.1 The Grid Enhancements Condor

We have designed three principal enhancements for Condor-G. These have all been successfully implemented by the Condor team:

* Original Condor-G required users to either specify which grid site would run a job, or to use Condor-G’s GlideIn technology. We have enabled Condor-G to use a matchmaking service to automatically select sites for users.
* We have extended the ClassAd language, used by the matchmaking framework to describe resources, to include externally supplied functions to be evaluated at match time. This allows the matchmaker to base its decision not only on explicitly advertised properties but also on opaque logic that is not statically expressible in a ClassAd. Other uses include incorporation of information that is prohibitively expensive to publish in a ClassAd, such as local storage contents or lists of site-authorized Grid users.
* We removed the restriction that the job submission client had to be on the same machine as the queuing system and enabled the client to securely communicate with the queue across a network, thus creating a multi-tiered job submission architecture.

Fundamentally, these changes are sufficient to form a multi-user, multi-site job scheduling system for generic jobs. Thus, a novelty of our design is that we use the standard Grid technologies to create a highly reusable framework to the job scheduling, as opposed to writing our own Resource Broker, which would be specific to our experiments.

In the remainder of this Section we described higher-level features for the job management, particularly important for data-intensive applications.

### II.2 Combination of the Advertised and Queried Information in the MMS

Classic matchmaking service (MMS) gathers information about the resources in the form of published ClassAds. This allows for a general and flexible framework for resource management (e.g. jobs and resource matching), see mms . There is one important limitation in that scheme, however, which has to do with the fact that the entities (jobs and resources) have to be able to express all their relevant properties upfront and irrespective of the other party.

Recall that our primary goal was to enable co-scheduling of jobs and data. In data-intensive computing, jobs are associated with long lists of data items (such as files) to be processed by the job. Similarly, resources are associated with long lists of data items located, in the network sense, near them. For example, jobs requesting thousands of files and sites having hundreds of thousands of files are not uncommon in production in the SAM system. Therefore, it would not be scalable to explicitly publish all the properties of jobs and resources in the ClassAds.

Furthermore, in order to rank jobs at a resource (or resources for the job), we wish to include additional information that couldn’t be expressed in the ClassAds at the time of publishing, i.e., before the match. Rather, we can analyze such an information during the match, in the context of the job request. For example, a site may prefer a job based on similar already scheduled data handling requests. 111Unlike the information about data already placed at sites, the information about scheduled data requests, and their estimated time of completion, is not described by any popular concept like replica catalog. Another example of useful additional information, not specific to data-intensive computing, is the pre-authorization of the job’s owner with the participating cite, by means of e.g. looking up the user’s grid subject in the site’s gridmapfile. Such a pre-authorization is not a replacement of security, but rather a means of protecting the matchmaker from some blunders that otherwise tend to occur in practice.

The original MMS scheme allowed for such additional information incorporation only in the claiming phase, i.e., after the match when the job’s scheduler actually contacts the machine. In the SAMGrid design, we augment information processing by the MMS with the ability to query the resources with a job in the context. This is pictured in Figure 1 by arrows extending from the resource selector to the resources, specifically to the local data handling agents, in the course of matching. It is implemented by means of externally supplied ranking function whose evaluation involves remote call invocation at the resources’ sites. Specifically, the resource ClassAds in our design contain pointers to additional information providers (data handling servers called Stations):

```
Station_ID = foo

```

and the body of the MMS ranking function called from the job classAd

```
Rank = fun(job_dataset,
           OTHER.Station_ID)

```

includes logic similar to this pseudo-code:

```
station = resolve(Station_ID,...)
return station->
 get_preference(job_dataset,...)

```

In the next subsection, we discuss how we believe this will improve the co-scheduling of jobs with the data.

### II.3 Interfacing with the SAM Data Handling System

The co-scheduling of jobs and data has always been critical for the SAM system, where at least a subset of HEP analysis jobs (as of the time of writing, the dominating class) have their latencies dominated by data access. Please note that the SAM system already implemented the advanced feature of retrieving multi-file datasets asynchronously with respect to the user jobs hpdc2000 ; sam\_submit  – this was done initially at the cluster level rather than at the grid level.

Generally with the data-intensive jobs, we attempt to minimize the time to retrieve any missing data and the time to store output data, as these times propagate into the job’s overall latency. As we try to minimize the grid job latency, we ensure that the design of our system, Figure 1 is such that the data handling latencies will be taken into account in the process of job matching. This is a principal point of the present paper, i.e., while we do not yet possess sufficient real statistics that would justify certain design decisions, we stress that our system design enables the various strategies and supports considerations listed below.

In the minimally intelligent implementation, we prefer sites that contain most of the the job’s data. Our design does not rely on a replica catalogue because in the general case, we need local metrics computed by and available from the data handling system:

* The network speeds for connections to the sources of any missing data;
* The depths of the queues of data requests for both input and output;
* The network speeds for connections to the nearest destination of the output files.222In the SAM system the concept of data routing is implemented such that the first transfer of an output file is seldom done directly to the final destination.

It is important that network speeds be provided by a high-level service in the data handling rather than by a low-level network sensor, for reasons similar to those why having e.g. a 56Kbps connection to the ISP does not necessarily enable one to actually download files from the Internet with that speed.

## III The Management of Configuration and Information in JIM

Naturally, being able to submit jobs and schedule them more or less efficiently is necessary but not sufficient for a Grid system. One has to understand how resources can be described for such decision making, as well as provide a framework for monitoring of participating clusters and user jobs.

We consider these and other aspects of information management to be closely related to issues of Grid configuration. In the JIM project, we have developed a uniform configuration management framework that allows for generic grid services instantiation, which in turn gives flexibility in the design of the Grid as well as inter-operability on the Grid (see below).

In this Section, we briefly introduce the main configuration framework and then project it onto the various SAMGrid services having to do with information.

### III.1 The Core Configuration Mechanism

Our main proposal is that grid sites be configured using a site-oriented schema, which describes both resources and services, and that grid instantiation at the sites be derived from these site configurations. We are not proposing any particular site schema at this time, although we hope for the Grid community as a whole to arrive at a common schema in the future which will allow reasonable variations such that various grids are still instantiatable.

Figure 2 shows configuration derivation in the course of instantiation of a grid at a site. The site configuration is created using a meta-configurator similar to one we propose below.

#### III.1.1 The Core Meta-Configurator and the Family of Configurators

In our framework, we create site and all other configurations by a universal tool which we call a meta-configurator, or configurator of configurators. The idea is to separate the process of querying the user for values of attributes from the schema that describes what those attributes are, how they should be queried, how to guess the default values, and how to derive values of attributes from those of other attributes. Any concrete configurator uses a concrete schema to ask the relevant questions to the end user (site administrator) in order to produce that site’s configuration. Any particular schema is in turn derived from a meta-schema. Thus, the end configuration can be represented as:

$$C=c(S_d,I_u)=c(c(S_0,I_d),I_u),$$

where $`C`$ is a particular configuration, $`c`$ is the configuration operation, $`S_d`$ is a particular schema reflecting certain design, $`S_0`$ is the meta-schema, $`I_d`$ and $`I_u`$ are the inputs of the designer and the user, respectively.

In our framework, configurations and schemas are structures of the same type, which we choose to be trees of nodes each containing a set of distinct attributes. Our choice has been influenced by the successes of the XML technologies and, naturally, we use XML for representing these objects.

To exemplify, assume that in our present design, a grid site consists of one or more clusters each having a name and an architecture (homogenous), as well as exactly one gatekeeper for Grid access. Example configuration is:

```
<?xml version=’1.0’?>
<site name=’FNAL’
      schema_version=’v0_3’>
  <cluster name=’samadams’
           architecture=’Linux’>
    <gatekeeper ...>
  </cluster>
</site>

```

This configuration was produced by the following schema

```
<?xml version=’1.0’?>
<site cardinalityMin=’1’
      cardinalityMax=’1’
      name=’inquire-default,FNAL’ >
   <cluster  cardinalityMin=’1’
     name=’set,CLUSTERNAME,inquire’
     architecture=
      ’inquire-default,exec,uname’/>
</site>

```

in an interactive session with the site administrator as follows:

```
What is the name of the site ? [FNAL]:
 <return>
What is the name of cluster
  at the site ’FNAL’?  samadams
What is the architecture
  of cluster ’samadams’ [Linux]?
...

```

When the schema changes or a new cluster is created at the site, the administrator merely needs to re-run the tool and answer the simple questions again.

### III.2 Resource Advertisement for Condor-G

In the JIM project, we have designed the grid job management as follows. We advertise the participating grid clusters to an information collector and grid jobs are matched mms  with clusters (resources) based on certain criteria primarily having to do with the data availability at the sites. We have implemented this job management using Condor-G condorg  with extensions that we have designed together with the Condor team acat2002\_gg .

For the job management to work as described in Section II, we need to advertise the clusters together with the gatekeepers as the means for Condor to actually schedule and execute the grid job at the remote site. Thus, our present design requires that each advertisement contain a cluster, a gatekeeper, a SAM station (for jobs actually intending to process data) and a few other attributes that we omit here. Our advertisement software then selects from the configuration tree all patterns containing these attributes and then applies a ClassAd generation algorithm to each pattern.

The selection of the subtrees that are ClassAd candidates is based on the XQuery language. Our queries are generic enough as to allow for design evolution, i.e. to be resilient to some modifications in the schema. When new attributes are added to an element in the schema, or when the very structure of the tree changes due to insertion of a new element, our advertisement service will continue to advertise these clusters with or without the new information (depending on how the advertiser itself is configured) but the important factor is that this site will continue to be available to our grid.

For example, assume that one cluster at the site from subsection III.1.1 now has a new grid gatekeeper mechanism from Globus Toolkit 3, in addition to the old one:

```
<?xml version=’1.0’?>
<site name=’FNAL’
      schema_version=’v0_3’>
  <cluster name=’samadams’
           architecture=’Linux’>
    <grid_accesses>
       <gatekeeper ...>
       <gatekeeper-gtk3 ...>
    </grid_accesses>
    ...

```

Assume further that our particular grid is not yet capable of taking advantage of the new middleware and we continue to be interested in the old gatekeeper from each cluster. Our pattern was such that a gatekeeper is a descendant of the cluster so we continue to generate meaningful ClassAds and match jobs with this site’s cluster(s).

### III.3 Monitoring Using Globus MDS

In addition to advertising (pushing) of resource information for the purpose of job matching, we deploy Globus MDS-2 for pull-based retrieval of information about the clusters and activities (jobs and more, such as data access requests) associated with them. This allows us to enable web-based monitoring, primarily by humans, for performance and troubleshooting acat2002\_gg . We introduce (or redefine in the context of our project) concepts of cluster, station etc, and map them onto the LDAP attributes in the OID space assigned to our project (the FNAL organization, to be exact) by the IANAiana . We also create additional branches for the MDS information tree as to represent our concepts and their relations.

We derive the values of the dn’s on the information tree from the site configuration. In this framework, it is truly straightforward to use XSLT (or a straight XML-parsing library) to select the names and other attributes of the relevant pieces of configuration. For example, if the site has two clusters defined in the configuration file, our software will automatically instantiate two branches for the information tree. Note that the resulting tree may of course be distributed within the site as we decide e.g. to run an MDS server at each cluster, which is a separate degree of freedom.

### III.4 Multiple Grid Instantiation and Inter-Operability

We have been mentioning that there are in fact several other grid projects developing high-level Grid solutions; some of the most noteworthy include the European Datagrid edg , the Crossgridxgrid\_acat2002 , and The NorduGrid nordugrid\_acat2002 . Inter-Operability of grids (or of solutions on The Grid if you prefer) is a well-recognized issue in the community. The High Energy and Nuclear Physics InterGrid hisb  and Grid Inter-Operability grid\_inter\_operability\_project  projects are some of the most prominent efforts in this area. As we have pointed out in the Introduction, we believe that inter-operability must include the ability to instantiate and maintain multiple grid service suites at sites.

A good example of inter-operability in this sense is given by various cooperating Web browsers which all understand the user’s bookmarks, mail preferences etc.. Of course, each browser may give a different look and feel to its “bookmarks” menu, and otherwise treat them in entirely different ways, yet most browsers tend to save the bookmarks in the common HTML format, which has de facto become the standard for bookmarks. Our framework, proposed and described in this Section, is a concrete means to facilitate this aspect of inter-operability. Multiple grid solutions can be instantiated using a grid-neutral, site-oriented configuration in an XML-based format.

We can go one step further and envisage that the various grids instantiated at a site have additional, separate configuration spaces that can easily be conglomerated into a grid instantiation database. In practice, this will allow the administrators e.g., to list all the Globus gatekeepers with one simple query.

## IV Integration and Project Status

To provide a complete computing solution for the experiments, one must integrate grid-level services with those on the fabric. Ideally, grid-level scheduling complements, rather than interferes with, that of local batch systems. Likewise, grid-level monitoring should provide services that are additional (orthogonal) to those developed at the fabric’s facilities (i.e., monitoring of clusters’ batch systems, storage systems etc.).

Our experiments have customized local environments. CDF has been successfully using Cluster Analysis Facility (CAF), see cdf\_acat2002 . D0 has been using MCRunJob mcrunjob , a workflow manager which is also part of the CMS computing insfrastructure. An important part of the SAMGrid project is to integrate its job and information services with these environments.

For job management, we have implemented GRAM-compliant job managers which pass control from Grid-GRAM to each of these two systems (which in turn are on top of the various batch systems). Likewise, for the purposes of (job) monitoring, these systems supply information about their jobs to the XML databases which we deploy on the boundary between the Grid and the Fabric. (For resource monitoring, these advertise their various properties using the frameworks described above).

We delivered a complete, integrated prototype of SAMGrid in the Fall of 2002. Our initial testbed linked 11 sites (5 D0 and 6 CDF) and the basic services of grid job submission, brokering and monitoring. Our near future plans include further work on the Grid-Fabric interface and more features for troubleshooting and error recovery.

## V Summary

We have presented the two key components of the SAMGrid, a SAM-based datagrid being used by the Run II experiments at FNAL. To the data handling capabilities of SAM, we add grid job scheduling and brokering, as well as information processing and monitoring. We use the standard Condor-G middleware so as to maximize the reusability of our design. As to the information management, we have developed a unified framework for configuration management in XML, from where we explore resource advertisement, monitoring and other directions such as service instantiation. We are deploying SAMGrid at the time of writing this paper and learning from the new experiences.

## VI Acknowledgements

This work is sponsored in part by DOE contract No. DE-AC02-76CH03000. Our collaboration takes place as part of the DOC Particle Physics Data Grid (PPDG), ppdg  Collaboratory SciDAC project. We thank the many participants from the Fermilab Computing Division, the D0 and CDF Experiments, and the members of the Condor team for fruitful discussions as well as the development of our software and other software that we rely upon.


format: text

text:
# Neutrino oscillations under gravity: mass independent oscillation

## Abstract

I discuss the possibility of neutrino oscillation in presence of gravity. In this respect I consider the propagation of neutrinos in the early phase of universe and around black holes. It is seen that whether the rest masses of a neutrino and corresponding anti-neutrino are considered to be same or not due to space-time curvature effect non-zero oscillation probability between the neutrino and anti-neutrino states comes out. Therefore I can conclude that under gravity neutrino oscillation takes place which is independent of their rest mass.

KEY WORDS : neutrino oscillation, space-time curvature, CPT violation

PACS NO. : 04.62.+v, 04.70.-s, 11.30.Er, 11.30.Fs

It is an established fact that the neutrinos have three different kinds of flavor. Also the choice of these three flavors fits snugly into the standard model of particle physics, which tells that all the conventional matter is constructed from quarks and leptons. The neutrino flavors, namely, electron, muon and tau neutrinos belong to the lepton class. However, the discrepancy in between various observed and expected number of neutrino flavors occur. This is because, they transform from one type of flavor to another. Therefore, if a detector is built and set to detect for one type of neutrinos, while that type of neutrinos are coming, some of them are converting to another type which is unsuited to the detector and thus results a shortfall. This anomalies have been found in the cases of solar neutrino, atmospheric neutrino and the neutrino experiments at accelerators or reactors. Actually the neutrino flavor states consist superposition of different mass eigenstates. Thus the flavor states transform from one to another as different mass eigenstates evolve differently. This is called neutrino oscillation. However, if CPT is violated, for a particular flavor the neutrino and anti-neutrino state may transform from one to other as they evolve differently. In that case, oscillation may take place between a neutrino and an anti-neutrino for the same flavor.

Out of several implications, study of neutrino has got great interest as neutrinos are the important ingredient of the energy produced and removed from the centre of Sun. Also in supernova, neutrinos carry off the largest amount energy of exploding star. Moreover, neutrinos are considered as a prime dark matter candidate. Though the mass of the neutrinos is very less, because of their large number, density is very great and would thus exert a very potent gravitational effect helping to determine the rate and pattern of galaxy formation. Therefore they may have significant role in the large scale structure of the universe.

With all the above facts in background, naturally neutrino oscillation phenomena are of great interest for particle physicists, astrophysicists, as well as cosmologist, as the number density of neutrino in universe is directly related to it. Usually it is believed that the mass of a neutrino is the basic factor to attribute the oscillation. More precisely, it is directly related to the rest mass square difference between two neutrino mass eigenstates. However, all these statements are made when the neutrinos are considered according to Galilean relativity. Gasperini  first pointed out that due to presence of gravitational field different neutrino flavors could be affected differently which violates equivalence principle and thus neutrino oscilations may take place even if they are massless or of degenerate mass. Subsequently the effect of strong gravitational field on neutrino oscillation was discussed . Later on the neutrino oscillation was studied considering the violation of equivalence principle with LSND data  and was shown that the data can be explained by degenerate or massless neutrinos with flavor non-diagonal gravitational coupling. In a same line of thought, Coleman and Glashow  showed that in special relativistic regime, when the maximum velocity of different neutrinos may differ each other, oscillation may happen even if they are considered massless. The goal of this present letter is to study of oscillation phenomena when the space-time curvature has an important effect. Thus in this case, oscillation depends on the gravitational coupling strength. In past neutrino oscillations in curved space-time have been studied by various events . However, in this present letter my message is something different. Recently, it has been shown that under gravity which brings the CPT violating interaction, neutrino and anti-neutrino split in their energy level and thus causes their asymmetry in number density . Here I will start from that result and apply for neutrino oscillation business. If the neutrinos and corresponding anti-neutrinos split up in energy level, that creates a difference in their evolution phases, which is directly related to the transition over their mass eigenstates.

It was argued earlier  that in a weak gravitational field the flavor oscillation is possible with the phase strength of oscillation probability is proportional to the gravitomagnetic field. However, the system was chosen non-relativistic and the corresponding Hamiltonian was Schrödinger-like constructed by hand. The possible violation of local Lorentz invarience in Kaon sector of standard model was studied with both CPT conserving and violating cases . It was also pointed out that  in case of a CPT non-conserved situation the neutrino and anti-neutrino acquire different mass and thus there is a possibility of oscillation between themselves. In a same line of thought, it was shown  that in absence of neutrino decay, in the case of CPT non-conserving situation, a neutrino evolves differently than the anti-neutrino of same flavor and therefore the oscillation takes place between them. In a recent work , it has been shown that a linear superposition of two opposite helicity states can be described as the eigenstates of the de Sitter Casimirs, which actually give rise to the majorana states. It has been argued, due to the space-time effects neutrinos and anti-neutrinos acquire different mass terms. In this present letter, all such scenarios have been studied in the more realistic situations when the neutrinos are propagating in curved space-times. I will start with Dirac equation in the generalized curved space-time and all the interaction terms play in our calculation govern inherently. When neutrinos which are class of fermion, propagate in the strong gravitational field, e.g. close to a black hole or in the early universe era when space-time is non-flat, spin of a neutrino couples with the spin-connection of space-time and generates a gravitational interaction even if there is no other interaction present. As much the curvature effect of space-time is less, this gravitational interaction strength reduces too.

Following , the Dirac Lagrangian density for a neutrino under the gravity background in locally flat coordinate system can be written as

$`=det(e)\overline{\psi }\left[(i\gamma ^a_am)+\gamma ^a\gamma ^5B_a\right]\psi =_f+_I,`$ (1)
where

$`B^d=ϵ^{abcd}e_{b\lambda }\left(_ae_c^\lambda +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \mu }^\lambda e_c^\alpha e_a^\mu \right).`$ (2)
Our chosen unit is, $`c=\text{}h=1`$. Clearly $`_I`$ may be a CPT and Lorentz violating interaction if the background curvature coupling, $`B_a`$, is constant in local frame . If $`_I`$ changes sign under CPT transformation, it is violating CPT. More precisely, under CPT transformation, if the curvature coupling, $`B_a`$, does not flip sign then $`_I`$ violates CPT (as in any case the associated axial-vector, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma ^a\gamma ^5\psi `$, changes sign under CPT). Therefore, it is the nature of background metric which determines whether $`B_a`$ is odd under CPT or not and finally which dictates the overall nature of interaction.

The dispersion relation for the neutrino and anti-neutrino fields in presence of CPT violating gravitational interaction can be given as

$`E_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}|^2+2\left(B_0p^0+B_1p^1+B_2p^2+B_3p^3\right)+B_aB^am^2}`$ (3)
$`E_{\overline{\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}|^22\left(B_0p^0+B_1p^1+B_2p^2+B_3p^3\right)+B_aB^am^2}.`$ (4)
As $`E_\nu E_{\overline{\nu }}`$ (due to presence of curvature which appears as gravitational four vector $`B`$) the neutrino oscillation phase depends on $`(E_\nu E_{\overline{\nu }})`$, and a non-zero oscillation probability between the neutrino and anti-neutrino comes out.

Now following , let me consider two distinct orthonormal eigenstates, one is $`|E_\nu >`$ for spin up neutrino type and other is $`|E_{\overline{\nu }}>`$ for spin down anti-neutrino type for same flavor. Further introduce a set of neutrino mass eigenstates at $`t=0`$ as

$`|A>=cos\theta |E_\nu >+sin\theta |E_{\overline{\nu }}>,|B>=sin\theta |E_\nu >+cos\theta |E_{\overline{\nu }}>.`$ (5)
Then the oscillation probability from a neutrino state $`|A>`$ at $`t=0`$ to an anti-neutrino state $`|B>`$ for the same flavor at a later time $`t=t_1`$ can be found as

$`P_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|\left[sin\theta <E_\nu |+cos\theta <E_{\overline{\nu }}|\right]\left[e^{iE_\nu t_1}cos\theta |E_\nu >+e^{iE_{\overline{\nu }}t_1}sin\theta |E_{\overline{\nu }}>\right]\right|^2`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`sin^22\theta sin^2\delta `$ (7)
where,

$`\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{(E_\nu E_{\overline{\nu }})t_1}{2}}.`$ (8)
Now for simplicity, considering a special case of the space-time such that $`B_0p^0>>\stackrel{}{B}.\stackrel{}{p}`$ and as the neutrinos are highly relativistic, $`|\stackrel{}{p}|^2`$ is much larger compared to the other terms in dispersion relation. Therefore, $`\delta `$ reduces as

$`\delta =B_0t_1.`$ (9)
It is very interesting to note that although both the neutrino and anti-neutrino are chosen of same rest mass, due to the presence of gravity a non-zero phase factor arises which finally produces a non-zero oscillation probability in two mass states. Therefore, I can conclude that in gravity background, e.g. in the anisotropic phase of early universe when space-time is non-flat or close to a rotating black hole, oscillations exist between the neutrino and anti-neutrino, whether their rest masses are same or different. Actually, due to the effect of space-time curvature, the effective mass of a neutrino and an anti-neutrino differs (solely due to the gravitational coupling appears as additive terms over $`m^2`$ in the dispersion relation) that finally brings a non-zero oscillation probability. Below I calculate the oscillation phase according to the specific metrics.

First I consider the anisotropic phase of axially symmetric early universe. Then following , I choose a simplified version of the Bianchi II model given as

$$ds^2=dt^2+S(t)^2dx^2+R(t)^2[dy^2+f(y)^2dz^2]S(t)^2h(y)[2dxh(y)dz]dz$$
(10)
where $`f(y)=y`$ and $`h(y)=y^2/2`$. The corresponding orthogonal set of non-vanishing component of tetrads (vierbiens) can be written as

$`e_t^0=1,e_x^1=f(y)R(t)S(t)/\sqrt{f(y)^2R(t)^2+S(t)^2h(y)^2},e_y^2=R(t),`$ (11)
$`e_z^3=\sqrt{f(y)^2R(t)^2+S(t)^2h(y)^2},e_x^3=S(t)^2h(y)/\sqrt{f(y)^2R(t)^2+S(t)^2h(y)^2}.`$ (12)
Therefore, from (2) I get

$`B^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4R^3S+3y^2RS^32yS^4}{8R^4+2y^2R^2S^2}},B^1=0`$ (13)
$`B^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4yR^28RSy^3S^2)(RS^{}R^{}S)}{8R^4+2y^2R^2S^2}},B^3=0.`$ (14)
If the scale factors of space-time are considered to be same in all directions, $`S(t)=R(t)`$, only $`B^0`$ will remain non-zero and is given as

$`B^0=B_0={\displaystyle \frac{3y^22y+4}{2y^2+8}}.`$ (15)
Therefore, from (9) neutrino oscillation phase at time $`t_1`$ in early universe reduces as

$`\delta _{\mathrm{eu}}={\displaystyle \frac{3y^22y+4}{2y^2+8}}t_1.`$ (16)
Here the restriction of the metric is chosen in such a manner that only when $`B_0`$ is non-zero, oscillation probability is significant. That is possible only when metric deviates from spherical symmetry. However, it can be easily checked that even in the case of spherically symmetric metric, say for Robertson-Walker universe, non-zero probability of neutrino oscillation can be achieved which may depend on $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$. Certainly, $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$ have to have a significant value to visualize the non-zero oscillation phase.

Next example can be given for a black hole space-time when the curvature effect is significant. It can be noted that in other context the neutrino oscillations around Kerr black holes (in case of active galactic nuclei) were studied  earlier. Here I consider the rotating black hole space-time, namely Kerr space-time, given as

$$ds^2=\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j\left[\frac{2\alpha }{\rho }s_iv_j+\alpha ^2v_iv_j\right]dx^idx^j$$
(17)
where

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2Mr}}{\rho }},\rho ^2=r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2z^2}{r^2}},`$ (18)
$`s_i=(0,{\displaystyle \frac{rx}{\sqrt{r^2+a^2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{ry}{\sqrt{r^2+a^2}}},{\displaystyle \frac{z\sqrt{r^2+a^2}}{r}}),`$ (19)
$`v_i=(1,{\displaystyle \frac{ay}{a^2+r^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{ax}{a^2+r^2}},0).`$ (20)
Here $`a`$ and $`M`$ are respectively the specific angular momentum and mass of the Kerr black hole and $`r`$ is positive definite satisfying the following equation,

$$r^4r^2\left(x^2+y^2+z^2a^2\right)a^2z^2=0.$$
(21)
The corresponding non-vanishing component of tetrads (vierbiens) are

$`e_t^0=1,e_t^1={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_1,e_t^2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_2,e_t^3={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_3,`$ (22)
$`e_x^1=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_1v_1,e_x^2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_2v_1,e_x^3={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_3v_1,`$ (23)
$`e_y^1={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_1v_2,e_y^2=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_2v_2,e_y^3={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_3v_2,e_z^3=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\rho }}s_3v_3.`$ (24)
Using (2), (17) and (24), the gravitational scalar potential can be evaluated as

$`B^0`$ $`=`$ $`e_{1\lambda }\left(_3e_2^\lambda _2e_3^\lambda \right)+e_{2\lambda }\left(_1e_3^\lambda _3e_1^\lambda \right)+e_{3\lambda }\left(_2e_1^\lambda _1e_2^\lambda \right).`$ (25)
Similarly, one can calculate $`B^1,B^2,B^3`$. As before, if I choose a special case of rotating black hole such that $`B_0p^0>>\stackrel{}{B}.\stackrel{}{p}`$, then again the neutrino oscillation phase will depend only on $`B_0`$ which can be evaluated from (25) using (17). One also can evaluate the oscillation phase for a non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole. In that case $`B^0`$ will be zero and thus to get a significant oscillation, above restriction to the space-time ($`B_0p^0>>\stackrel{}{B}.\stackrel{}{p}`$) must be removed and the oscillation may depend upon $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$.

From the above discussion, it is clear that neutrino oscillations may occur in curved back-ground. For examples I have chosen a space-time in early universe as well as around a black hole. It is to be noted that this oscillation phase is independent of the rest mass of eigenstates, and it arises solely due to the effect of space-time curvature. The amplitude of oscillation is zero when $`\theta =0,\pi /2`$ and maximum for $`\theta =\pi /4`$. Also from (7) and (9) one can evaluate the oscillation length, $`L_{osc}`$, as

$`L_{osc}t_1={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{B_0}}`$ (26)
(keeping in mind our chosen system of unit as $`c=1`$ and then $`L_{osc}ct_1`$), when the neutrino is chosen to be moving in a speed close to that of light. Now if I put the dimensions appropriately, (26) reduces as

$`L_{osc}ct_1={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \text{}h}{B_0}}.`$ (27)
If one considers the neutrino$``$anti-neutrino oscillation in the atmosphere of earth where the curvature effect, $`B_010^{40}`$ erg, can be found on a satellite orbiting earth with velocity, $`v1`$ km/sec , then the oscillation length, $`L_{osc}`$, at that space comes out to be of the order of $`10^8`$ km.

The interesting point can be noted again that the calculated oscillation length is independent of the rest mass of the individual eigenstates. Whether a mass difference exists or not oscillation exists, and in a finite interval a neutrino can retain back to its initial state due to the effect of space-time curvature.

Acknowledgment
I thank D. V. Ahluwalia and Sandhya Choubey for their illuminating discussion regarding various important issues, bringing my attention to some of current results and careful reading the manuscript which finally have brought the paper in its present form.


text:
# Rebrightening in GRBs by Precessing Jet

## 1. INTRODUCTION:

Gamma Ray Burst mystery lays in its huge energy fluence, sharp variability, extreme cosmic distances and very different morphology. A huge isotropic explosion disagree with the shortest millisecond time scales and non-thermal spectra. The huge GRBs powers as GRB$`990123`$ made the final collapse of the Fireball model. New families of Fire-Ball Jet (and their different label names like Hyper-Nova, Supra-Nova, Collapsar ) models alleviated the energy budget, by a mild Jet beaming. However in this compromise attitude the puzzle of the GRB$`980425`$/SN$`1998`$bw (which require a very thin Jet observed off-axis (Fargion& Salis 1995),(Fargion1999), has been cured by most skeptical authors by a tenacious cover-up (neglecting or refuting The GRB-SN existence) or claiming the co-existence of an new zoo of GRBs (Bloom 2000),(Kulkarni). These new compromised fountain-like Fireball model has been collimated in a Jet within a $`10^o`$ angle beam, as a soft link between past Fireball and emerging Jet. However the apparent required GRB power output is still huge ($`10^{50}`$ erg $`s^1`$), nearly $`10^5`$ more intense than other known maximal explosion power (the Super-Nova one). More and more evidences in last years and more recently have shown that Super-Nova might harbor a collimated Jet Gamma Ray Burst (GRB$`980425`$/SN$`1998`$bw ,GRB$`030329`$/SN$`2003`$dh). To combine the Super-Nova Luminosity and the apparent huge GRBs power one need a very much thinner beam jet, as small as a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`10^7`$ or $`10^8`$ respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }4\pi `$,(corresponding to a Jet angle $`0.065^o0.02^o`$ ). There is a statistical need (Fargion 1999) to increase the GRB rate inversely to the beam Jet solid angle. The needed SN rate (to explain GRBs) may even exceed the observed one (at least SN type Ib andIc) event in our observable Universe ($`\dot{N_{NS}}`$ $`30s^1`$). Indeed assuming that only a fraction of the SN (with optimistic attitude $`0.1`$ of all known SN) experience an asymmetric Jet-SN explosion, than the corresponding observed rate $`\dot{N_{GRBs}}`$ $`10^5s^1`$ and $`\dot{N_{SN}}`$ $`3s^1`$ imply $`\frac{\dot{N_{GRBs}}}{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}10^2s^110^3s^1`$ a result nearly $`23`$ order of magnitude larger than the observed SN rate. In this frame one must assume a GRB Jet with a continuous active, decaying life-time much larger than GRBs duration itself at least by a corresponding scale $`\tau _{Jet}10^3\tau _{GRBs}`$. Indeed we considered GRBs (as well as Soft Gamma Repeaters SGR) as very thin blazing ($`0.1^o`$) precessing Gamma Jets spinning and precessing (Fargion & Salis 1995,1996,Fargion 1999); in this scenario GRBs are born within a Super-Nova power collimated inside a very thin beam able to blaze us by an apparent GRB intensities.

The inner angle geometrical dynamics while spinning and precessing induce the wide $`\gamma `$ burst variability able to fit the very different observed GRBs ones. The averaged $`\gamma `$ jet deflection from the axis of sight defines a main early power law decay; an inner damped oscillatory substructure may be observed, as the amazing damping oscillatory afterglows in GRB$`030329`$. The very thin and collimated and long life decaying jet (opening angle $`\theta 0.05^o`$, whose decay power law life-time of a few hours occurs with an exponent $`\alpha 1`$), while spinning and precessing at different scale times, it may trace and may better explain the wobbling of the $`\gamma `$ GRBs and the long train of damped oscillations of the X tail afterglows within hours, the optical transient during days and weeks later. The GRBs re-brightening are no longer a mystery as in a one-shoot model. These wobbling signatures may be also be found in rarest and most powerful and studied SGRs events. The spread and wide conical shape of these precessing twin jets may be recognized in a few relic SNRs as in the twin SN 1987A wide external rings, the Vela arcs and the spectacular Egg Nebula dynamical shape.

### 1.1. The geometrical multi-precessing Gamma Jet by I.C. in GRB

We imagine the GRB and SGR nature as the early and the late stages of jets fueled first by SN event and later by an asymmetric accretion disk or a companion (WD, NS) star.

The binary angular velocity $`\omega _b`$ bends the angle as $`\theta _1(t)=\sqrt{\theta _{1m}^2+(\omega _bt)^2}`$ or more generally a multi-precessing angle $`\theta _1(t)`$:$`\theta _1(t)=\sqrt{\theta _x^2+\theta _y^2}`$
$`\theta _x(t)=\theta _bsin(\omega _bt+\phi _b)+\theta _{psr}sin(\omega _{psr}t+\phi _{psr})+\theta _Nsin(\omega _Nt+\phi _N)`$
$`\theta _y(t)=\theta _{1m}+\theta _bcos(\omega _bt+\phi _b)+\theta _{psr}cos(\omega _{psr}t+\phi _{psr})+\theta _Ncos(\omega _Nt+\phi _N)`$
where $`\theta _{1m}`$ is the minimal impact angle parameter of the jet toward the observer, $`\theta _b`$, $`\theta _{psr}`$, $`\theta _N`$ are, in the order, the maximal opening precessing angles due to the binary, spinning pulsar, nutation mode of the multi-precessing jet axis. The arbitrary phase $`\phi _b`$, $`\phi _{psr}`$, $`\phi _N`$, for the binary, spinning pulsar and nutation, are able to fit the complicated GRBs flux evolution in most GRB event scenario. Naturally it is very possible to enlarge the parameter to a fourth precession angular component whose presence may better fit the wide spread of scale variability; here we shall constrains to a three parameter precession beam.

For a 3D pattern and its projection along the vertical axis in an orthogonal 2D plane see following descriptive pictures. The different angular velocities are combined in the multi-precession wobbling. Each bending component is keeping memory either of the pulsar jet spin angular velocity ($`\omega _{psr}`$) and its opening angle $`\theta _{psr}`$, its nutation speed ($`\omega _N`$) and nutation angle $`\theta _N`$ (due to possible inertial momentum anisotropies or beam-accretion disk torques); a slower precession by the binary $`\omega _b`$ companion (and its corresponding open angle $`\theta _b`$) will modulate the overall jet precession. On average, from eq.(3) the $`\gamma `$ flux and the $`X`$, optical afterglow are decaying on time as $`t^\alpha `$ , where $`\alpha 12`$; however the more complicated spinning and precessing jet blazing is responsible for inner small scales wide morphology of GRBs and SGRs as well as their partial internal periodicity. The consequent $`\gamma `$ time evolution and spectra derived in this ideal models may be compared successfully with observed GRB data evolution.

The $`\gamma `$ Jet is born mainly by Inverse Compton Scattering by GeVs electron pairs onto thermal photons (Fargion 1995-96-98-99) in nearly vacuum space. Therefore these electron pairs are boosted in the Jet at Lorentz factor $`\gamma _e210^3`$. Their consequent Inverse Compton Scattering will induce a parallel $`\gamma `$ Jet whose beam angle is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \frac{1}{\gamma }510^4rad0.0285^o`$ and a wider, less collimated X, Optical cone. These beaming angles agree with the one assumed to explain the required beamed GRBs-SN powers. Indeed the electron pair Jet may generate a secondary beamed synchrotron radiation component at radio energies, in analogy to the behaviour of BL Lac blazars whose hardest TeV $`\gamma `$ component is made by Inverse Compton Scattering while its correlated X band emission is due to the synchrotron component. Anyway the inner jet is dominated by harder photons while the external cone contains softer $`X`$, optical and radio waves. A jet angle related by a relativistic kinematics would imply $`\theta \frac{1}{\gamma _e}`$, where $`\gamma _e`$ is found to reach $`\gamma _e10^3÷10^4`$ (Fargion 1999). At first approximation the gamma constrains is given by Inverse Compton relation: $`<ϵ_\gamma >\gamma _e^2kT`$ for $`kT10^310^1eV`$ and $`E_eGeVs`$ leading to characteristic X-$`\gamma `$ GRB spectra. The origin of $`GeVs`$ electron pairs are very probably decayed secondary related to primary inner muon pairs jets, able to cross dense stellar target (Fargion 2003).

## 2. Conclusions: Neutrino-Muon Jets Progenitors for Gamma-X-Burst

The same GeVs electron pair Jet may generate a secondary beamed synchrotron radiation component at radio energies, in analogy to the behaviour of BL Lac blazars whose hardest TeV $`\gamma `$ component is made by Inverse Compton Scattering while its correlated radio bumps is due to the synchrotron component. Anyway the inner jet is dominated by harder photons while the external cone contains softer $`X`$, optical and radio waves. The very peculiar oscillating GRB$`970508`$ optical variability did show both a re-brightening and remarkable multi-bump variability in radio wave-lenght. For this reason and we believe that this fluctuations were indeed to be related to the Jet precession and not to any interstellar scintillation. There is not any direct correlation between the $`\gamma `$ Jet made up by I.C. scattering and the Radio Jet because the latter is dominated by the external magnetic field energy density: there maybe a different beaming opening and a consequent different time modulation respect to the inner $`\gamma `$ Jet. However the present wide energy power emission between SN2002ap and GRB$`030329`$ radio light curves makes probable a beaming angle comparable: $`10^310^4`$ radiant.

These GRBs Jets are originated by NSs or BH in binary system or disk powered by infall matter; their relics (or they progenitors) are nearly steady X-ray Pulsars whose fast blazing is source of SGRs. This external $`\gamma `$ Jet has a chain of progenitor identities: it is very probably originated by a very collimated inner primary muon Jet pairs at TeVs-Pevs energies. These muons could cross with negligible absorption the dense target lights along the SN explosions, nearly transparent to photon-photon opacities. The high energy relativistic muons (tens TeVs-PeVs energies) decay in flight in electron pairs where the baryon density is still negligible; these muons are source, by decay in flight to Tevs-GeV electron pair showering whose final Inverse Compton Scattering with nearby thermal photon is the final primary of the observed hard $`X`$ \- $`\gamma `$ Jet. The cost of this long chain of reactions is a poor energy conversion, but the benefit is the possibility to explain the $`\gamma `$ escape from a very dense explosive and polluted (by matter and radiation) narrow volume. Its inner Jet ruled by relativistic Inverse Compton Scattering, has the hardest and rarest beamed GeVs-MeVs photons (as the rare and long $`5000`$ s life EGRET GRB$`940217`$ one) but its external Jet cones are dressed by softer and softer photons. The complex variability of GRBs and SGRs are simulated successfully by the equations above (Fargion & Salis 1995,1996,1998, Fargion 1999); the consequent geometrical beamed Jet blazing may lead also to the observed widest morphology $`X\gamma `$ signatures and rapid re-brightening as X-ray precursors. The mystery therefore is not longer in an apparent huge GRB luminosity, but in an extreme beam jet collimation and precession.

## References

Coburn W., Boggs S. E. Nature 423 (2003) 415-417

Blackman, E: G., Yi, I., Field G. B.: 1996, ApJ,479, L79-L82

J.S.Bloom et all. ApJ,506,L105.

Fargion, D., Salis, A.:1995a,Nuclear Phys B (Proc.Suppl.),43,269-273.

Fargion, D., Salis, A.:1995b,Astrophysics& Space Science,231,191-194.

Fargion,D.,et all.: 1996a, 3rd Huntsville GRBAIP.Conf.: 384,749-753.

Fargion, D., Salis, A.: 1998,Physics-Uspekhi,41(8),823-829.

Fargion,D.1999c,AA & SS,138,507; see astro-ph/9903433;

P. Hoeflich, J.C. Wheeler, L. Wang.: 1999,ApJ.521,179.

Kulkarni, S. R., et al., 1998,Nature,393,35.


text:
# Constraints on the Inner Cluster Mass Profile and the Power Spectrum Normalization from Strong Lensing Statistics

## 1. Introduction

Strong gravitational lensing is a sensitive probe of the intrinsic properties of galaxies, clusters, and dark matter halos as well as of the underlying cosmological model of the universe. For instance, some of the earliest constraints on the cosmological constant were obtained from statistics of gravitational lensing (e.g. Turner 1990; Kochanek 1996). The uncertainties in the properties of the lenses themselves, however, have led some to suggest that lensing studies are better used as probes of lens properties rather than cosmological parameters (e.g. Cheng & Krauss 2000). This view is particularly pertinent in light of the recent measurements from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and large-scale structure surveys, which, when combined, can now constrain some of the basic cosmological parameters to 5% or better (Spergel et al. 2003 and references therein).

Indeed, recent lensing studies have yielded useful constraints on the density profiles and velocity dispersions of galaxies (Takahashi & Chiba 2001; Rusin & Ma 2001; Oguri, Taruya & Suto 2001; Keeton & Madau 2001; Davis, Huterer & Krauss 2002; Chae 2002). Most of these analyses as well as direct observations (Cohn et al. 2001; Treu & Koopmans 2002; Winn, Rusin & Kochanek 2002; Rusin, Kochanek & Keeton 2003) indicate that the inner density profiles of elliptical galaxies are close to singular isothermal (SIS): $`\rho r^\beta `$ with $`\beta 2`$. These analyses have been greatly facilitated by the completion of the Cosmic Lens All-sky Survey (CLASS; Myers et al. 2003, Browne et al. 2003), which extended the earlier Jodrell Bank-VLA Astrometric Survey (JVAS; King et al. 1999). JVAS/CLASS is the biggest survey with a homogeneous sample of lenses, with a total of about 16,000 sources and 22 confirmed lensing events. Among these, a subset of 8958 sources with 13 observed lenses forms a well-defined subsample suitable for statistical analysis (Browne et al. 2003, Table 13). In particular, the CLASS statistical subsample finds no lensing events with angular separations $`\theta >3^{\prime \prime }`$. An explicit search at $`6^{\prime \prime }<\theta <15^{\prime \prime }`$ also finds no lensing events (Phillips et al. 2002).

In this paper we study the constraints from strong lensing statistics in the post-WMAP era. We examine two of the currently most uncertain cosmological parameters: the equation of state of dark energy $`w`$ and the power spectrum normalization $`\sigma _8`$, as well as two of the most uncertain parameters in current lens models: the inner mass density profile of clusters $`\beta `$ and the mass scale $`M_c`$ that separates galaxy from cluster lenses. $`N`$-body simulations indicate that the dark matter profile in clusters has a roughly universal form with an inner logarithmic slope of $`\beta 1`$ to 1.5 (Navarro, Frenk & White 1997; Moore et al 1999). However, recent analyses based on observations of arcs in clusters (e.g. Sand, Treu & Ellis 2002) indicate a shallower inner profile. This uncertainty has motivated us to treat $`\beta `$ for clusters as a free parameter in this study. For the galaxy-scale lenses with lower masses ($`M<M_c`$), we assume the SIS model in accordance with the results cited above. This two-population galaxy-cluster model is needed to account for the large number of observed small-separation lenses and the lack of $`\theta >3^{\prime \prime }`$ systems in JVAS/CLASS (Keeton 1998; Porciani & Madau 2000).

For the cosmological parameters, we use the results from WMAP in conjunction with ACBAR, CBI and 2dF experiments (Spergel et al. 2003). We use the mean values $`n=0.97`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2=0.134`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.023`$ (each measured to better than 5%), and marginalize over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.27\pm 0.04`$ and $`\sigma _8=0.84\pm 0.04`$, although we find the strength of our final constraints on $`\beta `$ and $`M_c`$ to be insensitive to the strength of the particular priors used on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\sigma _8`$. We consider only flat cosmological models.

## 2. Lens Profiles and Optical Depth

We write the total optical depth at a given lens mass as the sum of the optical depths due to SIS and generalized NFW (GNFW) halos:

$$\tau (M)=f_{SIS}(M)\tau _{SIS}(M)+(1f_{SIS}(M))\tau _{GNFW}(M)$$
(1)
where $`f_{SIS}`$ is the fraction of halos that are SIS, and $`1f_{SIS}`$ is the fraction that are GNFW. In addition to these two populations, there is some evidence that objects with $`M10^{11}M_{}`$ have shallow profiles (Ma 2003, Li & Ostriker 2003). Ma (2003), for example, derives a form for $`f_{SIS}`$ by requiring the halo mass function and galaxy luminosity function to give consistent optical depth predictions at subsecond scale. Current lensing surveys are limited to $`\theta 0.3^{\prime \prime }`$, which cannot constrain small-mass halos. We therefore use the simplest possible form: $`f_{SIS}=1`$ for $`M<M_c`$ and 0 otherwise, and leave $`M_c`$ as a free parameter to be constrained by data.

An SIS lens has a density profile $`\rho (r)=\sigma _v^2/(2\pi Gr^2)`$, where $`\sigma _v`$ is the 1-d velocity dispersion. SIS lenses produce an image separation of $`2\theta _E`$, where $`\theta _E=4\pi (\sigma _v/c)^2D_{ls}/D_s`$ is the Einstein radius, and the cross section is $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}=\pi (\theta _ED_l)^2=16\pi ^3(\sigma _v/c)^4(D_lD_{ls}/D_s)^2`$, where $`D_s,D_l`$, and $`D_{ls}`$ are the angular diameter distances to the source, to the lens, and between the lens and the source, respectively. Using $`\sigma _v=(\pi G^3M^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}\rho _M/6)^{1/6}`$, we can then relate the cross-section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}`$ to the halo mass $`M`$ which is needed for eq. (1). The GNFW profile (Zhao 1996) is given by

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _s}{\left(r/r_s\right)^\beta \left[1+\left(r/r_s\right)\right]^{3\beta }}.$$
(2)
The mass of a halo is defined to be the virial mass $`M=4\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}\rho _Mr_{vir}^3/3`$, where $`r_{vir}`$ is the virial radius within which the average density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}\rho _M`$ and $`\rho _M`$ is the mean matter energy density in the universe. We compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}`$ from the spherical-collapse model using the fitting formula in Weinberg & Kamionkowski (2003). In practice, we replace the scale radius $`r_s`$ by a concentration parameter $`c(z)r_{vir}(z)/r_s(z)`$, which is well described (for $`\beta =1`$) by $`c(z)=c_0(1+z)^1(M/M_{})^{0.13}`$ with $`c_0=9`$, where $`M_{}`$ is a typical collapsing mass for that cosmology at redshift zero (e.g. Bullock et al. 2001). For $`\beta 1`$, we compute $`c_0`$ by assuming that the ratio $`r_{1/2}/r_{vir}`$ is independent of $`\beta `$, where $`r_{1/2}`$ is the half-mass radius defined as $`M(r<r_{1/2})=M(r<r_{vir})/2`$ (Li and Ostriker 2002). The same redshift and mass dependence is used for all $`\beta `$.

The optical depth for lensing is given by (e.g., Turner, Ostriker & Gott 1984)

$$\tau =_0^{z_s}𝑑z_l\frac{dD_l}{dz_l}(1+z_l)^3_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑M\frac{dn}{dM}(M,z_l)\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}(M,z_l)B$$
(3)
where $`n(M,z_l)`$ is the physical number density of dark halos at the lens redshift $`z_l`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{lens}}(M,z_l)`$ is the lensing cross section of a halo of mass $`M`$ at $`z_l`$, and $`B`$ is the magnification bias. We considered accounting for the ellipticity of lenses, but found that for the JVAS/CLASS luminosity function, ellipticity makes small ($`10\%`$) correction to the optical depth, and therefore we choose to ignore it. This is consistent with previous findings that ellipticity mostly affects image multiplicities (e.g. Kochanek & Blandford 1987; Wallington & Narayan 1993).

To model the number density of lenses, we use the halo mass function instead of the galaxy luminosity function (for the latter approach to constrain the dark energy equation of state, see Chae et al. 2002). The former has the advantages that (1) it accounts for all objects – dark and luminous – in the universe; (2) it has been accurately calibrated by $`N`$-body simulations; and (3) its main dependence is on now well-measured cosmological parameters instead of the more uncertain astrophysical parameters. We use the fitting formula of Jenkins et al. (2001) for $`dn/dM`$ but note that their halo mass is independent of cosmology and is defined to be the mass enclosed in radius $`r_{vir}`$ within which the average density is ($`180\rho _{crit}`$), instead of ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}\rho _M`$) based on the spherical collapse model for general cosmology discussed earlier. We use the latter to define our halo mass in eq. (3), but for consistency, we convert it to $`M_{180}`$ and evaluate the fitting formula for $`dn/dM`$ at $`M_{180}`$. We find this step to lead to a relatively small upward correction to the optical depth. The matter power spectrum is an input to $`dn/dM`$; we use the formulae of Eisenstein & Hu (1997) for $`w=1`$ models and those of Ma et al. (1999) for models with $`w>1`$. We do not consider $`w<1`$ since the power spectrum for these models is uncertain.

We include a scatter of $`0.14`$ in $`\mathrm{log}_{10}c(z)`$ (Bullock et al. 2001; note that the published version of this paper incorrectly quotes 0.18 for the scatter) for the halo concentration in eq. (3). We find that including this effect is very important, as it increases the GNFW optical depth by more than an order of magnitude, in rough agreement with Chen (2003) and Kuhlen, Keeton & Madau (2003).

To compute the magnification bias, we note that the sources in CLASS are well represented by a power-law luminosity function, $`\varphi (S)=dn/dSS^\eta `$, with $`\eta 2.1`$, which leads to $`B=4.76`$ for all SIS lenses (Rusin & Tegmark 2001). The magnification bias is more complicated for GNFW lenses. We use the formula in Oguri et al. (2002), which agrees very well with ray-tracing simulations.

## 3. Results

Before discussing our statistical constraints on $`\beta `$, $`M_c`$, $`\sigma _8`$, and $`w`$, we first illustrate in Fig. 1 the dependence of lensing probability on these parameters by comparing the expected number of lenses $`N(>\theta )`$ in various models with the CLASS result. It shows that the value of $`M_c`$ and an upper limit on $`\beta `$ can be determined very accurately because the CLASS histogram has a sharp cut-off in $`\theta `$. Variations in $`w`$, on the other hand, have a fairly small effect at all scales. Models with low $`\sigma _8`$ underpredict the optical depth at $`\theta 3^{\prime \prime }`$, while those with both high $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\beta `$ overpredict the optical depth for $`3^{\prime \prime }`$. Finally, we find that $`N(>\theta )`$ is insensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$.

For the statistical tests, we use information from both the total lensing optical depth $`\tau `$ and the image separation distribution $`d\tau /d\theta `$ from JVAS/CLASS. We do not use the lens redshift distribution due to selection effects that are presumed to be significant in this test. This approach is similar to that described in Davis, Huterer & Krauss (2002). The combined likelihood for the two tests is

$$=\frac{N^x\mathrm{exp}(N)}{x!}\times \underset{i=1}{\overset{x}{}}\frac{1}{\tau _i}\frac{d\tau }{d\theta }|_{\theta _i}$$
(4)
where the first term accounts for the total optical depth and the second for the angular distribution. Here $`x=13`$ is the number of lenses in CLASS, $`N=8958\tau `$ is the number of galaxies predicted by the model, and $`\tau (w,\sigma _8,\beta ,M_c,z_s)`$ is the predicted optical depth computed from eqs. (1) and (3). $`\tau _i`$ is the optical depth given the source redshift $`z_s`$ for the lens in question. When $`z_s`$ for a particular lens is not available, we set $`\tau _i=\tau `$, i.e., we set $`z_s`$ to equal the mean redshift of the whole source population, $`z_s=1.27`$ (Marlow et al. 2000).

Fig. 2 shows the joint constraints on $`\beta `$ and $`M_c`$ using the WMAP priors on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\sigma _8`$ and the WMAP mean values for $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ that are determined very accurately. Although we have fixed $`w=1`$ here, we have checked that the constraints are insensitive to $`w`$ by repeating the analysis for several values of $`w`$ and finding essentially identical results. The absence of $`\theta 3^{\prime \prime }`$ lenses in CLASS places an upper limit on the optical depth at these angular scales, which in turn limits how steep the inner cluster density profile can be: we find $`\beta <1.25(1.60)`$ at 68% (95%) CL (vertical lines) after marginalization over $`M_c`$. The constraints on $`M_c`$ are also strong due to the sudden break in the predicted optical depth at the angular separation corresponding to $`M_c`$ (see Fig. 1): we find $`1.58<M_c/(10^{13}h^1M_{})<2.51`$ at 68% CL and $`1.25<M_c/(10^{13}h^1M_{})<3.98`$ at 95% CL after marginalization over $`\beta `$.

Fig. 3 shows the joint constraints on $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma _8`$ using the same WMAP results as in Fig. 2 and after marginalization over $`M_c`$. It shows that steep density profiles ($`\beta 1.5`$) are consistent with the absence of large-separation lenses only for a small range of low $`\sigma _8`$. High $`\sigma _8`$ ($`1`$), on the other hand, is allowed by CLASS data provided the density profile is shallow. The lower limit of $`\sigma _8>0.7`$ at $`95\%`$ CL is insensitive to the value of $`\beta `$ because lowering $`\sigma _8`$ further would severely underpredict the cumulative optical depth at small image separations.

We have also attempted to obtain joint constraints on $`\sigma _8`$ and $`w`$ using the same WMAP parameters. After marginalizing over $`\sigma _8`$, our likelihood analysis gives $`w<0.75(0.55)`$ at 68% (95%) CL. The solid and double-dotted curves in Fig. 1, however, show that for two models with $`w=1`$ and $`0.5`$ but otherwise identical parameters, we would expect nearly identical number of lenses at $`\theta <2^{\prime \prime }`$ and at most a factor of two of difference at larger $`\theta `$. This insensitivity to $`w`$ is due to the fact that the matter power spectrum for different $`w`$ has identical shapes except on very large length scales (see, e.g., Ma et al. 1999), so once the models are normalized to the same $`\sigma _8`$ today, the only difference is in the growth rates at higher redshift and in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{vir}`$ for halo masses. (See Sarbu, Rusin & Ma 2001 for constraints on $`w`$ for COBE-normalized power spectrum.) The reason we were able to place any constraints on $`w`$ is because the theoretically computed optical depth for a fiducial (WMAP-favored) cosmology underpredicts the total optical depth, so that various models lie on the tail of the likelihood function. Since a more negative $`w`$ leads to a higher $`\tau `$, the total optical depth part of the likelihood function exponentially suppresses models with $`w>1`$. We caution that constraints on $`w`$ (or any other parameters to which the test in question is only weakly sensitive) are robust only when the theoretically computed optical depth roughly agrees with the observation.

## 4. Discussion

We have used the statistics of the recently completed JVAS/CLASS radio survey to constrain the parameters in the two-population model of halos in the universe. Motivated by recent evidence from direct observations, $`N`$-body simulations, and semi-analytic arguments, we have assumed that all objects with mass less than $`M_c`$ have the SIS profile, while the more massive ones have the GNFW profile that scales as $`r^\beta `$ in the inner region of the halos. The absence of $`\theta 3^{\prime \prime }`$ lenses in CLASS enables us to obtain tight constraints on $`M_c`$ and an upper limit $`\beta <1.6`$ at 95% CL. Furthermore, we obtain a constraint of $`\sigma _8>0.7`$ (95% CL) on the power spectrum normalization.

The constraints in our study have come from three effects: the total lensing optical depth measured by CLASS, the shape of the image separation distribution, and the lack of $`\theta >3^{\prime \prime }`$ lenses. It is therefore interesting to consider what happens when at least one large-separation event ($`5^{\prime \prime }`$) is observed, and when such an event will be observed given our knowledge of the halo density profiles and cosmology. Keeton & Madau (2001) ask a similar question, and remark that one such large-separation event should be found in surveys such as the Two-Degree Field and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), or else the cold dark matter model would have to be questioned. Fig. 1, however, shows that one could easily accommodate an extremely small probability of finding a large-separation event if, for example, we lived in a universe with $`\sigma _80.7`$.

This issue may soon be resolved: there is evidence for a $`\theta 13^{\prime \prime }`$ quadruple lens system in the SDSS (N. Inada et al., in preparation). Since this event is not yet a part of a controlled survey with significant statistics, it cannot be included in our analysis. To test how the constraint on $`\beta `$ would change with a positive detection of wide-separation lenses, we repeat our analysis by assuming a 14th lens in the statistical sample of JVAS/CLASS with $`\theta =13^{\prime \prime }`$ and a source at $`z_s=2`$. We find this hypothetical sample to favor $`1.05<\beta <1.35`$ at 68% CL, while tightening the constraint on $`M_c`$ with its central value unchanged. This result illustrates that stronger (lower as well as upper) limits on $`\beta `$ would be obtained if we had at least one large angular separation event in a controlled survey. This is simply because models with $`\beta 1`$ predict $`1`$ lenses at large $`\theta `$ and would be strongly disfavored.

These factors motivate us to consider future surveys that may have enough statistics to detect large-separation lenses. The proposed LOw Frequency ARray (LOFAR; www.lofar.org) is expected to find millions of radio sources to fluxes below $`1\mu Jy`$ (Jackson 2002). Although the proposed angular resolution of $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ is inferior to that of CLASS, LOFAR would be a useful survey for detecting large-separation systems. Estimates from Jackson (2002) indicate that LOFAR would have 17,000 lenses in the brighter part of the survey with $`30\sigma `$ signal-to-noise ratio, providing a thousandfold increase in lensing statistics (if the identity of the lens events can be confirmed). Given the small number of lenses in current surveys, even if the LOFAR estimates are overly optimistic we can still expect that significantly larger statistical lens samples and other future wide-field telescopes such as SNAP (snap.lbl.gov) and LSST (www.dmtelescope.org/dark\_home.html) will greatly improve our understanding of the populations of objects in the universe.

We thank Mike Kuhlen and Chuck Keeton for numerous useful suggestions and communicating their results prior to publication. We thank Josh Frieman for useful discussions. DH is supported by the DOE grant to CWRU. C-P Ma is supported by NASA grant NAG5-12173, a Cottrell Scholars Award from the Research Corporation, and an Alfred P. Sloan fellowship. A portion of this work was carried out at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics.